NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems that Israel's endeavor to build a fence on its future boarders has come under a lot of flak. This is usually due to misunderstanding and incomplete information regarding the subject. In addition, it is the only country to come under flak for building a fence of the sort, demonstrating a direct bias and double-standard against Israel. This is usually justified under the false claim that it violates international law whereas others do not, but we shall see that this is not the case.

First, background regarding how the International Court of Justice works is necessary, since it was the International Court of Justice that stated the wall was in violation:

Fact: The ICJ only has jurisdiction over states that consent to giving it jurisdiction. This is covered in article 36 where it states, "The jurisdiction of the Court comprises all cases which the parties refer to it."

This means that the ICJ does not have the authority to arbitrarily decide on international law and hand it from the "top down" to states. States are only bound by the decisions of the ICJ if they first consent to giving the ICJ the authority.

What this means for Israel is that Israel is not legally bound by the ICJ regarding its rulings on the fence, because they were not given by consent of the State of Israel, and thus are not binding to the State of Israel. This much is fact, and this is what is accepted as international law. The ICJ's declaration that Israel is in violation in regards to the fence, however, is a ruling on international law but is not international law itself. Thus, Israel has, according to international law, full legal rights to build the fencec.

This confuses a lot of people, who think that international law between states works in the same fashion that state laws work regarding their populations. It doesn't, and to understand international law at all people need to get the idea that they are similair at all right out of their heads. No international court has the authority to make laws regarding states without the prior consent and agreement of that state.

Fact: It is not a "wall" but a fence.

When we see pictures of Israel's fence in the news, we get pictures of a huge stone cement wall. This constitutes the majority of media photos. However, it is a fact that only %5 of the Israeli fence looks anything like that, with 95% being a fence that is rarely pictured because it doesn't have the same shock value; a fence that is less imposing than the fences between the US border and Mexico. Compare the following pictures:

The "wall" that we see depicted in the majority of media photos, that only makes up %5 of the total fencing:

Cement wall (http://www.palestinercs.org/images/Separation%20Wall/separationwall(Al-ttur)021203WBRR2.jpg)

The fence that makes up 95% of Israel's project, that we rarely see in the media:

Wire fence (http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20030725/wd2.jpg)

Compare to the US borders:

US fence (http://static.flickr.com/20/68755857_2816e9313c.jpg)

A fence in India:

Indian border fence (http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2002/0201/kashmir0106.jpg)

A fence in Pakistan:

Pakistani fence (http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl1819/18191291.jpg)

Wall in China: :D

Great Wall of China (http://www.ocvc.ac.uk/images/chinesewall_000.jpg)

Now, aside from the last one, there are many fences virtually identical to the one in Israel all over the world. Yet, if you do a google search for 'border wall' or other terms, the vast majority of hits you will get are about Israel. In addition, Israel is the only one to come under any sort of scrutiny, such as that given by the ICJ (even though, as we now know, it is not legally binding because the ICJ has no jurisdiction, as they willingly admit in article 36). This demonstrates a clear anti-Israeli bias, because the same standards regarding fences are not applied to every state that has a similiar fence.

So, next time you hear about the Israeli fence and want to scream "Wall baaaad!" try to remember the facts. The media only shows the pictures of the cement wall for shock value, states all over the world have similiar walls that aren't being criticized, and the wall is not actually illegal according to international law.

I think you missed the point. The problem with it is that it gets built on Palestinian territory in some cases and that it blocks a lot of Palestinians that work in Israel from getting to their jobs.

I think you missed the point. The problem with it is that it gets built on Palestinian territory in some cases and that it blocks a lot of Palestinians that work in Israel from getting to their jobs.

There is no such thing as Palestinian territory. There was never a Palestinian state, nor has a Palestinian political entity ever "owned" any land. The concept of Palestinian territory is a myth, with no legal backing.

In addition, a fence that blocks free access to the border and directs legal workers with visas to go through checkpoints is identical to the system in the United States. Legal Mexican workers don't get to cross wherever they want, they must also go through the checkpoint. I smell another double-standard.

There is no such thing as Palestinian territory. There was never a Palestinian state, nor has a Palestinian political entity ever "owned" any land. The concept of Palestinian territory is a myth, with no legal backing.

In addition, a fence that blocks free access to the border and directs legal workers with visas to go through checkpoints is identical to the system in the United States. Legal Mexican workers don't get to cross wherever they want, they must also go through the checkpoint. I smell another double-standard.


Further there has never been an Israeli Minister involved in acts of terrorism, thus Israel can claim the moral high ground in thier dealings with the Palestinians.

Oh. Wait a minute.....

There is no such thing as Palestinian territory. There was never a Palestinian state, nor has a Palestinian political entity ever "owned" any land. The concept of Palestinian territory is a myth, with no legal backing.

In addition, a fence that blocks free access to the border and directs legal workers with visas to go through checkpoints is identical to the system in the United States. Legal Mexican workers don't get to cross wherever they want, they must also go through the checkpoint. I smell another double-standard.Your putting up a strawman argument harping on about how the Israeli border wall/fence is the same as any other. Fact is, some of the border installations are built on land that belongs to the occupied territories.
And Mexico and Palestine are hardly comparable in this situation. I doubt that legal Mexican workers have to wait as long as Palestinians do at the few checkpoints, if they're allowed to pass through at all. It makes it rather difficult to get to work everyday if you have to do that.

Further there has never been an Israeli Minister involved in acts of terrorism, thus Israel can claim the moral high ground in thier dealings with the Palestinians.

Oh. Wait a minute.....

Actually, there never has been an Israeli Minister involved in 'acts of terrorism.'

1. This is a fallacy, due to hyperbolic speech. The comparison of Israeli officials to terrorists is explictly outlined in the US State Dept's Report on Global Anti-Semitism and the EUMC's criteria for anti-Semitism as not valid criticism of Israel, but anti-Semitic in nature. But to go lightly, your opinion of what is "terrorism" is not what is recognized as terrorism by the global community, as seen from these reports.

2. An Israeli Minister being involved in whatever has nothing to do with the subject at hand (the fence), making this a strawman fallacy. It seems like people do this when they have no real argument a lot; that is the nature of the fallacy.

Argument: "The fence is legal"
Response: "OMFG! Israeli terror minister!" :rolleyes:

I think you missed the point. The problem with it is that it gets built on Palestinian territory in some cases and that it blocks a lot of Palestinians that work in Israel from getting to their jobs.

Palestinian territory? lol, they both believe the area of Isreal is theirs. If I were an employer in Isreal I would never hire a Palestinian for work. Just asking for trouble.

As for the fence, who cares what some leftist UN group thinks. Why the USA allows the UN to exsist is beyond me. At least let it move to the Euro weenies. I say build a wall and forget about the fence. Your peoples protection should outweigh the panzy UN.

Further there has never been an Israeli Minister involved in acts of terrorism, thus Israel can claim the moral high ground in thier dealings with the Palestinians.

Oh. Wait a minute.....That would also be a strawman argument...

Your putting up a strawman argument harping on about how the Israeli border wall/fence is the same as any other. Fact is, some of the border installations are built on land that belongs to the occupied territories.
And Mexico and Palestine are hardly comparable in this situation. I doubt that legal Mexican workers have to wait as long as Palestinians do at the few checkpoints, if they're allowed to pass through at all. It makes it rather difficult to get to work everyday if you have to do that.

The Occupied Territories are not a political entity that can own any land. None of the land that the wall is built on is owned by any nation except Israel; the land in question is ownerless and a part of disputed territories.

And I'm not sure if you've been close to the Mexican border, but I've lived in Mexico. I'd wager to say that Israeli checkpoints are quite a bit faster than Mexican checkpoints into the USA. Not to mention the fact that there are already more Israeli checkpoints for a smaller number of immigrants over a smaller land space. But yes, working in a foreign country does make it hard to work. That is a fact, no way around it. However, Israel can't be singled out for this, nor is it inherently 'wrong' and especially not illegal.

Palestinian territory? lol, they both believe the area of Isreal is theirs. If I were an employer in Isreal I would never hire a Palestinian for work. Just asking for trouble. Why not? They're cheaper than Israelis. Why do you think they do it?
Why the USA allows the UN to exsist is beyond me.Not the only thing, it seems...

As for the fence, who cares what some leftist UN group thinks. Why the USA allows the UN to exsist is beyond me. At least let it move to the Euro weenies. I say build a wall and forget about the fence. Your peoples protection should outweigh the panzy UN.

This is actually the political stance of most countries. Israel has a civil law regarding that its state laws are superior to intnl law, and the US has the Supremacy Clause. The UN whines a lot, and is distinctly pro-Arab and anti-Israel (considering that a third of their member nations are Arab countries), but it does manage to recognize that Israeli law is superior in Israel to international law, such as with the fence here.

The Occupied Territories are not a political entity that can own any land. None of the land that the wall is built on is owned by any nation except Israel; the land in question is ownerless and a part of disputed territories.

And I'm not sure if you've been close to the Mexican border, but I've lived in Mexico. I'd wager to say that Israeli checkpoints are quite a bit faster than Mexican checkpoints into the USA. Not to mention the fact that there are already more Israeli checkpoints for a smaller number of immigrants over a smaller land space. But yes, working in a foreign country does make it hard to work. That is a fact, no way around it. However, Israel can't be singled out for this, nor is it inherently 'wrong' and especially not illegal.To my knowledge, the border fence is putting an end to the multitude of checkpoints. The problem isn't only the fence, it's coupled with the policies that come along with it that are basically cutting off a highly impoverished population from one of the few sources of revenue. But you are right, the fence gets pushed a lot more than it should be.

Lets see.

Show me the difference between Begin blowing up the King David Hotel to force the British out of Palestine, and Hamas blowing up Israeli checkpoints to drive the Israelies out of Palestine? Can´t see it myself.

The "Fence" has been condemned by the U.N. It´s nothing more than an exercise in land grab ahead of a negotiated settlement.

Anti-Semitism? Pointing out than an action is wrong is not anti semitism.

If the West was Anti-Semetic as you put it, Israel would be suffering under the same sort of embargo that looks set to overtake Iran and it´s nuclear ambitions. After all Israel has Nuc´s the material of which was stolen from Savannah River.

I back no side here. I condemn equally both sides in this horror story.

Your position as a recent(ish) convert from Christianity to Judaism makes your lack of bias suspect.

To my knowledge, the border fence is putting an end to the multitude of checkpoints. The problem isn't only the fence, it's coupled with the policies that come along with it that are basically cutting off a highly impoverished population from one of the few sources of revenue. But you are right, the fence gets pushed a lot more than it should be.

The Israeli Supreme Court has actually made a major decision regarding the wall in 2005 that was brought to their attention by a Palestinian humanitarian group that rerouted it so it would have minimal impact over civilian life. While its impossible to deny that it would impact workers with visas, I think it actually impacts them a lot less than the media tries to portray by showing huge concrete walls and referring to 'Apartheid' at the drop of a hat. It sure doesn't cut them off in any way.

I am just amazed that putting a fence on your border would even be considered wrong. We are talking "fence on border". Lefties need to walk off nearest cliff.

The Israeli Supreme Court has actually made a major decision regarding the wall in 2005 that was brought to their attention by a Palestinian humanitarian group that rerouted it so it would have minimal impact over civilian life. While its impossible to deny that it would impact workers with visas, I think it actually impacts them a lot less than the media tries to portray by showing huge concrete walls and referring to 'Apartheid' at the drop of a hat. It sure doesn't cut them off in any way.Yes, I know, since that decision, it's a lot easier to live with the wall. I do have some strong personal bias against it that I won't be shaking anytime soon. Comes with growing up in a walled in city :p
I see there are bigger problems that Israel is causing that don't get the attention they deserve while other things are being pushed because they provide pictures that sell.

Lets see.

Show me the difference between Begin blowing up the King David Hotel to force the British out of Palestine, and Hamas blowing up Israeli checkpoints to drive the Israelies out of Palestine? Can´t see it myself.

Sure, Hamas targets the workers at checkpoints. Begin phoned the King David hotel ahead of time to warn everyone about the explosion, and targetted only the building.

The fact that Hamas targets people, and all of the people in the King David hotel were warned to leave hours ahead of time so no one would get killed is notable enough.

The "Fence" has been condemned by the U.N. It´s nothing more than an exercise in land grab ahead of a negotiated settlement.

I think I covered this in depth. The UN can give its opinions all it likes, but the fence still isn't in violation of international law. This is the difference between a statement on international law and a statement being international law.

Anti-Semitism? Pointing out than an action is wrong is not anti semitism.

If the West was Anti-Semetic as you put it, Israel would be suffering under the same sort of embargo that looks set to overtake Iran and it´s nuclear ambitions. After all Israel has Nuc´s the material of which was stolen from Savannah River.

I'm not sure what part I was unclear about. The US State Dept. and EUMC have condemned, specifically, the comparison of Israeli political figures to terrorists as anti-Semitic. Yet, you're trying to misdirect by implying that your opinion something is wrong is anti-Semitic. The fact is, your fallacious analogy is anti-Semitic, according to these groups. You can believe whatever you want about the wall.

And the West isn't totally anti-Semitic, nor did I say that. I said the UN has a distinct anti-Israel and pro-Arab bias. And it admittedly does, as it formulated its "Zionism is Racism" resolution then had to recant it as being untrue, anti-Semitic, and biased.

I back no side here. I condemn equally both sides in this horror story.

Your position as a recent(ish) convert from Christianity to Judaism makes your lack of bias suspect.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I know, since that decision, it's a lot easier to live with the wall. I do have some strong personal bias against it that I won't be shaking anytime soon. Comes with growing up in a walled in city :p
I see there are bigger problems that Israel is causing that don't get the attention they deserve while other things are being pushed because they provide pictures that sell.

Yes, no one likes the idea of a wall. The harshest criticism and activism against the fence has come from Israelis themselves, rather than Palestinians and the world community. And I support constructive criticism of the fence and people's educated right to disapprove of it. I just wanted to put it back into perspective and give a realistic look on it, as oppossed to all of the sensationalist anti-wall sentiment thhat seems to be flying around.

Yes, no one likes the idea of a wall. The harshest criticism and activism against the fence has come from Israelis themselves, rather than Palestinians and the world community. And I support constructive criticism of the fence and people's educated right to disapprove of it. I just wanted to put it back into perspective and give a realistic look on it, as oppossed to all of the sensationalist anti-wall sentiment thhat seems to be flying around.Of course, its highly unlikely that you'll change anyone's mind on NS General :p

Of course, its highly unlikely that you'll change anyone's mind on NS General :p

Everyone will agree with me by the end of the night!

Everyone will agree with me by the end of the night!Not if you make an absolute statement like that. :D

The prase Anti-Semitism is rapidly loosing its meaning. It is freely used by anyone and everyone to demote arugments attacking the nation of Israel. If I attack the actions of the Congolese government, am I a racist? They're black, after all...

After the atrocities of WWII, the prase should not ever be used to defend or attack political actions and view points!

As for terrorism, launching Hellfire missiles from Apache helicopters into a refugee camp is considered an unlawful act of war... Oh, wait, since Israel doesn't acknowledge international law, carry on.

Anti-Semitism, my foot!

I agree that might makes right. The Israelis are ina postion to dictate the development of the land. If they want to erect a fence who's going to stop them? Besides, this causes the channeling of "terrorists" through checkpoints and guarded borders. I also feel that the inconvenience to foreign workers is far outweighed by the security provided by a physical barrier.

On the one hand you quote American State department and EUMC as having said that comparison of Israeli Ministers to Terrorists is anti-semetic, and then on the other hand you dismiss the U.N´s statement that the wall is illegal.

That sounds like pick n mix to me. If the U.N´s statement has no validity, then that issued by the American State department also has no validity. Both are opinions.

More than likely everyone still posting will agree with your position, but thats because those of us who like debate and not dogma will have left.

Personally any sympathy I had with either side has long since evaporated. A pox on both houses. Palestinians and Israelies need to grow up and admit that the other side has a right to live without fear of being blown up, or have thier houses bulldozed.

The only double standard here is we went to war over Bosnia, but feel the need to treat Israel with kid gloves to avoid the label, "Anti-Semite"

The prase Anti-Semitism is rapidly loosing its meaning. It is freely used by anyone and everyone to demote arugments attacking the nation of Israel. If I attack the actions of the Congolese government, am I a racist? They're black, after all...

If you attacked a Congolese leader using a fallacious analogy with the deliberate intent to be malicious, and after multiple sessions have declared that action to be anti-Congolese, you'd definately be anti-Congolese.

You're confusing legitimate criticism with veiled anti-Semitism. Its one thing to say "I dont like the wall, here's why." Perfectly valid. Its another thing to say "OMG, Jewish leader terrorist!." The latter is anti-Semitic.

After the atrocities of WWII, the prase should not ever be used to defend or attack political actions and view points!

Yes, I'm sure you know better than all of the Holocaust survivors and children of suvivors in Israel today who declare the exact same actions anti-Semitic. You know far better what anti-Semitism is than they do.

As for terrorism, launching Hellfire missiles from Apache helicopters into a refugee camp is considered an unlawful act of war... Oh, wait, since Israel doesn't acknowledge international law, carry on.

Israel has never committed any war crimes, nor has it been seriously accused of such. Only the anti-Israel crowd attempt to demonize Israel in this fashion. And a 'refugee camp' that is being used as a terrorist base is a legal military target under the rules of engagement.

And I see you're another one who doesn't seem to understand international law.

Israel recognizes all international law that it is bound by. However, international law is not something universally applied to every state equally, it is enacted by treaty. Israel is only bound by the treaties that it has engaged in. It isn't bound by arbitrary top down decisions; no country is bound by arbitrary top down decisions, as they don't exist in international law. Israel is no different than any other country in this respect.

To give you an example of how international law applies differently to different countries would be to compare international law regarding nuclear power and arms in the United States vs that of nuclear power and arms in Iran.

On the one hand you quote American State department and EUMC as having said that comparison of Israeli Ministers to Terrorists is anti-semetic, and then on the other hand you dismiss the U.N´s statement that the wall is illegal.

First, the UN didn't state that the wall was illegal, the ICJ did. There is a difference.

Second, the US State Dept and the EUMC havn't declared the Israeli wall to be illegal either. The US also has little to do with the ICJ at this point. I'm not sure how you even manage to compare the two, as if a report on anti-Semitism by the US State Dept and a private humanitarian group was somehow related to the ICJ's commentary on international law.

That sounds like pick n mix to me. If the U.N´s statement has no validity, then that issued by the American State department also has no validity. Both are opinions.

This is the fallacy of the undistributed middle. I'd love it if you could go just a little without being illogical.

Now, the US State Dept's report has nothing to do with international law. It was farmed out to private groups to conduct global studies on anti-Semitism. The UN's opinions on the Israeli wall are also not international law, as Israel was never bound with those treaties to begin with. A group commenting on law does not equal international law in this case. I'm really not sure what part I was unclear on about that.

More than likely everyone still posting will agree with your position, but thats because those of us who like debate and not dogma will have left.

Last I checked, a good debate wasn't full of the logical fallacies you've been throwing out.

Personally any sympathy I had with either side has long since evaporated. A pox on both houses. Palestinians and Israelies need to grow up and admit that the other side has a right to live without fear of being blown up, or have thier houses bulldozed.

Shows how little you know about Israel and current events. Israel agreed, and stopped bulldozing houses a long time ago. But you're still stuck back with the King David hotel I guess, so I can't expect you to know that...

The only double standard here is we went to war over Bosnia, but feel the need to treat Israel with kid gloves to avoid the label, "Anti-Semite"

There is nothing even remotely similar to Israel and Bosnia. This is another one of your fallacious analogies.

It seems that Israel's endeavor to build a fence on its future boarders has come under a lot of flak. This is usually due to misunderstanding and incomplete information regarding the subject. ................................................So, next time you hear about the Israeli fence and want to scream "Wall baaaad!" try to remember the facts. The media only shows the pictures of the cement wall for shock value, states all over the world have similiar walls that aren't being criticized, and the wall is not actually illegal according to international law.

I've put in bold the problem, and yes, its illegal.

I've put in bold the problem, and yes, its illegal.

No, you saying "its illegal" doesn't make it so. Show me the treaty where Israel gave its consent to the ICJ, as needed in its Article 36, to have jurisdiction.

Even the ICJ and the UN do not claim that the ruling is international law that applies to Israel.

Anti-Israeli is one thing, Anti-Semitism is another. I disagree with many Israeli actions, but I wholehartedly condemn acts of racism and Anti-Semitism. Labeling critique of the nation as an attack on the pepole is primitive and counter productive.

Sadly, this is often the case by right-wingers and christian fundamentalists. Any questioning of the validity of Israels claim, or its actions is dismissed as A-S. This is not only poor argumentation, but tasteless and immature.

As for international law, you're right. Any nation can choose to follow or dismiss any article. Israel and USA has shurely dismissed their share over the years. I'm not saying that they're the only ones to treat international law and UN resolutions as a smoregassboard, but given military might and arrogance, they can get away with murder.

Anti-Israeli is one thing, Anti-Semitism is another. I disagree with many Israeli actions, but I wholehartedly condemn acts of racism and Anti-Semitism. Labeling critique of the nation as an attack on the pepole is primitive and counter productive.

No one labeled a critique of the nation as an attack on the people. It was Daemonyxia's attack on Begin, which violated the fallacy of questionable analogy, that was anti-Semitic.

Sadly, this is often the case by right-wingers and christian fundamentalists. Any questioning of the validity of Israels claim, or its actions is dismissed as A-S. This is not only poor argumentation, but tasteless and immature.

It was a left wing humanitarian group, the EUMC, that gave the specific example of what Daemonyxia did (comparing Israeli leaders to terrorists) that was anti-Semitic.

As for international law, you're right. Any nation can choose to follow or dismiss any article. Israel and USA has shurely dismissed their share over the years. I'm not saying that they're the only ones to treat international law and UN resolutions as a smoregassboard, but given military might and arrogance, they can get away with murder.

Fair enough, I agree with you here. The more powerful and independent the nation, the easier it is for them to ignore the international community.

No one labeled a critique of the nation as an attack on the people. It was Daemonyxia's attack on Begin, which violated the fallacy of questionable analogy, that was anti-Semitic.

What?! I reserve the right to point out any single individuals questionable actions without being slandered. A terrorist is nothing but a person who uses terror as a weapon. Often by striking at sivillian targets. Remember the IRA? They often called ahead. And God knows that there are several Israeli leaders with skeletons in their cargo. But, you're absolutely right. It's not a war crime if you don't get cought.

Just to make this clear, I believe that both parties are in breach of international law, and that the only way to make the attrocities stop is to sanction them to within an inch of their lives.

What?! I reserve the right to point out any single individuals questionable actions without being slandered. A terrorist is nothing but a person who uses terror as a weapon. Often by striking at sivillian targets. Remember the IRA? They often called ahead. And God knows that there are several Israeli leaders with skeletons in their cargo. But, you're absolutely right. It's not a war crime if you don't get cought.

It isn't an issue of getting caught. Israeli leaders are accused of 'terror' and 'war crimes' for things that we know about, not for secrets in their closet. The fact is, nothing actually fits the criteria for those things, and that is why groups like the EUMC have defined the comparison as anti-Semitic.

Since Begin was the accused, we can use him as an example. There is no reason to believe that Begin attempted to intimdate or terrorize anyone, nor did Begin strike out against civilian human targets. He attempted to blow up a hotel that doubled as a military reserve for British who were fighting against the Isreali defense groups; he called ahead, told them about the bomb, and gave them an hour to leave the building before it was detonated.

Just to make this clear, I believe that both parties are in breach of international law, and that the only way to make the attrocities stop is to sanction them to within an inch of their lives.

There is no Palestinian state to be bound under international law. First a state would have to exist, then it would have to agree to the treaties that would bind it under various international laws before sanctions even became legal. The UN doesn't sanction non-member nations arbitrarily for violations of laws that never applied to those non-member nations.

And while Israel may be in violation of international law regarding some issues (I'm not saying it is), the fence doesn't violate international law.

My attack on Begin?

He blew up a Hotel and killed 90 people, some of them Jewish women. A phonecall makes it right? Please. Terrorist.

Sharon? Qibya. Unit 101 slaughtered a whole village. Men women children, in reprisal for palestinian attacks on jewish settlements. The village was picked at random. Government sponsored Terrorism.

Reprisal. Thats the word at the heart of this nightmare.

It isn't an issue of getting caught. Israeli leaders are accused of 'terror' and 'war crimes' for things that we know about, not for secrets in their closet. The fact is, nothing actually fits the criteria for those things, and that is why groups like the EUMC have defined the comparison as anti-Semitic.

Since Begin was the accused, we can use him as an example. There is no reason to believe that Begin attempted to intimdate or terrorize anyone, nor did Begin strike out against civilian human targets. He attempted to blow up a hotel that doubled as a military reserve for British who were fighting against the Isreali defense groups; he called ahead, told them about the bomb, and gave them an hour to leave the building before it was detonated.



There is no Palestinian state to be bound under international law. First a state would have to exist, then it would have to agree to the treaties that would bind it under various international laws before sanctions even became legal. The UN doesn't sanction non-member nations arbitrarily for violations of laws that never applied to those non-member nations.

And while Israel may be in violation of international law regarding some issues (I'm not saying it is), the fence doesn't violate international law.

Like Palastine would adhere to any international laws even if they were a nation,.lol what a joke!

My attack on Begin?

He blew up a Hotel and killed 90 people, some of them Jewish women. A phonecall makes it right? Please. Terrorist.

The fact that he targeted the building, as a military target, and attempted to minimize civilian casualties makes it not terrorist. You wont find a single scholarly source that calls this an act of 'terrorism' either, I'm afraid.

Rather, most blame the negligence of the British; they believed it was a prank call, and completely ignored it.

Sharon? Qibya. Unit 101 slaughtered a whole village. Men women children, in reprisal for palestinian attacks on jewish settlements. The village was picked at random. Government sponsored Terrorism.

Qibya was bad, but it wasn't terrorism. Every person in the village was warned ahead of time for hours, with trucks going through the roads broadcasting the warning on loudspeaker. Then it was lightly shelled. Only the villagers who stayed to fight were "massacred." It was really no different than attempting to take a hostile village in any other battle. Destroying the houses was the only questsionable practice, the deaths were the result of Arab fighters who refused to evacuate ahead of time. Keep in mind, Israeli military defending itself while taking a village from hostile Arabs /= terrorism, rather it is a military operation, similar to what we see very day by US soldiers in Iraq.

Like Palastine would adhere to any international laws even if they were a nation,.lol what a joke!

If it werent for the fact that the UN is dominated by Arab states already, I would question if a Palestinian state would even join the UN.

If it werent for the fact that the UN is dominated by Arab states already, I would question if a Palestinian state would even join the UN.

How do you figure The UN is dominated by Arab states, there are not that many Arab states, lol.

The operation
The raid at Qibya took place on the evening of October 14, 1953. It began with an artillery barrage at the village until Israeli troops reached the outskirts of the village. Landmines were laid out on roads to prevent Jordanian troops from joining the fight. When the village had been cleared of resistance, Israeli soldiers laid explosives around many of the houses and blew them up after calling for residents to evacuate. At dawn the operation was considered complete and the Israeli troops returned home.

Forty-five villagers' houses had been destroyed, as well as the mosque, the school, and the water reservoir. Over 60 people were killed, two thirds of them women and children. The rest of the village population, around 2,700 people, had decided to evacuate after being ordered to do so by Sharon's men. The Israeli government initially claimed that the killing had been carried out by Jewish civilians living near the border, but later admitted that it had been carried out by military forces.

The IDF claims that the plan was to ambush Arab Legion forces in the area, by destroying some houses as a decoy. The original orders issued by the Israeli General Staff were relatively limited in scale, instructing the forces to "carry out an attack ... with the aim of temporary occupation and the demolition of houses, and to harm the inhabitants". However, going down the command chain, before they reached the unit's commanders, the orders changed to demand "maximum killing"[1].

Ariel Sharon later wrote in his diary that he had received orders to inflict heavy damage on the inhabitants of Qibya: "The orders were utterly clear: Qibya was to be an example for everyone". Sharon said that he had thought the houses were empty and that the unit had checked all houses before detonating the explosives. In his autobiography Warrior (1987) he wrote:

"I couldn't believe my ears. As I went back over each step of the operation, I began to understand what must have happened. For years Israeli reprisal raids had never succeeded in doing more than blowing up a few outlying buildings, if that. Expecting the same, some Arab families must have stayed in their houses rather than running away. In those big stone houses [...] some could easily have hidden in the cellars and back rooms, keeping quiet when the paratroopers went in to check and yell out a warning. The result was this tragedy that had happened."

Benny Morris expresses doubt in this claim, considering the nature of the orders Unit 101 received. He also points to the fact that U.S., U.N., and Arab Legion reports indicate that villagers were killed before the demolition of the houses began. The U.N. observer who inspected the scene, Major General Vagn Bennike, chief of staff of the U.N. Truce Supervision Organization (which investigated the scene the next day) said: "one story was repeated time after time: the bullet splintered door, the body sprawled across the threshold, indicating that the inhabitants had been forced by heavy fire to stay inside until their homes were blown up over them."

[edit]
Results
Initially, via the media, the Israeli public was left unaware of the attack. On October 19, Ben-Gurion claimed that the raid had been carried out by Israeli civilians.

"None deplores it more than the Government of Israel, if ... innocent blood was spilled ... The Government of Israel rejects with all vigor the absurd and fantastic allegation that 600 men of the IDF took part in the action ... We have carried out a searching investigation and it is clear beyond doubt that not a single army unit was absent from its base on the night of the attack on Qibya." (Statement by Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, ISA FM 2435/5)

The attack had far-reaching consequences. It was widely criticized, not only by the international community, but also by many Israelis themselves. The UN Security Council condemned Israel in a resolution on November 24, and the United States temporarily suspended economic aid to Israel. Many Muslims see the raid as an act of terrorism.

Ariel Sharon wrote in his autobiography that, although the civilian casualties were regrettable, after the Qibya operation "it was now clear that Israeli forces were again capable of finding and hitting targets far behind enemy lines." Following the attack, the Arab Legion forces deployed on the border segment near Qibya to stop further infiltrations and deter further Israeli incursions. There was a brief overall reduction in incursions along the border.

Following the attack, the Israeli leadership decided to refrain from directly targeting civilians. It was decided furthermore to cancel the independence of Unit 101, which however continued to participate in retaliatory attacks against military targets as a part of the 202nd Paratroop Brigade.

All reports indicate that massacre is the correct word to use.

Tropical Sands, you are wrong.

The Wall is not a boundary around Israel, it is a boundary around Palestine (you will doubtless say that there is NO Palestine, but I am sure you will admit that there IS a Palestinian nation, and that the lands in question make up their cultural homeland, whether there is political recognition of which or not).

This is a subtle, but important difference. Israel is not building a wall to protect itself - it is building a wall to imprison the Palestinian nation. And it is more than a physical wall, I have been there personally and I have seen the effect it has had on the people within its boundary. The movement of goods and services has been completely shattered, once prosperous locations are now ghost towns and people are now living in abject poverty. But what is more is that the Wall is becoming a pyschological boundary, the next generation of Palestinians are being split between becoming ultra-radical, if they resist the wall - or, the majority, becoming docile and domesticated. Thousands of Palestinian children now subconsciously accept that they are inferior to Israelis, they are terrified of straying outside of the wall and entering the unknown.

Israel has stepped a line. They are fighting a mass psychological war against an entire civilian nation. I would like to state that I sympathise with the Israelis, they are fine, decent, peace-loving people, but that I believe that they are ignorant as to what their government is doing in their name. The Israeli establishment has made a mental shift from viewing terrorists as its enemy, and now views the entire Palestinian nation as its enemy. They have gone where no government should be welcomed, into the inner reaches of its "enemies" minds, it is Orwellian and disgusting, but on my first-hand evidence I believe that Israel is using psychological warfare to create an imprisoned slave mentality in the next generation of Palestinians and thus solve their "Palestinian Problem" once and for all.

How do you figure The UN is dominated by Arab states, there are not that many Arab states, lol.

Well, there are about 20 nations in the Arab League, most of which are in the UN. This doesn't include Muslim states that are not traditionally seen as being Arab, like Iran and Turkey, and various former soviet blocs. Out of its near 200 member states, that already gives a 10% membership that already belong to an international group with its own pro-Arab, anti-Israeli goals. While it might be a stretch to say its dominated by Arab states, they certainly hold far more sway in the UN than Israel does. This is why special committes have been formed for pro-Arab, anti-Israeli causes, such as the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine. A committee like this hasn't been formed for any other body of persons, not even people who have been severely oppressed (and continue to be so), unlike Palestinians. It was only formed due to the large sway Arab states held in the UN, and as a committee that is harshly biased against Israel.

Tropical Sands, you are wrong.

The Wall is not a boundary around Israel, it is a boundary around Palestine (you will doubtless say that there is NO Palestine, but I am sure you will admit that there IS a Palestinian nation, and that the lands in question make up their cultural homeland, whether there is political recognition of which or not).

I never intended to imply it was a boundary around Israel. Israeli borders aren't finalized, and the new borders will only roughly follow the wall. It may or may not be dismantled when they are. But it isn't going around the Occupied Territories, either, which border Jordan.

Furthermore, there is no cultural homeland of any persons called Palestinains. Before the British Mandate of Palestine, native Arabs in the area had never even heard the term. They viewed themselves as Bilai al-Sham, lower Syrians.

And if you're using the term 'nation' in an anthropological sense, yes, they are a nation now. They have been a nation for less than a hundred years, and thus a "Palestinian homeland" in any anthropological sense can't be any earlier than that either. Jews, of course, have just as much a cultural tie if not more to the area, as they were also forecefully expelled during the Roman occupation and existed in the area consistently since before any group that could call themselves "Arab" even existed.

This is a subtle, but important difference. Israel is not building a wall to protect itself - it is building a wall to imprison the Palestinian nation.

This is a conspiracy theory. If you want to believe it, thats fine, but it has no basis in fact. It isn't recognized as such by any source of merit. Its just your own opinion, that contradicts that of the rest of the educated world.

And like I pointed out, the wall follows Israel's borders and borders-to-be. It doesn't snake around and cut off Occupied Territory borders to other states. And on that note, why should Israel be obligated to allow Palestinians any movement into Israel at all? This isn't an obligation that is imposed on any other state, so why Israel? And why aren't Jordan and Egypt allowing Palestinians into their borders? They have stricter immigration laws than Israel regarding Palestinians.

And it is more than a physical wall, I have been there personally and I have seen the effect it has had on the people within its boundary. The movement of goods and services has been completely shattered, once prosperous locations are now ghost towns and people are now living in abject poverty.

It makes no sense to blame Israel for Palestinian poverty, when the "cut off" areas are only cut off from the illegal Palestinian immigration that made them prosperous to begin with. It would be like if US stepped up border security and Mexican illegal immigrants blamed the US for their poverty because they can't sneak in illegally and work.

Thousands of Palestinian children now subconsciously accept that they are inferior to Israelis, they are terrified of straying outside of the wall and entering the unknown.

By "entering the unknown" do you mean sneaking into Israel illegally? They should be terrified of that, its dangerous and illegal. Since when should they feel free to cross borders or go onto State Lands illegally?

Israel has stepped a line. They are fighting a mass psychological war against an entire civilian nation. I would like to state that I sympathise with the Israelis, they are fine, decent, peace-loving people, but that I believe that they are ignorant as to what their government is doing in their name.

Israel has higher voter turnout than the United States, and a more free press. I'm not sure on what basis you believe that Israelis don't know what the govt. is doing, since the vast majority of protests and complaints over the wall come from Israelis, as does the harshest criticsim of the wall.

The Israeli establishment has made a mental shift from viewing terrorists as its enemy, and now views the entire Palestinian nation as its enemy. They have gone where no government should be welcomed, into the inner reaches of its "enemies" minds, it is Orwellian and disgusting, but on my first-hand evidence I believe that Israel is using psychological warfare to create an imprisoned slave mentality in the next generation of Palestinians and thus solve their "Palestinian Problem" once and for all.

Well, your opinion is fine. If you see the wall, and then you believe in conspiracy theories that the Israelis are trying to give them psychological problems, no one can convince you otherwise. Those are hypotheses that can't be verified in any way. They are unfalsifiable, and thus illogical because they aren't prone to verification or testing.

On the other hand, I presented some simple facts about the wall. It doesn't violate international law, other states have walls that aren't being criticzed, etc. These are things that can be objectively verified. I cited the documents, I threw out the photos. You can't do the same with conspiracy theories of psychological warfare, and I don't think anyone with a lick of sense would believe you as a result.

*snip*

Yes, I'm not surprised your full knowledge of Qibya comes from Wikipedia.

In any case, I'm not sure how cutting and pasting the Wikipedia article about Qibya into your post helps your point. Wikipedia didn't claim it was terrorism, in fact it confirmed what I had stated. Israel called for the residents to evacuate beforehand, and that Israeli solders had to deal with hostile Arabs - "When the village had been cleared of resistance, Israeli soldiers laid explosives around many of the houses and blew them up after calling for residents to evacuate."

I mean, did you even read it before you posted it? All it did was reiterate what I wrote. And if you read further into how the UN responded, Resolution 101, you will find that the only flaw of Israel was violating a ceasefire. There was no question of "terrorism" or "war crimes."

We all know Qibya was bad, and that many innocent people were killed. But even the UN didn't attempt to blame Israel for this. So please, read up, familiarize yoruself:

Full text of Resolution 101 (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/unres101.html)

There is no such thing as Palestinian territory. There was never a Palestinian state, nor has a Palestinian political entity ever "owned" any land. The concept of Palestinian territory is a myth, with no legal backing.

.

Did a large group of Arabs referred to as "Palestinians" once own land within Israel before being driven out? Yes. Thats that then.


1. This is a fallacy, due to hyperbolic speech. The comparison of Israeli officials to terrorists is explictly outlined in the US State Dept's Report on Global Anti-Semitism and the EUMC's criteria for anti-Semitism as not valid criticism of Israel, but anti-Semitic in nature.

How would you describe the Attack on the king David hotel,(and phonecalls didnt seem to prevent the IRA being labelled terrorists) and the booby trapping of the bodies of dead british soldiers? Why did Britain once reject an Israeli Ambassador (in the 1970's/80s')?

I thought you'd learnt tour lesson re the anti-semite nonsense. Your use of the term degrades its signifcance and meaning. In the long run, you do great harm.


; the land in question is ownerless and a part of disputed territories..

Yet its described in Atlas' etc as "occupied territories" and is officially that under law.

(considering that a third of their member nations are Arab countries), ..

And that means that two thirds aren't. Yet when you look at the votes is usually about 95% for the motions against Israel.

Israel has never committed any war crimes, nor has it been seriously accused of such...

Yes on both scores, and various persons have had to avoid countries like Britain lest they be charged.


Israel recognizes all international law that it is bound by. ...

No, nor does it have to, thanks to its big friend with the veto.


violated the fallacy of questionable analogy...

O spare us the crap.

Israel has higher voter turnout than the United States, and a more free press. .

The IDF has first viewing and right of veto over all footage shot in the occupied territories. All footage is "voluntarily" submitted. All footage.

Thought I'd say a word or two. Then, I somehow pressed a combination of keys, and now it's all gone. Three paragraphs or so. Anywho.

You say Sabra and Chatila (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre) and Qana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qana_Massacre) were not the fault of the Israelis? Sure, I can believe that Israel had no idea where the UN camp was and that they miscalculated the target. Mm. I can also believe that Israel didn't know a massacre was happening. Please note the sarcasm here. Let's add a word or two about Sabra and Chatila, shall we? Innocent Palestinians wanted to flee the camps, Israelis told them to go back. At that time, the Phalangists had already begun to dispose of Palestinians. And the Israelis knew it. Don't tell me they didn't.

I fear that I've begun to sound rather stupid (as I often do), and I will simply end this with A list of massacres commited during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_committed_during_the_1948_Arab-Israeli_war). Compare the ones commited by Arabs with those commited by Israel and Jewish groups. I'm not saying I applaud Arab terrorist attacks, but I don't exactly support Israeli/Jewish terrorist attacks either.

Call me anti-Semetic, if you wish. I'm simply listing facts. If you'd rather I deny any Israeli terrorist attacks and instead blame the Palestinians for all this, be assured I will not. And about the very foundation of Israel... based on massacres, terrorism, and fear. Such a lovely country, eh?

I expect to be shot down if I get too close to the Lebanese-Israeli border. A 15 year old girl can always be a terrorist, right? :D :mp5:

This might seem off-topic, but do you really think that a country that has done all these things has really changed? And this wall... sure, if Romans forcefully expelled Jews, then Israel should do the exact same thing to another people. After all, they should be allowed to, right?

Haven't heard of Native Americans being given their land back, though. Reservations...

As they say, "It is in the eye of the beholder". If you think it's good, it's good. If you think it's bad, it's bad.

:headbang: Why do I always think my posts amount only to nonsense?

Did a large group of Arabs referred to as "Palestinians" once own land within Israel before being driven out? Yes. Thats that then.

A large group of Arabs once lived on the land. They owned very little, as around 90% was Crown Lands, owned by the British, under the Mandate.

How would you describe the Attack on the king David hotel,(and phonecalls didnt seem to prevent the IRA being labelled terrorists) and the booby trapping of the bodies of dead british soldiers? Why did Britain once reject an Israeli Ambassador (in the 1970's/80s')?

I already described it quite clearly.

I thought you'd learnt tour lesson re the anti-semite nonsense. Your use of the term degrades its signifcance and meaning. In the long run, you do great harm.

I'm using the term as the ADL uses it. And I've only brought it up when someone does, exactly as mentioned, something that constitutes anti-Semitism according to groups like the ADL, US State Dept., or EUMC. The fact is, no one wants to own up to their anti-Semitism when it all comes down to it. Now go ahead, tell me why the Jewish Anti-Defmation League isn't the authority on anti-Semitism. :rolleyes:

Yet its described in Atlas' etc as "occupied territories" and is officially that under law.

Yes, I've been saying that for quite some time. "Occupied Territories" does not mean that any Palestinian group owns the land, and under law, they don't.

And that means that two thirds aren't. Yet when you look at the votes is usually about 95% for the motions against Israel.

Votes against Israel don't mean much when Israel is the only state in the world excluded from voting, such as being the only state not allowed on the security council, in clear violation of the UN Charter.

Yes on both scores, and various persons have had to avoid countries like Britain lest they be charged.

You're confusing civil law with "war crimes." I know what you're referring to, and the homicide of British soldiers is illegal via British law, but it does not constitute a "war crime" by any definition.

O spare us the crap.

I'm not surprised this is the response I get when you're called out on a logical fallacy.

Thought I'd say a word or two. Then, I somehow pressed a combination of keys, and now it's all gone. Three paragraphs or so. Anywho.

You say Sabra and Chatila (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre) and Qana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qana_Massacre) were not the fault of the Israelis? Sure, I can believe that Israel had no idea where the UN camp was and that they miscalculated the target.

Did you read UN Resolution 101 when I posted it? Now, why should you believe your own little conspiracy theories, when the UN has already went over it with a fine tooth comb and found nothing to blame on Israel except a cease-fire violation?

Mm. I can also believe that Israel didn't know a massacre was happening. Please note the sarcasm here. Let's add a word or two about Sabra and Chatila, shall we? Innocent Palestinians wanted to flee the camps, Israelis told them to go back. At that time, the Phalangists had already begun to dispose of Palestinians. And the Israelis knew it. Don't tell me they didn't.

Oh, who told you this? Spurious reports from Palestinians and sympathizers after the fact? Like I stated before, Resolution 101 says nothing of the sort. The facts seem to be against you; all the conspiracy theorists have in this area are spurious accounts from questionable sources. For example Wikipedia citing the UN persona Vagn Bennike, who ends up contradicting what the UN finalizes in 101.

Call me anti-Semetic, if you wish. I'm simply listing facts. If you'd rather I deny any Israeli terrorist attacks and instead blame the Palestinians for all this, be assured I will not. And about the very foundation of Israel... based on massacres, terrorism, and fear. Such a lovely country, eh?

It wouldn't be me calling you anti-Semitic, but the US State Dept, the Israeli government, the ADL, and the EUMC, all of which have condemned sensationalist talk, using a comparison of Israeli policy to terrorism as specific examples. The fact is, an entire spectrum of ideologies and political belief holds the stance that this is anti-Semitism, not me all by my lonesome.

I expect to be shot down if I get too close to the Lebanese-Israeli border. A 15 year old girl can always be a terrorist, right? :D :mp5:

You must have been reading the previous thread, where we gave a long list of female child suicide bombers.

This might seem off-topic, but do you really think that a country that has done all these things has really changed? And this wall... sure, if Romans forcefully expelled Jews, then Israel should do the exact same thing to another people. After all, they should be allowed to, right?

Done all of what things? Are we looking at the facts of what happened, or your personal interpretation of what happened? Because terms like "built on fear, terrorist, etc." applied to Israel aren't recognized by any source of merit, as I previously wrote, and are 100% opinion. If you want to talk about actual events, thats fine. Read Resolution 101.

And Israelis did not "forcefully expel" Arabs in any ashion similiar to the Roman explusion of Jews. In fact, more Arabs were kept in camps by neighbors such as Jordan than by Jews, and more Arabs left as a call by Arab states to leave than they did as a result of Jewish explusion. In addition, more Jews were forcefully expelled from Muslim nations like Iraq during the Middle East conflict than Arabs were expelled from Israel.

Tropical Sands, this entire topic seems nothing but one long wank over how Israel conviently act like complete bastards, without getting nailed to the wall for it.

The continued "all criticism of Israel/Israeli policy is anti-semitism" is fine - if you wish to label everyone an anti-semite, regardless of their actual attitude towards Jews. If that isn't your intent, you should probably stop, no matter what orgs back your definition.

Oh well... Wall & terror or not, the current state of Israel isn't viable. You'll be outbred by the Israeli arabs eventually, so chances are your non-segregationist democracy will be turned on yourself. Good luck with that. I can only say you deserve it in spades.

The IDF has first viewing and right of veto over all footage shot in the occupied territories. All footage is "voluntarily" submitted. All footage.

Once again, you've created a strawman argument. No one said anything about press in the Occupied Territories. We were talking about Israeli press. You just can't go a post without a fallacy, can you? You might as well have said "The IDF has first viewing and right of veto over Palestinians on the moon." We're talking about Israeli press, not press in the disputed territories.

The IDF also allows a free press, it has quite a long history of publishing anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinian footage. You seem to be trying to imply that the IDF viewing footage first makes the press less free, but this doesn't demonstrate that the IDF censors it in any way whatsoever.

I never intended to imply it was a boundary around Israel. Israeli borders aren't finalized, and the new borders will only roughly follow the wall. It may or may not be dismantled when they are. But it isn't going around the Occupied Territories, either, which border Jordan.

Furthermore, there is no cultural homeland of any persons called Palestinains. Before the British Mandate of Palestine, native Arabs in the area had never even heard the term. They viewed themselves as Bilai al-Sham, lower Syrians.

And if you're using the term 'nation' in an anthropological sense, yes, they are a nation now. They have been a nation for less than a hundred years, and thus a "Palestinian homeland" in any anthropological sense can't be any earlier than that either. Jews, of course, have just as much a cultural tie if not more to the area, as they were also forecefully expelled during the Roman occupation and existed in the area consistently since before any group that could call themselves "Arab" even existed.



This is a conspiracy theory. If you want to believe it, thats fine, but it has no basis in fact. It isn't recognized as such by any source of merit. Its just your own opinion, that contradicts that of the rest of the educated world.

And like I pointed out, the wall follows Israel's borders and borders-to-be. It doesn't snake around and cut off Occupied Territory borders to other states. And on that note, why should Israel be obligated to allow Palestinians any movement into Israel at all? This isn't an obligation that is imposed on any other state, so why Israel? And why aren't Jordan and Egypt allowing Palestinians into their borders? They have stricter immigration laws than Israel regarding Palestinians.



It makes no sense to blame Israel for Palestinian poverty, when the "cut off" areas are only cut off from the illegal Palestinian immigration that made them prosperous to begin with. It would be like if US stepped up border security and Mexican illegal immigrants blamed the US for their poverty because they can't sneak in illegally and work.



By "entering the unknown" do you mean sneaking into Israel illegally? They should be terrified of that, its dangerous and illegal. Since when should they feel free to cross borders or go onto State Lands illegally?



Israel has higher voter turnout than the United States, and a more free press. I'm not sure on what basis you believe that Israelis don't know what the govt. is doing, since the vast majority of protests and complaints over the wall come from Israelis, as does the harshest criticsim of the wall.



Well, your opinion is fine. If you see the wall, and then you believe in conspiracy theories that the Israelis are trying to give them psychological problems, no one can convince you otherwise. Those are hypotheses that can't be verified in any way. They are unfalsifiable, and thus illogical because they aren't prone to verification or testing.

On the other hand, I presented some simple facts about the wall. It doesn't violate international law, other states have walls that aren't being criticzed, etc. These are things that can be objectively verified. I cited the documents, I threw out the photos. You can't do the same with conspiracy theories of psychological warfare, and I don't think anyone with a lick of sense would believe you as a result.

1) I think we can agree to disagree on the naming of the Palestinians, as long as we both accept that they are a seperate nation to the Israelis and that, even if their homeland is not ancesteral, it is current and fairly clearly dominated by their people.

2) I agree with you, the Arab neighbours have treated the Palestinians harshly in terms of immigration. It is in their propaganda interests to have strife in Palestinian territories (I use this term for convenience, no need for you to pick up on it), and their historical actions have been less than neighbourly.

3) I disapprove of your attempt to make my opinion seem like a crazy conspiracy theory, picked clean of a website that advocates the wearing of aluminium headware. It is based on first-hand experience, and I have a deal of anecdotal evidence to back up my claims. But your Zionist bias is as clear as mine, and I shall not be able to dissuade you of it.

4) And finally, I would like to add that the comparison you have been making throughout between Israel-Palestine and America-Mexico is fallacious. Whereas both the USA and Mexico are large enough to provide all the food and raw materials needed to be autonomous states, Israel and Palestine are not. The Holy Land survives entirely on Intergovernmental Aid, the Zionist project would have died in its infancy if it was not for the support given to it by the West, the same is clear for Gaza currently, without external aid the area is decending into anarchy.

Neither nation is capable of supporting themselves on their own, they both need foreign aid, and, untill recently, have relied on eachother for mutual survival. But Israel has found a way to bypass the Palestinians, a lot of Israeli labour is now provided by South East Asians and Africans instead.

However, the potential for co-operation has now completely eroded, as I believe Israel made a serious of incorrect decisions 50 years ago. But the fact remains that both states are not capable of autonomy.

Tropical Sands, this entire topic seems nothing but one long wank over how Israel conviently act like complete bastards, without getting nailed to the wall for it.

Any other nations that act like bastards by doing the same thing you can think of? I've mentioned a few already, but Israel gets singled out all by itself. I wonder why...

The continued "all criticism of Israel/Israeli policy is anti-semitism" is fine - if you wish to label everyone an anti-semite, regardless of their actual attitude towards Jews. If that isn't your intent, you should probably stop, no matter what orgs back your definition.

Perhaps you can show me where I stated that all criticism of Israel or Israeli policy is anti-Semitism? Oh, you can't, because you're using sensationalist tactics to attempt to cover up illigitmate criticism. It would seem you're flat out lying here, and if you can't show me where I said such a thing, that would just prove that you're a liar.

The fact is, in this thread I've been quite clear on how legitimate criticism is different from veiled anti-Semitism. I've even praised the legitimate criticism I've seen, because its a nice change. I guess you overlooked all that though, huh? I wonder why.

Oh well... Wall & terror or not, the current state of Israel isn't viable. You'll be outbred by the Israeli arabs eventually, so chances are your non-segregationist democracy will be turned on yourself. Good luck with that. I can only say you deserve it in spades.

Jews have maintained a continuous presence in Israel for 3000 years, and have been the only single ethnicity to maintain a coherent identity for the same period of time, yett you think Arabs will suddenly put a dent on the Jewish population in the area where the largest Jewish population in the world resides. Wishful thinking, and a lack of historical consciousness.

Tropical Sands, I speak for most people when I say that you are an idiot.

I would like to point out Israels dual recognition of the occupied territories. On one hand they say that they are part of Israel, this allows them to build the wall (or fence) wherever the hell they like because it is Israels land, this is the same arguement they have for the settlements. They are also allowed to roll their tanks in whenever they sneeze, and take prisoners because they do not know what Palestinians are going to do to them. HOWEVER, on the other hand Palestinians in the occupied territories DO NOT get to vote in Israeli elections, have to pass checkpoints to get "into" Israel (I thought the occupied territories was part of Israel) and the PA is responsible for the funding of services such as education and infrastructure, it is not paid for by Israel.

So Tropical Sands, I'm going to give you a choice, and it is a logical choice, are the occupied territories part of Israel or not?

Notice how you're fucked either way? that is why Israel has been taking the best of both worlds for so long, so that it can set in stone parts of the west bank so that they will never be given to the Palestinians, like in Olmerts consolidation plan.

1) I think we can agree to disagree on the naming of the Palestinians, as long as we both accept that they are a seperate nation to the Israelis and that, even if their homeland is not ancesteral, it is current and fairly clearly dominated by their people.

Fair enough.

2) I agree with you, the Arab neighbours have treated the Palestinians harshly in terms of immigration. It is in their propaganda interests to have strife in Palestinian territories (I use this term for convenience, no need for you to pick up on it), and their historical actions have been less than neighbourly.

Fair enough

3) I disapprove of your attempt to make my opinion seem like a crazy conspiracy theory, picked clean of a website that advocates the wearing of aluminium headware. It is based on first-hand experience, and I have a deal of anecdotal evidence to back up my claims. But your Zionist bias is as clear as mine, and I shall not be able to dissuade you of it.

Perhaps I went a little far. It doesn't sound like a conspiracy theory picked off a website that advocates the wearing of tin hats. I can see how someone could come to that conclusion. However, I'm sure we could find just as much anecdotal evidence to the contrary (as we always can with anecdotal evidence, because its subjective) and there really is no way to verify any of it. Becaues its unverifiable, unfalsifiable, and subjective, it is impossible to paint a fair and accurate picture with it. That is why I made the thread with easily verifiable and objective facts, to attempt to give a realistic and unbiased picture of the fence situation.

4) And finally, I would like to add that the comparison you have been making throughout between Israel-Palestine and America-Mexico is fallacious. Whereas both the USA and Mexico are large enough to provide all the food and raw materials needed to be autonomous states, Israel and Palestine are not. The Holy Land survives entirely on Intergovernmental Aid, the Zionist project would have died in its infancy if it was not for the support given to it by the West, the same is clear for Gaza currently, without external aid the area is decending into anarchy.

I've only attempted to compare the US and Mexico on the grounds of the fence and immigration. As we saw from the pictures, the fences are almost identical (and the US may be building new fences based on the Israeli model in the future). The checkpoints are very similiar as well, so are the waiting times to get between them. Thus, a Mexican worker going into the US to work has about as much hassle as a Palestinian worker going through a fence portal to do so.

Its only partly true that the Holy Land survives entirely on governmental aid. You're right that the Zionist project would have died, but today less than 1% of Israel's GDP is made up of foreign aid. It is completely on its feet, and the aid is only a token gesture. The Occupied Territories on the other hand survive completely on foreign aid.

It should also be noted that its a myth that Palestine doesn't have the potential to survive on its own. It has more airable land for a smaller population than other countries, such as the Sudan. It simply needs proper land development.

Neither nation is capable of supporting themselves on their own, they both need foreign aid, and, untill recently, have relied on eachother for mutual survival. But Israel has found a way to bypass the Palestinians, a lot of Israeli labour is now provided by South East Asians and Africans instead.

Well, see above. While this was true decades ago, Israel fully supports itself today. Less than 1% of its GDP is due to foreign aid. You can check the CIA World Factbook entry online for those stats, if you don't believe me. Palestine is right where you say it is.

However, the potential for co-operation has now completely eroded, as I believe Israel made a serious of incorrect decisions 50 years ago. But the fact remains that both states are not capable of autonomy.

It is a fact that Israel has been autonomous since 1948. Its also a fact that there is no such thing, nor has there ever been, of a Palestinian state. Thus, we can't really refer to "both states" as only one exists.

If you attacked a Congolese leader using a fallacious analogy with the deliberate intent to be malicious, and after multiple sessions have declared that action to be anti-Congolese, you'd definately be anti-Congolese.

You're confusing legitimate criticism with veiled anti-Semitism. Its one thing to say "I dont like the wall, here's why." Perfectly valid. Its another thing to say "OMG, Jewish leader terrorist!." The latter is anti-Semitic.
The following are youtr words...
This is actually the political stance of most countries. Israel has a civil law regarding that its state laws are superior to intnl law, and the US has the Supremacy Clause. The UN whines a lot, and is distinctly pro-Arab and anti-Israel (considering that a third of their member nations are Arab countries), but it does manage to recognize that Israeli law is superior in Israel to international law, such as with the fence here.



Yes, I'm sure you know better than all of the Holocaust survivors and children of suvivors in Israel today who declare the exact same actions anti-Semitic. You know far better what anti-Semitism is than they do.



Israel has never committed any war crimes, nor has it been seriously accused of such. Only the anti-Israel crowd attempt to demonize Israel in this fashion. And a 'refugee camp' that is being used as a terrorist base is a legal military target under the rules of engagement.

And I see you're another one who doesn't seem to understand international law.

Israel recognizes all international law that it is bound by. However, international law is not something universally applied to every state equally, it is enacted by treaty. Israel is only bound by the treaties that it has engaged in. It isn't bound by arbitrary top down decisions; no country is bound by arbitrary top down decisions, as they don't exist in international law. Israel is no different than any other country in this respect.

To give you an example of how international law applies differently to different countries would be to compare international law regarding nuclear power and arms in the United States vs that of nuclear power and arms in Iran.
You are nothing but a hypocrite, inventing arguments for yourself. Accusing others of hidden agendas (anti semitic indeed). You are the one with questionable motives. I am not convinced by anything you say except the certainty that you are being duplicitious.

Any other nations that act like bastards by doing the same thing you can think of? I've mentioned a few already, but Israel gets singled out all by itself. I wonder why...You're singled out?! In what reality? From where I'm sitting - Northern Europe - it looks more like your upstanding community friends go out of their way to cover your ass. Take a look at how veto's have been used in the security council.Perhaps you can show me where I stated that all criticism of Israel or Israeli policy is anti-Semitism? Oh, you can't, because you're using sensationalist tactics to attempt to cover up illigitmate criticism. It would seem you're flat out lying here, and if you can't show me where I said such a thing, that would just prove that you're a liar. Remember this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=482488)?The fact is, in this thread I've been quite clear on how legitimate criticism is different from veiled anti-Semitism. I've even praised the legitimate criticism I've seen, because its a nice change. I guess you overlooked all that though, huh? I wonder why.Know what? I concede this shit. There's no way in hell I can convince you of the absurdity of it, so why bother.Jews have maintained a continuous presence in Israel for 3000 years, and have been the only single ethnicity to maintain a coherent identity for the same period of time, yett you think Arabs will suddenly put a dent on the Jewish population in the area where the largest Jewish population in the world resides. Wishful thinking, and a lack of historical consciousness.Remind me of the growth rates of the various ethnic demographies, would you? - Projected growth rates are welcome as well.

- You don't have to bother, actually. I just remembered why I stayed the hell out of the other apartheid-wannabe-lover threads, so I won't come back to this one. Good luck with your vile little project though.

EDIT: I'd call you a useless racist, but I'm sure you'd refuse to understand why....

Tropical Sands, I speak for most people when I say that you are an idiot.

I'm glad you think you speak for most people. Needless to say, I can think of some important groups that you don't think for. Ones I prefer to go to, as they are the 'sources', on Israeli affairs. Such as the Israeli Supreme Court (whose decisions I've been relying on to make my arguments), the Likud party (whose website I refer to for Israeli information frequently), the editors of all the major Israeli newspapers, like the Haartez, Jerusalem Post, Arutz Sheva, etc. Gosh, I guess since I've just been reiterating what is said here, most people must think that these folks are idiots too...

Or perhaps you're just arrogant in your assumption that you speak for most people.

The latter seems more plausible.

I would like to point out Israels dual recognition of the occupied territories. On one hand they say that they are part of Israel, this allows them to build the wall (or fence) wherever the hell they like because it is Israels land, this is the same arguement they have for the settlements. They are also allowed to roll their tanks in whenever they sneeze, and take prisoners because they do not know what Palestinians are going to do to them. HOWEVER, on the other hand Palestinians in the occupied territories DO NOT get to vote in Israeli elections, have to pass checkpoints to get "into" Israel (I thought the occupied territories was part of Israel) and the PA is responsible for the funding of services such as education and infrastructure, it is not paid for by Israel.

Perhaps you can point me to the Israeli civil law which would lead you to conclude that there is a "dual recognition" of any sort. If you can't, I'll have to say that your opinion of "dual recognition" is a fabricaton, with no real factual support.

So Tropical Sands, I'm going to give you a choice, and it is a logical choice, are the occupied territories part of Israel or not?

Its not my choice. During San Remo and under the Palestinian Mandate, that land was granted to Israel. Then the UN Resolution 181 contradicted the law enacted at San Remo (violation of intnl. law, hint hint), and attempted to formulate a third state contrary to the two states and two states alone proposed at San Remo. Israel declared its indepdence, but an Arab group never declared the soverignity of the remaining land. Then Jordan invaded and the land was ceded to Jordan. Israel pushed Jordan back and occupied it, but never anexed most of the land. Jordan released control of the land, and today it doesn't actually belong to anybody, but is under control of Israel along with a semi-autonomous body, the Palestinian Authority.

Notice how you're fucked either way? that is why Israel has been taking the best of both worlds for so long, so that it can set in stone parts of the west bank so that they will never be given to the Palestinians, like in Olmerts consolidation plan.

The fact is, it wasn't the "either way" you proposed. You've just pushed out a false dichotomy that is contrary to the history of the region. According to San Remo, it is part of Israel, according to the contradictory UN Resolution 181 it isn't. This is why a synonym with 'occupied territories' is 'disputed territories.' However, the land isn't owned by any soverign state, nor are its inhabitants citizens of any soverign state, thus the land isn't protected by rights of soverignity (so a wall can be built on it, and it can be annexed), nor are they granted the rights of citizens to any state (so they can't vote in Israel).

Its horribly unfair to the Palestinians, I'll be the first to admit it. They are in an awful position. And this is the fault of the Palestinian leadership for not forming a Palestinain state the three times they had the opportunity to, such as back in 1948 when they could have had a few nice big chunks of land. So lets not blame Israel, which is acting within its rights as a soverign state, and hold the Palestinian leadership accountable for making all the wrong decisions to even have a state.

Remember this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=482488)?

Nowhere in that thread do I state that criticism of Israel is equavalent to anti-Semitism. That is why you posted a link to the thread, rather than actually showing me when I said such a thing. Because I've never said such a thing and you have to try and cover your ass, making it look like you have some source where I did. The fact is, as I've written, nowhere in that thread do I say that criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. You've been caught in a flat out lie.

Know what? I concede this shit. There's no way in hell I can convince you of the absurdity of it, so why bother.Remind me of the growth rates of the various ethnic demographies, would you? - Projected growth rates are welcome as well.

- You don't have to bother, actually. I just remembered why I stayed the hell out of the other apartheid-wannabe-lover threads, so I won't come back to this one. Good luck with your vile little project though.

EDIT: I'd call you a useless racist, but I'm sure you'd refuse to understand why...


This is what I've heard called in other forums "meltdown." First you try to make an argument, then you get caught lying, next you try to cover your behind, then you break down with the ad hominems (the crying insults, like "racist!" "apartheid lover!" "vile!"). Meltdown! :cool:

Well... I've managed to come to quite a civil agree-to-disagreement with Tropical Sands, and everyone else is just getting increasingly angry.

So... Thread Accomplished?

I'm glad you think you speak for most people. Needless to say, I can think of some important groups that you don't think for. Ones I prefer to go to, as they are the 'sources', on Israeli affairs. Such as the Israeli Supreme Court (whose decisions I've been relying on to make my arguments), the Likud party (whose website I refer to for Israeli information frequently), the editors of all the major Israeli newspapers, like the Haartez, Jerusalem Post, Arutz Sheva, etc. Gosh, I guess since I've just been reiterating what is said here, most people must think that these folks are idiots too...

Or perhaps you're just arrogant in your assumption that you speak for most people.

The latter seems more plausible.



Perhaps you can point me to the Israeli civil law which would lead you to conclude that there is a "dual recognition" of any sort. If you can't, I'll have to say that your opinion of "dual recognition" is a fabricaton, with no real factual support.



Its not my choice. During San Remo and under the Palestinian Mandate, that land was granted to Israel. Then the UN Resolution 181 contradicted the law enacted at San Remo (violation of intnl. law, hint hint), and attempted to formulate a third state contrary to the two states and two states alone proposed at San Remo. Israel declared its indepdence, but an Arab group never declared the soverignity of the remaining land. Then Jordan invaded and the land was ceded to Jordan. Israel pushed Jordan back and occupied it, but never anexed most of the land. Jordan released control of the land, and today it doesn't actually belong to anybody, but is under control of Israel along with a semi-autonomous body, the Palestinian Authority.



The fact is, it wasn't the "either way" you proposed. You've just pushed out a false dichotomy that is contrary to the history of the region. According to San Remo, it is part of Israel, according to the contradictory UN Resolution 181 it isn't. This is why a synonym with 'occupied territories' is 'disputed territories.' However, the land isn't owned by any soverign state, nor are its inhabitants citizens of any soverign state, thus the land isn't protected by rights of soverignity (so a wall can be built on it, and it can be annexed), nor are they granted the rights of citizens to any state (so they can't vote in Israel).

Its horribly unfair to the Palestinians, I'll be the first to admit it. They are in an awful position. And this is the fault of the Palestinian leadership for not forming a Palestinain state the three times they had the opportunity to, such as back in 1948 when they could have had a few nice big chunks of land. So lets not blame Israel, which is acting within its rights as a soverign state, and hold the Palestinian leadership accountable for making all the wrong decisions to even have a state.

Do you honestly believe what you are saying? You are using ISRAELI sources as evidence that ISRAEL is not violating law?

For one: Israel has a policy that says its civil law is a higher priority than international law. THIS DOES NOT MEAN BUILDING THE WALL IS ALLOWED. Israel cannot make up rules for itself, a nation cannot state which laws it wishes to follow, as international law is a higher body than civil law. This is the same reason Iraq got occupied.

Why do I need to point to Israeli Civil Law? Obviously Israel likes to sugar coat what it does (targetted populated strikes instead of high tech terrorism for example) so I will not be able to find a law that says "Israel is a collective group of arrogant hipocrites when it comes to the occupied territories." However I listed the evidence for you, the evidence is all around you, I do not understand how someone would rather believe Likud than their own eyes.

The Palestinian leaders are the bottom of the barrel left after numerous assassinations of leading Palestinian figures. Operation Wrath of God killed dozens of people, while only 1 person was actually a terrorist, and Mossad knew this. Israel has no value for human life, it was willing to kill the few elite in Palestinian society, to destroy their values and their role models. Meanwhile the men in suits went in the limbo regarding the territories belonging to Palestine and Israel, resulting in idiots like you thinking "Disputed territory=No territory"

People like you truly make me sick. Israel has robbed all life out of a poor people who were simply olive tree farmers. You have stated they are not citizens of any country, they live on no mans land, etc. This was all the product of Israels treatment of Palestinians over the last 60 years, this would not have happened. However after Israel robbed the Palestinian people, it would not give back their land due to the reason "They had their land taken off them." It is Israel who has bred the suicide bombers, this treatment will demonise the most angelic of men.

Do you honestly believe what you are saying? You are using ISRAELI sources as evidence that ISRAEL is not violating law?

Actually, the sources I used to demonstrate that Israel isn't violating a law is the ICJ charter itself. According to article 36, it isn't violating a law. That much is a fact. I guess you missed when I listed that in the opening post though, huh?

For one: Israel has a policy that says its civil law is a higher priority than international law. THIS DOES NOT MEAN BUILDING THE WALL IS ALLOWED. Israel cannot make up rules for itself, a nation cannot state which laws it wishes to follow, as international law is a higher body than civil law. This is the same reason Iraq got occupied.

Most countries have laws that state civil law is a higher priority. Like the United States' Supremacy Clause. In fact, the UN and ICJ recognize all Supremacy Clauses. However, according to international law, building the wall is allowed because of Article 36 in the International Court of Justice's charter, Israel did not engage in a treaty with the ICJ that would disallow it or give it jurisidiction over Israel on this issue. According to international law, Israeli law is the only law with jurisdiction because there was no consent to give it to the ICJ.

And yes, all states make up laws they wish to follow. International law is not a higher body than civil law, nor is there a single article in the ICJ or in the UN Charter that even makes such an absurd claim. The UN recognizes the laws of all soverign nations to be the starting point for international law, and any nation that does not engage in the treaties on various resolutions are not bound by those laws.

Why do I need to point to Israeli Civil Law? Obviously Israel likes to sugar coat what it does (targetted populated strikes instead of high tech terrorism for example) so I will not be able to find a law that says "Israel is a collective group of arrogant hipocrites when it comes to the occupied territories." However I listed the evidence for you, the evidence is all around you, I do not understand how someone would rather believe Likud than their own eyes.

No one pointed to Israeli Civil Law. You should go back and reread the opening post. The wall is not illegal due to the ICJ's Article 36. This much is a fact, and is recognized by the international legal community.

The Palestinian leaders are the bottom of the barrel left after numerous assassinations of leading Palestinian figures. Operation Wrath of God killed dozens of people, while only 1 person was actually a terrorist, and Mossad knew this. Israel has no value for human life, it was willing to kill the few elite in Palestinian society, to destroy their values and their role models. Meanwhile the men in suits went in the limbo regarding the territories belonging to Palestine and Israel, resulting in idiots like you thinking "Disputed territory=No territory"

Modern targeted killings don't excuse the fact that Palestinians were robbed of a state by their own leadership in '48, and by the Arab nations who chose to invade and steal the land that was granted to Palestine by Resolution 181.

People like you truly make me sick. Israel has robbed all life out of a poor people who were simply olive tree farmers. You have stated they are not citizens of any country, they live on no mans land, etc. This was all the product of Israels treatment of Palestinians over the last 60 years, this would not have happened. However after Israel robbed the Palestinian people, it would not give back their land due to the reason "They had their land taken off them." It is Israel who has bred the suicide bombers, this treatment will demonise the most angelic of men.

The fact that they are not citizens and have no country is a result of UN Resolution 181, the fact that they failed to organize themselves and declare independence, and the fact that Jordan came and took the land that was granted for a Palestinian state by Resolution 181.

Its also a fact that Israel didn't "rob" the Palestinain people. The land of Israel was granted to Israel under international law by the San Remo conference. But wait - I guess you only listen to international law when its convienent for you, like when you mistakenly think Israel is violating it?

It should also be noted that the Palestinian Authority condemns suicide bombings as acts of crime and terror. The PA doesn't blame them on Israel, but on criminals. So why are you fighting against the Palestinian leadership and supporting the terrorists that they openly reject?

Any other nations that act like bastards by doing the same thing you can think of? I've mentioned a few already, but Israel gets singled out all by itself. I wonder why...


The reason is simple. Israel has done what many kids who grow up with voilence and abuse does, they become bullies who justify their behaviour with their own suffering.

I really don't give a rats ass how Israeli committees define Anti-Semitism. The meaning of the phrase is far to important to sign over custody to any group. Yet again I refer to WWII. I might also point to the centuries of anti-jewish policies in Europe. By redefining the phrase to act as a carte-blanche for a militant ethnic doctrine is the worst sin!

However you try to spin this, Israel has committed inhuman acts in its war/occupation/whatever of the Palestine pepole. And, yes, Palestinians have blood on their hands too, but two wrongs doesn't make one right. I might compare Palestinian terrorists with the French resistance of WWII. Germany labeled them terrorists, while the Allied hailed them as heroes. There is a lesson here. The Third Reich lost that war. What will happen with Israeli officers an politicians should Israel end up in the loosing end of the Midle-Eastern conflict? It's always the winner who writes the history.

By yelling Anti-Semitism when faced with critique, pro-Israeli groups are deflating the leasson we must not ever forget. It is not a bloody political tool!

Further, Israel has made it abundently clear that they do not respect Palestinian authority. Remember the siege of Arafat's headquarters a couple of years ago? Whitout electricity or contact with the outside world, he was still blamed for not beeing able to control his pepole. Further, attacks on Palestinian police stations, ambulances, refugee camps, etc.

Would a path of humility and reconciliation harm the Israeli cause?

The reason is simple. Israel has done what many kids who grow up with voilence and abuse does, they become bullies who justify their behaviour with their own suffering.

Well, thats your opinion. So far, I've been arguing with facts, and no one has really endeavored to dispute them. The vast majority of responses are unverifable, unfalsifable, and thus illogical things, such as opinions like "Israel is a bully!" or "Israel is using psychologial warfare!" If you want to talk facts, or respond to some facts, I'd love to hear it. But spouting your opinion, which isn't recognized by any source of merit, isn't going to get you far.

I really don't give a rats ass how Israeli committees define Anti-Semitism. The meaning of the phrase is far to important to sign over custody to any group. Yet again I refer to WWII. I might also point to the centuries of anti-jewish policies in Europe. By redefining the phrase to act as a care-blanche for a militant ethnic doctrine is the worst sin!

It looks as if you'd like to poison the well by stating that it is Israeli groups who defined anti-Semitism in the examples I've used. Rather, it has been a concensus of governments (US State Dept, Israeli State), liberal European humanitarian groups (EUMC), and private Jewish groups (ADL). But I'm sure you know, and care, more about anti-Semitism than all of these groups.

However you try to spin this, Israel has committed inhuman acts in its war/occupation/whatever of the Palestine pepole. And, yes, Palestinians have blood on their hands too, but two wrongs doesn't make one right. I might compare Palestinian terrorists with the French resistance of WWII. Germany labeled them terrorists, while the Allied hailed them as heroes. There is a lesson here. The Third Reich lost that war. What will happen with Israeli officers an politicians should Israel end up in the loosing end of the Midle-Eastern conflict? It's always the winner who writes the history.

No one denied that Israel has done bad things. I've actually stated that, quite a few times. However, you would be hard pressed to find that Israel is more guilty of anything than any other state, and back to the topic, that the wall is illegal or different from that in other states. No one has done much to dispute this, as I've written, but instead give personal, subjective opinions, like "Israel is inhumane."

By yelling Anti-Semitism when faced with critique, pro-Israeli groups are deflating the leasson we must not ever forget. It is not a bloody political tool!

Riiiight, because groups like the EUMC are pro-Israeli groups. The fact is, I've listed a wide assortment of groups, and its a stretch to call the US State Dept or the EUMC "pro-Israeli groups." Unless of course you believe in the vast Zionist conspiracy, that they control every little organization out there, including the US Govt and the private people it consults to do its global reports.

Further, Israel has made it abundently clear that they do not respect Palestinian authority. Remember the siege of Arafat's headquarters a couple of years ago? Whitout electricity or contact with the outside world, he was still blamed for not beeing able to control his pepole. Further, attacks on Palestinian police stations, ambulances, refugee camps, etc.

By "Palestinian Authority" are you talking about the organization that Israel helped to create during the Oslo accords, or are you talking about some sort of authority that Palestinians have? Israelis sure do respect the former, as they work closely and Israel made its existence possible.

Would a path of humility and reconciliation harm the Israeli cause?

Israel acknowledging a potential Palestinian state in 48, returning occupied lands to Egypt, the Oslo accords, the disengagements from Gaza, etc. are all examples of humanility and reconciliation from the Israeli side alone. I'd love to see some examples this strong of humility and reconciliation from the Palestinian side.

well you have certainly done a good job, tropical. as usual

are there times when you get into a debate like this and the opposing side makes sense? your patience is very good with people who make the same not-quite-on-point arguments over and over.

has anyone ever gotten the best of you in one of these online debates?

well you have certainly done a good job, tropical. as usual

are there times when you get into a debate like this and the opposing side makes sense? your patience is very good with people who make the same not-quite-on-point arguments over and over.

has anyone ever gotten the best of you in one of these online debates?

The opposing side makes sense quite frequently. Meaning I can empathize and understand where they are coming from. I just don't always agree. But before I discuss something I try to be familiar with all sides of it and the facts in the case so I can make an objective decision. Things are rarely black and white, so I just try to call them like they are rather than dogmatically take a side.

For example, I have no problem admitting that Israeli massacres are bad things, but I will try to outline the full historical circumstances. On the flip side I've seen people consitently defend suicide attacks in debates with me, calling them "acceptable" among other things. People get the best of me, but I'm not sure if someone who vehemently defends suicide bombings when even the PA rejects them as criminal is going to get the best of me.

The opposing side makes sense quite frequently. Meaning I can empathize and understand where they are coming from. I just don't always agree. But before I discuss something I try to be familiar with all sides of it and the facts in the case so I can make an objective decision. Things are rarely black and white, so I just try to call them like they are rather than dogmatically take a side.

For example, I have no problem admitting that Israeli massacres are bad things, but I will try to outline the full historical circumstances. On the flip side I've seen people consitently defend suicide attacks in debates with me, calling them "acceptable" among other things. People get the best of me, but I'm not sure if someone who vehemently defends suicide bombings when even the PA rejects them as criminal is going to get the best of me.

it is easy to win when your opponents bring up buildings blown up 60 years ago as having something to do with the wall being built. or those who have no understanding of the way the UN and international law works. or those who feel that the palestinian right-to-work is more important than the israeli right-to-not-be-blown-up.

it is easy to win when your opponents bring up buildings blown up 60 years ago as having something to do with the wall being built. or those who have no understanding of the way the UN and international law works. or those who feel that the palestinian right-to-work is more important than the israeli right-to-not-be-blown-up.

Yeah, I concur. A good response to "the wall is legal" isn't "Begin was a terrorist!" :p

Well, Tropical, I might have been a bit hasty by saying that the definition of the phrase was defined by Israeli groups. But it is still flagged by supporters of Israel as a deflamatory response to critique of the nation. The definition I stick to is:

Hatered of the Jewish pepole as an ethnic and religious group.

If this translates into disagreeing with Israeli politics, well, then I'm Anti-Semitic.

As someone pointed out earlier in this thread, Israel has been able to build it's strenght in the region mainly due to "its friend with the veto". And, no, I'm not buying the ZOG crap. Rather, of the Midle-Eastern nations, the US has one ally they will not loose to shifts in global economy, internal disagreements or what have you. The reason for US-backing of issues concerning Israeli security is that the Americans need a stable ally in the region. Apart from this, having the Bomb helps.

As for the Oslo Agreement, several attacks were made by both parties in the following years. But for my part, I tend to believe that the lions share of the responsibility lies with the party who has all the prerequisites for acting in a controlled and systematic manner. Palestine is in internal turmoil, and expecting a government who is besieged by internal and external adversaries, as well as major infrastructural short-commings and economic problems to fix all problems over night is unrealistic. And the re-settlement didn't exactly help the peace-process.

Unemployed seventeen year olds who have grown up without the trappings of civilization, loosing relatives and friends in Israeli attacks make good sucide bombers. In stead of continuing to fuel Anti-Israeli emotions in Palestine, I wonder if not a more passifistic strategy might bear fruits. I do know for a fact that not all Palestinians (or muslims, for that matter) wish to die a martyr.

And, Tropical, I'm not discussing the individual attacks or resolutions with you. I'm just advocating the hopeless leftie view-point that might doesn't always make right.

it is easy to win when your opponents bring up buildings blown up 60 years ago as having something to do with the wall being built.

I agree that this has nothing to do with the wall, but it is relevant to the other aspect of this discussion. Namely the dual responsibility for the ongoing conflict.

Israel has comitted dubious acts over the years, but so has the Palestinians. Several Israeli leaders (less now than earlier, due to natural deaths) have backgrounds from fighting the British and the Palestinians, sometimes with controversial methods. I feel that this aspect is often, conveniently, forgotten.

If this translates into disagreeing with Israeli politics, well, then I'm Anti-Semitic.

Not once have I stated that disagreeing with Israeli politics is anti-Semitic. In fact, I've stated the opposite. There is a big fat line between disagreement or criticism of policy and demonizing Israel, and I've given examples of this as well. Its one thing to say "I don't like the wall, I think its inhumane, etc." Its another thing to compare it to something like, say, Apartheid, because this is a logical fallacy that has been used specifically to demonize the Jewish State. Hyperboile and sensationalist speech like such can't be called anything other than anti-Semitic.

As someone pointed out earlier in this thread, Israel has been able to build it's strenght in the region mainly due to "its friend with the veto". And, no, I'm not buying the ZOG crap. Rather, of the Midle-Eastern nations, the US has one ally they will not loose to shifts in global economy, internal disagreements or what have you. The reason for US-backing of issues concerning Israeli security is that the Americans need a stable ally in the region. Apart from this, having the Bomb helps.

I agree here, Israel has definately been helped by the US politically.

As for the Oslo Agreement, several attacks were made by both parties in the following years. But for my part, I tend to believe that the lions share of the responsibility lies with the party who has all the prerequisites for acting in a controlled and systematic manner. Palestine is in internal turmoil, and expecting a government who is besieged by internal and external adversaries, as well as major infrastructural short-commings and economic problems to fix all problems over night is unrealistic. And the re-settlement didn't exactly help the peace-process.

I was referring to Oslo itself, and the fact that there could have been a Palestinian state right then and there, save for the fact that Arafat rejected every offer made and refused to make one in return, while continuing to state that he wanted Palestine from the Jordan to the sea, and consorting with wanted terrorists. Not to mention that the Israeli offers were deamed acceptable by five major Arab leaders and the lead negotiator, Dennis Ross.

Unemployed seventeen year olds who have grown up without the trappings of civilization, loosing relatives and friends in Israeli attacks make good sucide bombers. In stead of continuing to fuel Anti-Israeli emotions in Palestine, I wonder if not a more passifistic strategy might bear fruits. I do know for a fact that not all Palestinians (or muslims, for that matter) wish to die a martyr.

More pacificistic than what? Every single Israeli attack is in response to a Palestinian attack first, save in special cases of preemption. When Israel pulled out of Gaza, for example, Israel was the epitome of pacifistic, and yet terror attacks against Israel increased tenfold.

And of course not all Palestinians want to die as martyrs. Nor are most extremists who support the current Palestinian government, or the Hamas charter which states all Jews should be murdered when they are spotted and that Israel should be wiped out for a new Palestine. However, its the spurious suicide bombers and the current government, the vast minority, who hurt the Palestinian people the most. Most Palestinians die at the hands of Palestinians, not at the hands of Israelis, and the Palestinian terror groups and leadership are the biggest thing in the way of peace, not the Israeli government.

Palestinian territory? lol, they both believe the area of Isreal is theirs. If I were an employer in Isreal I would never hire a Palestinian for work. Just asking for trouble.
Because bigotry and high unemployment rates have been known to stop all forms of hatred and violence.

I agree that this has nothing to do with the wall, but it is relevant to the other aspect of this discussion. Namely the dual responsibility for the ongoing conflict.

Israel has comitted dubious acts over the years, but so has the Palestinians. Several Israeli leaders (less now than earlier, due to natural deaths) have backgrounds from fighting the British and the Palestinians, sometimes with controversial methods. I feel that this aspect is often, conveniently, forgotten.
the only reason there are other aspects to a thread specifically about the wall is due to the poor debate skills of the opposing posters.

its way more than a dual responsibility. its so complex that its hard to see how it can ever be "fixed". there is blame to be put on israel, the palestinians, corrupt palestinian leaders, the united states, the arab countries, the UN in general, christian fundamentalist nutcases, islamic fundamentalist nutcases, jewish fundamentaist nutcases, the united kingdom, im sure i could come up with more.

we would like there to be a simple solution so we tend to want to think "its all israel fault" or "its all the palestinians fault". there is no simple solution and fault lies everywhere.

There is a big fat line between disagreement or criticism of policy and demonizing Israel

Well, here we agree. There are points I believe we will never agree on, but such is life. I will now return to RL, have a good weekend.

Good night and good luck.

A large group of Arabs once lived on the land. They owned very little, as around 90% was Crown Lands, owned by the British, under the Mandate..

Its not listed as such by the British. Where is your source for this figure of "90%"?



I already described it quite clearly. ..

Then try doing it again with specific reference to the booby trapping of the bodies of British servicemen (we can skip their kidnap and killing to make life easier for you).


Now go ahead, tell me why the Jewish Anti-Defmation League isn't the authority on anti-Semitism. :rolleyes: ..

Because various Jewish groups disagree with them. Some even wonder what planet they're on at times.


Votes against Israel don't mean much when Israel is the only state in the world excluded from voting, such as being the only state not allowed on the security council, in clear violation of the UN Charter...

I've no idea what the hell thats about. The security council is a small group of nations. And Israel has a vote in the general assembly like everyone else. Its half of the "two against" that comes up now and again.

You're confusing civil law with "war crimes." I know what you're referring to, and the homicide of British soldiers is illegal via British law, but it does not constitute a "war crime" by any definition....

No, I was referring to an IDF officer who wouldn't leave his plane lest he be "nabbed" for activities in the occupied territories.


It wouldn't be me calling you anti-Semitic,


If the term "anti-Semite" pops up anywhere on this board, 99% of the fucken time its you thats typed it. Do the others make you do it telepathically?


We're talking about Israeli press, not press in the disputed territories.

Israeli footage from the occupied territories my disingenuous little compadre. Thats footage shot in the territories to be shown in Israel. They don't give much of a crap what the Palestinians watch because they don't vote in Israeli elections now, do they?


Perhaps you can show me where I stated that all criticism of Israel or Israeli policy is anti-Semitism?.

For all intents and purposes thats precisely what you do, to people who are not in the slightest bit of that frame of mind. Its rather obscene, disgusting and low. A dishonest hijacking of a genuine problem by a mind too small or too sly to argue on facts.

It seems that Israel's endeavor to build a fence on its future boarders has come under a lot of flak. This is usually due to misunderstanding and incomplete information regarding the subject. In addition, it is the only country to come under flak for building a fence of the sort, demonstrating a direct bias and double-standard against Israel. This is usually justified under the false claim that it violates international law whereas others do not, but we shall see that this is not the case.

First, background regarding how the International Court of Justice works is necessary, since it was the International Court of Justice that stated the wall was in violation:

Fact: The ICJ only has jurisdiction over states that consent to giving it jurisdiction. This is covered in article 36 where it states, "The jurisdiction of the Court comprises all cases which the parties refer to it."

This means that the ICJ does not have the authority to arbitrarily decide on international law and hand it from the "top down" to states. States are only bound by the decisions of the ICJ if they first consent to giving the ICJ the authority.

What this means for Israel is that Israel is not legally bound by the ICJ regarding its rulings on the fence, because they were not given by consent of the State of Israel, and thus are not binding to the State of Israel. This much is fact, and this is what is accepted as international law. The ICJ's declaration that Israel is in violation in regards to the fence, however, is a ruling on international law but is not international law itself. Thus, Israel has, according to international law, full legal rights to build the fencec.

This confuses a lot of people, who think that international law between states works in the same fashion that state laws work regarding their populations. It doesn't, and to understand international law at all people need to get the idea that they are similair at all right out of their heads. No international court has the authority to make laws regarding states without the prior consent and agreement of that state.

Fact: It is not a "wall" but a fence.

When we see pictures of Israel's fence in the news, we get pictures of a huge stone cement wall. This constitutes the majority of media photos. However, it is a fact that only %5 of the Israeli fence looks anything like that, with 95% being a fence that is rarely pictured because it doesn't have the same shock value; a fence that is less imposing than the fences between the US border and Mexico. Compare the following pictures:

The "wall" that we see depicted in the majority of media photos, that only makes up %5 of the total fencing:

Cement wall (http://www.palestinercs.org/images/Separation%20Wall/separationwall(Al-ttur)021203WBRR2.jpg)

The fence that makes up 95% of Israel's project, that we rarely see in the media:

Wire fence (http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20030725/wd2.jpg)

Compare to the US borders:

US fence (http://static.flickr.com/20/68755857_2816e9313c.jpg)

A fence in India:

Indian border fence (http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2002/0201/kashmir0106.jpg)

A fence in Pakistan:

Pakistani fence (http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl1819/18191291.jpg)

Wall in China: :D

Great Wall of China (http://www.ocvc.ac.uk/images/chinesewall_000.jpg)

Now, aside from the last one, there are many fences virtually identical to the one in Israel all over the world. Yet, if you do a google search for 'border wall' or other terms, the vast majority of hits you will get are about Israel. In addition, Israel is the only one to come under any sort of scrutiny, such as that given by the ICJ (even though, as we now know, it is not legally binding because the ICJ has no jurisdiction, as they willingly admit in article 36). This demonstrates a clear anti-Israeli bias, because the same standards regarding fences are not applied to every state that has a similiar fence.

So, next time you hear about the Israeli fence and want to scream "Wall baaaad!" try to remember the facts. The media only shows the pictures of the cement wall for shock value, states all over the world have similiar walls that aren't being criticized, and the wall is not actually illegal according to international law.
I like how the US fence has pictures and crap on it instead of barbed wire. A picture of a dollar sign with wings is way more intimidating than loops of razor wire.

Lol...the Kashmir fencing has also been compared to the Berlin wall in certain media.....the funny part being that those very same media did not utter a peep when Musharraf proposed a fencing in Pak-Afghan border seperating the tribes who have no recognition of border and concept of nation-states and have moved across the region for millenia.

I guess people get a different perspective if it is their asses that are being bombed.:cool:

It seems that Israel's endeavor to build a fence on its future boarders has come under a lot of flak.

The words I bolded are the crucial issue.

Israel has no right to unilaterally declare where its future borders will be in the middle of occupied territory, even if it is not done explicitly. And it has no right to disrupt Palestinian life and take Palestinian territory by building its wall on their land, either.

Its not listed as such by the British. Where is your source for this figure of "90%"?

Idiot's Guide to the Middle Eats Conflict. Although, in the psat, you rejected that because it's written by <gasp> a Jew!

Then try doing it again with specific reference to the booby trapping of the bodies of British servicemen (we can skip their kidnap and killing to make life easier for you).

If you remember correctly, there was also a wide proclamation that British bodies would be trapped as well. But you convienently left that out. It isn't a pretty fact of war, but it isn't "terrorism" or a "war crime" in any fashion.

Because various Jewish groups disagree with them. Some even wonder what planet they're on at times.

Rarely do "Jewish groups" disagree with them. Spurious self-hating Jews tend to do so a lot though, like Noam Chomsky.

I've no idea what the hell thats about. The security council is a small group of nations. And Israel has a vote in the general assembly like everyone else. Its half of the "two against" that comes up now and again.

Oh, I guess you weren't aware. Israel is the only nation in the world that isn't eligible for a seat on the security council. In addition, this violates the UN Charter that every nation should be eligible. It has created a special discriminatory clause for Israel alone. It just goes to show the huge anti-Israel, pro-Arab bias in the UN, as well as the fact that the UN is a two faced organization that doesn't actually respect its own treaty or previous law (such as this violation of the charter and Resolution 181 which contradicted San Remo).

If the term "anti-Semite" pops up anywhere on this board, 99% of the fucken time its you thats typed it. Do the others make you do it telepathically?

I'll just remind you, once more, since everyone seems to try to dance around the point and no one wants to address it. It isn't my arbitrary criteria of anti-Semitism, but the criteria established by Jewish groups, governments, and human rights groups around the world. Thus, when it say it isn't me personally, I'm stating that all of these groups created the criteria and concur that the same actions and sentiments are anti-Semitic.

That much was pretty clear, but no one has really addressed that issue except for things like "I don't care!" or "well other Jewish groups say this!" (without actually supporting it, btw)

Israeli footage from the occupied territories my disingenuous little compadre. Thats footage shot in the territories to be shown in Israel. They don't give much of a crap what the Palestinians watch because they don't vote in Israeli elections now, do they?

You've tried to insinuate that the IDF censors footage shot, but you've yet to actually support that claim. The fact is, the IDF doesn't censor anything in the Occupied Terrotires, even if it views it beforehand.

For all intents and purposes thats precisely what you do, to people who are not in the slightest bit of that frame of mind. Its rather obscene, disgusting and low. A dishonest hijacking of a genuine problem by a mind too small or too sly to argue on facts.

I've repeatedly stated, over and over, that legitimate criticism is not anti-Semitism. However, people on these boards love to use extremist speech, hate terms, etc. and then cry "its criticism of policy!" The fact is, it isn't legitimate criticism of policy. It been rejected as such by all of the groups I've mentioned. Yet, you've failed to address that too. Instead, you're using the strawman of "criticism of policy", which no one ever claimed.

I like how the US fence has pictures and crap on it instead of barbed wire. A picture of a dollar sign with wings is way more intimidating than loops of razor wire.

Thats actually artwork put up by Mexicans. They decorate the wall with neat stuff in quite a few spots. Although, the fence in the US is quite a bit taller than the fenced areas (not the cement areas) in Israel, so it doesn't need barbed wire in those spots. Though, we may see fencing based on the Israeli model in the US soon.

Spurious self-hating Jews tend to do so a lot though, like Noam Chomsky.

How exactly is Noam Chomsky a self-hating Jew?

The words I bolded are the crucial issue.

Israel has no right to unilaterally declare where its future borders will be in the middle of occupied territory, even if it is not done explicitly. And it has no right to disrupt Palestinian life and take Palestinian territory by building its wall on their land, either.

Who told you that Israel has no right to unilaterally declare its borders, or to plan for future borders? Is this your own personal opinion (let me answer for you, yes), or is this based on something else? The fact is, Israel as a soverign nation has the right to declare its borders, and because the Occupied Territories are not owned by any state, there is no state to oppose annexation of any amount of the territories. Even if Israel wanted to take the entire West Bank and Gaza and annex them, it would be justified due to San Remo.

And who told you that there is such thing as "Palestinian territory?" The Occupied Territories do not belong to any Palestinian group. There is not a single piece of land owned by any Palestinian political entity.

You're right to say that the wall shouldn't disrupt Palestinian life. This was brought to the attention of the Israeli Supreme Court in 2005 by a Palestinian group, and the Israeli Supreme Court ruled in favor of this Palestinian group and planned the wall in a way that would not, according to this Palestinian group, damage Palestinian life in a significant way.

Since the Palestinian group who brought this to the attention of the Israeli Surpeme Court won, and the plan was being followed that Palestinians proposed for the wall, why should anyone who supports Palestinie not support the wall that Palestinians in its current form supported? Is this going to be another issue of being "more Palestinian than the Palestinians?" Kind of like supporting the terrorist acts against Israel when the PA itself condemns them as criminal.

Who told you that Israel has no right to unilaterally declare its borders, or to plan for future borders?

Um, the acquisition of territory by conquest is most definitely illegal under international law. Not to mention the fact that it is utterly immoral.

And who told you that there is such thing as "Palestinian territory?" The Occupied Territories do not belong to any Palestinian group. There is not a single piece of land owned by any Palestinian political entity.

The West Bank and Gaza have been recognized as Palestinian since soon after their conquest by Israel. Yes, the Arabs were being opportunistic; it should have been done from 1948. But that does not change the fact that according to basic democratic principle, a people living in a territory deserve the right to govern themselves.

You're right to say that the wall shouldn't disrupt Palestinian life. This was brought to the attention of the Israeli Supreme Court in 2005 by a Palestinian group, and the Israeli Supreme Court ruled in favor of this Palestinian group and planned the wall in a way that would not, according to this Palestinian group, damage Palestinian life in a significant way.

Israel, thankfully, has institutions more respectful of Palestinian human rights than its government is.

Since the Palestinian group who brought this to the attention of the Israeli Surpeme Court won, and the plan was being followed that Palestinians proposed for the wall, why should anyone who supports Palestinie not support the wall that Palestinians in its current form supported?

The Palestinians do not support the wall, and have stated so many times. The fact that some of their organizations have proposed preferable routes does not mean that they support it.

Is this going to be another issue of being "more Palestinian than the Palestinians?" Kind of like supporting the terrorist acts against Israel when the PA itself condemns them as criminal.

I don't support Palestinian terrorism and never have.

How exactly is Noam Chomsky a self-hating Jew?

Well lets see...

1. He's met and supported terrorists, like Nabul Quaj of Hezbollah.
2. He's supported holocaust denial, not just helping with but spearheading a petition to free Robert Faurisson
3. He believes and supports in the "Zionist conspracy" that controls the media in the US, politics, and wealth.
4. He marginalizes anti-Semitism (by his own account, 'marginal' being the very word used) in leiu of other forms or racism and discrimination.

Example:

You find occasional instances of anti-Semitism but they are marginal. There’s plenty of racism, but it’s directed against Blacks, Latinos, Arabs are targets of enormous racism, and those problems are real. Anti-Semitism is no longer a problem, fortunately. It’s raised, but it’s raised because privileged people want to make sure they have total control, not just 98% control.

This is from Oliver Kamm's correspondance with Chomsky. It should be noted that Kamm does avoid calling him things like anti-Semite or self-hating Jew. Of course, Chomsky has such a history that it isn't unreasonable to believe that he is either.


Chomsky and antisemitism (http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2005/01/chomsky_and_ant.html)

The UN whines a lot, and is distinctly pro-Arab and anti-Israel (considering that a third of their member nations are Arab countries)
What? There are more then 60 arab countries in the UN? :confused:

That is indeed a lot, if it is true...

Um, the acquisition of territory by conquest is most definitely illegal under international law. Not to mention the fact that it is utterly immoral.

The acquisition of territory from soverign states. The Occupied Territories have never been a soverign state, and thus don't fall under that at all. In fact, accordring to international law (San Remo) that entire area should be part of Israel to begin with, since Resolution 181 was contrary, rejected by the British & Arabs, and failed.

The West Bank and Gaza have been recognized as Palestinian since soon after their conquest by Israel. Yes, the Arabs were being opportunistic; it should have been done from 1948. But that does not change the fact that according to basic democratic principle, a people living in a territory deserve the right to govern themselves.

I'm not sure what you mean "reognized as Palestinian", but they have never been recognized as a soviergn political entity, or a state. Of course they are predominately Palestinian, and we all recognize that they are going to be the new Palestinian state. The problem occured when you called it "Palestinian territory", because legally it has never been such. It has been Israeli and Jordanian, but never Palestinian.

Israel, thankfully, has institutions more respectful of Palestinian human rights than its government is.

And yet, the wall is being built according to the specs laid out by Palestinians.

The Palestinians do not support the wall, and have stated so many times. The fact that some of their organizations have proposed preferable routes does not mean that they support it.

Well, it was more than just proposing preferable routes, and see above. The Israeli Supreme Court followed the specs of Palestine in most cases, making the route of the wall, and the families it impacts, just as much a plan of the Palestinians as that of the Israelis.

The fact is, in the media you hear "Palestinians don't support it", but the source documents say otherwise. The Israeli Surpreme Court decision in 2005 flatly proves otherwise.

I don't support Palestinian terrorism and never have.

I wasn't referring to you, but to numerous others on the boards who stated exactly what I wrote, that terrorist attacks are acceptable. Regardless of the fact that they are condemned as criminal and terrorist by the PA. I brought it up because you seem to be slipping into the same mode of "being more Palestinian than the Palestinians."

Since the Palestinian groups have been able to go to the Israeli Supreme Court and enact their plan for the wall, there is no logical reason to reject the wall or say "Palestinians don't support it." There is just as much opposition to the wall on the Israeli side as the Palestinian side, but the fact remains that the wall in its current form is a joint plan of the Palestinians due to the 2005 Supreme Court decision, and not a unilateral move of the Israelis.

What? There are more then 60 arab countries in the UN? :confused:

That is indeed a lot, if it is true...

No, I made a mistake. There are at least 20 nations a part of the Arab League, and probably upwards of 40 or 50 that are predominately Muslim and vote along Arab lines, such as former soviet blocs, and nations like Turkey, Iran, Indonesia, etc.

Israeli Separation Fence

Ah, so that's the Orwellian name du jour for the wall.

No, I made a mistake. There are at least 20 nations a part of the Arab League, and probably upwards of 40 or 50 that are predominately Muslim and vote along Arab lines, such as former soviet blocs, and nations like Turkey, Iran, Indonesia, etc.
Just got to your previous post about this... See what happens when one responds befor reading the thread? :p

(Though I personally wouldn't call the UN neither dominated by muslim or arab nations, nor would I call it biased against Israel.)

Well lets see...

1. He's met and supported terrorists, like Nabul Quaj of Hezbollah.

I heard he met Hezbollah leaders on his recent trip to Lebanon, and that he supports them retaining their arms. Neither makes him an anti-Semite, because neither indicates that he dislikes Jews, or regards them as inferior.

I'm not sure I'd be willing to support Hezbollah's disarmament, either; whatever you say about them, they are one of the factions in Lebanon that has serious popular support, and they are engaged in various social welfare programs in the areas where they have dominance. I don't support state monopolies on violence, especially where the people in power are as corrupt as they are in Lebanon.

They do have a stupid position regarding Israel; they should tone down the belligerence and focus more on domestic matters, where there are enough problems. That, and their religious fundamentalism, like all religious fundamentalism, disgusts me.

2. He's supported holocaust denial, not just helping with but spearheading a petition to free Robert Faurisson

That's supporting free speech, not Holocaust denial. He is right on that point.

3. He believes and supports in the "Zionist conspracy" that controls the media in the US, politics, and wealth.

No, he doesn't. Remember that study a few months back that made AIPAC out to be a dominant force in US politics? Chomsky rejected its conclusions, pointing out (correctly) that the more essential dominance is in the hands of corporate power. That has been his claim from the start. He does not buy any "Zionist conspiracy," and if you read what he's written you will see that.

4. He marginalizes anti-Semitism (by his own account, 'marginal' being the very word used) in leiu of other forms or racism and discrimination.

The point he makes is largely accurate. Compared to all the forms of discrimination he lists - and I'd add a fourth, homophobia - anti-Semitism in the US today is not very great. I do think he is wrong as to why it is an issue, though.

The acquisition of territory from soverign states. The Occupied Territories have never been a soverign state, and thus don't fall under that at all.

Is not Jordan a sovereign state? Jordan has never ceded the territory to Israel, but a legitimate argument could be made that it has ceded the territory to the Palestinians.

In fact, accordring to international law (San Remo) that entire area should be part of Israel to begin with, since Resolution 181 was contrary, rejected by the British & Arabs, and failed.

I'm not aware of any international agreement that called for the entire territory to be given to the Zionists. Could you demonstrate that this is the case? Not that the people who saw themselves as the owners of Palestine had any right to give it away in the first place.

I'm not sure what you mean "reognized as Palestinian", but they have never been recognized as a soviergn political entity, or a state. Of course they are predominately Palestinian, and we all recognize that they are going to be the new Palestinian state. The problem occured when you called it "Palestinian territory", because legally it has never been such. It has been Israeli and Jordanian, but never Palestinian.

It was never Israeli. Jordan stole it in the 1948 war, and thus it is not really Jordanian either. The UN General Assembly gave it, along with a considerable portion of territory stolen by Israel after the 1948 war, to the Palestinians in the original Partition Plan. They should get it now.

And yet, the wall is being built according to the specs laid out by Palestinians.

Some Palestinians. The Palestinian government has been opposed to the Wall from the start, and has not ceased its opposition. There have also been numerous popular demonstrations against the Wall.

Well, it was more than just proposing preferable routes, and see above. The Israeli Supreme Court followed the specs of Palestine in most cases, making the route of the wall, and the families it impacts, just as much a plan of the Palestinians as that of the Israelis.

But the wall itself is the plan of the Israelis, as is building it in occupied territory. The fact that its route was influenced by the Palestinians as well is irrelevant to the justification of the building itself.

The fact is, in the media you hear "Palestinians don't support it", but the source documents say otherwise. The Israeli Surpreme Court decision in 2005 flatly proves otherwise.

So all the protesting Palestinians - among them people who have braved Israeli fire in response to their non-violent actions - are just a media invention?

Since the Palestinian groups have been able to go to the Israeli Supreme Court and enact their plan for the wall, there is no logical reason to reject the wall or say "Palestinians don't support it." There is just as much opposition to the wall on the Israeli side as the Palestinian side, but the fact remains that the wall in its current form is a joint plan of the Palestinians due to the 2005 Supreme Court decision, and not a unilateral move of the Israelis.

So you're telling me that if there was a referendum in the West Bank today, the Palestinians would vote in favor of the Wall?

*snip* No, he doesn't. Remember that study a few months back that made AIPAC out to be a dominant force in US politics? Chomsky rejected its conclusions, pointing out (correctly) that the more essential dominance is in the hands of corporate power. That has been his claim from the start. He does not buy any "Zionist conspiracy," and if you read what he's written you will see that.

Aside from all of the other excuses for his actions, which we can't really argue about because its opinion (The ADL would call the same actions anti-Semitic, btw), it is a fact that Chomsky believes in the "Zionist Conspiracy", that Jews control the media, politics, and economy.

By now Jews in the US are the most privileged and influential part of the population. You find occasional instances of anti-Semitism but they are marginal. There’s plenty of racism, but it’s directed against Blacks, Latinos, Arabs are targets of enormous racism, and those problems are real. Anti-Semitism is no longer a problem, fortunately. It’s raised, but it’s raised because privileged people want to make sure they have total control, not just 98% control. That’s why anti-Semitism is becoming an issue. Not because of the threat of anti-Semitism; they want to make sure there’s no critical look at the policies the US (and they themselves) support in the Middle East.

This is Oliver Kamm quoting his address to the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign. The link in the previous post should get you to it as well.

Perhaps you can defend Noam Chomsky stating that Jews have 98% of the control, and that they want total control?

The point he makes is largely accurate. Compared to all the forms of discrimination he lists - and I'd add a fourth, homophobia - anti-Semitism in the US today is not very great. I do think he is wrong as to why it is an issue, though.

Perhaps you can validate that Jews have 98% of the control in the US too, and that they are seeking total control. Would you say that is a largely accurate statement?

The acquisition of territory from soverign states. The Occupied Territories have never been a soverign state, and thus don't fall under that at all. In fact, accordring to international law (San Remo) that entire area should be part of Israel to begin with, since Resolution 181 was contrary, rejected by the British & Arabs, and failed.



I'm not sure what you mean "reognized as Palestinian", but they have never been recognized as a soviergn political entity, or a state. Of course they are predominately Palestinian, and we all recognize that they are going to be the new Palestinian state. The problem occured when you called it "Palestinian territory", because legally it has never been such. It has been Israeli and Jordanian, but never Palestinian.



And yet, the wall is being built according to the specs laid out by Palestinians.



Well, it was more than just proposing preferable routes, and see above. The Israeli Supreme Court followed the specs of Palestine in most cases, making the route of the wall, and the families it impacts, just as much a plan of the Palestinians as that of the Israelis.

The fact is, in the media you hear "Palestinians don't support it", but the source documents say otherwise. The Israeli Surpreme Court decision in 2005 flatly proves otherwise.



I wasn't referring to you, but to numerous others on the boards who stated exactly what I wrote, that terrorist attacks are acceptable. Regardless of the fact that they are condemned as criminal and terrorist by the PA. I brought it up because you seem to be slipping into the same mode of "being more Palestinian than the Palestinians."

Since the Palestinian groups have been able to go to the Israeli Supreme Court and enact their plan for the wall, there is no logical reason to reject the wall or say "Palestinians don't support it." There is just as much opposition to the wall on the Israeli side as the Palestinian side, but the fact remains that the wall in its current form is a joint plan of the Palestinians due to the 2005 Supreme Court decision, and not a unilateral move of the Israelis.

Some people just don't stop.

Saying things like the wall "brings apartheid" is not anti-semetic, it is ignorant and uninformed labelling. Saying things like "Israel must be wiped off the map" is not anti-semetic, it is simply hatred against a nation. Saying somethings like "All Jews must be wiped off the map" IS anti-semetic. The keyword to find out if something is anti-semetic is the word JEW, because Israel is only 75% Jewish.

The occupied territories were part of the Islamic Caliphate, a soverign nation which they felt part of, 500 years ago. This beats Israels claims of being a soverign state 2000 years ago. The occupied territories were occupied by the Ottoman Empire 500 years ago, then the British mandate seized administrative control of that area, where they divided the Islamic caliphate into about 20 different countries, so in reality Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt etc are all one nation, so if you say "The land was meant to be Jordans" it does not matter, the point is that it is Arabic. The occupied territories have been a soverign state, its just that they have been under occupation for sometime, and they did not forget. However we must also look to the fact that under the Ottomans and the British, there wasn't an active occupation, Palestinians still felt that they were living in their own country, so, while legally it was not theirs, the social aura stated that it was, and it was not until Israel came that was shattered.

Also, find the logic to say that Palestinians SUPPORT the wall? Why would they support the wall?

Just got to your previous post about this... See what happens when one responds befor reading the thread? :p

(Though I personally wouldn't call the UN neither dominated by muslim or arab nations, nor would I call it biased against Israel.)

Just out of curiousity, how do you explain the fact that Israel is the only nation in the world not allowed a seat on the Secuirty Council, even though this violates the UN Charter? Because Israel is the only one, isn't this a bias against Israel by the very definition of the word?

Aside from all of the other excuses for his actions, which we can't really argue about because its opinion (The ADL would call the same actions anti-Semitic, btw), it is a fact that Chomsky believes in the "Zionist Conspiracy", that Jews control the media, politics, and economy.

No, he does not. Have you read anything of his?

Perhaps you can defend Noam Chomsky stating that Jews have 98% of the control, and that they want total control?

That's not what he said. He said "privileged people," by which he means corporate power, the rich elite, as he has always.

Read what he has to say about US democracy. Nothing about Jews, but plenty of references to privileged sectors.

The fence can make some security sense, if administered properly. However, I feel there are some very basic problems with it:

1) It's not exactly helping the peace process, nor Israel's image in the world.
2) Why can't they build it on their side of the 'border' (ie the Green Line)? Whether the land grab is only imagined or actually occuring, it's not helping either way. And let's face it, they won't be building a fence only to then have to move it in a two-state solution. This is what they would like the future border to be, and it includes areas that shouldn't be Israeli both by past agreements and the Road Map AFAIK.
3) The check points are a disgrace. As if Israel couldn't set up a flexible, fluid and efficient system to check people's identity and/or freight when they pass. The Palestinians have enough economic trouble as it is, when innocent traders and farmers get punished for the actions of a few nutjobs, that's just not cool.
4) It doesn't offer even the slightest hint towards a solution in Jerusalem. In fact, with the way the fence is planned the last time I checked, it makes it impossible to have Jerusalem at least partly Palestinian, as it will have to be if lasting peace is to be found.

So far, Tropical Sands, I agree with everything you've put. I myself, am an avid supporter of Israel, even though I don't believe they should be giving up land, since contrary to popular belief (thanks to the media) the land isn't illegally occupied.

As a side line though, how come such a fuss has never been made over India's 2,500 mile security fence? Infact, a lot of people I've told about India's security fence, have never even heard about it. Odd that. But then that's bias for you.

I myself, am an avid supporter of Israel

Whatever brings forth the Apocalypse, eh?

Whatever brings forth the Apocalypse, eh?
No, that's rapture you're thinking of.

I'm an avid supporter of Israel for other reasons also, Fass. ;)

No, that's rapture you're thinking of.

Same thing basically. Christianity is a weird religion...

Hardly..

I'm an avid supporter of Israel for other reasons also, Fass. ;)

Chimpinator has served you well.

Hardly..

If we're going by what makes more sense, I'll go with Shiva dancing the universe to death any day of the week.

Well, whatever floats your boat. I wasn't actually refering to your comment on Christianity though, but your other comment on the rapture, and the apocolypse being the same thing. Christianity would seem weird to you though.

Keep quiet with the theology, dudes. Anyone who thinks they can make political decisions based on religion needs a good, long stay in an asylum.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5042726.stm
Hamas to pay salaries on Monday

Ismail Haniya had said all workers would get money within two days
Some 40,000 Palestinian civil servants are to be paid a month's salary on Monday in what will be their first wage packet since February.

Finance Minister Omar Abdel Razeq said the money would go to the government's 40,000 lowest-paid workers.

He said the Palestinian Authority's other 125,000 workers would receive a pay advance but did not specify when.

Well, whatever floats your boat. I wasn't actually refering to your comment on Christianity though, but your other comment on the rapture, and the apocolypse being the same thing.

Christians can't seem to have one without the other.

The BBC, hardly a decent source for news in the middle east.

Deep rooted hatred of Christians, Fass? Why is that? Bit off topic, but what the hell, eh? You seem to get away with it.

Is not Jordan a sovereign state? Jordan has never ceded the territory to Israel, but a legitimate argument could be made that it has ceded the territory to the Palestinians.

Its questionable if Jordan actually has the authority to cede land to a non-political entity, like "Palestine", or during an occupation. In any case, Jordan did release control of the land, making its status disputed rather than under the ownership and control of Jordan.

I'm not aware of any international agreement that called for the entire territory to be given to the Zionists. Could you demonstrate that this is the case? Not that the people who saw themselves as the owners of Palestine had any right to give it away in the first place.

Sure, I can show you that and much more. The San Remo Resolution was the first act of international law supporting Israel. It states, "The High Countracting Parties agree that Syria and Mesopotamia shall, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22, Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations), be provisionaly recognized as independent States." The San Remo Resolution provides for only these two geographical locations (Syria, and if you look at a map of the Palestinian Mandate (http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~samuel/pic7.jpg), this was to refer to everything west of the Jordan, it would come to be called "Palestine", and Mesopotamia, which would come to be known as Transjordan) to be two states. There was no plan for a third state, and as the San Remo Resolution only provides for a third state, later attempts to divide "Palestine" into a third state would be in violation of international law. This is why the British rejected the idea of a third Palestinian state in opposition to the previous complete land known as "Palestine" which was to be, as the San Remo Resolution states, "is in favor of the establishment of Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."

Now, it was with the Churchill White Paper, which was Henry McMahon's promise to King Hussein on behalf of the British govt, that the borders were offically split between the two as the map above depicts. Hussein was to get all of Transjordan (later to be known as Jordan), and Palestine in its entirety, from the west of the Jordan river, was to be established as the San Remo Resolution states, a "national home for the Jewish people." The Churchill White Paper states, "The whole of Palestine west of the Jordan was thus excluded from Sr. Henry McMahon's pledge."

The Palestinian Mandate itself came next, which outlines the fact that all of Palestine (see the map above of the Palestine/Transjordan dichotomy) was to be a Jewish homeland. It of course repeats Ran Remo, stating that the British govt (in charge of the Mandate), "is in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a natiional home for the Jewish people" "recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine" (this one is important, because a third state violates it) "the mandatory shall be responible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign power" "English, Arabic, and Hebrew shall be the official languages of Palestine" etc. It continues, but in summary, Palestine was to be a single Jewish state from the west of the Jordan that had equal rights for Jews and Arabs. There was never any talk of a third Palestinian state until UN Resolution 181.

It was never Israeli. Jordan stole it in the 1948 war, and thus it is not really Jordanian either. The UN General Assembly gave it, along with a considerable portion of territory stolen by Israel after the 1948 war, to the Palestinians in the original Partition Plan. They should get it now.

It was Israeli according to the San Remo Resolution, the Churchill White Paper, and the Palestinian Mandate. Only Resolution 181 (Partition Plan) disputed this, was in contradiction to previous international law, and was rejected by the British and Arabs. The fact is, because the Partition Plan was rejected by the British (who had the authority to do so under the mandate) and by the Arabs, it never was enacted as binding international law. So legally, they shouldn't get anything now, but Israel is being nice by letting them have something they aren't legally entitled to.

Some Palestinians. The Palestinian government has been opposed to the Wall from the start, and has not ceased its opposition. There have also been numerous popular demonstrations against the Wall.

There is no such thing as the Palestinian government. There is a semi-autonomous controlling body, the PA. But yes, some Palestinians helped plan it, and most popular demonstratins against the fence are from the Israeli side, not the Palestinian side.

But the wall itself is the plan of the Israelis, as is building it in occupied territory. The fact that its route was influenced by the Palestinians as well is irrelevant to the justification of the building itself.

Oh right, ignore the fact that the Palestinians who took it to the Israeli Supreme Court said that the new route was acceptable. It sounds like justification from the Palestinian side to me.

So all the protesting Palestinians - among them people who have braved Israeli fire in response to their non-violent actions - are just a media invention?

Considering that the media only covers the Palestinian side, yes. There is quite a bit of spin doctoring with the issue. In fact, Honest Reporting gave the a 2004 dishonest reporting award to media spinsters attempting to demonize the fence by getting Palestinians to pose to fabricate photos:

Honest Reporting - Dishonest Reporting Award, 2004 (http://www.honestreporting.com/a/dishonest.asp?p=2)

The fact is, anti-fence and anti-Israeli propaganda in the media has already been thoroughly exposed.

So you're telling me that if there was a referendum in the West Bank today, the Palestinians would vote in favor of the Wall?

Most Israelis probably wouldn't vote for it. However, this is a non sequitur. The fact is, Palestinian groups helped to plan and design the fence in its current state, yet Israel is the only one that receives the blame. People don't want to hold Palestine accountable in any sense, due to the extreme anti-Israeli bias. This is why Palestinian supporters of the fence are totally unheard of (because they are ignored, not because they don't exist), and Israelis are made out as if they wall want a huge cement wall, which isn't the case.

The BBC, hardly a decent source for news in the middle east.
Why? Because they're not rabidly pro-Israel?

Im sure its been said before, but I'll throw in my two cents. The problem isnt that its a wall, although that is a problem for me because of the mental war the Israelis are engaging in. The problem for most people is because it is clearly an illegal land grab. Theres no other way to put it. So if they want a wall, build it inside Israel, if not, dont build the damn thing. This just continues the Isrealis long list of illegal activities.

Deep rooted hatred of Christians, Fass? Why is that? Bit off topic, but what the hell, eh? You seem to get away with it.

Don't flatter your little religion. They're all silly to me.

No, because they're rabidly anti-Israeli, and for a supposed impartial news organisation, I would've thought any bias would be a big no-no. Unfortunatly not, with the BBC. Israel, is fair game, but for the sake of their reporters they won't report fairly on Palestine.

Lol, I'm not flattering anything. Just asking a question.

Some people just don't stop.

Saying things like the wall "brings apartheid" is not anti-semetic, it is ignorant and uninformed labelling. Saying things like "Israel must be wiped off the map" is not anti-semetic, it is simply hatred against a nation. Saying somethings like "All Jews must be wiped off the map" IS anti-semetic. The keyword to find out if something is anti-semetic is the word JEW, because Israel is only 75% Jewish.

Israel, by definition, is "The Jewish State." When you attack Israel by saying that it should be wiped off the map, for example, that is an attack against Jews. What you have to keep in mind is that it isn't a fully secular political entity, it is a thorougly Jewish entity. It is akin to saying "We should burn every Talmud set." You wouldn't be attacking Jews directly, but you would be attacking something Jewish. Its also important to note that even Arabs, like the President of Egypt, note that the President of Iran's sentiments are anti-Semitic. Only the far right extremists believe otherwise on that issue.

The occupied territories were part of the Islamic Caliphate, a soverign nation which they felt part of, 500 years ago. This beats Israels claims of being a soverign state 2000 years ago. The occupied territories were occupied by the Ottoman Empire 500 years ago, then the British mandate seized administrative control of that area, where they divided the Islamic caliphate into about 20 different countries, so in reality Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt etc are all one nation, so if you say "The land was meant to be Jordans" it does not matter, the point is that it is Arabic. The occupied territories have been a soverign state, its just that they have been under occupation for sometime, and they did not forget. However we must also look to the fact that under the Ottomans and the British, there wasn't an active occupation, Palestinians still felt that they were living in their own country, so, while legally it was not theirs, the social aura stated that it was, and it was not until Israel came that was shattered.

An Islamic Caliphate 500 years ago beats the fact that Israel was a soverign state 2000 years ago? How do you come to that conclusion? If anything, Israel has historical precedent (as recognized in the San Remo Resolution).

But I should stop here, since you say "it doesn't matter" in respect to international law. Ironic, because when people like yourself think they can distort and twist intnl law, then it suddenly matters again! Its the anti-Israeli double-standard I talked about in the opening post.

And since you think they're all one nation, perhaps you should be calling for all of the states to restore the Islamic Caliphate and renounce their borders. You're just that extreme, I guess.

Also, find the logic to say that Palestinians SUPPORT the wall? Why would they support the wall?

Familiarize yourself with the Israeli Supreme Court decision in 2005 regarding the wall. It was the plan of Palestine, not the plan of Israel. Explain Palestinian support for the plan during the court session and get back to me.

Im sure its been said before, but I'll throw in my two cents. The problem isnt that its a wall, although that is a problem for me because of the mental war the Israelis are engaging in. The problem for most people is because it is clearly an illegal land grab. Theres no other way to put it. So if they want a wall, build it inside Israel, if not, dont build the damn thing. This just continues the Isrealis long list of illegal activities.

I think its been covered quite clearly why it is legal. Calling it "illegal" "apartheid" etc. are sensationalist terms used in the media and by protestors, but in fact it doesn't violate any law on the books. I've yet to see a solid argument for why its illegal on this thread so far.

It should also be noted that the ICJ never even insinuated that taking the land was illegal, but that the problem was that it could possibly harm the quality of human life. The question a humanitarian one, not a "land grab" one.

Why? Because they're not rabidly pro-Israel?

The BBC comes under fire almost monthly in Honest Reporting and has consistently won one type of dishonest reporting award or another, mostly regarding anti-Israeli propaganda, consistently for the last five years.

Organizations like the BBC and Reuters have also stated that they refuse to use the term "terrorist" due to sympathy for the very same groups.

That's not what he said. He said "privileged people," by which he means corporate power, the rich elite, as he has always.

Read what he has to say about US democracy. Nothing about Jews, but plenty of references to privileged sectors.

We're not talking about what he has to say about US democracy. We're talking about the fact that he said Jews control 98% of things and want total control. And yes, when he said "priviledged people" he was referring to Jews, because Jews were the only subject in his commentary and he explictly referred to Jews as "priveledged people" before he used the term along later. This is a logical syllogism, and the syllogism dictates that he was logically referring to Jews by usage of the term.

Attemping to interpret the phrase as referring to some other entity, which was not specificed at all, falls outside the rules of logic.

Sure, I can show you that and much more. The San Remo Resolution was the first act of international law supporting Israel. It states, "The High Countracting Parties agree that Syria and Mesopotamia shall, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22, Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations), be provisionaly recognized as independent States." The San Remo Resolution provides for only these two geographical locations (Syria, and if you look at a map of the Palestinian Mandate (http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~samuel/pic7.jpg), this was to refer to everything west of the Jordan, it would come to be called "Palestine", and Mesopotamia, which would come to be known as Transjordan) to be two states. There was no plan for a third state, and as the San Remo Resolution only provides for a third state, later attempts to divide "Palestine" into a third state would be in violation of international law.

That last part does not follow from the first part, because there was no prohibition on further division.

Now, it was with the Churchill White Paper, which was Henry McMahon's promise to King Hussein on behalf of the British govt, that the borders were offically split between the two as the map above depicts. Hussein was to get all of Transjordan (later to be known as Jordan), and Palestine in its entirety, from the west of the Jordan river, was to be established as the San Remo Resolution states, a "national home for the Jewish people." The Churchill White Paper states, "The whole of Palestine west of the Jordan was thus excluded from Sr. Henry McMahon's pledge."

To Hussein. Which still does not mean that the Jews were guaranteed the entirety of Palestine.

The Palestinian Mandate itself came next, which outlines the fact that all of Palestine (see the map above of the Palestine/Transjordan dichotomy) was to be a Jewish homeland. It of course repeats Ran Remo, stating that the British govt (in charge of the Mandate), "is in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a natiional home for the Jewish people" "recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine" (this one is important, because a third state violates it) "the mandatory shall be responible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign power" "English, Arabic, and Hebrew shall be the official languages of Palestine" etc. It continues, but in summary, Palestine was to be a single Jewish state from the west of the Jordan that had equal rights for Jews and Arabs. There was never any talk of a third Palestinian state until UN Resolution 181.

None of the quotes you mention guarantee the Jews all the territory in the Mandate, merely a "national home" there. Nor would any such thing have been proposed until the Holocaust, because there simply were not enough Jews to have both a Jewish state and equal rights for Arabs and Jews.

So legally, they shouldn't get anything now, but Israel is being nice by letting them have something they aren't legally entitled to.

Nothing to do with being nice. Long decades of Palestinian struggle have born fruit, and perhaps more importantly, there is increasing worry about the "demographic problem."

There is no such thing as the Palestinian government. There is a semi-autonomous controlling body, the PA. But yes, some Palestinians helped plan it, and most popular demonstratins against the fence are from the Israeli side, not the Palestinian side.

Which likely has something to do with the way Israel responds to said demonstrations.

Oh right, ignore the fact that the Palestinians who took it to the Israeli Supreme Court said that the new route was acceptable. It sounds like justification from the Palestinian side to me.

As far as the specific issues brought to the Supreme Court were concerned, perhaps.

Considering that the media only covers the Palestinian side, yes.

The idea that the US media is pro-Palestinian is laughable.

There is quite a bit of spin doctoring with the issue. In fact, Honest Reporting gave the a 2004 dishonest reporting award to media spinsters attempting to demonize the fence by getting Palestinians to pose to fabricate photos:

Honest Reporting - Dishonest Reporting Award, 2004 (http://www.honestreporting.com/a/dishonest.asp?p=2)

Anecdotal evidence.

Most Israelis probably wouldn't vote for it.

Nonsense. Polls have repeatedly shown Israeli majority support for the wall. All the major political parties support it, too.

However, this is a non sequitur. The fact is, Palestinian groups helped to plan and design the fence in its current state, yet Israel is the only one that receives the blame.

Because Israel built it, Israel proposed it, and the Palestinian groups merely moderated its route. Why in the world would Palestinians support the Wall?

Just out of curiousity, how do you explain the fact that Israel is the only nation in the world not allowed a seat on the Secuirty Council, even though this violates the UN Charter? Because Israel is the only one, isn't this a bias against Israel by the very definition of the word?
I actually wasn't aware of this, so I haven't thought about it like that.

However, even if it is an unfortunate situation (which seems to be somewhat rectified according to wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_European_and_Others_Group) - it seems that Israel now is eligible to run for the security council, as long as they're granted temporary membership in the Western European and Others Group), it didn't really violate the UN charter, did it?

We're not talking about what he has to say about US democracy. We're talking about the fact that he said Jews control 98% of things and want total control. And yes, when he said "priviledged people" he was referring to Jews, because Jews were the only subject in his commentary and he explictly referred to Jews as "priveledged people" before he used the term along later.

He did not say "those privileged people," nor did he say "the Jews," which would make more sense if his meaning was the one you attribute to him. Instead, he referred to "privileged people" - which is exactly the sort of phrasing he uses regularly in regard to the rich elite.

As I asked before, have you read Chomsky? Beyond excerpts from biased sources?

The BBC comes under fire almost monthly in Honest Reporting and has consistently won one type of dishonest reporting award or another, mostly regarding anti-Israeli propaganda, consistently for the last five years.

Organizations like the BBC and Reuters have also stated that they refuse to use the term "terrorist" due to sympathy for the very same groups.
Honest reporting have a clear agenda.
And is suicide bomber not descriptive enough? They also don't call them freedom fighters or anything of the sort.

That last bit does not follow from the first bit, because there was no prohibition on further division.

There actually was a prohibition on further divison. The British government recognized this, and that is why the British rejected Resolution 181 which proposed a further split, because it violated international law and the Palestinian Mandate.

I'm pretty sure I cited where it is covered in the Churchill White Paper that Palestine was to be from the west of Jordan over, and that the law calls for only two states. In addition to where the Palestinian Mandate says it can come under no other form of government.

Although, the fact that the British rejected 181 due to its violation says it all.

To Hussein. Which still does not mean that the Jews were guaranteed the entirety of Palestine.

I'm really starting to think you ignored what I wrote. The Churchill White Paper explictly lists the territory given to Hussein, and the territory left for Palestine. I cited that, quite clearly. And once again, the British realized that, and that is why they rejected Resolution 181 as illegal and in contradiction to their mandate.

None of the quotes you mention guarantee the Jews all the territory in the Mandate, merely a "national home" there. Nor would any such thing have been proposed until the Holocaust, because there simply were not enough Jews to have both a Jewish state and equal rights for Arabs and Jews.

I never said they were guaranteed the entire Mandate. The Mandate states that Palestine IS the Jewish homeland, not that the Jewish homeland would be carved out of Palestine. I cited that. It also states that West of the Jordan is excluded for Palestine.

Nothing to do with being nice. Long decades of Palestinian struggle have born fruit, and perhaps more importantly, there is increasing worry about the "demographic problem."

Right, explain it away as anything other than benevolence. Israel has no legal duty to give them a state, but is doing it anyway. Oh no, but it cant be something benevolent, because its Israel, right?

Which likely has something to do with the way Israel responds to said demonstrations.

Another assumption to try and excuse the facts.

Nonsense. Polls have repeatedly shown Israeli majority support for the wall. All the major political parties support it, too.

Show me a poll that demonstrates majority Israeli support.

Because Israel built it, Israel proposed it, and the Palestinian groups merely moderated its route. Why in the world would Palestinians support the Wall?

Maybe you can tell me what was resolved in the 2005 Surpreme Court decision?

Honest reporting have a clear agenda.
And is suicide bomber not descriptive enough? They also don't call them freedom fighters or anything of the sort.

Are you able to refute anything put out by Honest Reporting? If not, you're attacking the source, which is a logical fallacy called poisoning the well.

The anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli crowd does this a lot. "Oh no, there is an agenda, so-and-so is a Jew! OMG! JEWZZ!" Thats exactly what you're doing here.

He did not say "those privileged people," nor did he say "the Jews," which would make more sense if his meaning was the one you attribute to him. Instead, he referred to "privileged people" - which is exactly the sort of phrasing he uses regularly in regard to the rich elite.

He doesn't have to. Its a logical syllogism, and syllogisms are logical laws. Unless you can demonstrate why the syllogism isn't valid, and you can't (because its a logical law), then I'm not sure you have much to go on. Its a logical fact he referred to Jews having 98% of the control.

As I asked before, have you read Chomsky? Beyond excerpts from biased sources?

I've seen and watched Chomsky speak. I've seen him used biased and anti-Semitic terms before my own eyes, comparing Israel to Nazis, the wall to apartheid, and calling Israeli infrastructure by the purjorative "Jewish <whatever>"

And saying "biased sources" is poisoning the well. You havn't demonstrated anything from my sources to be invalid. In fact, the only thing I actually quoted was Chomsky's own words himself. I can't say I'm surprised you commit this fallacy though, since you don't recognize the syllogism.

I actually wasn't aware of this, so I haven't thought about it like that.

However, even if it is an unfortunate situation (which seems to be somewhat rectified according to wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_European_and_Others_Group) - it seems that Israel now is eligible to run for the security council, as long as they're granted temporary membership in the Western European and Others Group), it didn't really violate the UN charter, did it?

Well, I think it did violate their charter.

A more clear violation of the UN Charter was Resolution 3379, which stated that Zionism was racism. In fact, the UN had to recant on this charter about 16 years later at the call that it was a sin against the Jewish people and invalidated the memory of the Holocaust.

I could go on and on about the UN, with just a peek inside its easy to see how much it has discriminated against Israel, and the double-standards it has held Israel to.

There actually was a prohibition on further divison. The British government recognized this, and that is why the British rejected Resolution 181 which proposed a further split, because it violated international law and the Palestinian Mandate.

Imperialists and their actions have little credibility in my mind.

I'm pretty sure I cited where it is covered in the Churchill White Paper that Palestine was to be from the west of Jordan over, and that the law calls for only two states.

Marking the territory of Palestine, yes. Not the territory the Jews should have under their control.

In addition to where the Palestinian Mandate says it can come under no other form of government.

Foreign government.

I'm really starting to think you ignored what I wrote. The Churchill White Paper explictly lists the territory given to Hussein, and the territory left for Palestine. I cited that, quite clearly.

Right.

And once again, the British realized that, and that is why they rejected Resolution 181 as illegal and in contradiction to their mandate.

That's the third time you've said that in this post. Are you just attributing made-up motives to the British, or do you have proof that that was their actual motive?

I never said they were guaranteed the entire Mandate. The Mandate states that Palestine IS the Jewish homeland, not that the Jewish homeland would be carved out of Palestine. I cited that.

You cited its recognition of the Jewish relationship to Palestine, not any guarantee that the Jews should get the whole thing.

It also states that West of the Jordan is excluded for Palestine.

As opposed to for Hussein and Transjordan.

Right, explain it away as anything other than benevolence. Israel has no legal duty to give them a state, but is doing it anyway. Oh no, but it cant be something benevolent, because its Israel, right?

States - all of them - tend not to behave in a benevolent fashion, especially not towards populations that are not citizens.

Another assumption to try and excuse the facts.

One would think that firing on demonstrators would have an effect.

Show me a poll that demonstrates majority Israeli support.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=402996&contrassID=1

Maybe you can tell me what was resolved in the 2005 Surpreme Court decision?

There was a controversy over the planned route of the barrier, and the Israeli Supreme Court decided that certain aspects of the route of the barrier unnecessarily impacted Palestinian life and should be changed.

The BBC, hardly a decent source for news in the middle east.

The BBC, hardly a decent source of news. period.

The BBC, hardly a decent source of news. period.

Lol, agreed.

He doesn't have to. Its a logical syllogism, and syllogisms are logical laws. Unless you can demonstrate why the syllogism isn't valid, and you can't (because its a logical law), then I'm not sure you have much to go on. Its a logical fact he referred to Jews having 98% of the control.

Your conception of logic is strange. Care to point to this syllogism?

I've seen and watched Chomsky speak. I've seen him used biased and anti-Semitic terms before my own eyes, comparing Israel to Nazis, the wall to apartheid, and calling Israeli infrastructure by the purjorative "Jewish <whatever>"

Comparing Israel to Nazis and the Wall to apartheid is not anti-Semitic. The terms he uses regarding infrastructure in the West Bank intended for the Jewish settlers and not for the Palestinian inhabitants are perfectly justified.

And saying "biased sources" is poisoning the well. You havn't demonstrated anything from my sources to be invalid. In fact, the only thing I actually quoted was Chomsky's own words himself.

By "excerpts" I meant excerpts of Chomsky's speeches and writings quoted by biased sources (like the blog you linked to), not excerpts directly from biased sources.

Imperialists and their actions have little credibility in my mind.

This is the perfect

Marking the territory of Palestine, yes. Not the territory the Jews should have under their control.

The Palestinian Mandate, as I cited, distinctly states that Palestine was to be the Jewish homeland. The problem is that people often see an Israel/Palestine dichotomy today, but under the Mandate, there was only a Palestine/Jordan dichotomy, with the former clearly stated as being the Jewish state. Again, this is why the British rejected Resolution 181, because it divided the area that they promised in their mandate to a Jewish homeland and as a single state.

Foreign government.

Again, the British government rejected a third state in the Partition Plan based on these clauses. Creating a third state to hand a part of land to is, by definition, a foreign government. The Churchill White Paper states that government of Palestine is to be by "the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization" and that Palestine must be "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, together with them to make the common home into a flourish community." The clauses of "unity" and a "common home" flatly exclude the idea of a two state solution, in addition to the fact that it states Palestine is to be ruled by a Zionist governning body.

That's the third time you've said that in this post. Are you just attributing made-up motives to the British, or do you have proof that that was their actual motive?

Motives can't be proven in that sense, but we know Britian voted against 181 and rejected it was their legal right being in control of the mandate. I've never heard that there was any other motive than 181 violating the mandate, and there is no real reason to believe otherwise. Its what falls under 'common knowledge' in this area.

You cited its recognition of the Jewish relationship to Palestine, not any guarantee that the Jews should get the whole thing.

All it ever talks about is Palestine being a Jewish homeland. It never mentions anything except "the whole thing." Palestine was to be under a Zionist governing body, as the White Paper states above. The Mandate also states this:

"An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognized as a public bodfy for the purpose of advising and cooperating with the administration of Palestine."

"The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognized as such agency."

But how much more clear can the statement, "The establishment of Palestine as a home for the Jewish people" be? Do you think this refers to anything other than Palestine? Does it say "a part of Palestine" or "some of Palestine?" It uses a universal statement, Palestine, and there is no logical way to deduce that it refers to anything other than Palestine.

As opposed to for Hussein and Transjordan.

Yes, the White Paper calls for a Zionist government west of the Jordan (as cited abovev) and Hussein's territory.

I think its been covered quite clearly why it is legal. Calling it "illegal" "apartheid" etc. are sensationalist terms used in the media and by protestors, but in fact it doesn't violate any law on the books. I've yet to see a solid argument for why its illegal on this thread so far.

It should also be noted that the ICJ never even insinuated that taking the land was illegal, but that the problem was that it could possibly harm the quality of human life. The question a humanitarian one, not a "land grab" one.
What!? Are you serious? Even the friggin Israeli serpreme court said it was illegal. The UN said it was illegal and it has been critized(sp?) by nearly everyone except the US.

Your conception of logic is strange. Care to point to this syllogism?

Logic is a science, it isn't a subjective thing based on conception. Syllogisms are rules and principles of logic. I'm starting to think you're not very familiar with all of this. And I did point to the syllogism, the fact that the term was a direct modifier of "Jews", then being used later, would dictate that it refers to to the same group.

Comparing Israel to Nazis and the Wall to apartheid is not anti-Semitic. The terms he uses regarding infrastructure in the West Bank intended for the Jewish settlers and not for the Palestinian inhabitants are perfectly justified.

US State Dept disagrees. The EUMC disagrees. The Israeli governemnt disagrees. The ADL disagrees. According to all of these groups, it is anti-Semitic. And the fact is, comparing Israel to Nazis or Apartheid is a fallacious analogy, because the former is not similiar enough to the latter to deduce anything valid. It violates the fallacy of questionabe analogy.

By "excerpts" I meant excerpts of Chomsky's speeches and writings quoted by biased sources (like the blog you linked to), not excerpts directly from biased sources.

Yes, you're still poisoning the well. The fact is, you've really been unable to defend against it (except by being illogical, violating a syllogism) without this. Excerpts in context are what are called pimary sources, regardless of where they come from. Chomsky stated it, and there is no way around the fact that he made an address to a Palestinian support group where he said Jews had 98% of the control and wanted total control, in addition to being the most privledged of people.

Organizations like the BBC and Reuters have also stated that they refuse to use the term "terrorist" due to sympathy for the very same groups.
They arent terrorists, so why would they be called that?

What!? Are you serious? Even the friggin Israeli serpreme court said it was illegal. The UN said it was illegal and it has been critized(sp?) by nearly everyone except the US.

The Israeli supreme court didn't say it was illegal, the Israeli supreme court in 2004 and 2005 stated that it was necessary to follow a route other than the original plan as to make it legal, so it wouldn't harm Palestinian qualities of life.

Every section of the fence is pre-approved by the Israeli court to make sure it is legal, in fact. The govt. consistently has to refer back to the court for each new section it builds to check on this.

They arent terrorists, so why would they be called that?

According to all common definitions, they are. Even the Palestinian Authority states that the groups who do attacks on Israel are criminal and terrorist.

Yet, you support these attacks, even when the Palestinian Authority doesn't. Another case of trying to be "more Palestinian than the Palestinians."

All it ever talks about is Palestine being a Jewish homeland. It never mentions anything except "the whole thing." Palestine was to be under a Zionist governing body, as the White Paper states above. The Mandate also states this:

"An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognized as a public bodfy for the purpose of advising and cooperating with the administration of Palestine."

"The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognized as such agency."

But how much more clear can the statement, "The establishment of Palestine as a home for the Jewish people" be? Do you think this refers to anything other than Palestine? Does it say "a part of Palestine" or "some of Palestine?" It uses a universal statement, Palestine, and there is no logical way to deduce that it refers to anything other than Palestine.

Does it say "Jewish state"?

Logic is a science, it isn't a subjective thing based on conception. Syllogisms are rules and principles of logic. I'm starting to think you're not very familiar with all of this. And I did point to the syllogism, the fact that the term was a direct modifier of "Jews", then being used later, would dictate that it refers to to the same group.

Similarly, one could argue:

The sky is blue.
I have blue things in my house.
Therefore, I have the sky in my house.

As I said, a strange conception of logic. One might almost call it "illogical."

US State Dept disagrees. The EUMC disagrees. The Israeli governemnt disagrees. The ADL disagrees.

Anti-Semitism has to involve hostility towards (or a view of inferiority towards) Jews. Hostility towards Israel, unless that hostility is due to its status as a Jewish state, is never anti-Semitic.

According to all of these groups, it is anti-Semitic. And the fact is, comparing Israel to Nazis or Apartheid is a fallacious analogy, because the former is not similiar enough to the latter to deduce anything valid. It violates the fallacy of questionabe analogy.

The Apartheid analogy is valid as far as the treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank goes, and also in regard to certain circumstances of the Arab population in Israel, in regard, for instance, to land use and education.

Does it say "Jewish state"?

It says a Zionist body will govern Palestine and that autonomy will be promoted. You do know what Zionism is, right? It doesn't have to say "Jewish state." You keep throwing out non sequiturs, but there was legal concensus on what it meant, so much so that the controlling group of the mandate rejected Resolution 181.

And it states "Jewish national home" which is synonymous with "Jewish state." You can whip out a thesaurus and compare 'nation' with 'state' if you don't believe me.

According to all common definitions, they are. Even the Palestinian Authority states that the groups who do attacks on Israel are criminal and terrorist.

Yet, you support these attacks, even when the Palestinian Authority doesn't. Another case of trying to be "more Palestinian than the Palestinians."
The PA is little more than a puppet of Israel and the west. Isnt funny that when a full fledged army kills civilians with tanks and airstrikes its called "force". But when someone uses a little homemade bomb to kill civilians, its called "terrorism" I just thought Id bring up that little double standard, it is in the title of the post after all.

It says a Zionist body will govern Palestine and that autonomy will be promoted.

It didn't say govern, either. It said "advise" and "cooperate" with the authorities.

You do know what Zionism is, right?

Yes, I do.

It doesn't have to say "Jewish state."

No, it just has to say something that affirms the right of a Jewish state to all of Palestine, which it doesn't. Calling for a "Jewish national home" in Palestine is not the same as granting the right of a Jewish state over all of Palestine.

You keep throwing out non sequiturs, but there was legal concensus on what it meant, so much so that the controlling group of the mandate rejected Resolution 181.

Which you admitted yourself you could not prove.

And it states "Jewish national home" which is synonymous with "Jewish state." You can whip out a thesaurus and compare 'nation' with 'state' if you don't believe me.

"Jewish national home" means "the home of the Jewish nation," with "nation," obviously, meaning "people" and not referring to a political entity.

Similarly, one could argue:

The sky is blue.
I have blue things in my house.
Therefore, I have the sky in my house.

As I said, a strange conception of logic. One might almost call it "illogical."

Thats not similiar, thats a formal fallacy called the existential fallacy. Please don't make me explain logic to you anymore, you're just digging yourself into a hole.

Anti-Semitism has to involve hostility towards (or a view of inferiority towards) Jews. Hostility towards Israel, unless that hostility is due to its status as a Jewish state, is never anti-Semitic.

According to who, your own personal definition? Not any of the groups I mentioned. But alas, this is a case of rejecting world concensus in leiu of a definition that fits yoru agenda. Much like you reject international law when it doesnt fit your anti-Israeli agenda.

The Apartheid analogy is valid as far as the treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank goes, and also in regard to certain circumstances of the Arab population in Israel, in regard, for instance, to land use and education.

We're getting back into logic here, so I don't want to confuse you too much. Apartheid was state-sponsored racial discrimination. Israel does not have a single racial law on its books. Thus, you're comparing something non-racial with something racial, making you commit the fallacy of questionable analogy.

I get the impression that you think logic is something that has to do with your own ideas of what sounds like a good analogy, or what comparisons don't make sense, but its a formal structure with rules. You should familiarize yourself with it.

Lol, agreed.

Recently there was a terror attack by three terrorists on a right wing hindu organization. But that is not the impression you will get when you read this reporting by BBC. Note the quotes around the word militant. It would seem that the BBC is more concerned to criticize the RSS than the attackers. The article says that they are "militaristic" and "intolerant towards religious minorities" and that the man who killed Gandhi had once been a member of their organization etc.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5035840.stm

*snip*

I'll just cut this out, since you're engaging in what is called historical revisionism. It is a recognized fact that the San Remo Resolution, the Churchill White Paper, and the Palestinian Mandate originally called for the entire area of Palestine to be a Jewish State, moderated by a Jewish government. There is not a single source of worth that disputes this, and the British government rejected proposals to the contrary (Resolution 181) because they violated previous international law.

As much as you would like to twist the documents, which you obviously havn't read, there is no getting around the fact that you're engaging in historical revisionism.

"Jewish national home" means "the home of the Jewish nation," with "nation," obviously, meaning "people" and not referring to a political entity.

It should also be pointed out that "nation" in the sense of a "people" is an anthropological term was not used until Franz Boas, and this postdates the usage of the term in this political document. This is the core of your revisionism, it would seem, taking modern interpretations and usage and applying them to past events, rather than keeping things within their historical contexts.

I wonder if Soheran realizes that Chomsky, until very recently, supported a one state solution in Israel based on the international law that I've cited regarding San Remo, the Chruchill White Paper, the Mandate, and the rejection of Resolution 181? Oh, that forked tongue. :rolleyes:

Thats not similiar, thats a formal fallacy called the existential fallacy. Please don't make me explain logic to you anymore, you're just digging yourself into a hole.

You are arguing that Chomsky meant what you say he meant according to exactly that sort of argument:

The Jews are a privileged portion of the population.
Privileged people have 98% control.
The Jews have 98% control.

Because "privileged people" is not specific, and is not necessarily referring to Jews, your argument is flawed.

According to who, your own personal definition? Not any of the groups I mentioned. But alas, this is a case of rejecting world concensus in leiu of a definition that fits yoru agenda. Much like you reject international law when it doesnt fit your anti-Israeli agenda.

Anti-statist. State repression anywhere - Chechnya, Tibet, Iraq, etc. - arouses my ire.

The plain meaning of anti-Semitism is "hostility towards Jews," not "hostility towards Israel."

We're getting back into logic here, so I don't want to confuse you too much. Apartheid was state-sponsored racial discrimination. Israel does not have a single racial law on its books.

The Law of Return. But that is not the point, racism does not have to be explicit for it to be institutionalized.

I wonder if Soheran realizes that Chomsky, until very recently, supported a one state solution in Israel based on the international law that I've cited regarding San Remo, the Chruchill White Paper, the Mandate, and the rejection of Resolution 181? Oh, that forked tongue. :rolleyes:

Chomsky is an anarchist, he opposes all states. He did support a binational solution for a long time, as preferable to the other alternatives on the table, but certainly not one dominated by Israel, as you are arguing said international law implies.

Chomsky is an anarchist, he opposes all states. He did support a binational solution for a long time, as preferable to the other alternatives on the table, but certainly not one dominated by Israel, as you are arguing said international law implies.

No, Chomsky describes himself as a "techno-anarchist." He doesn't believe that states should be abolished. It seems like you've slipped into the shallow misunderstanding of Chomsky. In fact, its such common knowledge that Chomsky also describes himself as a Zionist and supported a one-state solution, it occurs on Wikipedia (Chomsky) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky):

He considers himself a Zionist in the traditional sense, previously supported a one-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict but now supports a two state solution.

EDIT: techno-anarchist is the wrong term, its is syndo-anarchist. Which isn't a true form of anarchy that rejects statism, but a form of socalism that rejects corporate domination.

The human ingenuity far surpasses any obstacles. Even the Great Wall of China was no match for Genghis Khan. :D

You are arguing that Chomsky meant what you say he meant according to exactly that sort of argument:

The Jews are a privileged portion of the population.
Privileged people have 98% control.
The Jews have 98% control.

That wasn't my argument, and that isnt how syllogisms work. You keep digging yourself further and further in.

Because "privileged people" is not specific, and is not necessarily referring to Jews, your argument is flawed.

Lets look at what he said again, maybe I wasn't clear:

By now Jews in the US are the most privileged and influential part of the population. You find occasional instances of anti-Semitism but they are marginal. There’s plenty of racism, but it’s directed against Blacks, Latinos, Arabs are targets of enormous racism, and those problems are real. Anti-Semitism is no longer a problem, fortunately. It’s raised, but it’s raised because privileged people want to make sure they have total control, not just 98% control. That’s why anti-Semitism is becoming an issue. Not because of the threat of anti-Semitism; they want to make sure there’s no critical look at the policies the US (and they themselves) support in the Middle East.

1. The first assertion states that Jews are the most priviledged and influental part of the population in the US. Do you believe this is true?

2. He claimed that anti-Semitism in the US is marginal. Do you believe this is true? (Keep in mind, the largest hate groups in the US have Jews as their #1 enemies, such as the anti-Semitic Church of Jesus Christ Christian and the KKK)

3. He stated that anti-Semitism is no longer a problem. Do you believe this too?

4. Now, pay close attention to what he wrote, I'll quote it again: "It’s raised, but it’s raised because privileged people want to make sure they have total control, not just 98% control." When he says "it's raised" he refers to anti-Semitism being raised, as "it" is the subject in this sentence and is an impersonal pronoun that refers to the subject of the previous sentence, anti-Semitism. So, since you want to squirm and deny that he is talking about Jews being the priviledged people that raise it, who is Chomsky claiming that is raising these false fears of anti-Semitism?

5. He claims one group has 98% control. Which group is this? Keep in mind, he said "group." Don't give me some nonsense about some body of groups, as this is singular.

6. So, he wrote that anti-Semitism is becoming an issue because this group with 98% control keeps raising it. If he isn't referring to Jews as this group with 98% control, who is he talking about, and what do they have to gain by raising fears of anti-Semitism?

7. He draws a dichotomy between policies in the US and "they themselves [in the middle east]" - who are "they themselves?" And don't tell me policy makers in the US, because he drew a clear dichotomy between the two.

I'll just cut this out, since you're engaging in what is called historical revisionism. It is a recognized fact that the San Remo Resolution, the Churchill White Paper, and the Palestinian Mandate originally called for the entire area of Palestine to be a Jewish State, moderated by a Jewish government. There is not a single source of worth that disputes this, and the British government rejected proposals to the contrary (Resolution 181) because they violated previous international law.

As much as you would like to twist the documents, which you obviously havn't read, there is no getting around the fact that you're engaging in historical revisionism.

Actually, I really don't care, which is why I have never paid much attention to that aspect of the conflict. The British, as I pointed out in one of my earlier replies, had no right to give any of the land to anyone. Your claims were interesting enough to merit rebuttals, but even if you were right you would not change my position, for that reason.

It should also be pointed out that "nation" in the sense of a "people" is an anthropological term was not used until Franz Boas, and this postdates the usage of the term in this political document. This is the core of your revisionism, it would seem, taking modern interpretations and usage and applying them to past events, rather than keeping things within their historical contexts.

Have you ever heard of "nationalism"?

Actually, I really don't care, which is why I have never paid much attention to that aspect of the conflict. The British, as I pointed out in one of my earlier replies, had no right to give any of the land to anyone. Your claims were interesting enough to merit rebuttals, but even if you were right you would not change my position, for that reason.

Right, this is you with the double-standard. When international law is against Israel, you suddenly do care, and it matters. Yet when international law gives the British the mandate, it becomes that they "had no right to give any fo the land to anyone."

Have you ever heard of "nationalism"?

Nationalism, pre-boaz, has always been used to refer to the actual, political nation. As I wrote, the way you used the term "nation" didn't exist during the time you tried to apply it, and as thus you were reading outside of the historical context.

No, Chomsky describes himself as a "techno-anarchist." He doesn't believe that states should be abolished.

Wrong. Read Chomsky on Anarchism. He identifies with the anarcho-communist and anarcho-syndicalist portions of anarchism, which includes such people as Mikhail Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin - adamantly opposed to states.

My own judgment, since childhood and still today, is that among these alternatives, the no-state solution is by far the best (not just in this region), a binational state second, and a two-state solution worst.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=22&ItemID=6110

It seems like you've slipped into the shallow misunderstanding of Chomsky.

Nonsense.

In fact, its such common knowledge that Chomsky also describes himself as a Zionist and supported a one-state solution, it occurs on Wikipedia (Chomsky) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky)

I'm well aware that Chomsky advocated a binational solution, and I'm also aware that he identified with the radical anarchist left conception of a Jewish homeland back in the pre-state days, a conception he considers Zionist.

EDIT: techno-anarchist is the wrong term, its is syndo-anarchist. Which isn't a true form of anarchy that rejects statism, but a form of socalism that rejects corporate domination.

No, it's anarcho-syndicalist, actually. Which does, in fact, reject statism as well as corporate domination, like innumerable other varieties of left-anarchism.

Right, this is you with the double-standard. When international law is against Israel, you suddenly do care, and it matters. Yet when international law gives the British the mandate, it becomes that they "had no right to give any fo the land to anyone."

I rarely reference international law, except when others bring it up. My stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is rooted in my conception of morality.

Nationalism, pre-boaz, has always been used to refer to the actual, political nation.

A potential one, perhaps, but not necessarily one already existing. Zionism, for instance, which is essentially Jewish nationalism, conceived of the Jews as a nation before there was an explicit Jewish state; in fact this conception was the route of the claim that the Jews deserved a state in the first place.

I rarely reference international law, except when others bring it up. My stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is rooted in my conception of morality.


A potential one, perhaps, but not necessarily one already existing. Zionism, for instance, which is essentially Jewish nationalism, conceived of the Jews as a nation before there was an explicit Jewish state; in fact this conception was the route of the claim that the Jews deserved a state in the first place.

Here is the thing, the term "nation" was't applied as such pre-Boaz, it didn't contain the same meaning that it was given due to Boaz' anthropology. Therefore, to go back and read a modern anthropological definition into a word used in a political when that definition didn't exist is outside of the historical context.

We can go back and look at many things and call them 'nationalism', yes, but that doesn't change the fact that the word 'nation' in that sense was not being used with that definition when San Remo, etc. was drafted.

1. The first assertion states that Jews are the most priviledged and influental part of the population in the US. Do you believe this is true?

If you're looking at it per capita and dividing up the country by religion, it is indeed more or less true. It just isn't a very indicative observation, except perhaps in specific relation to the question of the continued relevance of anti-Semitism - which is how Chomsky used it.

2. He claimed that anti-Semitism in the US is marginal. Do you believe this is true? (Keep in mind, the largest hate groups in the US have Jews as their #1 enemies, such as the anti-Semitic Church of Jesus Christ Christian and the KKK)

Compared to homophobia and racism directed at Blacks, Arabs, and Latinos? Yes. There are plenty of incidents, unfortunately, but the sort of institutionalized discrimination those groups face is no longer suffered by Jews.

3. He stated that anti-Semitism is no longer a problem. Do you believe this too?

No.

4. Now, pay close attention to what he wrote, I'll quote it again: "It’s raised, but it’s raised because privileged people want to make sure they have total control, not just 98% control." When he says "it's raised" he refers to anti-Semitism being raised, as "it" is the subject in this sentence and is an impersonal pronoun that refers to the subject of the previous sentence, anti-Semitism.

Yes.

So, since you want to squirm and deny that he is talking about Jews being the priviledged people that raise it, who is Chomsky claiming that is raising these false fears of anti-Semitism?

The people in power, the rich elite, who are trying to dominate the US political debate even more than they already do on the subject of Israel v. Palestine.

5. He claims one group has 98% control. Which group is this? Keep in mind, he said "group." Don't give me some nonsense about some body of groups, as this is singular.

See here (http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20060328.htm) for what he's written on essentially the same issue.

6. So, he wrote that anti-Semitism is becoming an issue because this group with 98% control keeps raising it. If he isn't referring to Jews as this group with 98% control, who is he talking about, and what do they have to gain by raising fears of anti-Semitism?

They gain continued support for US policies in the Middle East, which benefit them.

7. He draws a dichotomy between policies in the US and "they themselves [in the middle east]" - who are "they themselves?" And don't tell me policy makers in the US, because he drew a clear dichotomy between the two.

Not policy-makers, rather those who influence policy - the people in charge of the media, those who run the energy and defense corporations, etc.

A potential one, perhaps, but not necessarily one already existing. Zionism, for instance, which is essentially Jewish nationalism, conceived of the Jews as a nation before there was an explicit Jewish state; in fact this conception was the route of the claim that the Jews deserved a state in the first place.

Nationalism is good and all, but the problem in my opinion and observation starts when a number of people take healthy Zionism and go waaay overboard. Then Zionism becomes Kahanism, with all the problems inherent therein.

Nationalism is good and all, but the problem in my opinion and observation starts when a number of people take healthy Zionism and go waaay overboard. Then Zionism becomes Kahanism, with all the problems inherent therein.

I am opposed to all forms of nationalism, including Zionism. They promote unnecessary and mostly artificial and arbitrary divisions between people, and their exclusivist and chauvinist notions have caused incredible harm throughout history. Furthermore, even when they are successful at removing an oppressor, they often end up with a new domestic ruling class replacing the old foreign one, without much benefit for the general population.

If you're looking at it per capita and dividing up the country by religion, it is indeed more or less true.

For one, it isn't true. "WASPS" make up the vast majority of the wealth. Secondly, Chomsky said nothing about looking at it per capita or dividing the country up by religion. In addition, being a Jew is fully ethnicy, which includes, but is not limited to, religion.

Compared to homophobia and racism directed at Blacks, Arabs, and Latinos? Yes. There are plenty of incidents, unfortunately, but the sort of institutionalized discrimination those groups face is no longer suffered by Jews.

Technically, as the US has no racial laws, institutionalized discrimination no longer exists against any groups. However, the largest racist institutions have Jews as their #1 enemies, being neo-Nazi groups, such as the Church of Jesus Christ Christian. So how do you come to the conclusion that there is more institutionalized discrimination against ethnic groups other than Jews, when the largest racist groups are mostly against Jews?

The people in power, the rich elite, who are trying to dominate the US political debate even more than they already do on the subject of Israel v. Palestine.

Chomsky didn't say anything about a rich elite. The only body of persons mentioned in this is Jews. You're attemping to assert these abstract, unfalsifable (and thus illogical) groups to avoid dealing with the only body of people that is the subject matter at hand.

See here (http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20060328.htm) for what he's written on essentially the same issue.

Read it, and it isn't the same issue. What I cited was Chomsky addressing a Palestinian support group in regards to Jewish oppression of Palestinians.

They gain continued support for US policies in the Middle East, which benefit them.

So, you expect reasonable, educated people to believe that a non-Jewish elite in the USA is attempting to foster fears of anti-Semitism to garner support for US Middle Eastern policy? Can we say conspiracy theory?

Not policy-makers, rather those who influence policy - the people in charge of the media, those who run the energy and defense corporations, etc.

You're dodging. The fact is, Chomsky drew a clear dichotomy between "here" and "there", the latter being Jews in the Middle East.

Here is the difference between your arguments and mine. Your arguments are made by inserting non-existant concepts, things that Chomsky never stated. I formulated a logical syllogism based on the grammatical rules of what he actually said. If you can make an argument without inserting things that he didn't say, or illogical abstract concepts, I'd love to hear it.

I am opposed to all forms of nationalism, including Zionism. They promote unnecessary and mostly artificial and arbitrary divisions between people, and their exclusivist and chauvinist notions have caused incredible harm throughout history. Furthermore, even when they are successful at removing an oppressor, they often end up with a new domestic ruling class replacing the old foreign one, without much benefit for the general population.

Compared to anarchy, which has never worked in a single historical incidence.

Or compared to Chomsky's binational state solutions, which ave resulted in failure, bloodshed, and oppression like Lebanon and Yugoslavia.

I'm sure you'd much rather follow Chomsky's example (as he cited Yugoslavia) and live there, rather than a wicked nationalist state like the US, right?

For one, it isn't true. "WASPS" make up the vast majority of the wealth.

Not per capita, though.

Secondly, Chomsky said nothing about looking at it per capita or dividing the country up by religion.

True, but some sort of division is necessitated by the fact that he is comparing, and his statement would make more sense if he were speaking of power proportionally. Chomsky is not an idiot, it is reasonable to give him the benefit of the doubt here.

In addition, being a Jew is fully ethnicy, which includes, but is not limited to, religion.

True, but Jews overlap into various other ethnicities, too, which is why I said "religion."

Technically, as the US has no racial laws, institutionalized discrimination no longer exists against any groups.

Legal discrimination and institutionalized discrimination are two different things.

However, the largest racist institutions have Jews as their #1 enemies, being neo-Nazi groups, such as the Church of Jesus Christ Christian. So how do you come to the conclusion that there is more institutionalized discrimination against ethnic groups other than Jews, when the largest racist groups are mostly against Jews?

Because none of those groups have much power, while institutions engaging is less explicit racism and discrimination are.

Chomsky didn't say anything about a rich elite. The only body of persons mentioned in this is Jews. You're attemping to assert these abstract, unfalsifable (and thus illogical) groups to avoid dealing with the only body of people that is the subject matter at hand.

He said "privileged people," whose plain meaning is closer to "rich elite" than "Jews."

Read it, and it isn't the same issue.

Yes, it is, except more in regard to influence on US policy than on the media. The conclusions there are easily applicable here.

So, you expect reasonable, educated people to believe that a non-Jewish elite in the USA is attempting to foster fears of anti-Semitism to garner support for US Middle Eastern policy? Can we say conspiracy theory?

It's more complex than that. There are a number of strong, well-funded Jewish organizations in the United States that fight anti-Semitism, and some of them, unfortunately, tend to distort the issue by including supposed demonizations of Israel in their analysis. The typical media dichotomy between the treatment of states the US supports and states the US does not support does the rest.

You're dodging. The fact is, Chomsky drew a clear dichotomy between "here" and "there", the latter being Jews in the Middle East.

I don't think he was referring to Jews in the Middle East at all. Nothing he said indicates that.

*snip*

Alright, I'm tired of talking about Chomsky. The Jewish ADL, I think we all know that this is an anti-Semitism watch group, has issued about five proclimations about Chomsky already. It makes no sense to nitpick over a short address he made to a Palestinian smpathizer group in leiu of this.

Israel, by definition, is "The Jewish State." When you attack Israel by saying that it should be wiped off the map, for example, that is an attack against Jews. What you have to keep in mind is that it isn't a fully secular political entity, it is a thorougly Jewish entity. It is akin to saying "We should burn every Talmud set." You wouldn't be attacking Jews directly, but you would be attacking something Jewish. Its also important to note that even Arabs, like the President of Egypt, note that the President of Iran's sentiments are anti-Semitic. Only the far right extremists believe otherwise on that issue.



An Islamic Caliphate 500 years ago beats the fact that Israel was a soverign state 2000 years ago? How do you come to that conclusion? If anything, Israel has historical precedent (as recognized in the San Remo Resolution).

But I should stop here, since you say "it doesn't matter" in respect to international law. Ironic, because when people like yourself think they can distort and twist intnl law, then it suddenly matters again! Its the anti-Israeli double-standard I talked about in the opening post.

And since you think they're all one nation, perhaps you should be calling for all of the states to restore the Islamic Caliphate and renounce their borders. You're just that extreme, I guess.



Familiarize yourself with the Israeli Supreme Court decision in 2005 regarding the wall. It was the plan of Palestine, not the plan of Israel. Explain Palestinian support for the plan during the court session and get back to me.

I think that Israel being called "The Jewish State" proves the intolerance of Israel. See, if the US called itself "The White State," I wonder what kind of backlash it would recieve. Quite a double standard isn't it? Just like the double standard that Israel, the most militaristic of all nations in the Middle East, is the only one allowed nuclear weapons. I guess you're right when you say that their are double standards for Israel.

Arabs such as Hosni Mubarak (I see you avoided using his name because you didn't know it) said they are anti-semetic for 3 reasons. A: Mubarak is a puppet to the west, so he simply does as the West wants him to do. B: The Arab world was under immense pressure to say that it was anti-semetic. C: Because Egypt has a peace treaty with Israel. Remember that Egypt is not democratic in practice, so his words do not echo the voice of the people.

In regards to the Islamic Caliphate, I was responding to you saying that Palestine was a made up entity (An anti-Arab practice used to illigitamise the Palestinian people,) and I showed you it was, and it was around even more recently than Israel. Also, there is no such thing as land being given to the nations with historical precedence, as you are talking about resurrecting the Roman Empire, which was around the same time as Ancient Israel. By the way, yes I do support uniting all Arab nations, that is not an extreme philosophy (Read: United States of America)

I never said I do not recognise international law, I was simply illustrating that to the Arabs living in Palestine, it was always their home, Jews starting moving there in droves starting in the year 1882, the only connection they have with it is that their ancestor from 2000 years ago lived there. I was showing that the Palestinians have a stronger connection to the land, so do not try to make them illegitamite people with no identity that do not belong to any state, as they do, it was just a state stolen off them.

The Israeli supreme court decision in 2005 was created to DECREASE the effects of the wall on Palestinians, not remove them, or remove the wall from the west bank. God knows what would've happened if they did not appeal to the court.

Idiot's Guide to the Middle Eats Conflict. Although, in the psat, you rejected that because it's written by <gasp> a Jew!
.

I have never rejected a piece of information because of that sources religon/"race". Either show where I have done so, or apologise and withdraw the remark.


If you remember correctly, there was also a wide proclamation that British bodies would be trapped as well. But you convienently left that out. It isn't a pretty fact of war, but it isn't "terrorism" or a "war crime" in any fashion.
.

"trapped as well". What are you blathering about?


Rarely do "Jewish groups" disagree with them. Spurious self-hating Jews tend to do so a lot though, like Noam Chomsky..

O.....self hating Jews. Theres an episode of "Curb your enthusiasm" that features somebody just like you, now that I think of it.

Whats these various groups problem then Dr? Somehow I reckon its not hate of themselves. They seem quite secure in who they are.

http://www.nimn.org/

http://www.jatonyc.org/

//http://www.jfrej.org/ (http://http://www.jfrej.org/)

http://www.jewsforajustpeace.com/

http://www.gush-shalom.org/english/index.html

http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/


I'll just remind you, once more, since everyone seems to try to dance around the point and no one wants to address it. It isn't my arbitrary criteria of anti-Semitism, but the criteria established by Jewish groups, governments, and human rights groups around the world. Thus, when it say it isn't me personally, I'm stating that all of these groups created the criteria and concur that the same actions and sentiments are anti-Semitic.
That much was pretty clear, but no one has really addressed that issue except for things like "I don't care!" or "well other Jewish groups say this!" (without actually supporting it, btw)
I've repeatedly stated, over and over, that legitimate criticism is not anti-Semitism. However, people on these boards love to use extremist speech, hate terms, etc. and then cry "its criticism of policy!" The fact is, it isn't legitimate criticism of policy. It been rejected as such by all of the groups I've mentioned. Yet, you've failed to address that too. Instead, you're using the strawman of "criticism of policy", which no one ever claimed.

Its the snotty overuse of it by you thats the problem. You seem to be compensating for some inferiority complex. I suggest that you seek professional help with this, and leave us out of it.

O and by the way -

"Israel Government Press Office

Wednesday, March 19, 2003

1. According to the laws of the State of Israel, press and media reports concerning security and military matters must be submitted to the Military Censor before they are published and/or broadcast. "
http://www.kokhavivpublications.com/2003/israel/03/0303191218.html

So far, Tropical Sands, I agree with everything you've put. I myself, am an avid supporter of Israel, even though I don't believe they should be giving up land, since contrary to popular belief (thanks to the media) the land isn't illegally occupied.

.

Wow - a real fan- with only 30 posts...who seems remarkably familiar with members here longer...


4. He marginalizes anti-Semitism (by his own account, 'marginal' being the very word used) in leiu of other forms or racism and discrimination.
.

Yet I've heard him talk of the early days of his career when certain Universities would not let a Jew in the door, and even earlier when he and his father were the subject of venomous hatred, giving him a fear of catholics which took decades to subside.

You are again degrading real people by your nonsense.


The acquisition of territory from soverign states. The Occupied Territories have never been a soverign state, and thus don't fall under that at all. In fact, accordring to international law (San Remo) that entire area should be part of Israel to begin with, since Resolution 181 was contrary, rejected by the British & Arabs, and failed..

In resolution 242 it talks of the aqqusition of territory by war as being unacceptable.


The BBC, hardly a decent source for news in the middle east. ..

They do show a pro-Israeli bias, as this report shows
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4964702.stm


Yet, you support these attacks, even when the Palestinian Authority doesn't. Another case of trying to be "more Palestinian than the Palestinians."..

And what are you trying to be?