NationStates Jolt Archive

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11319712&postcount=993

the Israeli government can say whatever they want..

I do not care.Is this even a response that makes sense? what part of: "I-do-not-care-what-the-Israelio-governmento-says" you do not understand??
.

So when two stations are taken out that service all of Gaza with no specific link to a "terrorist" infrastructure over a single Israeli serviceman, you say its ok, because the Israeli Government says that its ok. Great stuff.

Its okay because it is legal. Under international law, Israel has the full right to destroy infrastructure being used by terrorist groups. The only thing that decides collective punishment is intent, and only the Israeli government's own statements are a valid source of evidence for that intent. No one else can provide a shred of evidence for intent one way or another.

I'm not sure how you define "specific link." You mean because terrorists weren't living in the power plant there was no link to them? The bridges destroyed were those that were used to transport arms, explosives, and key routes to smuggle items/people in and out of Gaza. The power plants destroyed were those that directly supplied power to known terrorist infrastructure.

And yes, it is all justified over one single Israeli serviceman. Its a subjective moral opinion that it is worth less because it is just one man. Its also a type of morality that is used by people with no value for human life, as if a life alone isn't worth the world, but many lives are somehow worth more. You also exhibit a double standard when you say 'its just one', and then turn around and criticize collateral damage and other instances when 'just one' Palestinian has been killed. It would seem that if its just one Jew, then it doesn't matter as much to you as if it is just one Palestinian.

Scale doesn't change international law regarding collective punishment. You're attempting to impose your subjective morality onto the legal community at large. Just because one kidnapped soldier isn't important to you does not mean that he isn't important to others. It also doesn't make Israel's actions any less legal. The fact of the matter is, Israel is within its full legal rights to destroy any infrastructure that supports enemy combatants, terror infrastructure, etc..

There is the question of proportional response, but that aside the infrastructure does not specifically support "terror infrastructure" or "enemy combatants".


You've yet to support your claim that it is collective punishment.
..

It collectively punishes, therefore....
Its what they used to do to areas within Gaza when it was still occupied.


Keep in mind, according to the Geneva Conventions, it is legal. This is because the Israeli intention, as they have stated, is to destroy terrorist infrastructure...

And since when did a plea of 'Not Guilty' mean automatic acceptance and aqquital?


Again, thus says international law, in opposition to your selective morality that supports suicide bombings but condemns Israel blowing up a bridge....

I actually view both in equally dim light.


He wasn't speaking as a rep for HRW. You're just making stuff up now it would seem. He was hired by HRW to do a report. Then, when he retracted, HRW ignored it and refused to retract. Why didn't they retract? Because it doesn't support their agenda, which has been demonstrated time and time again to be one of anti-Semitism and anti-Israeli sentiment:
....

No, it has not. If Israel doesnt like the criticsm it gets, it should perhaps amend its practices - beginning by withdrawal. There is no proof of systematic anti-semitism, or an anti-semetic agenda within HRW.


Address the anti-Semitic bias in HRW first, instead of trying to make it sound absurd by bringing in unrelated human rights groups.

But your right wing groups seem to make little distinction...And I believe it was "NGO watch" that did the 'lumping' together.

Yes, there is. This is something I've said repeatedly throughout these threads. However, the anti-Israeli crowd tends to pretend that the terrorists are a legitimate military group when it fits their agenda, then ignore it later. In any case, the difference does not change international law on this issue. If infrastructure is being used to support combatants/terrorists, it becomes a valid military target.
No it doesn't. Not automatically. Because some terrorists use the power supplied by those powerplants, it wouldn't be justifiable to destroy them if the general populace suffered unduly as a result.

There is a question of proportionality here as well.

I've still yet to see any evidence of the intent to collectively punish Palestinians. So far, the evidence of intent is what the Israeli government has stated, that they do not intend to collectively punish Palestinians.

So it IS they say they arent guilty so they aren't....O dear.

Where can I get people with your level of unquestioning flunki-dom? I have a hollowed out Volcanoe that needs manning....

Israel has the full right to destroy infrastructure being used by terrorist groups.terrorist groups have-used/are-using/will-use US,UK, French, Russian infraestructure.. I doubt Israel will ever bomb any of those..

Israel (and others govs) will only bomb peoples with weaker military..

There is the question of proportional response, but that aside the infrastructure does not specifically support "terror infrastructure" or "enemy combatants".

It does support terrorist infrastructure. It doesn't have to "specifically support" it. The fact that the power plants were used to supply power to terrorist bases and that bridges were used to smuggle weapons and people makes them legitimate military targets. This is objective across the board, regardless of the type or size of the conflict. It was legal in every other war and conflict, and it is legal in this conflict.

It collectively punishes, therefore....
Its what they used to do to areas within Gaza when it was still occupied.

You've yet to support that it collectively punishes. You keep making the same assertion, but you've provided zero evidence.

And since when did a plea of 'Not Guilty' mean automatic acceptance and aqquital?

Since the premise in international law has been "innocent until proven guilty." So far, no one has presented a shred of evidence for collective punishment.

I actually view both in equally dim light.

That is part of your problem. You equate racist suicide attacks against Jews with blowing up a bridge.

No, it has not. If Israel doesnt like the criticsm it gets, it should perhaps amend its practices - beginning by withdrawal. There is no proof of systematic anti-semitism, or an anti-semetic agenda within HRW.

And yet CAMERA did a quantitative study that proved exactly that. You've yet to respond to or address that study, linked to in the wikipedia article. Or any of the criticism from any one of those parties. Are you able to refute something like the fact that HRW threatened Abraham Cooper with bodily harm for being Jewish, that HRW voted Jews out of the Durban Conferences on Racism and Xenophobia, or that statistically they spend more time on anti-Israeli criticism than criticism of other countries that have human rights violations.

You're shouting "no proof" over and over, yet, all of the evidence presented to you says otherwise. Address the evidence.

But your right wing groups seem to make little distinction...And I believe it was "NGO watch" that did the 'lumping' together.

No, you're just trying to shift the blame now. Not a single group I've cited attempted to lump the groups you listed together. And, if you read the list in wikipedia above, they aren't right-wing groups. Bayefsky, for example, is one of the foremost scholars on human rights in the world, and she is far left.

terrorist groups have-used/are-using/will-use US,UK, French, Russian infraestructure.. I doubt Israel will ever bomb any of those..

Israel (and others govs) will only bomb peoples with weaker military..

In the US, UK, France, Russia, etc. military force is used to disband terrorist and other criminal groups. This includes shutting down infrastructure such as water supplies and electricity. This can be seen in the West most often when combating drug cartels. Frequently a tactic is to turn off the water and power, which results in a utilities cut to the entire area. Collective punishment? No, the intent is to aid the anti-drug operation. Just like the Israeli intent is not to punish all Palestinians, but to aid the anti-terror operation.

If it were collective punishment, why would only select infrastructure be targeted? Why not target the infrastructure that supplies the most power? Again, the fact that the targets are not optimal for punishing the entire population is evidence against the absurd claim that collective punishment is occuring.

In the US, UK, France, Russia, etc. military force is used to disband terrorist () groups.dont you mean to say they have tried to disband.. and they are still trying..

How many time have we caugh number#2 or number#3 again :rolleyes:

It does support terrorist infrastructure. It doesn't have to "specifically support" it. The fact that the power plants were used to supply power to terrorist bases and that bridges were used to smuggle weapons and people makes them legitimate military targets. This is objective across the board, regardless of the type or size of the conflict. It was legal in every other war and conflict, and it is legal in this conflict..

In which case an attack on any infrastructure within Israel is legitamate. Off-duty soldiers use buses, markets etc. Tourist money supports the Israeli state which supports the IDF.... If its sauce for the goose then its for the gander also..


You've yet to support that it collectively punishes. You keep making the same assertion, but you've provided zero evidence...

The destruction of the power plants does collectively punish, as does the destruction of the bridges. The only evidence that you've supplied to the contrary is the Israeli government saying it doesnt.


Since the premise in international law has been "innocent until proven guilty." So far, no one has presented a shred of evidence for collective punishment.


It does, so it does.


That is part of your problem. You equate racist suicide attacks against Jews with blowing up a bridge.

Again, 'Jews'. I did not say 'Jews', I said Israelis. You have an unhealthy obsession with who is and is not Jewish.



And yet CAMERA did a quantitative study that proved exactly that. You've yet to respond to or address that study, linked to in the wikipedia article..

That would be the right wing group that sets itself up as some sort of 'fairminded' watchdog but is in fact sponsored heavily by Israel and was set up by a right wing Israeli group. Thats a bit funny, that.




No, you're just trying to shift the blame now. Not a single group I've cited attempted to lump the groups you listed together. And, if you read the list in wikipedia above, they aren't right-wing groups. Bayefsky, for example, is one of the foremost scholars on human rights in the world, and she is far left.


"With their multi-million-dollar (and euro) budgets, superpowers such as Human Rights Watch (HRW), Amnesty International, Christian Aid, Oxfam, and dozens of smaller allied groups in the region have contributed to incitement to terrorism--"
http://www.ngowatch.org/articles.php?id=161

Christian Aid eh? What a bunch of blood crazed Jihadi supporters they are....Ha.

Would it be considered proportionate force if Israel kidnapped a Palestinian, murdering him like savages from the seventh century? Would it be proportionate if Israel abducted a Hamas militant and threatened to kill him if Gaza weren't returned? Would it be considered proportionate if, during all of these barbaric activities, Israel fired hundreds of rockets into Palestinian neighborhoods without a care in the world where they fall?

In the US, UK, France, Russia, etc. military force is used to disband terrorist and other criminal groups. This includes shutting down infrastructure such as water supplies and electricity. This can be seen in the West most often when combating drug cartels. Frequently a tactic is to turn off the water and power, which results in a utilities cut to the entire area..

What a load of bollocks. When the fuck has any city in Britain had over a million plus people without power because of a few drug pushers?

In the US, UK, France, Russia, etc. military force is used to disband terrorist and other criminal groups. This includes shutting down infrastructure such as water supplies and electricity. This can be seen in the West most often when combating drug cartels. Frequently a tactic is to turn off the water and power, which results in a utilities cut to the entire area. Collective punishment? No, the intent is to aid the anti-drug operation. Just like the Israeli intent is not to punish all Palestinians, but to aid the anti-terror operation.
To destroy a water supply which provided water to a civilian population while trying to conduct an operation against a drug cartel would not be proportional and would not be accepted.

Would it be considered proportionate force if Israel kidnapped a Palestinian, murdering him like savages from the seventh century?

They had AKs in the 7th century?

Mind you I do remember a Palestinian that was kidnapped by settlers a few years back. They tortured him with a domestic clothes Iron before they killed him. But thats obviously not what you're on about, because they defintely didnt have electrically powered domestic clothes-Irons in the 7th century.....

In which case an attack on any infrastructure within Israel is legitamate. Off-duty soldiers use buses, markets etc. Tourist money supports the Israeli state which supports the IDF.... If its sauce for the goose then its for the gander also..

Depends on who is doing the attack. Kidnapping Shilat, for example, is illegal under international law. The Geneva Conventions explicitly prohibit kidnapping and taking hostages for ransom and bargin.

On that note, and I've listed the statistics before, near 70% of Israelis killed by Palestinians are civilians. The damage the Palestinians do isn't against buses, markets, etc. but rather against the civilian population in that area. Again, this is outlined in the terrorist charters, such as that of Hamas, which call for the genocide of Jews. Not the genocide of Israelis. Not the destruction of infrastructure. The killing of Jews.

The destruction of the power plants does collectively punish, as does the destruction of the bridges. The only evidence that you've supplied to the contrary is the Israeli government saying it doesnt.

No, collective punishment is a legal term. I've explained why it does not fit the criteria for collective punishment as outlined in the Geneva Conventions. The evidence, again, is the evidence of intent. Israel has stated its intent, as international law requires, and that intent is not collective punishment. You seem to be avoiding those facts, and still have yet to present any evidence of collective punishment aside from your own subjective definition.

Again, 'Jews'. I did not say 'Jews', I said Israelis. You have an unhealthy obsession with who is and is not Jewish.

Yes, and you were wrong. You claimed terrorists want to attack Israelis. I pointed out the fact that these terror charters do not call for attacks on Israelis, but they call for attacks on Jews. They aren't suicide attacks against Israelis; these terror groups target Jews worldwide. Including Jews who are not Israelis. You seem to be trying to brush off the suicide attacks as attacks on people due to political nationality, but if you read the charters of these terror groups you will see that they call for the extermination of Jews, not Israeli citizens.

That would be the right wing group that sets itself up as some sort of 'fairminded' watchdog but is in fact sponsored heavily by Israel and was set up by a right wing Israeli group. Thats a bit funny, that.

So, you don't want to address the study then. You'd rather be illogical and attempt to poison the well. And you keep saying "right wing group", but you've yet to address the numerous left-wing critics of HRW. How about Abraham Cooper, who received death threats from Human Rights Watch for being a Jew at the Durbin Conference?

"With their multi-million-dollar (and euro) budgets, superpowers such as Human Rights Watch (HRW), Amnesty International, Christian Aid, Oxfam, and dozens of smaller allied groups in the region have contributed to incitement to terrorism--"
http://www.ngowatch.org/articles.php?id=161

Christian Aid eh? What a bunch of blood crazed Jihadi supporters they are....Ha.

Aside from one group on that list, none are the ones you mentioned. Your dishonesty knows no bounds:

NGO Watch says: HRW, AI, Christian Aid, and Oxfam

Nodinia claims NGO Watch says: O yeah.....thats it...them, the Nazis in Amnesty, Medicine Sans Frontiers, Bt'selem and JFJFP...plotting. ITS A CONSPIRACY!!!!!!!MIT jACKBOOTS!!!!!!!

When are you going to stop lying?

To destroy a water supply which provided water to a civilian population while trying to conduct an operation against a drug cartel would not be proportional and would not be accepted.

Proportional according to whom? This is your subjective opinion again. International law does not make proportionality inclusive in respect to collective punishment. It does not work in the same fashion that collateral damage and other concepts work. It works strictly by intent, and because Israel did not intend to collectively punish the Palestinian people, then it is legal. That much is a fact.

What a load of bollocks. When the fuck has any city in Britain had over a million plus people without power because of a few drug pushers?

You're harping on about numbers again. The fact is, the numbers are legally irrelevent. If it is a dozen people or a million, the only thing that counts under the Rule of Law is intent - did Israel intend to collectively punish the Palestinian people? I've yet to see any evidence that Israel did. So far, the evidence is against it:

Israeli policy says no
Israeli actions are not optimum for collective punishment

The double-standard in respect to international law here is quite sickening. When the anti-Israeli crowd thinks they can yank something out of the Geneva Conventions or a UN resolution, they will interpret it in the most spurious, wishy-washy way in an attempt to discredit Israel. Yet, when it is pointed out that what Israel has done is legal under the Geneva Conventions, it suddenly doesn't matter. International law is thrown out the window in lieu of subjective morality.

Proportional according to whom? This is your subjective opinion again. International law does not make proportionality inclusive in respect to collective punishment. It does not work in the same fashion that collateral damage and other concepts work. It works strictly by intent, and because Israel did not intend to collectively punish the Palestinian people, then it is legal. That much is a fact.
No.

I'm not talking about collective punishment. I'm talking about the Israeli reaction and international law. Proportionality is very much a factor in international law.

Even if it is legal to take some actions against the palestinians, as you say, then there are limits. And Israel is very close to those limits if they haven't overstepped them already, like the EU feels they have.
The EU condemns the loss of lives caused by disproportionate use of force by the Israeli Defence Forces and the humanitarian crisis it has aggravated

Since that is your sentiment, don't bother attempting to post or give serious analysis of the conflict. At this point only a fool would take you seriously.

Considering the times that I have tried serious analysis prior to that post which were often returned with mockery, or plain barbarism (Bogmarsh), I figured I would try a different approach.

I grow weary of the ceaseless strife that both Palestine and Israel generate amongst themselves. Strife that neither side is willing to give up until they enjoy complete dominance. And the only way they will ever achieve that is with the utter destruction of the other side.

Do you see peace ever arising from that bloody land? With the current way they are led, I don't.

Tell me Tropical Sands, if you can, do you think for one moment, that either side will choose a peace that see's themselves as equals, rather than as one subjugated to the other, or worse?

No.

I'm not talking about collective punishment. I'm talking about the Israeli reaction and international law. Proportionality is very much a factor in international law.

Even if it is legal to take some actions against the palestinians, as you say, then there are limits. And Israel is very close to those limits if they haven't overstepped them already, like the EU feels they have.

It depends on the law. It isn't a factor in every law, and I don't think you will find it as one of the criteria regarding collective punishment in the Geneva Conventions. I'm well aware that the EU condemned Israel, but that doesn't amount to much except the opinion of one government vs the opinion of another. And it could easily be argued that it was dispreoprtionate in force. However, this does not make actions such as destroying bridges and power plants illegal.

Tell me Tropical Sands, if you can, do you think for one moment, that either side will choose a peace that see's themselves as equals, rather than as one subjugated to the other, or worse?

Israel has offered a two-state solution whereby both are equals and neither is subjugated. In fact, even if Palestinians don't accept future offers, Israeli policy is still leaning toward a two-state solution of equals. The problem is that no matter how reasonable the Israeli offer, no matter how liberal internal Israeli policy, people will continue to cry that Palestinians are not equal. Israel is still being accused of racism and inequality internally, even though not a single discriminatory law exists in Israel and Israel has laws in place that protect and give equal rights to every group, including homosexuals (it would seem, objectively, that there are far more human rights in Israel than in many Western states).

So it isn't an issue of one side being subjugated, but an issue of perception. Two equal states will occur, sooner than later, but even then Arabs and anti-Israeli personas will attempt to point out how one side is subjugating the other, how there is no equality, etc.

Actually the Israeli government has repeatedly stated that the attack on Palestinian infrastructure is not collective punishment. Nor is there any evidence that it is. To claim such is to sink into conspiracy theories. Attacks on infrastructure such as bridges and power plants has occured in every war to this very date, including WWI, WWII, and the current Iraqi occupation. No one has accused the identical operations in these wars as being "collective punishment." Yet, when Israel does the exact same thing, it gets accused of this. Which, of course, demonstrates the bias rooted in anti-Semitism that becomes evident in the anti-Israeli propganda crowd.

A failure of comprehension here. Strikes against such targets, including dams which led to widespread flooding were strikes against a nation as a whole, so yes, they were collective punishment. Everytime a strike occurs against infrastructure not purely of military use, it is collective punishment. The firebombings of Dresden, Tokyo and other cities during WWII were instances of collective punishment. Nagasaki, Hiroshima, although the morality of the strikes are arguable, the fact remains that the destruction wrought, albeit with smaller death tolls than firebombings, were also instances of collective punishment.

By arguing that because those case examples also apply that it is anti-semitism only adds further justification to the theory that the Israeli government uses the accusation of anti-semitism to excuse any and every wrongdoing it commits.

Furthermore, to argue that the Israeli government is free from wrongdoing is as silly and ludricous as claiming that martians will come to abduct you. No government is.

Depends on who is doing the attack. Kidnapping Shilat, for example, is illegal under international law. The Geneva Conventions explicitly prohibit kidnapping and taking hostages for ransom and bargin.?

It also prohibits building colonies in occupied territory, and this specific occupation which has gone on for nearly 40 years. Sense of proportion


No, collective punishment is a legal term. I've explained why it does not fit the criteria for collective punishment as outlined in the Geneva Conventions. The evidence, again, is the evidence of intent. Israel has stated its intent, as international law requires, and that intent is not collective punishment. You seem to be avoiding those facts, and still have yet to present any evidence of collective punishment aside from your own subjective definition.
.?

So its still they say it isn't so it isn't....
It seems I'm not the only one who thinks its disproportionate either....
"The EU condemns the loss of lives caused by disproportionate use of force by the Israeli Defence Forces and the humanitarian crisis it has aggravated,"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5159050.stm


Yes, and you were wrong. You claimed terrorists want to attack Israelis. I pointed out the fact that these terror charters do not call for attacks on Israelis, but they call for attacks on Jews. They aren't suicide attacks against Israelis; these terror groups target Jews worldwide. Including Jews who are not Israelis. You seem to be trying to brush off the suicide attacks as attacks on people due to political nationality, but if you read the charters of these terror groups you will see that they call for the extermination of Jews, not Israeli citizens..?

You'd find that a mass Israeli conversion to Buddhism would not end attacks as long as the occupation continues.



NGO Watch says: HRW, AI, Christian Aid, and Oxfam

Nodinia claims NGO Watch says: O yeah.....thats it...them, the Nazis in Amnesty, Medicine Sans Frontiers, Bt'selem and JFJFP...plotting. ITS A CONSPIRACY!!!!!!!MIT jACKBOOTS!!!!!!!

When are you going to stop lying?

So you take that as a literal statement? And don't think that any group that calls the ones that it listed supporters of terrorism is entirely full of crap.....well...thats not a suprise...

You're harping on about numbers again. The fact is, the numbers are legally irrelevent. If it is a dozen people or a million, the only thing that counts under the Rule of Law is intent - did Israel intend to collectively punish the Palestinian people? I've yet to see any evidence that Israel did. So far, the evidence is against it:.

No, "I've yet to see any evidence that Israel did." means that as per usual, you refuse to acknowledge the possibility of Israel being in the wrong.

No, "I've yet to see any evidence that Israel did." means that as per usual, you refuse to acknowledge the possibility of Israel being in the wrong.

You've yet to present any evidence. You've claimed its collective punishment over and over, but you havn't presented any evidence of such. If you have evidence, I'd like to see it. If not, it is quite evident that you're accusing Israel with no base. I think that exposes your hatred and bias further, as well.

A failure of comprehension here. Strikes against such targets, including dams which led to widespread flooding were strikes against a nation as a whole, so yes, they were collective punishment. Everytime a strike occurs against infrastructure not purely of military use, it is collective punishment. The firebombings of Dresden, Tokyo and other cities during WWII were instances of collective punishment. Nagasaki, Hiroshima, although the morality of the strikes are arguable, the fact remains that the destruction wrought, albeit with smaller death tolls than firebombings, were also instances of collective punishment.

Again, this is your personal definition of "collective punishment." Lets try to stick to the legal meaning, since it is a legal term. Calling those things collective punishment is like when anti-abortionists call abortion "murder." You're using an emotional, subjective definition rather than the legal one.

The Geneva Conventions state that collective punishment must be directed against persons who have done nothing wrong. I havn't seen evidence that Israel has directed an attack against any innocent persons as of yet.

By arguing that because those case examples also apply that it is anti-semitism only adds further justification to the theory that the Israeli government uses the accusation of anti-semitism to excuse any and every wrongdoing it commits.

What wrongdoing did Israel commit here? People are accusing Israel of wrongdoing on this specific issue, but no one has presented any evidence. It is identical to accusing Jews of poisoning wells during the Middle Ages. Lets see some evidence of wrong doing, not subjective opinion and interpretation, or shut up about it. The fact that people are accusing Israel with no evidence demonstrates a bias, and the fact that demonization of Israel in this fashion is anti-Semitic has been acknowledged by the US State Dept, the EUMC, etc.

Furthermore, to argue that the Israeli government is free from wrongdoing is as silly and ludricous as claiming that martians will come to abduct you. No government is.

No one ever claimed the Israeli government was free from wrongdoing. What was being claimed was that Israel was free from wrongdoing on this issue, because Israel is working within its full legal rights. No one has presented a shred of evidence to demonstrate otherwise. When someone can present such evidence, let me know.

Israel has offered a two-state solution whereby both are equals and neither is subjugated.

Care to furnish the exact details as to what was offered in terms of borders? The area covering both Israel and Palestine if I remember correctly, is not particularly rich in fertile lands and other vital resources. Where the division of resouces go would certainly be a key factor.


In fact, even if Palestinians don't accept future offers, Israeli policy is still leaning toward a two-state solution of equals.

That does not seem like the sentiment of a nation who built a wall through territory not belonging to them.


The problem is that no matter how reasonable the Israeli offer, no matter how liberal internal Israeli policy, people will continue to cry that Palestinians are not equal.

So long as the Israeli's point tanks at the Palestinians and the Palestinians continue to bomb Israeli's with suicide units, no, they aren't equal. Equal would be having both sides point tanks at each other. [/sarcasm]

But sarcasm aside, the issue of equality is simple enough in theory. A functional government, working infrastructure and the cessation of hostilities. That would be all that it would take. The militant Palestinians can't stop their attacks to make it work, but the Israeli strikes aren't helping either.


Two equal states will occur, sooner than later, but even then Arabs and anti-Israeli personas will attempt to point out how one side is subjugating the other, how there is no equality, etc.

The question of sooner than later is purely opinion on your side, and relatively unfounded.

As to the anti-Israeli personas, I point out that people like Bogmarsh who believe that Israel has the right to execute every single Palestinian just because exist as well and given how they appear to be increasing in number, are equal in number, if not vocalness of the anti-Israeli's.

Does this make either side right? No, not really. But to use the argument of anti-Israelis while pretending the opposite spectrum doesn't exist is silly. It is as productive as an argument of using people who don't like the color red to argue against red cars.

It also prohibits building colonies in occupied territory, and this specific occupation which has gone on for nearly 40 years. Sense of proportion

I see. Your argument can't be supported, so you're trying to switch the subject into settlements. We can talk about that, too, if you want. No single law exists that prohibits building colonies. The law that exists prohibits forceful transfer of a population.

So its still they say it isn't so it isn't....
It seems I'm not the only one who thinks its disproportionate either....
"The EU condemns the loss of lives caused by disproportionate use of force by the Israeli Defence Forces and the humanitarian crisis it has aggravated,"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5159050.stm

Again, that is the opinion of one government against another. It doesn't amount to much. In addition, it has no bearing on your original claim - that Israel has engaged in collective punishment. The EU did not accuse Israel of collective punishment, and for you to attempt to link its condemnation of excessive force with that is dishonest. Try to stick to the subject - the fact that you can't support your claim of collective punishment - instead of trying to switch it to disproportionate force or settlements.

You'd find that a mass Israeli conversion to Buddhism would not end attacks as long as the occupation continues.

Before an occupation existed, Arabs were killing Jews in Palestine for being Jewish. The argument that terror is a result of the occupation is inconsistent with history.

So you take that as a literal statement? And don't think that any group that calls the ones that it listed supporters of terrorism is entirely full of crap.....well...thats not a suprise...

There you go, backtracking to cover your behind. You lied, Nodinia. You were exposed.

Care to furnish the exact details as to what was offered in terms of borders? The area covering both Israel and Palestine if I remember correctly, is not particularly rich in fertile lands and other vital resources. Where the division of resouces go would certainly be a key factor.

During the Camp David accords? Here (http://www.israel-palaestina.de/landkarten/campdavid.jpg)is a map for you. Israel would keep less than 3% (and 3% was Prince Bandar's statistic; he also stated Arafat committed a crime against the Palestinian people for rejecting the offer). Land and resources weren't a significant factor in the rejection. Rather, it was Arafat's rejectionism, a term and phenomena coined by Benny Morris, a pro-Palestinian historian.

That does not seem like the sentiment of a nation who built a wall through territory not belonging to them.

Actually the majority of the "wall" is a chain-link fence. And the majority of it is also on the Green Line.

So long as the Israeli's point tanks at the Palestinians and the Palestinians continue to bomb Israeli's with suicide units, no, they aren't equal. Equal would be having both sides point tanks at each other. [/sarcasm]

There you go, demonstrating that you don't draw a distinction between terror and war. The fact that one side intentionally targets civilians, while the other targets legal targets, makes a world of difference both morally and legally. The fact that Palestinian casualties are less than 30% civilian, while Israeli causalties are over 70% civilian says something about the tactics and goals as well.

The question of sooner than later is purely opinion on your side, and relatively unfounded.

You obviously don't keep up with current events in Israel. Olmert will have final borders before 2010. I don't think any serious political analyst has questioned this much so far. Please inform yourself before you spout nonsense like that.

Again, this is your personal definition of "collective punishment." Lets try to stick to the legal meaning, since it is a legal term. Calling those things collective punishment is like when anti-abortionists call abortion "murder." You're using an emotional, subjective definition rather than the legal one.

The Geneva Conventions state that collective punishment must be directed against persons who have done nothing wrong. I havn't seen evidence that Israel has directed an attack against any innocent persons as of yet.

Ah, so I believe the correct euphemism is collateral damage then? Although the application of directed attacks against innocent people become fuzzy when the immediate target is infrastructure.

Certainly, one can argue that by tearing down entire cities, burning down whole agricultural sectors, demolishing hospitals, no innocents were targeted, merely the infrastructure that supports the opposing side. But what happens to the majority of unrelated population that depends on this infrastructure to survive?


What wrongdoing did Israel commit here? People are accusing Israel of wrongdoing on this specific issue, but no one has presented any evidence. It is identical to accusing Jews of poisoning wells during the Middle Ages. Lets see some evidence of wrong doing, not subjective opinion and interpretation, or shut up about it. The fact that people are accusing Israel with no evidence demonstrates a bias, and the fact that demonization of Israel in this fashion is anti-Semitic has been acknowledged by the US State Dept, the EUMC, etc.


I would point out that the destruction of power plants and as far as I have heard, water pumping stations can be considered to be significantly detrimental to the Palestinian population, both guilty and innocent. Where the application of wrongdoing falls depends on a subjective guideline of how far collateral damage should be limited before it becomes something else.

Also, I point to the construction of the wall, the objections to it's path, and the subsequent replies to it.

Incidently, what happened to that soldier who executed a Palestinian schoolgirl in cold blood? With his service handgun I believe. I remember that he was removed from duty, but beyond that, there was not much news.


No one ever claimed the Israeli government was free from wrongdoing. What was being claimed was that Israel was free from wrongdoing on this issue, because Israel is working within its full legal rights. No one has presented a shred of evidence to demonstrate otherwise. When someone can present such evidence, let me know.

And what, in your opinion, would constitute evidence of wrongdoing? I require specific details regarding that, as I've had previous opponents counter with arguments of "that's not evidence" or similar expressions. A mistake, I will try not to repeat.

During the Camp David accords? Here (http://www.israel-palaestina.de/landkarten/campdavid.jpg)is a map for you. Israel would keep less than 3% (and 3% was Prince Bandar's statistic; he also stated Arafat committed a crime against the Palestinian people for rejecting the offer). Land and resources weren't a significant factor in the rejection. Rather, it was Arafat's rejectionism, a term and phenomena coined by Benny Morris, a pro-Palestinian historian.

The map appears to be odd in some areas. First and foremost, why is Palestinian land divided in two with a strip of Israeli land in between it? Unless the Israeli settlements in those areas are supposed to be handed to the Palestinians, I can understand why that cut through would be a point of contention.

Second, Jerusalem. The proposed security fence places it firmly in Israeli territory. While I can understand the importance that both sides place on it, would it not have been better to use the city as a midpoint rather than flashpoint? Some sort of administration with a mix of Palestinian and Israeli authority to maintain the city while keeping it's borders open.

Admittedly, it is not a very good idea anymore, but during the Camp David accords, it might have had a chance of working.

And yes, Arafat was being an ass for merely rejecting the offer without providing a counter offer.


Actually the majority of the "wall" is a chain-link fence. And the majority of it is also on the Green Line.

A monitored, patrolled and guarded chain-link fence, but I digress. Much of the world has no problem with the fence on the Green Line. The problem stems from where it deviates from the line. One such instance was when the proposed fence cut off the city of Qalqilya (I believe that was it's name), from the agricultural concerns that supplied it's residents with food.


There you go, demonstrating that you don't draw a distinction between terror and war. The fact that one side intentionally targets civilians, while the other targets legal targets, makes a world of difference both morally and legally. The fact that Palestinian casualties are less than 30% civilian, while Israeli causalties are over 70% civilian says something about the tactics and goals as well.

First and foremost, war and terror go hand in hand. A war without terror has never happened, and I don't think it will ever happen. Unless it was a war fought with stuffed toys.

Second, you obviously missed the sarcasm tag even though I went through such pains to make it apparent. Must I have it in neon pink next time?


You obviously don't keep up with current events in Israel. Olmert will have final borders before 2010. I don't think any serious political analyst has questioned this much so far. Please inform yourself before you spout nonsense like that.

Well, given your superiority in this field of knowledge then, clarify this. Olmert?

I see. Your argument can't be supported, so you're trying to switch the subject into settlements. We can talk about that, too, if you want. No single law exists that prohibits building colonies. The law that exists prohibits forceful transfer of a population.

Yet you'll find they are still judged illegal


Again, that is the opinion of one government against another. It doesn't amount to much..

It shows that its not an isolated opinion, nor a particularily biased one...


Before an occupation existed, Arabs were killing Jews in Palestine for being Jewish. The argument that terror is a result of the occupation is inconsistent with history...

I'm sure that at some stage an Arab has killed somebody of the Jewish faith becuase they are Jewish. I'm equally sure of the reverse. I'm also sure that the violence of the last hundred years is overall linked to a far greater range of issues where religon was incidental to actions.


There you go, backtracking to cover your behind. You lied, Nodinia. You were exposed.

Not likely my lad. Or do you expect me to produce evidence of 'Nazis' and members of Amnesty wearing jackboots too?

I do remember you falsely accusing me and others of anti-semitism on a regular basis though...and thats a big fat fib from start to finish. 'Disengenuity' seems to me more your bag though.

Well, given your superiority in this field of knowledge then, clarify this. Olmert?

Olmert has been planning to draw unilateral borders ever since he got into office. He recently made a European tour to gain support for this plan. I recall France supported it, and the United States supports it of course.

The lack of final borders is the one issue that has kept Palestine from statehood. If(when) Olmert declares final borders, Palestinians will not have anything to argue over, or any statehood offers to accept. They will be all by themselves and will have to declare statehood with the land and resources that are left to them.

This plan seems, in part, like a way to cut short the conflict over statehood and force the Palestinains to become a state. This is something that Palestinian leadership has not wanted to do, because Palestinian leadership has traditionally been terrorist and is less likely to profit and prosper with an actual state and no "struggle for statehood."

Yet you'll find they are still judged illegal

Still trying to switch the subject to settlements. Judged illegal by whom? Can you name one court that has judged Israeli settlements illegal that has had jurisdiction?

It shows that its not an isolated opinion, nor a particularily biased one...

No, the EU didn't say that it shared your opinion. It stated that the force was dispreportionate. It did not state that collective punishment was occuring.

I'm sure that at some stage an Arab has killed somebody of the Jewish faith becuase they are Jewish. I'm equally sure of the reverse. I'm also sure that the violence of the last hundred years is overall linked to a far greater range of issues where religon was incidental to actions.

And yet, the terrorist charters call for the genocide of Jews worldwide. Not a single terrorist charter says that they want to kill Israelis. They all state that they want to kill Jews, and destroy Israel as a state. This is the official policy of the Palestinian leadership. This type of thing has never been the official policy of any major Jewish group.


I do remember you falsely accusing me and others of anti-semitism on a regular basis though...and thats a big fat fib from start to finish. 'Disengenuity' seems to me more your bag though.

You're attempting to change the subject, again. When it is pointed out you lied about NGO Watch, you start stuttering, "but, er, you accused me of anti-Semitism falsely!" The fact is, much of what you write is considered anti-Semitism according to the EUMC, the US Stat Dept, etc.

Now, why is it that you will accept the statement of the EU when they condemn Israel for excessive force, but you reject the EU sponsored EUMC when they explain that certain actions and beliefs are anti-Semitic in nature? Your double standard has been exposed again.

Land and resources weren't a significant factor in the rejection. Rather, it was Arafat's rejectionism, a term and phenomena coined by Benny Morris, a pro-Palestinian historian.


Would that be the same Benny Morris who thinks that the expulsion of the Palestinians was perfectly valid? That one?


What wrongdoing did Israel commit here? People are accusing Israel of wrongdoing on this specific issue, but no one has presented any evidence. It is identical to accusing Jews of poisoning wells during the Middle Ages. Lets see some evidence of wrong doing, not subjective opinion and interpretation, or shut up about it. The fact that people are accusing Israel with no evidence demonstrates a bias, and the fact that demonization of Israel in this fashion is anti-Semitic has been acknowledged by the US State Dept, the EUMC, etc

I haven't heard this much whining since I was in a room with a child who had a bad case of nappy rash. The entire occupation, and much of the methodology used to enforce it is illegal.


The lack of final borders is the one issue that has kept Palestine from statehood. If(when) Olmert declares final borders, Palestinians will not have anything to argue over, or any statehood offers to accept. They will be all by themselves and will have to declare statehood with the land and resources that are left to them.

So its cherry pick what you want, and unilaterally annex for Israel, big fuck you for the Palestinians. Again.

Can you name one court that has judged Israeli settlements illegal that has had jurisdiction?

Not this nonsense again - they are a violation of the Geneva convention.


No, the EU didn't say that it shared your opinion. It stated that the force was dispreportionate. It did not state that collective punishment was occuring.?

"Yes, we back Nodin". Very amusing.

However what I typed was -

"It seems I'm not the only one who thinks its disproportionate either....
"The EU condemns the loss of lives caused by disproportionate use of force by the Israeli Defence Forces and the humanitarian crisis it has aggravated,"

- which can be clearly seen in the unedited post 1023. As I also said earlier- disengenuity is more your bag.


And yet, the terrorist charters call for the genocide of Jews worldwide. Not a single terrorist charter says that they want to kill Israelis. They all state that they want to kill Jews, and destroy Israel as a state..?

All of them? Theres no mention of "killing Jews" in the PLO charter as far as I can tell, and all articles denying the right of Israel to exist were removed in 1996 as a result of letters between Arafat and Rabin.


You're attempting to change the subject, again. When it is pointed out you lied about NGO Watch, you start stuttering, "but, er, you accused me of anti-Semitism falsely!"
..?

O yeah.....thats it...them, the Nazis in Amnesty, Medicine Sans Frontiers, Bt'selem and JFJFP...plotting. ITS A CONSPIRACY!!!!!!!MIT jACKBOOTS!!!!!!!

I don't think a humorous - and in many ways quite accurate - portrayal of many of the groups and attitudes referenced and stated by you, requires too much defence on my part.....but you whine on.

Incidently, what happened to that soldier who executed a Palestinian schoolgirl in cold blood? With his service handgun I believe. I remember that he was removed from duty, but beyond that, there was not much news.
.

"Captain A" - Found guilty of some minor charge and reassigned to another unit. He stood over the child and emptied a clip into her while she was laying there wounded.

I'm unaware of anyone else in the IDF being charged with killing a child in the territories, or wounding one, despite the deaths of many by small arms fire since 2000. Likewise the UN workers.

"Captain A" - Found guilty of some minor charge and reassigned to another unit. He stood over the child and emptied a clip into her while she was laying there wounded.

I'm unaware of anyone else in the IDF being charged with killing a child in the territories, or wounding one, despite the deaths of many by small arms fire since 2000. Likewise the UN workers.

Now I'm not going to say what he did is okay, but you always seem to forget the whole story. How many Israeli schoolchildren have been killed in cold blood by palestinian "freedom fighters".

Now I'm not going to say what he did is okay, but you always seem to forget the whole story. How many Israeli schoolchildren have been killed in cold blood by palestinian "freedom fighters".

Since 2000? Approx 113. Versus at last count 700 plus. His own troops said it was a child (its actually recorded) but not only was she fired on, he went out and finished her off. He was referred to as "Captain R" at the trial, not "Captain A" as I stated earlier. In fairness it should be pointed out that it was soldiers under his command who reported him for the incident.

"The transcript

The following is a recording of a three-way conversation that took place between a soldier in a watchtower, an army operations room and Capt R, who shot the girl

From the watchtower "It's a little girl. She's running defensively eastward." "Are we talking about a girl under the age of 10?" "A girl about 10, she's behind the embankment, scared to death." "I think that one of the positions took her out." "I and another soldier ... are going in a little nearer, forward, to confirm the kill ... Receive a situation report. We fired and killed her ... I also confirmed the kill. Over."

From the operations room "Are we talking about a girl under the age of 10?"

Watchtower "A girl about 10, she's behind the embankment, scared to death."

A few minutes later, Iman is shot from one of the army posts

Watchtower "I think that one of the positions took her out."

Captain R "I and another soldier ... are going in a little nearer, forward, to confirm the kill ... Receive a situation report. We fired and killed her ... I also confirmed the kill. Over."

Capt R then "clarifies" why he killed Iman

"This is commander. Anything that's mobile, that moves in the zone, even if it's a three-year-old, needs to be killed. Over."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1643573,00.html

Since 2000? Approx 113. Versus at last count 700 plus.
Uh huh. And if you were to exclude boys obove the ages of sayyy, 12-14 how big would that number be? Astonishingly smaller, I bet.

Uh huh. And if you were to exclude boys obove the ages of sayyy, 12-14 how big would that number be? Astonishingly smaller, I bet.

Roughly 350, if memory serves.

Roughly 350, if memory serves.
Now exclude any that were collateral damage from the terrorists operating in civilian areas.

raven, if you start making exclusions like that one, then you're going to take the number down to almost nothing........now does that sound fair to you?

Good, I'm glad Israel is beginning to take back what is rightfully theirs.
are u kidding me? Isreal never existed to begin with. First jews fled the holocust to what they say is there birth place even though its the birth of every freken religion. They live peacefully till they want there own country people get opset and then the french get involved and they create 2 countrys. The arabs are opset about this because they were their first. They have a six day war were Isreal wins and occupys Palestine land. They just now reacelntly let Gaza strip become palestines even though they still control the econamy, supplys, and traffic of goods. Palestine terrorist have attacked Isreal and Isreal has bulldozed more houses and bombed more civilians. Day and day goes while people on bothsides die. Isreal then build a big giant wall from Palestine and Isreal but it blocks Palestines from hospitols and jobs. Sounds like ISreal is being more of terrorists then Palestine. its both their fualts though. OWNED STFU NOOB :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

Now I'm not going to say what he did is okay, but you always seem to forget the whole story. How many Israeli schoolchildren have been killed in cold blood by palestinian "freedom fighters".


This always seems to be the excuse for horrific actions "they did it, so it makes it ok for us to do it" No, it really doesn't. If the Palistinians kill Israili children, it should not be reason enough to overlook when Israilis kill Palistinian children. This is how wars escalate. One atrocity building upon another until is snowballs past the point of no return.

make :fluffle: not :sniper:

This always seems to be the excuse for horrific actions "they did it, so it makes it ok for us to do it" No, it really doesn't. If the Palistinians kill Israili children, it should not be reason enough to overlook when Israilis kill Palistinian children. This is how wars escalate. One atrocity building upon another until is snowballs past the point of no return.

make :fluffle: not :sniper:
Isreal has the bigger military and controls everything palestine does but it acts more terrorist then palestine wierd :confused:

Oh come on...I dont think anybody is actually taking this seriously besides you and Phsycotic Mongooses. Him and I were just messing around, I'm not even Israeli.

Just because I don't post in every single page in every single thread doesn't mean I don't read some of them.

I thought it would have been prudent to nip a potential flame war based on ethnicity, in the bud. Its called maturity, Atlantian Islands. That is the only reason I mentioned it to the Mods. Nothing against you, or the other poster personally.

are u kidding me? Isreal never existed to begin with. First jews fled the holocust to what they say is there birth place even though its the birth of every freken religion. They live peacefully till they want there own country people get opset and then the french get involved and they create 2 countrys. The arabs are opset about this because they were their first. They have a six day war were Isreal wins and occupys Palestine land. They just now reacelntly let Gaza strip become palestines even though they still control the econamy, supplys, and traffic of goods. Palestine terrorist have attacked Isreal and Isreal has bulldozed more houses and bombed more civilians. Day and day goes while people on bothsides die. Isreal then build a big giant wall from Palestine and Isreal but it blocks Palestines from hospitols and jobs. Sounds like ISreal is being more of terrorists then Palestine. its both their fualts though. OWNED STFU NOOB :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

You are the most retarted douchebag I have seen in a looong time.

1.Israel did exist there, though to be fair, not for a long time.
2.The jews didn't flee the holocaust, they came their after the holocaust.
3.I'm not even sure if France was involved at all, because England owned the land, and gave it to the Jews because the palestinians wouldn't accept 2 states, no matter how small the jewish state.
4.The day Israel was made a state (on May 15, 1948), Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq declared war on Israel and got the shit beat out of them by the nearly untrained Israeli army (besides their actions before the war, yes they were terrorists).The six day war was in 1967, nearly 20 years after Israeli statehood was declared.
5.Israel's civilian casualty rate is around 30%, but the Palestinians kills are 70% civilian, dumbass.
6.Israel is building the wall so that the Palestinians a) will have a hell-of-a lot harder time to kill Israelis, and b) the Palestinian govt will be forced to take care of it's people.

OWNED STFU NOOB :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

raven, if you start making exclusions like that one, then you're going to take the number down to almost nothing........now does that sound fair to you?

He's trying to say that almost all of the palestinian kids were killed by *gasp* PALESTINANS.

Betcha people in Israel and the U.S.'ll be celebrating in the streets when the Palestinians are wiped off the map, the same way the Palestinians celebrated 9-11. Funny how it's only terrorism when the other guy does it to your side.

Betcha people in Israel and the U.S.'ll be celebrating in the streets when the Palestinians are wiped off the map, the same way the Palestinians celebrated 9-11. Funny how it's only terrorism when the other guy does it to your side.


Hell yes, and to boot we'll throw bacon on their sorry carcasses for the way they cheered when 9-11 footage was shown on TVs in Pali areas. Filthy Savages.

Rant off.


Just wipe out the hot spots, hi-five them with a can of sunshine. Leave the peaceful palestinians out of this, since they aren't a problem.

He's trying to say that almost all of the palestinian kids were killed by *gasp* PALESTINANS.


:eek:

NO WAY!

True, true.

You are the most retarted douchebag I have seen in a looong time.

1.Israel did exist there, though to be fair, not for a long time.
2.The jews didn't flee the holocaust, they came their after the holocaust.
3.I'm not even sure if France was involved at all, because England owned the land, and gave it to the Jews because the palestinians wouldn't accept 2 states, no matter how small the jewish state.
4.The day Israel was made a state (on May 15, 1948), Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq declared war on Israel and got the shit beat out of them by the nearly untrained Israeli army (besides their actions before the war, yes they were terrorists).The six day war was in 1967, nearly 20 years after Israeli statehood was declared.
5.Israel's civilian casualty rate is around 30%, but the Palestinians kills are 70% civilian, dumbass.
6.Israel is building the wall so that the Palestinians a) will have a hell-of-a lot harder time to kill Israelis, and b) the Palestinian govt will be forced to take care of it's people.

OWNED STFU NOOB :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:
1.)Isreal didnt exist .Isreal and palastine was part of the Ottoman empired before WWI,British Mandate created the Isreali/Palastinian state and the rest of the Ottoman empire was also broken up into different countries.
2.)Yes i didnt get to correct my self they fled after the holucaust
3.)I was wronge it was British not france
4.)Isreal started the war, Israeli leaders at the time admit they knew Egypt posed no threat. Provide link please
5.)Your point? That dosnt justifiy Isreal killing civilians
6.)It also slowly kills palestinines. b)It already does

1.)Isreal didnt exist .Isreal and palastine was part of the Ottoman empired before WWI,British Mandate created the Isreali/Palastinian state and the rest of the Ottoman empire was also broken up into different countries.
2.)Yes i didnt get to correct my self they fled after the holucaust
3.)I was wronge it was British not france
4.)Isreal started the war, Israeli leaders at the time admit they knew Egypt posed no threat. Provide link please
5.)Your point? That dosnt justifiy Isreal killing civilians
6.)It also slowly kills palestinines. b)It already does

Israel was created by a UN mandate, right? Egypt DID pose a threat, as did pretty much every Arab state until the 2nd or third time a can of whoopass was opened up on them. As much as the Arabs wanted to destroy Israel, they couldn't beat their motivation, training, and will to live (Plus we finally saw the end of the AK-VS-M16) Egypt gave up and signed a peace treaty with Israeil in the early 90s I beleive, Camp david accords? Or am I wrong?

Israel was created and the jews emigrated from everywhere to it.

In 50 years Israel has come from turd world country to modern democratic nation. It took the US much longer to do that. I suspect God had a hand in things, since it WAS promised waay back in the Old Testament that the Jews WOULD have a land of their own someday in the very land the early hebrews traveled. Who'da thunk it.

Now I'm not going to say what he did is okay, but you always seem to forget the whole story. How many Israeli schoolchildren have been killed in cold blood by palestinian "freedom fighters".

Crimes committed by other people do not in any way lessen the seriousness of the crime committed by anyone else. If this is true and the person responsible for the killing was not punished in any meaningful way as to deter future murders, then Israel is guilty of encouraging these crimes by choosing not to deter them.

Should a policeman found guilty of killing people in cold blood be allowed to walk free despite clear cut evidence of his crime merely because the neighborhood he works in has a lot of crime?

Would you support a government that does not punish it's people when they break the law?

Hell yes, and to boot we'll throw bacon on their sorry carcasses for the way they cheered when 9-11 footage was shown on TVs in Pali areas. Filthy Savages.

You know something? You sound like one of those British officers back during the colonial era. The kind that were absolutely convinced in the superiority of everything British. That Great Britain could do no wrong. Ever. Not even when they decided on wiping out the natives from the face of the earth.

Nice to know that arrogance from the colonialism era still exists today. In a country that supposedly fought against it. The irony is delicious.

And your allusion to religious documents as part of a claim for territorial rights is ludricous. But then again, you have proven to be one of the more fundamentalist type of Christians. The kind that would turn on their own kin.

Israel was created by a UN mandate, right? Egypt DID pose a threat, as did pretty much every Arab state until the 2nd or third time a can of whoopass was opened up on them. As much as the Arabs wanted to destroy Israel, they couldn't beat their motivation, training, and will to live (Plus we finally saw the end of the AK-VS-M16) Egypt gave up and signed a peace treaty with Israeil in the early 90s I beleive, Camp david accords? Or am I wrong?

Israel was created and the jews emigrated from everywhere to it.

In 50 years Israel has come from turd world country to modern democratic nation. It took the US much longer to do that. I suspect God had a hand in things, since it WAS promised waay back in the Old Testament that the Jews WOULD have a land of their own someday in the very land the early hebrews traveled. Who'da thunk it.
ya its called third world nation and i dont think god had anything to do with it.ITS THE BIRTHPLACE OF EVERY RELIGION. Why do people always think god is on their side? :headbang: Anyways Isreal won the 6day war with the help of America. I say this because Isreal had no wepons and bought a bunch from America but would sell none to Egypt or any other arab nation. Dont forget that they have the best airforce in the world trained by the US.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DesignatedMarksman
Hell yes, and to boot we'll throw bacon on their sorry carcasses for the way they cheered when 9-11 footage was shown on TVs in Pali areas. Filthy Savages.
its funny christians werent even allowed to eat bacon but know they stuff their faces with it. Christians jump off the band wagon with religion. Jews and Muslims dont belive in hell and in drinking and talking to a priest to get rid of your sins and stuff but Christians have people getting drunk then saying there sorry on sunday and doing it the next week so retared. :headbang:

p.s im not bashing christians just how they change the bible every other year. i also dislike the hypocritcalness of some of their members and the people going to a confession and "washing away their sins" then doing the exact same thing again.

In 50 years Israel has come from turd world country to modern democratic nation. It took the US much longer to do that. I suspect God had a hand in things, since it WAS promised waay back in the Old Testament that the Jews WOULD have a land of their own someday in the very land the early hebrews traveled. Who'da thunk it.

What a ridiculous thing to claim. Don't you think billions of US dollars, immigrants bringing in money and access and control over Palestinian economy might have had something to do with it?

Now exclude any that were collateral damage from the terrorists operating in civilian areas.

Ahh....Excuse 1 fails and Excuse 2 rolls out...

As ever I let the "both as bad as each other" go, because in many ways its entirely true, but as ever the deluded "light shines out of Israels ass" brigade are bound to chime in with this kind of crap. Face up to it - the IDF - on occassion - target civillians.


1.Israel did exist there, though to be fair, not for a long time..
True.


2.The jews didn't flee the holocaust, they came their after the holocaust.
..

Settlers had begun arriving pre-1900. Many did flee from Germany in the 30's and presumably this is what he refers to.


3.I'm not even sure if France was involved at all, because England owned the land, and gave it to the Jews because the palestinians wouldn't accept 2 states, no matter how small the jewish state.
..

During the first World War the British promised independence for the Arabs if they'd fight/rebel against the Ottomans. However the British had already agreed with France in 1916 that they divide up the region between them (The sykes -picott agreement). This led to the creation of the states of the middle east more or less as they are today. As no consideration was made of the differences between the peoples in the region, it led to various injustices, most significant being the divison of the Kurds traditional area by the new states various borders.

However things did not go all the Brits and French way, as they could only hold administrative power and that was under the mandate of the UN. A number of regions were to be granted total independence, and Palestine was one of them.

You are correct in saying that the Arabs rejected the offers made, however the last one was by the UN, not the British.


He's trying to say that almost all of the palestinian kids were killed by *gasp* PALESTINANS...

And hes wrong, unfortunately.


Hell yes, and to boot we'll throw bacon on their sorry carcasses for the way they cheered when 9-11 footage was shown on TVs in Pali areas. Filthy Savages...

So, you advocate defling the dead in a way thats calculated to offend (against the Jewish faith too, IMO), and then call them 'filthy savages'. I never realised acne removed ones sense of Irony.


I suspect God had a hand in things, ...

O thats good. Mr defile-the-dead is a god-boy.......

I wouldn't be entirely surprised if the capture of Gilad Shalit, the Israeli corporal, by that Palestinian group was an ingenious scheme planned by both Israeli and Palestinian governments to give them an excuse to continue the conflict.

anyone went very angry with the 7/7 bombings but israel take bombing on that scale on a weekly basis, also why are the people that blow themselves up in London called terriosts and people that blow themselves up in tel-a-viv called militants? does not seem fair to me

1.)Isreal didnt exist .Isreal and palastine was part of the Ottoman empired before WWI,British Mandate created the Isreali/Palastinian state and the rest of the Ottoman empire was also broken up into different countries.
2.)Yes i didnt get to correct my self they fled after the holucaust
3.)I was wronge it was British not france
4.)Isreal started the war, Israeli leaders at the time admit they knew Egypt posed no threat. Provide link please
5.)Your point? That dosnt justifiy Isreal killing civilians
6.)It also slowly kills palestinines. b)It already does


1.Israel did, ancient times.
2.Israel didn't start the war, look up Israel on wikipedia, or any other independent, non-biased site. And you provide a non biased link to the Israeli leaders statement please.
3. Hamas and Fatah don't take care of their people, that's why they 'slowly' die, Hamas and Fatah haven't built the hospitals, roads, etc., that they promised they would. All they care about is the destruction of Israel.

QUOTE=Nodinia]Ahh....Excuse 1 fails and Excuse 2 rolls out...[/QUOTE]

I think that he's trying to get the number that the IDF kills.

As ever I let the "both as bad as each other" go, because in many ways its entirely true, but as ever the deluded "light shines out of Israels ass" brigade are bound to chime in with this kind of crap. Face up to it - the IDF - on occassion - target civillians.

Israel isn't perfect, but you always try to make the Palestinians look perfect (as I see it).I am Jewish and try to be as non-biased as I can in these conversations, now how about everyone else do the same.


True.
yup



Settlers had begun arriving pre-1900. Many did flee from Germany in the 30's and presumably this is what he refers to.

they fled from most of europe, but yep, you pretty much got it. And I forgot about the pre-1900's, thanks for reminding me.


During the first World War the British promised independence for the Arabs if they'd fight/rebel against the Ottomans. However the British had already agreed with France in 1916 that they divide up the region between them (The sykes -picott agreement). This led to the creation of the states of the middle east more or less as they are today. As no consideration was made of the differences between the peoples in the region, it led to various injustices, most significant being the divison of the Kurds traditional area by the new states various borders.

However things did not go all the Brits and French way, as they could only hold administrative power and that was under the mandate of the UN. A number of regions were to be granted total independence, and Palestine was one of them.

You are correct in saying that the Arabs rejected the offers made, however the last one was by the UN, not the British.

well yeah, but the British still gave it to them, it was theirs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DesignatedMarksman
Hell yes, and to boot we'll throw bacon on their sorry carcasses for the way they cheered when 9-11 footage was shown on TVs in Pali areas. Filthy Savages.
its funny christians werent even allowed to eat bacon but know they stuff their faces with it. Christians jump off the band wagon with religion. Jews and Muslims dont belive in hell and in drinking and talking to a priest to get rid of your sins and stuff but Christians have people getting drunk then saying there sorry on sunday and doing it the next week so retared. :headbang:

p.s im not bashing christians just how they change the bible every other year. i also dislike the hypocritcalness of some of their members and the people going to a confession and "washing away their sins" then doing the exact same thing again.

Jews do believe in drinking, trust me. And Jews and Muslims do believe in hell. Though they are different from the Christian point of view.

The big problem in this whole scenario is that Palestine doesn't have seperate military / civillian infrastructure. Civillian infrastructure IS military / terrorist infrastructure, and the terrorists are mixed in with the civillians, making it impossible to target military / terrorist infrastructure without targeting civillian infrastructure as well (being the same thing). Also, because civillians and terrorists are mixed together, striking at the terrorists will also end up striking civillians and causing civillian casualties.

Israel simply cannot retaliate without hurting civillians, because the terrorists have set things up so that all attacks against them are guaranteed to hit civillians as well. As Israel can't simply sit around and let themselves get attacked without responding, they strike back and civillians die, lose water and electricity, etc... NOT because Israel is targetting them, but because the terrorist groups put civillians in the line of fire intentionally and use the same infrastructure that civillians use.

As not retaliating would result in redoubled attacks from the terrorist groups in Palestine and widespread killing throughout Israel, they have no choice but to strike back in order to at least try and discourage or stop the attacks. The whole thing is a situation where civillians will get killed no matter what... which is why it's so terrible.

I think that he's trying to get the number that the IDF kills..

I think that he will never accept that the IDF is as likely to kill an Arab as a PLO man an Israeli.



Israel isn't perfect, but you always try to make the Palestinians look perfect (as I see it).I am Jewish and try to be as non-biased as I can in these conversations, now how about everyone else do the same...

There are some good people on the Israeli side, with good intentions for their people. The same exists on the Palestinian side. There are some right psychotic bastards on the Palestinian side, who the world could do without, and I've no doubt they exist on the Israeli side too. Both sides do wrong while trying to do 'good'. And elements of them do wrong intentionally in the name of 'good'. Who is Jewish and who is not is no indication of behaviour, nor is who is Arab, Muslim or Christian. The captain who shot the 13 year old that I mentioned earlier was actually Druze, not Jewish.



well yeah, but the British still gave it to them, it was theirs.

However Israel then went and expelled the Palestinians. This, in historical context, is not suprising, but to invade the area occupied by the same people not 20 years later is really taking the biscuit. There is now a state of Israel, armed to the teeth and well capable of taking care of itself. There should now be a Palestinian state and one set up under international auspices, not that of the US/Israel.

I think that he will never accept that the IDF is as likely to kill an Arab as a PLO man an Israeli.

Israel kills more terrorists than arabs, just ask Tropical Sands.

There are some good people on the Israeli side, with good intentions for their people. The same exists on the Palestinian side. There are some right psychotic bastards on the Palestinian side, who the world could do without, and I've no doubt they exist on the Israeli side too. Both sides do wrong while trying to do 'good'. And elements of them do wrong intentionally in the name of 'good'. Who is Jewish and who is not is no indication of behaviour, nor is who is Arab, Muslim or Christian. The captain who shot the 13 year old that I mentioned earlier was actually Druze, not Jewish.

1. wasn't attacking you because I'm jewish, just trying to get the point across to everyone to be just a little bit more open minded.
2.There are Israeli terrorists who attack and kill arabs, but there are far more palestinian terrorists because as I see it, They are brainwashed from birth to "Kill americans and Jews", it's all they ever hear, and unfortunately for the palestinian peoples, the terrorists want to destroy Israel, that's the cause for the fighting, that's Israel's evil in the eyes of the terrorists and arab nations, existing, that's why there can never be peace in Israel, unfortunately.

However Israel then went and expelled the Palestinians. This, in historical context, is not suprising, but to invade the area occupied by the same people not 20 years later is really taking the biscuit. There is now a state of Israel, armed to the teeth and well capable of taking care of itself. There should now be a Palestinian state and one set up under international auspices, not that of the US/Israel.

they didn't expel all, most of them fled. But why does Israel have to be the sole provider for the state, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, all those nations have more than enough land, but they refuse to take care of the palestinians, Israel is not that big, it's not fair for them to give up anything more than the territories (West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem), The arabs should cough up some of their land too.

Israel kills more terrorists than arabs, just ask Tropical Sands.why not just ask the Isreali Gov.. bypass the midle-man.

couple of days ago we were asking TS about "collective punishement"..

and TS replay was something like "Its like that..because the Israeli Gov says so.."

Israel kills more terrorists than arabs, just ask Tropical Sands.

Ask the israeli supporter to note that he supports Israel. He must be right

Ahh....Excuse 1 fails and Excuse 2 rolls out...

As ever I let the "both as bad as each other" go, because in many ways its entirely true, but as ever the deluded "light shines out of Israels ass" brigade are bound to chime in with this kind of crap. Face up to it - the IDF - on occassion - target civillians.

Yes it does, but to get that number you have to use the two parameters I came up with if you are being honest about the matter. Which I imagine will be much much smaller than 350. OTOH, we are not dealing with robots, so some targeting of civilians is to be expected on occasion. It should not, however, be the primary objective as it is for the palestinians.

...the primary objective as it is for the palestinians.the primary objective of the Palestineans is to get-their-Land-back..

And the Primary objective of Israel is "not-to-give-it back".

Civilean casualties of the "enemy" is not an objetive.. its a.. whats that word again.. "collateral"

the primary objective of the Palestineans is to get-their-Land-back..

And the Primary objective of Israel is "not-to-give-it back".

Civilean casualties of the "enemy" is not an objetive.. its a.. whats that word again.. "collateral"
Since much of the land owned by israel was actually bought legally from the government in control at the time it's not thier land. Collateral damage is defined by the purpose of every attack. The purpose of the palestinian attacks is to kill and terrorize israeli civilians, which means that dead israelis are not collateral damage but the primary objective of the attacks. Collateral damage for the palestinians would be killing some random palestinians along with the israelis.

the primary objective of the Palestineans is to get-their-Land-back..

And the Primary objective of Israel is "not-to-give-it back".

Civilean casualties of the "enemy" is not an objetive.. its a.. whats that word again.. "collateral"

Change "not-to-give-it back" to "keep-our-land-and-stop-the-attacks", and it's closer to what each side's objective is. Of course, they're still mutually incompatible unless someone compromises, and so far Israel has been the only one of the two to offer such compromises in any way that's remotely enforceable.

Change "not-to-give-it back" to "..."No, I rather leave it like it is.
.
Of course, they're still mutually incompatible.. of course.. (You are rigth)
.
unless someone compromises...:rolleyes: (I have lost hope long ago.)

Change "not-to-give-it back" to "keep-our-land-and-stop-the-attacks", and it's closer to what each side's objective is. Of course, they're still mutually incompatible unless someone compromises,

Which is the crux of the problem. Israel demands to keep its colonies. Palestine demands they are withdrawn. Israel demands control over the Jordan valley, Palestine says it's just an attempt to keep them under control. etc, etc.

and so far Israel has been the only one of the two to offer such compromises in any way that's remotely enforceable.

Well, the Palestinians have offered compramises. Since Israel/Palestine is very thin, Israel demands complete contol over Palestinian airspace. Palestine offers joint control over both, Israel refuses.

The problem is both want the solution to be on their terms, I think. I'd like to see the UN come up with a solution (borders, etc, that are mutially convenient/inconvenient) and just enforce it, regardless of whether they like it or not. Neither seem capable of finding a solution bilaterally, and it seems unlikely that the terror will stop while under occupation.

I'd like to see the UN come up with a (fair) solution .. mutially convenient...2 words: US Veto.

the UN has come up with more or less "convenient" resolutions..somewhat fair..

but they cant go over the US veto.

No, I rather leave it like it is.

I personally prefer trying to keep a neutral point of view, myself. The Israelis see it as keeping their land and discouraging attacks just as the Palestinians see it as taking back their land, so that's why I said what I did. Unlike you, I try and take both perspectives into consideration before opening my mouth. I don't always succeed, but at least I make the effort.

I personally prefer trying to keep a neutral point of view, myself.all of us do..
The only problem is that we all have different perceptions.

Some of us also don't snip four words out of a paragraph and call it a quote. It's a bad habit, and leads to misrepresentation. ;p

The problem is both want the solution to be on their terms, I think. I'd like to see the UN come up with a solution (borders, etc, that are mutially convenient/inconvenient) and just enforce it, regardless of whether they like it or not. Neither seem capable of finding a solution bilaterally, and it seems unlikely that the terror will stop while under occupation.

... and that is the problem. Both think they're entirely right, and both want to dictate the 'compromise'. Mind you, there is also the problem of implementing compromises. If Israel agrees to a compromise, they can actually get it done. If Palestine's ruling group agrees to a compromise, the militant / terrorist group says "screw you!" and keeps going.

... and that is the problem. Both think they're entirely right, and both want to dictate the 'compromise'. Mind you, there is also the problem of implementing compromises. If Israel agrees to a compromise, they can actually get it done. If Palestine's ruling group agrees to a compromise, the militant / terrorist group says "screw you!" and keeps going.

Which is where UN peacekeepers come in, and training Palestinian anti-terror troops. However, if Palestine were independent, the terrorists would lose their support pretty quickly. Like I said before, it'll be much easier to win the hearts and minds of Palestinians in an independent state than under occuaption.

It's a paradox, wrapped in an enigma, covered in pastry...

Israel kills more terrorists than arabs, just ask Tropical Sands..

emmm.....I'd ask the IDF offiical spokesperson quicker - not because they'd say the truth any quicker, but because they're usually less irritating.



1. wasn't attacking you because I'm jewish,..

I didn't think that you were attacking for that reason.


2.There are Israeli terrorists who attack and kill arabs, but there are far more palestinian terrorists because as I see it, They are brainwashed from birth to "Kill americans and Jews", it's all they ever hear, and unfortunately for the palestinian peoples, the terrorists want to destroy Israel, that's the cause for the fighting, that's Israel's evil in the eyes of the terrorists and arab nations, existing, that's why there can never be peace in Israel, unfortunately.
,..

I'm referring to the IDF primarily, but you can include settlers in the "bad people" group. I don't think too much of religous fanatics.


they didn't expel all, most of them fled. But why does Israel have to be the sole provider for the state, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, all those nations have more than enough land, but they refuse to take care of the palestinians, Israel is not that big, it's not fair for them to give up anything more than the territories (West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem), The arabs should cough up some of their land too.

Some fled, most expelled.
I have never suggested that Israel 'give up' more than the territories btw.


Yes it does, but to get that number you have to use the two parameters I came up with if you are being honest about the matter. Which I imagine will be much much smaller than 350..

Children under 14 comes to about 350. Children under 9 were around the 100 mark (they are included in the 350 above). It strikes me as odd that I've no problem with seeing wrongdoing by the Palestinians, yet throw out any number at some concerning Israeli deeds and suddenly theres a horde of statisticians out to tell you that the occupation is good for your health.


Since much of the land owned by israel was actually bought legally from the government in control at the time it's not thier land...

And again, denial of reality. The figure was about 7%. Part of the reason the past keeps coming back is because it hasnt been given an honest burial.

New Burmesias post contains, however, a crumbly feast of sanity.