Palestinians execute Jewish settler Eliyahu Asheri [Archive]

Tropical Sands

29-06-2006, 07:41

well it is not the Arab countries responsibility, it is Israels fault there are refugees. Also, half of Jordan is Palestinian, and if Jordan takes in the refugees, then Jordan will be destroyed, just as Israel would be if it takes in the Palestinians. The Arab countries also do not have the means to support roughly 1 million refugees, and they will simply be moved from living in camps in the Israeli desert to living in camps in the Syrian or Jordanian desert.

You have such a skewed view of history. I wonder if you got your education in Iraq, where they teach revisionist history and things like "Jews are donkeys" in textbooks?

For one, it is the Arab responsibility. And it is not the sole fault of Israel. Israel displaced virtually no one due to settlement. The displacement of Palestinians resulted because Jordan, Syria, and Egypt attacked Israel. Jordan stole and annexed the land that was to be a Palestinian state. The displacement was not the result of Israel, but the result of the war. Thus, the moral responsibility for the displacement falls on those who started the war - the Arab countries.

Second, half of Jordan isn't Palestinian. All of Jordan is Palestinian. Jordan was part of the Palestinian Mandate. Every Arab that has ever lived in Jordan since then, thus the natives of Jordan today, are all "Palestinian." The Palestinians in the Occupied Territories are identical as an anthropological 'nation' as the Arabs in Jordan. They are identical in every ethnic respect.

Because they are demographically the same, it wouldn't effect Jordan in any way to take in the refugees that they caused by attacking Israel. In addition, Palestinian refugees do not want to destroy Jordan like they want to destroy Israel. Finally, Jordan has about 3 times as much empty land as Israel. It also currently needs a larger population for economic development. The same with Syria. Taking in Palestinian refugees is not only the moral responsibility of Jordan, due to Jordan causing the refugee problem by starting a war, but something that would benefit Jordan.

And don't forget - most refugee camps still exist in Jordan. Strange that you would be living under this mythological view that they are living in camps in Israel. They aren't. Israeli refugee camps have been gone for quite some time. Yet, Palestinians are still kept like prisoners in Lebanese and Jordanian refugee camps. Palestinians in the Occupied Territories live in cities, have jobs, etc.

East of Eden is Nod

29-06-2006, 08:45

It's just ridiculous that they don't release him. Israel has clearly stated they would pull out immediately if Gilad was released alive. It just shows that they don't want peace, and only want to escalate the conflict.

Pull out immediately of what? And how could that be trusted? Israel has been firing into the northern Gaza strip for the last couple of months every now and then. Almost all of this year's crop there has been destroyed for the Palestinian families living there. From the very beginning it was clear that the pullout from Gaza was only a means to have an easier target without probably hitting Jewish settlers. This was not a sign of will to peace. How could Irael ever be trusted?

Tropical Sands

29-06-2006, 08:58

Pull out immediately of what? And how could that be trusted? Israel has been firing into the northern Gaza strip for the last couple of months every now and then. Almost all of this year's crop there has been destroyed for the Palestinian families living there. From the very beginning it was clear that the pullout from Gaza was only a means to have an easier target without probably hitting Jewish settlers. This was not a sign of will to peace. How could Irael ever be trusted?

You're doing what is called "lying by omission." Its easy to try and make Israel look bad if you only tell half of the story. Lets get the facts straight.

Israel had occupied Gaza for quite some time. Then, in accordance with the Road Map to Peace, which Israel and the PA both were signatores to, Israel withdrew from Gaza. All settlements in Gaza were disbanded. Part of the PA requirement was that terror stop. Terror from Gaza did not stop; rather, after the withdrawl, terror increased exponentially. was only a means to have an easier target without probably hitting Jewish settlers.

Since the pullout from Gaza, each and every Israeli military action was in direct response to a previous terrorist action against Israel. That is defense, by definition. To equate the terror attacks from Palestinian terror groups, on the offense, to Israeli actions of defense, is morally and logically fallacious.

The Palestinian crops that have been destroyed is a result of the fact that Palestinian fields are a favorite place for Palestinian terror groups to launch rockets from. Israel has never targeted Palestinian infrastructure that does not directly support terrorism. If Palestinian fields are being used to launch terror attacks, they become legitimate military targets under international law and the rules of war. Nor do they indiscriminately destroy fields, but rather only the portions of fields specifically used to launch qassam rockets into Israel.

Your statement "from the very beginning the pullout from Gaza was only a means to have an easier target without probably hitting Jewish settlers" amounts to nothing but a conspiracy theory. For one, the pullout was a plan that was agreed to by both the Palestinian Authority and Israel. To imply that it was part of a conspiracy to continue attacking the Occupied Territories is to imply that Arafat and the PLO were involved in this conspiracy, too. Secondly, Jewish settlers were never in danger of being hit by IDF fire. Over the last five years, Israel has killed less than 30 Israeli citizens as a result of 'friendly fire'. Contrast this to near 400 Palestinians out of approx 3000 killed by other Palestinians. The statistics, and the facts, don't support your conspiracy theory.

Kilobugya

29-06-2006, 08:59

It's just ridiculous that they don't release him. Israel has clearly stated they would pull out immediately if Gilad was released alive. It just shows that they don't want peace, and only want to escalate the conflict.

Who wants to escalate the conflict ?

Just when Abas calls for a referendum among Palestinian for a peace plan including the recognition of the state of Israel, Israel starts bombing civilian (started from the beach), killing more than 100 in one week !

Then some palestinian group kidnap an Israeli soldier, asking for the release of Palestinian prisonners in exchange. Hey, it's war ! He was a *soldier*, not a civilian. How many palestinian, including children are held captive by the Israeli, with no right to defense, in complete violation of Geneva convention ? If Israel attacks the Palestinian, as it did several times the previous weeks, it's no wonder than Israeli *soldiers* get hurt. I can't blame that.

Then Israel bombs and invades Gaza, killing even more civilians. Because the Palestinian kidnapped a soldier, in a war, they retaliate by killing civilians. Who is the terrorist ?

Then you cry for a settler... sure, it's always sad when someone dies. But settlers are *invaders*. They are acting against international laws, UN decisions, treaties signed by Israel. They are invading foreign land, and seizing it with the support of the army. They are in no way civilians. It's war and people die. But the ones who refuse to respect international laws, who refuse the borders of 1967, who constantly bomb civilians are not the Palestinians. The Palestinians accepted to give up 78% of the their land. They recognized Israel. They accepted international laws and borders. Israel never did any of those. They want more and more, and use the power of their superior army to take it by force, killing as many as needed. That's state terrorism.

Kilobugya

29-06-2006, 09:09

Since the pullout from Gaza, each and every Israeli military action was in direct response to a previous terrorist action against Israel.

The reality is the exact opposite. To just to take out the recent wave of violences, it started when Israeli bombed a beach killing 8 civilians. THEN and only THEN did the Hamas and the Fatah break the truce they were respecting. And it's like that since years. When Palestinian decreet a truce, they respect it, until Israel attack them.

The Palestinian crops that have been destroyed is a result of the fact that Palestinian fields are a favorite place for Palestinian terror groups to launch rockets from.

No. That's because they need to raze it in order to build the wall, which was declared illegal by La Haye court, and which purpose is to extend the border of Israel and to shriken even more the land allowed to Palestinian. The building of the wall, in itself, is an act of war, and a violation of international right.

Israel has never targeted Palestinian infrastructure that does not directly support terrorism.

That's utterly false. Palestinian infrastructure, including schools, hospitals and power plants are regularly targetted by Israel. That's one of the reason for which the European Parliament voted the suspension of the Israel-EU association treaty (but the EP has nearly no power in Europe, so the treaty was not suspended... great respect of democracy from our beloved leaders).

Yootopia

29-06-2006, 09:16

Well, Israel would also like Hamas/FATAH to stop launching rockets into Israel. That would be nice.
And I'm sure that most Palestinians would prefer not to have airstrikes upon their political leaders. But neither's going to stop any time soon.

Oh and your capitalisation is the wrong way around on their names.

Tropical Sands

29-06-2006, 09:18

The reality is the exact opposite. To just to take out the recent wave of violences, it started when Israeli bombed a beach killing 8 civilians. THEN and only THEN did the Hamas and the Fatah break the truce they were respecting. And it's like that since years. When Palestinian decreet a truce, they respect it, until Israel attack them.

Actually, Hamas was the only group with a hudna. Fatah never had one. al-Aksa, Fatah's militant wing, had been launching missles and performing suicide bombings ever since the Gaza pullout. And, its a statistical fact that terror from Gaza increased after the pullout.

Not to mention that Hamas didn't actually keep its hudna. Hamas members were found responsible for the Sinai bombings in Egypt that targeted Israeli citizens two different times.

No. That's because they need to raze it in order to build the wall, which was declared illegal by La Haye court, and which purpose is to extend the border of Israel and to shriken even more the land allowed to Palestinian. The building of the wall, in itself, is an act of war, and a violation of international right.

Oh noes, another person who doesn't understand international law. :rolleyes:

The building of the wall is legal under international law. Israel never made a reference to the ICJ that gave it jurisdiction. And the ICJ admitted that fact. In addition, UN Resolution 242 implictly gives Israel permission to annex and take whatever land is necessary to make defensible borders. It protects not only Israel's right to take some land, but to build the wall.

That's utterly false. Palestinian infrastructure, including schools, hospitals and power plants are regularly targetted by Israel. That's one of the reason for which the European Parliament voted the suspension of the Israel-EU association treaty (but the EP has nearly no power in Europe, so the treaty was not suspended... great respect of democracy from our beloved leaders).

Palestinian infrastructure that supports terrorism only. Schcols are targeted, such as the Islamic university that supported Hamas and was used as a terror base yesterday. Again, you commit the fallacy of lying by omission. You tell a half truth - schools, hospitals, and power plants are targeted. You leave out the fact that they are used to support terror infrastructure. You wont be able to show an instance when Israel targeted infrastructure that did not directly support terror.

Tharkent

29-06-2006, 09:29

*sigh*

Tropical Sands

29-06-2006, 09:30

Who wants to escalate the conflict ?

Just when Abas calls for a referendum among Palestinian for a peace plan including the recognition of the state of Israel, Israel starts bombing civilian (started from the beach), killing more than 100 in one week !

Just to reemphasize. Its patently false that conflicts started due to the beach. In addition, the official report (http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2006/Summary+of+IDF+investigation+of+incident+on+the+Gaza+beach+9+June+2006.htm) of the beach bombing discovered it was a result of a Palestinian mine, not an Israeli shell. The only person who disputed this was an investigator from HRW that did not actually have access to any of the evidence.

In fact, there are a number of suicide attakcs from al-Aksa, such as the
Tel Aviv falafel bombing (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4915868.stm), which killed nine people on April 17, 2005. About two months before the beach incident, which you claim caused the jump in Palestinian terror.

Then some palestinian group kidnap an Israeli soldier, asking for the release of Palestinian prisonners in exchange. Hey, it's war ! He was a *soldier*, not a civilian. How many palestinian, including children are held captive by the Israeli, with no right to defense, in complete violation of Geneva convention ? If Israel attacks the Palestinian, as it did several times the previous weeks, it's no wonder than Israeli *soldiers* get hurt. I can't blame that.

Strange how you would try to rely on the ICJ ruling on Israel's fence, when it never became international law, and then claim something that is patently contrary to international law and the Geneva conventions. It just goes to show your anti-Israeli double standard.

Currently, there is no war legally. The Palestinian groups, under international law, are terror groups. They are not the militaries of soverign states. They do not have any legal power to declare war, or to be protected by rules of war. In addition, kidnapping is illegal under the Geneva conventions. The actions of the Palestinian terror groups have been illegal in every way during this situation, including the execution of the Jewish settler they also kidnapped along with this soldier.

Then Israel bombs and invades Gaza, killing even more civilians. Because the Palestinian kidnapped a soldier, in a war, they retaliate by killing civilians. Who is the terrorist ?

Again, there is no war. Terror groups attacking Israel are not part of a legitimate military, and are not recognized as such under the Geneva conventions. Nor is Palestine a state that has the power to declare war. Only soverign states can do that, and Palestine is not one.

And lets not forget about the Jewish settler - not a soldier - who was kidnapped at the same time and executed.

Then you cry for a settler... sure, it's always sad when someone dies. But settlers are *invaders*. They are acting against international laws, UN decisions, treaties signed by Israel. They are invading foreign land, and seizing it with the support of the army. They are in no way civilians. It's war and people die. But the ones who refuse to respect international laws, who refuse the borders of 1967, who constantly bomb civilians are not the Palestinians. The Palestinians accepted to give up 78% of the their land. They recognized Israel. They accepted international laws and borders. Israel never did any of those. They want more and more, and use the power of their superior army to take it by force, killing as many as needed. That's state terrorism.

Settlers aren't acting against international laws. International law says that population may not be transferred into or out of occupied territories by force. No settler has been transferred by force into the Occupied Territories. In addition, Israel was not a signatory to that provision, which means according to international law Israel was never bound by it. You're either being deliberately dishonest with international law, or you're uninformed with how it works.

The settler, according to the Geneva conventions, actually was a civilian. Funny how you ignore that in lieu of your own (false) interpretations of intnl law.

Palestine hasn't accepted internatonal laws or borders. The Hamas charter calls for the complete destruction of Israel and the genocide of Jews everywhere. UN Resolution 242 implctly states that Israel may declare its borders as it sees necessary for security. Nor have Palestinians, again according to international law, ever had any land. There was never a Palestinian state, and "Palestinians" as a political body have never owned a single acre of land.

Andaras Prime

29-06-2006, 09:38

Palestinian infrastructure that supports terrorism only. Schcols are targeted, such as the Islamic university that supported Hamas and was used as a terror base yesterday. Again, you commit the fallacy of lying by omission. You tell a half truth - schools, hospitals, and power plants are targeted. You leave out the fact that they are used to support terror infrastructure. You wont be able to show an instance when Israel targeted infrastructure that did not directly support terror.
I think that terror is probably not the right word to be used, as it is such an interpretive phrase. I mean how can you say that high altitude bombing and targetted artillery strikes are any different than palestinian rocket attacks, instead such attacks are labelled as 'terror' to somehow illegitimise them or make them illegal so they can be attached to words such as 'terrorism' that have a stigma so that they can take the moral high ground in the international arena against their enemies. Trouble being of course, one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter, I dont think you can define against that.

Tropical Sands

29-06-2006, 09:44

I think that terror is probably not the right word to be used, as it is such an interpretive phrase. I mean how can you say that high altitude bombing and targetted artillery strikes are any different than palestinian rocket attacks, instead such attacks are labelled as 'terror' to somehow illegitimise them or make them illegal so they can be attached to words such as 'terrorism' that have a stigma so that they can take the moral high ground in the international arena against their enemies. Trouble being of course, one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter, I dont think you can define against that.

Its terror as defined by the US State Dept, the EU, and virtually every humanitarian group. Its also terror as defined in the Geneva conventions.

Targetted artillery strikes are different because they are targetted. While there is sometimes collateral damage, Israel is working within the rules of war because it does not target civilians and attemps to minimize civilian casualty. Whereas qassam rocket attacks are indiscriminate, and any indiscriminate attacks on a population are against the Geneva convention. This is why landmines in public areas are against international law now, as well.

In the same respect, suicide bombings and qassam rockets are directed against the civilian population. They are rarely used to target legitimate military targets. In contrast, Israel has always targetted military targets, and never targeted civilians. Surely you don't think the intentional killing of civilians is equal to attacks on military targets.

And, while "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter" is a popular statement, it commits the fallacy of a false dichotomy. Its a tautologious fact, according to the definition of terror, that Hamas and other groups engage in terrorism. While people may view them as freedom fighters, that does not mean that they are not terrorists. It isn't a subjective standard, but a standard that the entire world adheres to.

Even the terror groups will admit that they advocate terror as a tactic. They don't pretend that they are not terrorists, so I don't know why the terror supporters do.

The SR

30-06-2006, 01:32

TS, the official report of the IDF, the guys who might be done for murder, was that it was a mine. all the independent evidence says it was a shell, all the unjuries were upper body, and no, we dont need you to falsly attribute stories tp AP again.

this guys death was regrettible, but where are all the zionists/101 keyboards with their omlettes and eggs collateral damage theories today?

who started this recent escalation? would that be the poor innocent israelis?

Grave_n_idle

30-06-2006, 01:43

Since the pullout from Gaza, each and every Israeli military action was in direct response to a previous terrorist action against Israel. That is defense, by definition.

No - that is 'revenge', by definition.

Tropical Sands

30-06-2006, 01:52

TS, the official report of the IDF, the guys who might be done for murder, was that it was a mine. all the independent evidence says it was a shell, all the unjuries were upper body, and no, we dont need you to falsly attribute stories tp AP again.

Actually, there is no "independent evidence" except for Garalsco's HRW report. In the HRW report, if you've actually read it, it admits that it has not examined any of the physical evidence.

Garalsco has also stated that he cannot contradict the IDF report, and Annan has stated that he was duped by the media into believing that it was a Palestinian shell, and has since retracted. This has been all over both Israeli and anti-Israeli media.

Counterpunch (a distinctly anti-Israeli group), "Israel Engineers Another Cover-Up"

This week, according to reports in the Israeli media, even Marc Garlasco, a Pentagon expert on the effects of battlefield weapons hired by Human Rights Watch to investigate the deaths, "conceded" that he could not contradict the findings of the Israeli army’s own inquiry.

Honest Reporting (pro-Israeli), citing Yedioth Ahrinoth and Jerusalem Post "Garalsco, Annan, Concede to IDF Inquiry"

Human Rights Watch and Mark Galasco came away from a meeting with IDF officials conceding that Israeli artillery could not be responsible for the Gaza beach tragedy. The Jerusalem Post writes:

On Monday, Maj.-Gen. Meir Klifi - head of the IDF inquiry commission that cleared the IDF of responsibility for the blast - met with Marc Garlasco, a military expert from the HRW who had last week claimed that the blast was caused by an IDF artillery shell. Following the three-hour meeting, described by both sides as cordial and pleasant, Garlasco praised the IDF's professional investigation into the blast, which he said was most likely caused by unexploded Israeli ordnance left laying on the beach, a possibility also raised by Klifi and his team….

Garlasco told Klifi during the meeting that he was impressed with the IDF's system of checks and balances concerning its artillery fire in the Gaza Strip and unlike Hamas which specifically targeted civilians in its rocket attacks, the Israelis, he said, invested a great amount of resources and efforts not to harm innocent civilians.

And according to YNet News, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan retracted previous comments, saying he was duped by press coverage:

Following a meeting Thursday with Israel's Ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Gillerman, he told reporters that he had responded to "media speculations."

We hope the media outlets that quoted Garlasco's initial charges will give equal prominence to these developments.

And nothing has ever been falsely attributed to AP. You'll be unable to show otherwise, too. Rather, you saw that Jerusalem Post uses AP as a newsfeed, and then made the knee-jerk response of "OMG, they're making it up!" when AP ran a story in the Jerusalem Post that said it wasn't caused by Israeli shells - something we know to be fact from the IDF investigation that even HRW has conceded to.

Tropical Sands

30-06-2006, 02:14

No - that is 'revenge', by definition.

So, when the United States responded to Pearl Habor, was that 'revenge' too, or defense? It could be argued that it was both. But what can't be denied is that the United States, just like Israel today, had no policy of revenge. Revenge was not the stated intent. Defense was.

And all systems of law, and virtually all systems of morality, including theories of war, take intent as a big factor in deciding on issues such as 'offense' and 'defense.' The statement "the best defense is a good offense" is derived from that. An action may be overtly offensive, but if it is defensive in intent, then it is overall a defensive action.

Cyric the One and All

30-06-2006, 06:34

Yup.

I don't want the Palis in MY country.

Hey...move the Palistinians to.....uh...the MOON!

Nah, I say move them to Antarctica. Wait, but they might carry out terrorist attacks against the penguins. The penguins would probably retaliate with airstrikes if they only could fly.... Hm... maybe the moon is a good place.

Mt-Tau

30-06-2006, 06:39

So, they killed the guy huh? That was a bad move...

DesignatedMarksman

30-06-2006, 06:48

Filty savages.

Let the Mossad work on them, then send their heads back to HAMAS on a platter with a note saying "STOP IT OR ELSE".

Seriously, I'm not too much older than that kid.

DesignatedMarksman

30-06-2006, 06:50

:D Nah, I say move them to Antarctica. Wait, but they might carry out terrorist attacks against the penguins. The penguins would probably retaliate with airstrikes if they only could fly.... Hm... maybe the moon is a good place.

Move them to egypt and let egypt enslave them 4th century style? (Do something useful and finish the pyramids the Jews started?)

Grave_n_idle

30-06-2006, 14:44

Filty savages.

Let the Mossad work on them, then send their heads back to HAMAS on a platter with a note saying "STOP IT OR ELSE".

Seriously, I'm not too much older than that kid.

You surprise me...

Grave_n_idle

30-06-2006, 14:46

So, when the United States responded to Pearl Habor, was that 'revenge' too, or defense? It could be argued that it was both. But what can't be denied is that the United States, just like Israel today, had no policy of revenge. Revenge was not the stated intent. Defense was.

And all systems of law, and virtually all systems of morality, including theories of war, take intent as a big factor in deciding on issues such as 'offense' and 'defense.' The statement "the best defense is a good offense" is derived from that. An action may be overtly offensive, but if it is defensive in intent, then it is overall a defensive action.

You said it was 'defense, by definition'. It isn't... by 'definition', it is 'revenge'. That was what I was quibbling.

We used atomic weapons for revenge. We invaded Iraq for revenge. We can try to CLAIM 'defense', but it's just to make us feel better after the fact - once the blood is on our hands, and we still don't feel any better.

Adriatica II

30-06-2006, 14:52

well it is not the Arab countries responsibility, it is Israels fault there are refugees.

Hardly. Israel was at the time quite happy to have the Arabs as citizens of Israel. However the surrounding Arab states were angry at the mere existance of Israel, and so they launched an attack on the Jewish civilian sites. The Israelie govenemnt urged the Arab citizens to stay in their homes, but they didnt. And then after the war, a law was passed allowing the displaced Arabs back to Israel after 3 conditons were met
- They would renounce viloence
- They would become peaceful and prodcutive members of society
- They would become Israelie citizens

Teh_pantless_hero

30-06-2006, 14:53

The Palestinians should just move to another Arabic country. The Arabs have lots of countries, but the Hebrews only have one little tiny one.
Chicago?

Harlesburg

30-06-2006, 14:58

Cyric the One and All why not move the Jews to Madagascar then?

Deep Kimchi

30-06-2006, 14:59

Chicago?
Far Rockaway

BogMarsh

30-06-2006, 15:05

The Palestinian murderers have executed the Jewish settler Eliyahu Asheri where his body was found in Ramallah in the West Bank.

JPOST.com:

One Word: Retaliation.

Kazus

30-06-2006, 15:08

This incident came after a period when the Israeli military has been shelling and rocketing Gaza, quite likely killing a whole family of beachgoers (though the Israeli military claims rather improbably that this was the result of a Hamas mine, not of a shell), and a number of other civilians.

Almost universally in the U.S. media, including on National Public Radio, the captured Israeli soldier is being referred to as a hostage and his capture is referred to as a "kidnapping."

Note that Israeli jails are brimming with captured Palestinian fighters, but this is not called kidnapping, nor are they called "hostages," though they often end up getting their freedom in in exchange for the return of captured Israeli soldiers who are referred to as "hostages," not prisoners.

.

Harlesburg

30-06-2006, 15:11

One Word: Retaliation.
Retaliation for whom?:confused:

BogMarsh

30-06-2006, 15:12

Retaliation for whom?:confused:

On whom.
Palestinians.
Whom else? D'uh!

[/haiku]

Corneliu

30-06-2006, 15:23

The Palestinian murderers have executed the Jewish settler Eliyahu Asheri where his body was found in Ramallah in the West Bank.

JPOST.com:

Another sad day :(

Corneliu

30-06-2006, 15:23

Corneliu

30-06-2006, 15:28

Corneliu

30-06-2006, 15:31

And I'm sure that most Palestinians would prefer not to have airstrikes upon their political leaders. But neither's going to stop any time soon.

When those "political leaders" actually become political leaders, then you'll have a point. Until then, you don't.

Gnomerian

30-06-2006, 16:02

Yootopia

30-06-2006, 16:14

Filty savages.
Most savages can at least spell the word "filthy". And why do you think they're filthy savages?
Let the Mossad work on them, then send their heads back to HAMAS on a platter with a note saying "STOP IT OR ELSE".
They do. And then the Palestinians, to even it up, blow up a bus full of people, which gives the exact same message. An eye for an eye might well make the world go blind, but it's been happening in the Middle East for thousands of years.
Seriously, I'm not too much older than that kid.
What a shocking revelation... you really could have fooled me.

Corneliu

30-06-2006, 16:16

They do. And then the Palestinians, to even it up, blow up a bus full of people, which gives the exact same message. An eye for an eye might well make the world go blind, but it's been happening in the Middle East for thousands of years.

You do know that nothing is gained by blowing up a bus full of innocent people right? Hamas doesn't play by the rules of war whereas Israel does. Thanks for playing however.

Yootopia

30-06-2006, 16:16

When those "political leaders" actually become political leaders, then you'll have a point. Until then, you don't.
HAMAS have the majority in government, hence they are a political organisation. Blowing up cars/ambushing HAMAS members is assassination.

Corneliu

30-06-2006, 16:18

HAMAS have the majority in government, hence they are a political organisation. Blowing up cars/ambushing HAMAS members is assassination.

Hamas is a terrorist organization. About time you figure that out. Hamas isn't doing anything political but attacking civilians who have nothing to do with this conflict. They do not want to negotiate as a proper political leader would do.

Hamas doesn't know a damn thing except violence.

Yootopia

30-06-2006, 16:18

You do know that nothing is gained by blowing up a bus full of innocent people right? Hamas doesn't play by the rules of war whereas Israel does. Thanks for playing however.
Palestine doesn't engage in conventional warfare because it's not well armed enough to do so. If you gave them Apache helicopters, M4s and fighter jets, as well as a few tanks, then they'd fight in a "lawful" manner.

Until that time, they're fighting in a way which suits what resources they have.

Corneliu

30-06-2006, 16:20

Palestine doesn't engage in conventional warfare because it's not well armed enough to do so. If you gave them Apache helicopters, M4s and fighter jets, as well as a few tanks, then they'd fight in a "lawful" manner.

If you believe that then you really don't have a clue to this conflict. Give them those and there will be all out war in the region and I'll tell you that Israel will not lose it. You want total war as not seen since World War 2? I don't. You think civilian casualties are bad now? That will make it worse. Get a clue.

Until that time, they're fighting in a way which suits what resources they have.

By blowing up innocent people? I'm sorry but that is a mark of a coward.

Yootopia

30-06-2006, 16:22

Hamas is a terrorist organization. About time you figure that out.
They also have the majority in the Palestinian parliament. Saying HAMAS is a terrorist organisation, and that they do nothing political is like me saying "Sinn Fein are terrorists" due to their IRA links.
Hamas isn't doing anything political but attacking civilians who have nothing to do with this conflict. They do not want to negotiate as a proper political leader would do.

Hamas doesn't know a damn thing except violence.
It was HAMAS who were trying to (and nearly succeeded in) brokering a truce between Palestine and Israel. They were condemning needless attacks on Isreal.

It was the Israelis who started this off again with their shelling, regardless of how accidental it was, of a beach.

TeHe

30-06-2006, 16:25

Until that time, they're fighting in a way which suits what resources they have.

Sweet. That's pretty much a blank check for mayhem. We have nuclear weapons. We could pull all of the troops out of Iraq and turn it into a really big parking lot. By your own standards, we're in the green here on that, because it's a method which suits our resources.

Corneliu

30-06-2006, 16:26

They also have the majority in the Palestinian parliament. Saying HAMAS is a terrorist organisation, and that they do nothing political is like me saying "Sinn Fein are terrorists" due to their IRA links.

Well what have they done to broker peace with Israel? Nothing.

It was HAMAS who were trying to (and nearly succeeded in) brokering a truce between Palestine and Israel. They were condemning needless attacks on Isreal.

*dies of laughter* You really need to learn all the facts before opening your mouth. You know that Israel only retaliates and when they do, they do so in accordance with the rules of war.

It was the Israelis who started this off again with their shelling, regardless of how accidental it was, of a beach.

You still believe that false accusation? Sorry if I don't take you seriously anymore.

Yootopia

30-06-2006, 16:27

If you believe that then you really don't have a clue to this conflict. Give them those and there will be all out war in the region and I'll tell you that Israel will not lose it.
Israel would lose if it engaged Palestine in a "fair" fight, especially if Syria and/or Egypt got involved. A lot has changed in the 39 years since the Six Day's War.
You want total war as not seen since World War 2? I don't.
Then why not just put up with the bombings by the Palestinians and just accept that it's how things are in the region, rather than letting it escalate - because there is no chance it'll cool down now.
By blowing up innocent people? I'm sorry but that is a mark of a coward.
The Palestinians are by no means the only ones blowing up innocent people in this conflict.

Welsh wannabes

30-06-2006, 16:28

Zukariaa']I hope Israel crushes them and takes back it's land. The idiots apparantly want to be whiped off of the face of the Earth, espescially if they're doing this shit with Israel.

agreed, although the arabs surrounding israel would use that as an excuse to crush israel.

Adriatica II

30-06-2006, 16:28

Palestine doesn't engage in conventional warfare because it's not well armed enough to do so. If you gave them Apache helicopters, M4s and fighter jets, as well as a few tanks, then they'd fight in a "lawful" manner.

Until that time, they're fighting in a way which suits what resources they have.

I dont think you understand what "lawful" fighting is. Be you major power or terrorist group, if you detonate a bomb in a public place with the explicit intention of killing as many civilians as possible then you are fighting in a way that is unacceptable. If however the PLO were to target only Isralie millitary instalations, then they would be fighting in a reasonable manner. The fact is that intentionally targeting civilians, whoever you are, is not legitimate warfare tatic, which is what the Isralies do not do. That is not to say that civilains have not died as a result of the Isralie counter attacks but the diffrence is that they are not trying to kill as many civilians as they can, as the terrorists are, they are trying to eliminate only terrorists. But the problem is that terrorists, by their definition, blur the line between soldier and civilan.

Lawful fighting has nothing to do with resources, its about who you target. Detonating a suicide vest in a crowded shopping centre is in no way morraly equivilent to targeting a known terrorist hideout.

Corneliu

30-06-2006, 16:30

Israel would lose if it engaged Palestine in a "fair" fight, especially if Syria and/or Egypt got involved. A lot has changed in the 39 years since the Six Day's War.

Yea...Israel is more advanced and much more heavily armed.

Then why not just put up with the bombings by the Palestinians and just accept that it's how things are in the region, rather than letting it escalate - because there is no chance it'll cool down now.

How would you like it if you were attacked? You will attack back. Its called *gasp* self defense.

The Palestinians are by no means the only ones blowing up innocent people in this conflict.

You think terror leaders are innocent? You think them hiding behind civilians are brave? Sorry but in war, there is collateral damage. However, Israel does try to limit it. The terrorists don't.

BogMarsh

30-06-2006, 16:31

agreed, although the arabs surrounding israel would use that as an excuse to crush israel.

Which... others.. I'm sure, would use as an excuse to end the existence of Arabs, completely and forever.

Welsh wannabes

30-06-2006, 16:32

TeHe

30-06-2006, 16:32

Which... others.. I'm sure, would use as an excuse to end the existence of Arabs, completely and forever.

Nah, we still need their oil for a while yet, until Al Gore gets elected president and makes it illegal. :D

BogMarsh

30-06-2006, 16:33

Nah, we still need their oil for a while yet, until Al Gore gets elected president and makes it illegal. :D

We don't need live Arabs to get Arab oil. ;)

Adriatica II

30-06-2006, 16:33

Israel would lose if it engaged Palestine in a "fair" fight, especially if Syria and/or Egypt got involved. A lot has changed in the 39 years since the Six Day's War.

Indeed, but you dont seriously think that the USA and Europe would ignore that kind of attack.

Then why not just put up with the bombings by the Palestinians and just accept that it's how things are in the region, rather than letting it escalate - because there is no chance it'll cool down now.

You only put up with reasonable things. Intentionally targeting civilians with bombs are not reasobable things to do.

The Palestinians are by no means the only ones blowing up innocent people in this conflict.

They are the only ones doing it intentionally. There is a world of diffrence between a terrorist detonationg a bomb in a crowded city centre and an army striking an enemy armies base and killing some civilains in the process.

BogMarsh

30-06-2006, 16:34

Then why not just put up with the bombings by the Palestinians and just accept that it's how things are in the region, rather than letting it escalate - because there is no chance it'll cool down now.

are you serious??? you think the israelis are meant to just let the palis kill innocent people and not do anything to stop it?? silly girl :rolleyes:

Show me a palestinian who agrees to be nothing but a hewer of wood and a drawer of water unto the Jews - and I'll show you a Palestinian who may not be guilty in the sight of JHWH.

Yootopia

30-06-2006, 16:37

Well what have they done to broker peace with Israel? Nothing.
Other than brokering a truce and condemning needless attacks on Israel, you're right, nothing's been done.
*dies of laughter*
Oh thank... wait a tick...
You really need to learn all the facts before opening your mouth. You know that Israel only retaliates and when they do, they do so in accordance with the rules of war.
Blowing up power stations which causes hospitals to go unpowered and blowing up bridges so that people can't get sick people to whatever medical facilities are available in said hospitals is hardly fair for capturing a soldier.

Nor is the smashing of Palestinian houses or the ruining of their ground for whatever the Israelis reckon the Palestinians have done whenever they want to indulge in some vengeance.

Both sides are fairly guilty of doing things which are pretty inappropriate, but at least Palestine doesn't proclaim that it's doing the honourable thing to the rest of the world.
You still believe that false accusation? Sorry if I don't take you seriously anymore.
It's not a false accusation in the slightest. One "unaccounted for" artillery shell from a boat, and a few less Palestinians somehow. Hmm... I wonder what could have happened...

Deep Kimchi

30-06-2006, 16:39

One "unaccounted for" artillery shell from a boat, and a few less Palestinians somehow. Hmm... I wonder what could have happened...

No Israeli naval vessel carries a cannon that can fire 155mm shells.

The fragments are acknowledged by HRW as being from a 155mm shell.

The largest caliber weapon on any Israeli naval craft is 30mm, in an anti-aircraft gun.

So, on with your conspiracy theory about how an Israeli naval vessel fired a shell it could not possibly fire...

New Mitanni

30-06-2006, 16:40

The Palestinian murderers have executed the Jewish settler Eliyahu Asheri where his body was found in Ramallah in the West Bank.

JPOST.com:

Only a lawful governmental authority can "execute" someone. Asheri was murdered. By Palestinian murderers, as you correctly point out.

And once again, Palestinians bring death and destruction upon themselves by their own stupidity and treachery.

Corneliu

30-06-2006, 16:40

Other than brokering a truce and condemning needless attacks on Israel, you're right, nothing's been done.

Then they broke the cease fire despite it being an accident done by the palestinians themselves. Yep. So much for them being in support of that. They should've waited till the investigation was completely finished. Reminds me of of 1898.

Blowing up power stations which causes hospitals to go unpowered and blowing up bridges so that people can't get sick people to whatever medical facilities are available in said hospitals is hardly fair for capturing a soldier.

And yet taking out infrastructure that supports terrorism is LEGAL under international law. Next?

Nor is the smashing of Palestinian houses or the ruining of their ground for whatever the Israelis reckon the Palestinians have done whenever they want to indulge in some vengeance.

*points to above statement*

Both sides are fairly guilty of doing things which are pretty inappropriate, but at least Palestine doesn't proclaim that it's doing the honourable thing to the rest of the world.

Israel at least is playing within the rules of civilized warfare.

It's not a false accusation in the slightest. One "unaccounted for" artillery shell from a boat, and a few less Palestinians somehow. Hmm... I wonder what could have happened...

Go on to believe the farce. The rest of us will take the facts.

Island of TerryTopia

30-06-2006, 16:42

Who wants to escalate the conflict ?

Just when Abas calls for a referendum among Palestinian for a peace plan including the recognition of the state of Israel, Israel starts bombing civilian (started from the beach), killing more than 100 in one week !

Then some palestinian group kidnap an Israeli soldier, asking for the release of Palestinian prisonners in exchange. Hey, it's war ! He was a *soldier*, not a civilian. How many palestinian, including children are held captive by the Israeli, with no right to defense, in complete violation of Geneva convention ? If Israel attacks the Palestinian, as it did several times the previous weeks, it's no wonder than Israeli *soldiers* get hurt. I can't blame that.

Then Israel bombs and invades Gaza, killing even more civilians. Because the Palestinian kidnapped a soldier, in a war, they retaliate by killing civilians. Who is the terrorist ?

Then you cry for a settler... sure, it's always sad when someone dies. But settlers are *invaders*. They are acting against international laws, UN decisions, treaties signed by Israel. They are invading foreign land, and seizing it with the support of the army. They are in no way civilians. It's war and people die. But the ones who refuse to respect international laws, who refuse the borders of 1967, who constantly bomb civilians are not the Palestinians. The Palestinians accepted to give up 78% of the their land. They recognized Israel. They accepted international laws and borders. Israel never did any of those. They want more and more, and use the power of their superior army to take it by force, killing as many as needed. That's state terrorism.

The Palestinians are the terrorists. They have been sending suicde bombers into Israel for as long as I can remember. The Palestinians /Hamas ruling party have said that they would destroy Israel. We know who the real terrorist are.

Adriatica II

30-06-2006, 16:45

It's not a false accusation in the slightest. One "unaccounted for" artillery shell from a boat, and a few less Palestinians somehow. Hmm... I wonder what could have happened...

Actually it is. Most news agencies agree that it is very unlikly to have been an Isralie shell

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=35&x_article=1129

- CAMERA (Committee for accuracy of Middle East Reporting in America)

http://www.cbc.ca/storyview/MSN/world/national/2006/06/11/israel-hamas.html

- Canadian Broadcasting Company

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/Tragedy_On_Gaza_Beach.asp

- Honest Reporting

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1149572656052&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150035829904&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150035830729&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150035830524&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150035838991&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

- Jerusalem Post

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13289081/

- MSNBC

New Mitanni

30-06-2006, 16:47

Tropical Sands is right on all accounts. The only problem is he doesnt seem to be getting through to all the people who are so anti-isreal they cannot bear
to listen to the truth. The majority of palistinians have chosen their fates by their actions. A small portion however have become Isreali citizens and are now productive members of society. Even members of Government! Wouldn't it be hilarious if the Palistinians let a Jew into their "Governement?"

TS is truly a voice crying out in the desert on several issues, including this one.

Everyone's got an opinion. Some have better factual bases than others. Unfortunately, too many on these boards seem to think that, not only are all opinions equally valid, but every group is morally equivalent as well.

Yootopia

30-06-2006, 16:49

Yea...Israel is more advanced and much more heavily armed.
As is Syria, which is putting a lot of money into rearming because it knows that the USA has gone a fair bit mental in the last couple of years.
How would you like it if you were attacked? You will attack back.
No, I would show restraint and not escalate things.
Its called *gasp* self defense.
No, it's called *gasp* pure idiocy.

"These Palestinians don't really like us taking over their land and smashing up their houses and such and have blown up a bus, what should we do?"

"An airstrike ought to sort out those underlying reasons, don't you think?"
You think terror leaders are innocent? You think them hiding behind civilians are brave? Sorry but in war, there is collateral damage. However, Israel does try to limit it. The terrorists don't.
You think that the IDF is innocent?

You think that the Israelis are doing the right thing?

You're right, in every war, there is "collateral damage". Take away the euphamism, and you get civilian casualties, which is exactly what you're complaining about.

Yootopia

30-06-2006, 16:52

Actually it is. Most news agencies agree that it is very unlikly to have been an Isralie shell
No, most American and Israeli news agencies say it wasn't Israel, which if you don't mind me saying, is not very surprising in the slightest.

The US is Israel's biggest ally, it's massively biased in favour of it, and this is reflected in the media of the US as well. The Jurasalem post will be horribly biased, because it's an Israeli newspaper.

Corneliu

30-06-2006, 16:53

As is Syria, which is putting a lot of money into rearming because it knows that the USA has gone a fair bit mental in the last couple of years.

Israel has a more modern military. Syria wouldn't last in a war with Israel.

No, I would show restraint and not escalate things.

Which means your enemy would get more blows in and thus leave you defenseless in the long run.

No, it's called *gasp* pure idiocy.

Since when is self-defense idiocy?

"These Palestinians don't really like us taking over their land and smashing up their houses and such and have blown up a bus, what should we do?"

"An airstrike ought to sort out those underlying reasons, don't you think?"

:rolleyes: You do know that they only launch air-attacks in response to an attack right? No I guess you don't realize that.

You think that the IDF is innocent?

They fight within the rules of war.

You think that the Israelis are doing the right thing?

Yes.

You're right, in every war, there is "collateral damage". Take away the euphamism, and you get civilian casualties, which is exactly what you're complaining about.

Welcome to war.

Adriatica II

30-06-2006, 17:00

No, most American and Israeli news agencies say it wasn't Israel, which if you don't mind me saying, is not very surprising in the slightest.

The US is Israel's biggest ally, it's massively biased in favour of it, and this is reflected in the media of the US as well. The Jurasalem post will be horribly biased, because it's an Israeli newspaper.

1. Do you know anything about the media. One of the most startling trends is that it continues to criticise the government of the country it is based in no matter where it is

2. You have claimed bias from the providence alone. That isnt enough. You have to show bias in the content. Bias means that the providence has affected the content. You therefore have to show that the evidence the souces that I have shown you is somehow inaccurate and that inaccuracy is in favour of the author or the author has a motive to make it in favour of one group

3. I've given you a Candian news broadcast company as well. Would you like the BBC one?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_5080000/newsid_5088800/5088854.stm

Yootopia

30-06-2006, 17:03

Then they broke the cease fire despite it being an accident done by the palestinians themselves. Yep. So much for them being in support of that. They should've waited till the investigation was completely finished. Reminds me of of 1898.
No, it was done by the Israelis. An off-target artillery shell hit a beach and killed some Palestinians. That was fired by the Israelis, not by the Palestinians. So they broke the truce.
And yet taking out infrastructure that supports terrorism is LEGAL under international law. Next?
Right, so what's wrong with Palestine blowing up shopping centres, which help to fund the Israeli government, which then pays its soldiers to terrorise the Palestinians?

That certainly kills less people than making hospitals going unpowered and knocking out bridges which allow the sick to get to local hospitals, no?
*points to above statement*
I'll do the same.
Israel at least is playing within the rules of civilized warfare.
If by that you mean "it shoots people rather than blowing itself up to have the same effect", then yes. Since warfare is not a civilised thing, I'll stick to my opinion - if you arm up the Palestinians as well as the Israelis, then you can expect a "fair" fight, until that day, suicide bombings will continue.
Go on to believe the farce. The rest of us will take the facts.
Ah yes, the US and Israel endorsed facts.

I think two minutes' hate is on in a little while - why don't you go and watch that?

Corneliu

30-06-2006, 17:10

No, it was done by the Israelis. An off-target artillery shell hit a beach and killed some Palestinians. That was fired by the Israelis, not by the Palestinians. So they broke the truce.

Yea and a spanish mine blew up the USS Maine. Get the facts before spouting debunked material.

Right, so what's wrong with Palestine blowing up shopping centres, which help to fund the Israeli government, which then pays its soldiers to terrorise the Palestinians?

Because that is intentionally targeting civilians. Israel doesn't intentionally target civilians. It is very highly frowned upon by the international community. Not to mention, you lose all credibility when you do so. Hamas has no credibility with most of the western world because they intentionally target civilians. That is NOT war.

That certainly kills less people than making hospitals going unpowered and knocking out bridges which allow the sick to get to local hospitals, no?

Not my fault that the terrorists are using the infrastructure that is attached to that. If there is any blame, it should be on the terorrists themselves.

I'll do the same.

*drags out the rules of war* Do you want to get into this argument because I know what the rules of war are. You don't for if you did, you wouldn't be spouting the BS you are spouting.

If by that you mean "it shoots people rather than blowing itself up to have the same effect", then yes. Since warfare is not a civilised thing, I'll stick to my opinion - if you arm up the Palestinians as well as the Israelis, then you can expect a "fair" fight, until that day, suicide bombings will continue.

The palestinians will not fight fairly. They will fight in a way that they have been fighting. Give them the same weapons and many more civilians will die and there will be nothing left of Gaza Strip and the West Bank for they will be thoroughly destroyed by Israel if Palestine hits civilians on purpose. When that happens, legally, Israel can do that in accordance with International Law.

Ah yes, the US and Israel endorsed facts.

I think two minutes' hate is on in a little while - why don't you go and watch that?

You know absolutely nothing about this conflict and how it is fought do you?

Yootopia

30-06-2006, 17:17

1. Do you know anything about the media. One of the most startling trends is that it continues to criticise the government of the country it is based in no matter where it is
On the other hand, one of the startling trends is to be extremely polite about anything relating to Israel, for fear of being branded anti-Semitic.
2. You have claimed bias from the providence alone. That isnt enough. You have to show bias in the content. Bias means that the providence has affected the content. You therefore have to show that the evidence the souces that I have shown you is somehow inaccurate and that inaccuracy is in favour of the author or the author has a motive to make it in favour of one group
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5065008.stm - This is the BBC's take on the issue. I consider the BBC to be more neutral.

Israelis are doing themselves a gross disservice, and playing into the hands of the Palestinians, by presuming that an Israeli shell caused the deaths of seven Palestinian civilians Friday in Gaza, Prime Minster Ehud Olmert's Foreign media advisor Ra'anan Gissin said Sunday.
That shows that JPost presumes that it was the Palestinians first.
3. I've given you a Candian news broadcast company as well. Would you like the BBC one?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_5080000/newsid_5088800/5088854.stm
That BBC one proves my point.

Originally their point was that it was most likely an Isreali shell. When they got a lot of complaints in, they then said "well maybe it could be the Palestinians, but there's nothing to say that it wasn't the Israelis".

"It is somewhat unprofessional to merely assume that the rocket was launched by Israel without any form of evidence whatsoever. Why are the BBC using assumptions to form their news stories?"

I don't think we made any assumptions at the outset. I think what we were dealing with was a very confused situation, where even the British government on Friday issued a statement saying they deplored the deaths on the beach caused by an Israeli shell.

As ever with stories coming out of the Israel-Palestine conflict there are two versions of events. We did our best to try and keep an open mind and I accept that we may not always have been as open as we might have been in terms of giving the audience sight of those two different versions of events.

Yootopia

30-06-2006, 17:22

Israel has a more modern military. Syria wouldn't last in a war with Israel.
As I said, Syria's been rearming from Russia in the couple of years, and now has a fairly good military.

It would be interesting to see who would win. Although there would be a lot of death, which is horrible, so it wouldn't be a good thing, in my eyes.
Which means your enemy would get more blows in and thus leave you defenseless in the long run.
Or possibly they'd go "fuck this, they're not going to rise to it". The death of the IRA's actions in the 70's was at least partially caused by denying them "the oxygen of publicity".
Since when is self-defense idiocy?
When it leads to revenge attacks, which just continues wars on for ages and ages pointlessly.
:rolleyes: You do know that they only launch air-attacks in response to an attack right? No I guess you don't realize that.
And the Palestinians attack when air-struck. So it's just a vicious circle.
They fight within the rules of war.
So do the Palestinians.
Yes.
Why?
Welcome to war.
Same to you.

Adriatica II

30-06-2006, 17:24

No, it was done by the Israelis. An off-target artillery shell hit a beach and killed some Palestinians. That was fired by the Israelis, not by the Palestinians. So they broke the truce.

No, they did not. It has been concluded by pretty much everyone (except you, and the other irrational anti-Isral crowd, not to be confused with the rational anti-israel crowd) that it could not have been an Isralie shell because (amoung other reasons) there wern't any Isralie battleships in the area at the time.

Right, so what's wrong with Palestine blowing up shopping centres, which help to fund the Israeli government, which then pays its soldiers to terrorise the Palestinians?

You and I both know that isnt the reason they blow those shops up, and even if it was, shopping centres are not infrastructre and the Isralie government are not terrorists.

The Palisitian terrorists kill those people because they want to put pressure on the Isralie government by making the people angry at the Isralie government as opposed to them. The rules of war say you dont target innocent civilians intentionally. Civilians may die as a result of targeting industral or millitary targets but that is collataral damage.

If by that you mean "it shoots people rather than blowing itself up to have the same effect", then yes. Since warfare is not a civilised thing, I'll stick to my opinion - if you arm up the Palestinians as well as the Israelis, then you can expect a "fair" fight, until that day, suicide bombings will continue.

A fair fight is one where you intentionally target millitary and industrial targets ONLY. Not civilian ones

Corneliu

30-06-2006, 17:28

As I said, Syria's been rearming from Russia in the couple of years, and now has a fairly good military.

RUSSIA? *Dies of laughter* US tech base is more advanced than Russia's. Israel's tech base is better than Russia's.

It would be interesting to see who would win. Although there would be a lot of death, which is horrible, so it wouldn't be a good thing, in my eyes.

For once, I'll agree with you.

Or possibly they'd go "fuck this, they're not going to rise to it". The death of the IRA's actions in the 70's was at least partially caused by denying them "the oxygen of publicity".

Well this is the Middle East and not Northern Ireland.

When it leads to revenge attacks, which just continues wars on for ages and ages pointlessly.

Except that Israel would welcome peace. Its the terrorist organizations who don't.

And the Palestinians attack when air-struck. So it's just a vicious circle.

That's because they can't take a hint that when you go after Israel...they're going to retaliate. It happens. When you are attacked, you retaliate. It happend in 1812, 1861, 1941, 2001. I could go on but suffice to say...when attacked, attack back.

So do the Palestinians.

Yea and if you believe that then I have a bridge for sale in San Francisco. It is a known fact that Palestinians DON'T FIGHT within the rules of war.

Why?

Its simple. They are tired of being attacked and having their people kidnapped.

Same to you.

I already know what it is like thanks.

The Azraelis

30-06-2006, 17:31

No, it was done by the Israelis. An off-target artillery shell hit a beach and killed some Palestinians. That was fired by the Israelis, not by the Palestinians. So they broke the truce.

Israel, who you are going to tell me is lying, did not fire the shell. Israeli artillery stopped firing shells 10-20 minutes before the explosion. And let's say it is Israeli. You said it was an "off-target artillery shell", that means it would be an accident. So they didn't break the truce.

Right, so what's wrong with Palestine blowing up shopping centres, which help to fund the Israeli government, which then pays its soldiers to terrorise the Palestinians?

oh, so if I don't like a government, I can kill any citizens, cause they pay taxes.And just so you know, 80-90% of Israelis have to serve in the military.

That certainly kills less people than making hospitals going unpowered and knocking out bridges which allow the sick to get to local hospitals, no

if Hamas didn't want this to happen, they shouldn't have kidnapped the soldier and settler.

If by that you mean "it shoots people rather than blowing itself up to have the same effect", then yes. Since warfare is not a civilised thing, I'll stick to my opinion - if you arm up the Palestinians as well as the Israelis, then you can expect a "fair" fight, until that day, suicide bombings will continue

if you arm up the palestinians, you'll just wind up with israel having to beat the crap out of the entire arab populace, again.

Ah yes, the US and Israel endorsed facts.

correct,FACTS

I think two minutes' hate is on in a little while - why don't you go and watch that?

Yootopia

30-06-2006, 17:41

Yea and a spanish mine blew up the USS Maine. Get the facts before spouting debunked material.
It's been "debunked" by Isreal saying "Nah, that's wrong".
Because that is intentionally targeting civilians. Israel doesn't intentionally target civilians.
Please explain to me how smashing up people's land and houses isn't targetting civilians.
It is very highly frowned upon by the international community. Not to mention, you lose all credibility when you do so.
The Israelis have played the holocaust card for the last sixty-ish years.

"Please stop attacking civilians"

"ANTI SEMITIC NEO-NAZI!"
Hamas has no credibility with most of the western world because they intentionally target civilians.
And because they're Arabs, and because they're mostly Muslims, and because they're fighting the country that the Western world tried to set up to help a persecuted group.

If intentionally targetting civilians was the only reason that people had no credibility, then the US would have even less of an international reputation for good than it does now.

As it stands, it's got its trade to protect itself.
That is NOT war.
It is war. The Israelis blow up factories which produce rockets for the Palestinians to fires into Israel, and the Palestinians blow up shopping centres, nightclubs and hotels etc. to scare off tourists and also Israels own consumers.

I have a question for you - would you consider it more acceptable if there were no people inside the clubs and shops when the Palestinians blow them up?
Not my fault that the terrorists are using the infrastructure that is attached to that. If there is any blame, it should be on the terorrists themselves.
You're actually blaming Palestinian freedom fighters for most of Gaza having no power, and soon no water?

That's ridiculous. It wasn't the Palestinians who personally air-struck their own bridges and power stations, so it can hardly be blamed on them.
*drags out the rules of war* Do you want to get into this argument because I know what the rules of war are. You don't for if you did, you wouldn't be spouting the BS you are spouting.
The real rules of war are all is fair in love and war. Israel can't just go around blowing people up casually, because it's portrayed as a "good" country, and it relies on this to help it "win" the current war.

The Palestinians, on the other hand, know that they are almost universally hated by Western governments, so it can do whatever the hell it wants, within certain limits, at which point, the US would probably get involved, to fight the Israels, so it fights in an "assymetric" manner.
The palestinians will not fight fairly. They will fight in a way that they have been fighting. Give them the same weapons and many more civilians will die and there will be nothing left of Gaza Strip and the West Bank for they will be thoroughly destroyed by Israel if Palestine hits civilians on purpose. When that happens, legally, Israel can do that in accordance with International Law.
Since neither of us could possibly know what will happen, maybe it's better to leave this one to our prejudices. I think that Palestine would wage a "proper" war and would probably come out the winner, but that there would be quite shocking civilian casualties on both sides, making it a bit of a Phyrric victory. Your opinion is your own.
You know absolutely nothing about this conflict and how it is fought do you?
I know a bit about it.

Palestinians : Don't like the state of Israel, would rather have their own land back. Blow up buses and shops and such to damage the economy and also to drag the war out, reducing morale in the civilians in Israel.

Israelis : Started off fighting a defensive war, and have now moved into vengeance territory. Will blow up anything that looks dangerous basically because they have the means to do so.

Yootopia

30-06-2006, 17:46

Israel, who you are going to tell me is lying, did not fire the shell. Israeli artillery stopped firing shells 10-20 minutes before the explosion. And let's say it is Israeli. You said it was an "off-target artillery shell", that means it would be an accident. So they didn't break the truce.
The truce was broken because Israel, instead of admitting it had down something wrong, shoved it in the Palestinians' faces, which was completely unnecessary and was just offensive.
oh, so if I don't like a government, I can kill any citizens, cause they pay taxes.And just so you know, 80-90% of Israelis have to serve in the military.
If 80-90% of Israelis have to serve in the military, then that equates to 80-90% of them being legitimate targets, then, no?
if Hamas didn't want this to happen, they shouldn't have kidnapped the soldier and settler.
It wasn't HAMAS that kidnapped the soldier or the settler.
if you arm up the palestinians, you'll just wind up with israel having to beat the crap out of the entire arab populace, again.
As I said earlier, it would be interesting, although quite saddening, to see who won. I don't think it'd be Israel myself.
correct,FACTS
Sorry, I should have put little quote marks around that word - US and Isreal endorsed 'facts'. That's better.

Corneliu

30-06-2006, 17:49

It's been "debunked" by Isreal saying "Nah, that's wrong".

Luckily..they have the evidence to prove what they say. Hamas doesn't.

And because they're Arabs, and because they're mostly Muslims, and because they're fighting the country that the Western world tried to set up to help a persecuted group.

Oh brother. Please stop with the conspiracies please. Its making my sides hurt from laughter.

If intentionally targetting civilians was the only reason that people had no credibility, then the US would have even less of an international reputation for good than it does now.

We do not target civilians on purpose. Terrorists do.

It is war. The Israelis blow up factories which produce rockets for the Palestinians to fires into Israel, and the Palestinians blow up shopping centres, nightclubs and hotels etc. to scare off tourists and also Israels own consumers.

Big difference between blowing up a factory that produces rockets to be used against Israel (Legitament) and blowing up civilians on purpose (illegal). Israel acts true military targets and the terrorists do not. Learn the damn rules of war before spouting crap would you please?

I have a question for you - would you consider it more acceptable if there were no people inside the clubs and shops when the Palestinians blow them up?

Still be illegal.

You're actually blaming Palestinian freedom fighters for most of Gaza having no power, and soon no water?

Yes because they are using them to keep the terrorism going. Therefor, under the Rules of War, it became a legit military target. You are understanding this right?

That's ridiculous. It wasn't the Palestinians who personally air-struck their own bridges and power stations, so it can hardly be blamed on them.

Sorry but they brought it upon themselves for launching terror attacks. I have no sympathy for terrorists or terrorist supporters.

The real rules of war are all is fair in love and war. Israel can't just go around blowing people up casually, because it's portrayed as a "good" country, and it relies on this to help it "win" the current war.

You know nothing about the rules of war and when it is explained to you, you ignore it. Not my fault your ignorant in the rules of war.

The Palestinians, on the other hand, know that they are almost universally hated by Western governments,

I would love to see proof of this.

so it can do whatever the hell it wants, within certain limits, at which point, the US would probably get involved, to fight the Israels, so it fights in an "assymetric" manner.

Us fight the Israelis? What have you been smoking? What limits are you thinking about?

Since neither of us could possibly know what will happen, maybe it's better to leave this one to our prejudices. I think that Palestine would wage a "proper" war and would probably come out the winner, but that there would be quite shocking civilian casualties on both sides, making it a bit of a Phyrric victory. Your opinion is your own.

My opinions are based on the conflict at hand. Based on the facts in evidence.

I know a bit about it.

Apparently not.

Yootopia

30-06-2006, 17:55

No, they did not. It has been concluded by pretty much everyone (except you, and the other irrational anti-Isral crowd, not to be confused with the rational anti-israel crowd) that it could not have been an Isralie shell because (amoung other reasons) there wern't any Isralie battleships in the area at the time.
No, the people who have said that it wasn't Israel are the Israelis and the US. I do not trust them as sources.
You and I both know that isnt the reason they blow those shops up, and even if it was, shopping centres are not infrastructre and the Isralie government are not terrorists.
Shopping centres provide a service to consumers and tourists. If they get blown up, Israel loses money. When it runs out of money, it can't really do much. I would call a shopping centre a part of industry, because it provides a service, and the tertiary sector of industry is the service sector.
The Palisitian terrorists kill those people because they want to put pressure on the Isralie government by making the people angry at the Isralie government as opposed to them.
Yes, I know. That's the point. War fatigue will stop this crap from continuing. Because it would be really great if the Palestinians and Israelis could just stop fighting. I don't even care if the borders stay as they are if peace is acheived, it's a fair enough price.
The rules of war say you dont target innocent civilians intentionally. Civilians may die as a result of targeting industral or millitary targets but that is collataral damage.

A fair fight is one where you intentionally target millitary and industrial targets ONLY. Not civilian ones
And since shopping centres, nightclubs etc. are all industrial targets (from tertiary industry), such targets are reasonable.

Corneliu

30-06-2006, 17:57

*snipo*

Fortunately....the rules of war are clear that you do not target civilians on purpose. That is what Hamas, Al Aqsa Maryters Brigade, and Islamic Jihad do. They target civilians on purpose.

The Azraelis

30-06-2006, 18:20

[QUOTE=Yootopia]The truce was broken because Israel, instead of admitting it had down something wrong, shoved it in the Palestinians' faces, which was completely unnecessary and was just offensive.

shoved what in their faces?

If 80-90% of Israelis have to serve in the military, then that equates to 80-90% of them being legitimate targets, then, no?

excuse me, 80-90% serve at one time or another. and NO, it doesn't make them legitimate targets. Because even if they are in the military, they are still civilian targets if they are off duty.

It wasn't HAMAS that kidnapped the soldier or the settler.

okay, fine, the palestinians.

As I said earlier, it would be interesting, although quite saddening, to see who won. I don't think it'd be Israel myself.

well then, you are totally retarted. Israel beat the arabs EVERY time. And they won't lose any time soon, if ever.

Sorry, I should have put little quote marks around that word - US and Isreal endorsed 'facts'. That's better.

No, you were right the first time.

Nodinia

30-06-2006, 18:36

They cant because nobody likes the Palestinians...not the Israelis, the Americans, the Germans, or even the other arab states.?

O dear. Racist nonsense. If somebody trotted that one out about Jews you'd have a hissy fit.

Were there Palestinians in Jordan before they were exiled out of the country for trying to assisinate the monarchy or something?

Well, we had a vast amount of Palestinians, including armed groups, suddenly in the country due to Israeli aggression. There was a clash (inevitably). Thus "black september".

I hope Israel crushes them and takes back it's land. The idiots apparantly want to be whiped off of ?the face of the Earth, espescially if they're doing this shit with Israel.?

Go away. Please.

. Israel displaced virtually no one due to settlement. The displacement of Palestinians resulted because Jordan, Syria, and Egypt attacked Israel. Jordan stole and annexed the land that was to be a Palestinian state. The displacement was not the result of Israel, but the result of the war. Thus, the moral responsibility for the displacement falls on those who started the war - the Arab countries.

Yet another tune. 750,000 Palestinians were expelled by Israeli action in 1948, not counting those who fled in 67.

Second, half of Jordan isn't Palestinian. All of Jordan is Palestinian. Jordan was part of the Palestinian Mandate. Every Arab that has ever lived in Jordan since then, thus the natives of Jordan today, are all "Palestinian." The Palestinians in the Occupied Territories are identical as an anthropological 'nation' as the Arabs in Jordan. They are identical in every ethnic respect..

Except thats untrue. Why does the CIA factbook recognise two distinct populations in Jordan? And how does it do it, if both are indistinguishable?

Since the pullout from Gaza, each and every Israeli military action was in direct response to a previous terrorist action against Israel..

All 4,000 bombardments and 77 airstrikes (not including whats going on at the moment)?

The Palestinian crops that have been destroyed is a result of the fact that Palestinian fields are a favorite place for Palestinian terror groups to launch rockets from. Israel has never targeted Palestinian infrastructure that does not directly support terrorism. ..

Ok...heres where they bulldozed a childrens "petting" zoo, giving only a half hour to get the animals out. Please explain.
http://tania.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/Week-of-Mon-20040517/001748.html

The building of the wall is legal under international law. Israel never made a reference to the ICJ that gave it jurisdiction. And the ICJ admitted that fact. In addition, UN Resolution 242 implictly gives Israel permission to annex and take whatever land is necessary to make defensible borders. It protects not only Israel's right to take some land, but to build the wall...

Nope. A total nonsense. You really only get that being put forward by the US or Israel. The majority of world legal opinion disagrees.

Schcols are targeted, such as the Islamic university that supported Hamas and was used as a terror base yesterday. Again, you commit the fallacy of lying by omission. You tell a half truth - schools, hospitals, and power plants are targeted. You leave out the fact that they are used to support terror infrastructure. You wont be able to show an instance when Israel targeted infrastructure that did not directly support terror....

But strangely enough what will happen is that if Israel attacks it, you will say it supported terror. And don't forget to explain the Zoo example above

The only person who disputed this was an investigator from HRW that did not actually have access to any of the evidence.....

More distortions...Why has Israel refused an international investigation by the way? Surely it would be best to have those 'schemers' exposed by a third party?

Settlers aren't acting against international laws. International law says that population may not be transferred into or out of occupied territories by force. No settler has been transferred by force into the Occupied Territories.
.....

It does not say transfer by force. Secondly by making life as difficult as possible for Palestininians, it indulges in slow drip ethnic cleansing.

The Hamas charter calls for the complete destruction of Israel and the genocide of Jews everywhere. .....

Could you quote the passage where it says the "genocide of Jews everywhere" please?

There was never a Palestinian state, and "Palestinians" as a political body have never owned a single acre of land......

A distortion as just under 92% of whats now Israel was once Palestinian land.

Filty savages.

Let the Mossad work on them, then send their heads back to HAMAS on a platter with a note saying "STOP IT OR ELSE".......

Seriously, you're a hoot...not a trace of irony......

Move them to egypt and let egypt enslave them 4th century style? (Do something useful and finish the pyramids the Jews started?)".......

They didn't build it. Slaves werent used either. You're confusing the bible with the facts.

Hardly. Israel was at the time quite happy to have the Arabs as citizens of Israel. However the surrounding Arab states were angry at the mere existance of Israel, and so they launched an attack on the Jewish civilian sites. The Israelie govenemnt urged the Arab citizens to stay in their homes, but they didnt. And then after the war, a law was passed allowing the displaced Arabs back to Israel after 3 conditons were met
- They would renounce viloence
- They would become peaceful and prodcutive members of society
- They would become Israelie citizens?)".......

It never agreed to take back all those expelled, and many of those included in the limited offer you refer to would only be allowed in if Israel was given Gaza. What do you think the chances are of Israel being given Gaza by Egypt in the 1940's/50s?

*dies of laughter* You really need to learn all the facts before opening your mouth. You know that Israel only retaliates and when they do, they do so in accordance with the rules of war. ?)".......

Thats a good one. Why does Israel not apply the Geneva convention in the occupied territories if its so concerned about the "rules of war"?

Show me a palestinian who agrees to be nothing but a hewer of wood and a drawer of water unto the Jews - and I'll show you a Palestinian who may not be guilty in the sight of JHWH........

But thats the kind of biblical nonsense that white south africans used to justify apartheid. Now if you feel like ordering your internal world by using a crop of stories created for either political purposes or to keep miserable bastards happy by keeping others miserable feel free. But don't drag a conversation based on reality into it, please.

TS is truly a voice crying out in the desert.......

Or an Ass braying in the night.

Because that is intentionally targeting civilians. Israel doesn't intentionally target civilians........

How come they keep hitting UN workers then?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/suffolk/4534620.stm

We do not target civilians on purpose. Terrorists do.........

You mean the US military. You arent in the US military. 'Medical reasons' remember?

Adriatica III

30-06-2006, 19:23

No, the people who have said that it wasn't Israel are the Israelis and the US. I do not trust them as sources.

We have discussed this already. For one, its not just the US and Israel. I've given you Canadian and British sources and if I spoke French or German to a sufficent degree I would provide those sources as well. Secondly, you have yet to show bias in the content, just in the origins. That isnt bias, that is a claim of bias without proof. You cant just say "Its an american source, therefore it supports Americans". You have to prove that by looking at the content and showing us where it supports Amercia in a non factual fashion. And then to prove the bias is bad, you have to show us a factual misrepresntation (IE a misrepresntation of a fact). That the source is lieing to support its own position. Untill you can do that, the cry bias means nothing.

Shopping centres provide a service to consumers and tourists. If they get blown up, Israel loses money. When it runs out of money, it can't really do much. I would call a shopping centre a part of industry, because it provides a service, and the tertiary sector of industry is the service sector.

That isnt the reason the PLO (and not just the PLO, other Palestianin terrorists) target them. The Palistinanin terrorists target anywhere with enough Isralie civilians in it. They aslo target nightclubs and busses. Care to clasify those as "industry".

Yes, I know. That's the point. War fatigue will stop this crap from continuing. Because it would be really great if the Palestinians and Israelis could just stop fighting. I don't even care if the borders stay as they are if peace is acheived, it's a fair enough price.

You forget, the Israelies have made several offers of peace, the most signifcent being the Clinton-Barrack proposasls of 2000, where they gave them the offer of 95% of the west bank, and all of Gaza and East Jerusalem. The only thing the PA had to give up was the claim of return, which is widely regarded as invalid anyway

And since shopping centres, nightclubs etc. are all industrial targets (from tertiary industry), such targets are reasonable.

None of those make weapons that the Isralies use. Ergo none of them are industrial targets in the sense of the rules of war.

Deep Kimchi

30-06-2006, 19:29

Adriatica III

30-06-2006, 19:31

No warship in the Israeli navy has a 155mm cannon. None.

Add to that the lack of Isralie warships in the vacinity at the time

Psychotic Mongooses

30-06-2006, 19:33

Human Rights Watch says it was a 155mm shell. They say it was fired from a warship.

No warship in the Israeli navy has a 155mm cannon. None.

The largest caliber is 30mm.

So there are a variety of places a 155mm shell could have come from, but not from an Israeli warship.

And that's without any bias...

Deja vu.....

Deep Kimchi

30-06-2006, 19:33

Add to that the lack of Isralie warships in the vacinity at the time

No, I say let the Palestinian witnesses say they saw an Israeli warship.

Now show me an Israeli warship that has a 155mm cannon. Not the sort of thing that can be suddenly changed on small patrol boats.

Psychotic Mongooses

30-06-2006, 19:35

Add to that the lack of Isralie warships in the vacinity at the time
What? No, that's just plain wrong.

There was an IDF naval ship firing shells offshore. The problem was the time line didn't fit the claim it was a naval shell.

As DK said, 155mm aren't used by the navy- the artillery north of Gaza on the other hand, do use Howitzers. Hence the probable theory in the end it was older ordinance that was accidentally disturbed.

Soviestan

30-06-2006, 19:50

this is old news, but good. its the price pay when you oppress people

Deep Kimchi

30-06-2006, 19:50

What? No, that's just plain wrong.

There was an IDF naval ship firing shells offshore. The problem was the time line didn't fit the claim it was a naval shell.

As DK said, 155mm aren't used by the navy- the artillery north of Gaza on the other hand, do use Howitzers. Hence the probable theory in the end it was older ordinance that was accidentally disturbed.

Another thing:

Shells and bombs and bomblets that land on sand have the propensity not to explode.

They very often are buried just below the surface on impact, and sit there until someone disturbs them.

A beach is a sandy place. If the shell was fired in the past, it is very possible that it landed without detonating.

Unexploded ordinance is probably extremely common there.

Corneliu

30-06-2006, 19:56

this is old news, but good. its the price pay when you oppress people

Legally speaking, Israel isn't oppressing them. Their own people are oppressing them because of their stupidity in attacking Israel and kidnapping her citizens.

Nodinia

30-06-2006, 20:54

Legally speaking, Israel isn't oppressing them. Their own people are oppressing them because of their stupidity in attacking Israel and kidnapping her citizens.

"legally" speaking its acting illegally by occupying the area and allowing settlement building. Its oppressing them by killing their children, allowing its illegal settlers kick the shit out them in their own fields and setting dogs on them, imposing curfews, ramming "bypass" roads through Arab land and generally acting the maggot. The Israelis are the occupier therefore they are to blame.

You haven't responded to my question in msg 95.

The Azraelis

30-06-2006, 22:33

New Mitanni

30-06-2006, 22:59

Nodinia

30-06-2006, 23:40

okay, shut up and listen

1. Any civilians killed by Israel have been unfortunate accidents,unlike the 250 dead israelis, killed by the terrorists..

Yet by the figures of Palestinian dead it would be rather safer if they were trying to hit you than not.

2.Israel booted out all of the settlers not too long ago..

8,000 from Gaza. That leaves a few hundred thousand in the West Bank to go.

3.Curfews are imposed because those dumb palestinians don't know when to quit...

And the fact that settlers are unaffected and often take the opportunity to taunt the Palestinians effectively sealed into their homes in no way makes the situation worse. No. Nor does the occassional water cut off, or cutting of the power supply by the IDF. Nothing quite like that for community relations, is there?

4. The Gaza strip isn't arab land, it's israeli, so that means that israel is 'occupying' it's own land. When the Palestinians get Gaza for their own nation, then israel is the occupier.

Its Israeli since....when? Its outside Israels borders as defined by the vast majority of Atlas' that can be found in any bookshop, and in the area marked as "occupied territory". Why is that?

Prior to June 1967, Egypt was "occupying" the area. I don't recall any Arabs, Muslims or whatever demanding a "Palestinian" state in Gaza back then.

It was part of Egypt. Egypt has ceded the rights to the Palestinians. The Palestinians want the Israelis gone. So do the Palestinians in the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem.

"Killing their children"? ROFLMAO. The only child-killers in the area are Palestinian homicide bombers..

Strange them that those who are claimed to be far more discriminate, and certainly use more discriminating weapons, have killed six times the number of Arab children then. But of course theres a few excuses usually trotted out for that, aren't there...

http://www.pcdc.edu.ps/two_Jabaliya_girls_headshots.htm

Soviestan

01-07-2006, 05:25

The only child-killers in the area are Palestinian homicide bombers.
Homocide bombers. rofl. ok fox news, whatever you say

Corneliu

01-07-2006, 05:26

Homocide bombers. rofl. ok fox news, whatever you say

Legally....they could be called that as well as suicide bombers.

Soviestan

01-07-2006, 05:29

Legally....they could be called that as well as suicide bombers.
you sure like to bring up legal things a lot while supporting a nation that considers defying international law to be their national past time. btw, suicide bombers is the accurate term as it describes the method of delivery of said bomb. Although I perfer the term martyr as I believe they die for a just cause.

Corneliu

01-07-2006, 05:31

you sure like to bring up legal things a lot while supporting a nation that considers defying international law to be their national past time. btw, suicide bombers is the accurate term as it describes the method of delivery of said bomb. Although I perfer the term martyr as I believe they die for a just cause.

Since when is attacking infrastructure that is being used by terrorists a violation of international law? Since when is following 242 a violation of International Law? Since when is wanting peace with your neighbors a violation of international law?

Nodinia

01-07-2006, 10:04

Since when is attacking infrastructure that is being used by terrorists a violation of international law? Since when is following 242 a violation of International Law? Since when is wanting peace with your neighbors a violation of international law?

Building settlements in the occupied territories is a violation of International law. There are two nations out of all the soverign governments on the planet where the opposite view is given the time of day. Two. Likewise the belief that Israel is abiding by either the letter or spirit of 242. Two. Its not often you get something that theres that much overwhelming agreement.

Adriatica III

01-07-2006, 11:40

"legally" speaking its acting illegally by occupying the area and allowing settlement building. Its oppressing them by killing their children, allowing its illegal settlers kick the shit out them in their own fields and setting dogs on them, imposing curfews, ramming "bypass" roads through Arab land and generally acting the maggot. The Israelis are the occupier therefore they are to blame.

You haven't responded to my question in msg 95.

The only reason they occupy it is because if they didnt, they would be subject to even more attacks. They occupy to protect themselves. As for the setlements being illegal, read this

Jews have lived in Judea and Samaria — the West Bank — since ancient times. The only time Jews have been prohibited from living in the territories in recent decades was during Jordan's rule from 1948 to 1967. This prohibition was contrary to the Mandate for Palestine adopted by the League of Nations, which provided for the establishment of a Jewish state, and specifically encouraged “close settlement by Jews on the land.”

Numerous legal authorities dispute the charge that settlements are “illegal.” Stephen Schwebel, formerly President of the International Court of Justice, notes that a country acting in self-defense may seize and occupy territory when necessary to protect itself. Schwebel also observes that a state may require, as a condition for its withdrawal, security measures designed to ensure its citizens are not menaced again from that territory.1

According to Eugene Rostow, a former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs in the Johnson Administration, Resolution 242 gives Israel a legal right to be in the West Bank. The resolution. Rostow noted, "allows Israel to administer the territories" it won in 1967 "until 'a just and lasting peace in the Middle East' is achieved," Rostow wrote.2

Nodinia

01-07-2006, 12:34

The only reason they occupy it is because if they didnt, they would be subject to even more attacks. They occupy to protect themselves.

Hmmm. You don't see how that could be massively counter productive, seeing as many of them are the children of those forced to leave what is now Israel in 1947//48?

As for the setlements being illegal, read this

"Numerous legal authorities dispute the charge that settlements are “illegal"

Well they might be numerous within Israel, and possibly America, but thats not the interpretation of well over 150 Governments over a 30 year period. And much like the military occupation, do you not concede that building settlements amongst the Palestinians is counterproductive?

Tropical Sands

01-07-2006, 12:43

"Numerous legal authorities dispute the charge that settlements are “illegal"

Well they might be numerous within Israel, and possibly America, but thats not the interpretation of well over 150 Governments over a 30 year period. And much like the military occupation, do you not concede that building settlements amongst the Palestinians is counterproductive?

Statements like this show what a disregard you truly have for international law.

It doesn't matter what 150 governments say over a 30 year period. The only court with soverignity to rule on Israeli settlements is the Israeli Supreme Court. It has never given jurisdiction to any foreign court to rule on the matter, nor any court of international law, including the ICJ. And, if you read the ICJ charter, I think you'll find that is quite necessary for any ruling aside from the Israeli Surpeme Court to be valid.

You may not like the settlements, you may think they are bad and oppressive - but it is a disregard for the law to pretend as if they are illegal.

Tropical Sands

01-07-2006, 12:48

Building settlements in the occupied territories is a violation of International law. There are two nations out of all the soverign governments on the planet where the opposite view is given the time of day. Two. Likewise the belief that Israel is abiding by either the letter or spirit of 242. Two. Its not often you get something that theres that much overwhelming agreement.

Even those who drafted Resolution 242 stated that Israel may seize whatever territory is necessary to create secure and defensible borders, and that it is not required to give back all of the territories. It isn't just two. You're either lying blatently, or you're innocently misinformed. Examples (Wikipedia: Resolution 242):

* Arthur J. Goldberg, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations (1965-1967):

"It calls for respect and acknowledgment of the sovereignty of every state in the area. Since Israel never denied the sovereignty of its neighbouring countries, this language obviously requires those countries to acknowledge Israel's sovereignty."
"The notable omissions in regard to withdrawal are the word 'the' or 'all' and 'the June 5, 1967 lines' the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories, without defining the extent of withdrawal." ("The Meaning of 242", June 10, 1977)

* Lord Caradon, author of the draft resolution that was adopted as U.N. Resolution 242, UK Ambassador to the United Nations (1964-1970):

"We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the 'the' in, we did not say all the territories, deliberately.. We all knew - that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever." (MacNeil/Lehrer Report - March 30, 1978)

* Eugene V. Rostow, U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs (1966-1969):

" ... paragraph 1 (i) of the Resolution calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces 'from territories occupied in the recent conflict', and not 'from the territories occupied in the recent conflict'. Repeated attempts to amend this sentence by inserting the word 'the' failed in the Security Council. It is, therefore, not legally possible to assert that the provision requires Israeli withdrawal from all the territories now occupied under the cease-fire resolutions to the Armistice Demarcation lines." (American Journal of International Law, Volume 64, September 1970, p. 69)
"UN SC 242 calls on Israel to withdraw only from territories occupied in the course of the Six Day War - that is, not from 'all' the territories or even from 'the' territories... Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawal from 'all' the territory were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly one after another. Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was not to be forced back to the 'fragile and vulnerable' 1949/1967 Armistice Demarcation Lines..." (UNSC Resolution 242, 1993, p. 17). The USSR and the Arabs supported a draft demanding a withdrawal to the 1967 Lines. The US, Canada and most of West Europe and Latin America supported the draft which was eventually approved by the UN Security Council." (American Society of International Law - 1970)
"Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338... rest on two principles, Israel may administer the territory until its Arab neighbors make peace; and when peace is made, Israel should withdraw to 'secure and recognized borders', which need not be the same as the Armistice Demarcation Lines of 1949." ("The Truth About 242" - November 5, 1990)

* The Russian delegate Vasily Kuznetsov acknowledged before the adoption of Resolution 242:

" ... phrases such as 'secure and recognized boundaries'. ... there is certainly much leeway for different interpretations which retain for Israel the right to establish new boundaries and to withdraw its troops only as far as the lines which it judges convenient."

* The Brazilian delegate Geraldo de Carvalho Silos, told the Security Council after 242's adoption:

"We keep constantly in mind that a just and lasting peace in the Middle East has necessarily to be based on secure, permanent boundaries freely agreed upon and negotiated by the neighbouring States."

* George Brown, British Foreign Secretary in 1967 commented:

"I have been asked over and over again to clarify, modify or improve the wording, but I do not intend to do that. The phrasing of the Resolution was very carefully worked out, and it was a difficult and complicated exercise to get it accepted by the UN Security Council. I formulated the Security Council Resolution. Before we submitted it to the Council, we showed it to Arab leaders. The proposal said 'Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied', and not from 'the' territories, which means that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories." (The Jerusalem Post, 23.1.70)

* Lyndon B. Johnson, U.S. President (1963-1968):

"We are not the ones to say where other nations should draw lines between them that will assure each the greatest security. It is clear, however, that a return to the situation of June 4, 1967 will not bring peace." (September 10, 1968)

Nodinia

01-07-2006, 12:59

Statements like this show what a disregard you truly have for international law.

It doesn't matter what 150 governments say over a 30 year period. The only court with soverignity to rule on Israeli settlements is the Israeli Supreme Court. It has never given jurisdiction to any foreign court to rule on the matter, nor any court of international law, including the ICJ. And, if you read the ICJ charter, I think you'll find that is quite necessary for any ruling aside from the Israeli Surpeme Court to be valid.

You may not like the settlements, you may think they are bad and oppressive - but it is a disregard for the law to pretend as if they are illegal.

But they aren't inside Israeli borders, so how can the Israeli court say they are legal?

Even those who drafted Resolution 242 stated that Israel may seize whatever territory is necessary to create secure and defensible borders, and that it is not required to give back all of the territories. It isn't just two. You're either lying blatently, or you're innocently misinformed..

Bit disengenous saying those when it refers to "some".

"Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

Affirms further the necessity

For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

Requests the Secretary General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

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

My bold. Theres fuck all about settlements or Israels right to anything there. The only thing that mentions Israel specifically is the part telling them to withdraw.

Tropical Sands

01-07-2006, 13:01

Yet another tune. 750,000 Palestinians were expelled by Israeli action in 1948, not counting those who fled in 67.

No, they weren't. Not even the revisionists like Morris claim this. In fact, 750,000 is more than the total number of refugees listed by the UN today, which includes all of the children of those expelled.

Except thats untrue. Why does the CIA factbook recognise two distinct populations in Jordan? And how does it do it, if both are indistinguishable?

You're confusing a political distinction, due to the fact that Palestinians in Jordan are not Jordanian citizens (but those kept in camps by Jordan) and an anthropological distinction. I made this quite clear, but you insist on fallacious equivocation of the two.

All 4,000 bombardments and 77 airstrikes (not including whats going on at the moment)?

Ok...heres where they bulldozed a childrens "petting" zoo, giving only a half hour to get the animals out. Please explain.
http://tania.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/Week-of-Mon-20040517/001748.html

Well lets see. Did you just blindly accept the Palestinian claims as being true without giving the Israeli claims equal sway? The explanation is in your article:

"By the end of yesterday, the military said its soldiers had been forced to
drive through the zoo because an alternative route was booby-trapped by
Palestinian explosives."

Nope. A total nonsense. You really only get that being put forward by the US or Israel. The majority of world legal opinion disagrees.

And Brazil, Russia, and the UK as you can read in the post above. Even those who drafted Resolution 242 stated explictly what I said - that Israel is not required to withdraw from all of the territories.

More distortions...Why has Israel refused an international investigation by the way? Surely it would be best to have those 'schemers' exposed by a third party?

Israel isn't required to accept an international investigation. No soverign state is. However, you've yet to address the fact that the HRW investigator, Mark Garalsco, has conceded that he cannot contradict the IDF investigation.

It does not say transfer by force. Secondly by making life as difficult as possible for Palestininians, it indulges in slow drip ethnic cleansing.

Actually it does say transfer by force, explictly. Here is the text from Paragraph 1 of the 4th Geneva convention:

"Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive."

Again, you're either deliberately dishonest with international law, or you're innocently mininformed.

Could you quote the passage where it says the "genocide of Jews everywhere" please?

Absolutely. Though not in those exact words. Lets not try to pretend it doesn't advocate such, since it doesn't use the exact wording

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

Note, this doesn't talk about Israelis. Nor does it take about Jews fighting Palestinains. It talks about the Day of Judgment, when all Muslims will kill the Jews off - even those hiding behind stones and trees.

A distortion as just under 92% of whats now Israel was once Palestinian land.

There has never been any such thing as "Palestinian land", as Palesetine has never been a state. The only distortion is to claim that the land was once "Palestinian" when there is no historical basis whatsoever. Even under the British Mandate of Palestine, near 90% of the land was Crown Lands, not belonging to any private Palestinian owners.

Tropical Sands

01-07-2006, 13:06

But they aren't inside Israeli borders, so how can the Israeli court say they are legal?

They are in Israeli occupied territory, and under Resolution 242 Israel is authorized to administer the territories.

Bit disengenous saying those when it refers to "some".

And yet, all you've done is cut and paste the text of the resolution. You havn't actually added any new information, which means that it is esentially a no-response. You havn't addressed the fact that those who drafted Resolution 242 have explained, time and time again, that Israel is not required to fully withdraw.

Da Boyle

01-07-2006, 13:29

There will be peace when there is justice.

The Israelis must surely understand that the Palestinians need to have hope--for themselves and their children and their grandchildren and their grandchildren's grandchildren. Economic and political opportunity...hope. The Palestinians want justice. (The actions of some Palestinians in killing this settler are the desperate act of a people that only have desperate acts as their tool against a powerful nation-sate like Israel).

The Palestinians must realize that the Israeli want peace. If Israel really was interested in peace...they would act with justice at all times. They are in the position of strength and therefore can act with justice and wisdom in the face of irrationality.

NO JUSTICE. NO PEACE--Brother Malcolm

Tropical Sands

01-07-2006, 13:31

No, most American and Israeli news agencies say it wasn't Israel, which if you don't mind me saying, is not very surprising in the slightest.

It looks as if you havn't been keeping up with the Gaza beach story well.

First, media worldwide condemned Israel. Next, the IDF held an investigation which found it was virtually impossible for it to be an Israeli shell. Then, Marc Garlasco, from Human Rights Watch (a questionably anti-Semitic group that has even voted Jews out of the room during its meetings) did nothing but observe the actual site of the explosion and come to the conclusion that it was an IDF shell. Finally, today, Marc Garlalsco has admitted that the IDF inspection was professional and that he could not contradict the IDF findings. Not only has this been published in Israeli papers, but even notoriously anti-Israeli groups like Counterpunch have admitted this:

Israel Engineers Another Cover-Up (http://www.counterpunch.org/cook06202006.html)

"This week, according to reports in the Israeli media, even Marc Garlasco, a Pentagon expert on the effects of battlefield weapons hired by Human Rights Watch to investigate the deaths, "conceded" that he could not contradict the findings of the Israeli army’s own inquiry"

So, you can't have it both ways. It is inconsistent one minute to claim that HRW has "proven" it wasn't an Israeli shell, then reject the fact that the investigator, who actually never examined a single piece of physical evidence (which you'll find if you read the HRW report), has now admitted he cannot contradict the Israeli findings. Kofi Annan, as well, as conceded that he was mislead by original media reports. YNet News (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3263509,00.html) reported in Annan Retracts Remarks on IDF Probe that Annan stated, "I responded to speculations in the press. The answer was given before Israel published its findings. We need to wait for Israel to publish its final report."

So, since Marc Garlasco, the only dissenting voice, has conceded, "We do not believe the Israelis were targeting civilians" and that, "Klifi's team had conducted a thorough and professional investigation" (JPost, Honest Reporting) and since Annan has accepted the authority of the final Israeli report (which we have today), why wont you? Is your anti-Israeli bias so strong that you can't believe that Jews aren't drinking the blood of Palestinian babies?

Tropical Sands

01-07-2006, 13:33

The truce was broken because Israel, instead of admitting it had down something wrong, shoved it in the Palestinians' faces, which was completely unnecessary and was just offensive.

And, just for the record, Hamas had broken its truce two weeks, and a month respectively before the Gaza beach incident. Hamas accepted credit for the first and second Sinai bombing attacks, both against Jewish tourists.

Nodinia

01-07-2006, 13:42

No, they weren't. Not even the revisionists like Morris claim this. In fact, 750,000 is more than the total number of refugees listed by the UN today, which includes all of the children of those expelled.
.

Your figure would be....?

You're confusing a political distinction, due to the fact that Palestinians in Jordan are not Jordanian citizens (but those kept in camps by Jordan) and an anthropological distinction. I made this quite clear, but you insist on fallacious equivocation of the two..

And the fact that they have different customs, last names, that kind of thing....?

Well lets see. Did you just blindly accept the Palestinian claims as being true without giving the Israeli claims equal sway? The explanation is in your article:

"By the end of yesterday, the military said its soldiers had been forced to
drive through the zoo because an alternative route was booby-trapped by
Palestinian explosives."..

They gave the staff half an hour to get out then came back and flattened it.
Now thats not being forced to drive through anything.

Israel isn't required to accept an international investigation. No soverign state is.
."..

I asked why they didnt have one, I did not say that they had to. Surely a chance to show the Palestinians up as liars before an international audience would be too good to pass up. And it shows openess, honesty and so on. So why no international investigation?

Actually it does say transfer by force, explictly. Here is the text from Paragraph 1 of the 4th Geneva convention:

"Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive."

Again, you're either deliberately dishonest with international law, or you're innocently mininformed.."..

"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

It doesnt only say "forcibly transfer".

http://www.genevaconventions.org/

Absolutely. Though not in those exact words. Lets not try to pretend it doesn't advocate such, since it doesn't use the exact wording

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

Note, this doesn't talk about Israelis. Nor does it take about Jews fighting Palestinains. It talks about the Day of Judgment, when all Muslims will kill the Jews off - even those hiding behind stones and trees..."..

So its religous bolloxology then. Reprehensible.

There has never been any such thing as "Palestinian land", as Palesetine has never been a state. The only distortion is to claim that the land was once "Palestinian" when there is no historical basis whatsoever. Even under the British Mandate of Palestine, near 90% of the land was Crown Lands, not belonging to any private Palestinian owners.

Normally I don't include public land in an esitamate, because its not nessecarily state owned, but can refer to other arrangements - I will be fucked if I'm getting into an argument on post-ottoman land ownership practices. However. if you must insist....it comes to 12.23%. Where did you get your rather bizzarre figure of "90%" from? Was it the same place you used to to say that actually all the land had been bought by Israeli/zionist settlers and the Arabs were all tenants? I would have thought you would have learnt your lesson.

Nodinia

01-07-2006, 13:44

And, just for the record, Hamas had broken its truce two weeks, and a month respectively before the Gaza beach incident. Hamas accepted credit for the first and second Sinai bombing attacks, both against Jewish tourists.

Could you give a source for this please?

Corneliu

01-07-2006, 13:48

Corneliu

01-07-2006, 13:50

Corneliu

01-07-2006, 13:52

Could you give a source for this please?

You really are ignorant aren't you? It was blasted all over the news that they claimed responsibility. Of course the Hamas government never denounced it either which goes to show that they do not care about peace whatsoever.

Nodinia

01-07-2006, 14:00

You really are ignorant aren't you? It was blasted all over the news that they claimed responsibility. Of course the Hamas government never denounced it either which goes to show that they do not care about peace whatsoever.

Allow me to point out that you just said you didn't remember it above. I don't remember it. A quick search for Sinai bombs gave me an article that mentioned 3 egyptian suspects being shot dead. B

And if they claimed it, they are hardly going to denounce it. Are you on some form of christian high? because thats rather confused thinking on your part.

And HRW have not made any comment since this re the beach shelling. I see no retreaction on their site.
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/06/20/israb13595.htm

Tropical Sands

01-07-2006, 14:12

Your figure would be....?

The current Israeli figure for refugees displaced is 400,000. But, that isn't the real issue. The real issue is that you claim, falsely, that they were displaced by Israel. The UN doesn't claim this, Israel doesn't claim this, nor do the revisionistic historians (like Morris) that you like. They claim the displacement was a result of the war, not a result of a purely Israeli side of the war.

And the fact that they have different customs, last names, that kind of thing....?

The customs aren't significant enough to distinguish them from Jordanian Palestinians. They don't fit the anthropological criteria for a separate nation or ethnicity. Of course there are some differences, but they aren't more significant than the similiarities.

They gave the staff half an hour to get out then came back and flattened it.
Now thats not being forced to drive through anything.

Right. So again, you're accepting the Palestinian word over the Israeli word. You actually have nothing more than "his word vs theirs", literally, and you choose the Palestinian side. Which goes to demonstrate your bias. An objective person, who cared about the facts (and not just demonizing Israel), would have not drawn a conclusion and not attempted to present heresy, which wouldn't stand up in court, for objective fact.

I asked why they didnt have one, I did not say that they had to. Surely a chance to show the Palestinians up as liars before an international audience would be too good to pass up. And it shows openess, honesty and so on. So why no international investigation?

Kofi Annan has stated that the Israel investigation is sufficient and that he would accept those findings. Israel definately doesn't have to succumb to the whims of groups like HRW that call for investigations - groups that vote Jews out of their meetings - especially when the HRW investigator said that he could not contradict Israeli findings.

"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

It doesnt only say "forcibly transfer".

http://www.genevaconventions.org/

All "deporations" and "transfers" are forcable, by definition. This is why the Geneva conventions said, in paragraph 1, that it is a reference to forcable transfers. Thus, when the term occurs later, it only takes a syllogism to demonstrate that it refers to forcible transfers.

In addition the Israeli government has never deported or transferred a settler into a settlement. Although, the Israeli govt has trasnferred and deported settlers out of the settlements. Are you going to condemn that as being illegal too, or just the settlements themselves?

So its religous bolloxology then. Reprehensible.

Good to see you admitting that the Hamas charter calls for something reprehensible.

Normally I don't include public land in an esitamate, because its not nessecarily state owned, but can refer to other arrangements - I will be fucked if I'm getting into an argument on post-ottoman land ownership practices. However. if you must insist....it comes to 12.23%. Where did you get your rather bizzarre figure of "90%" from? Was it the same place you used to to say that actually all the land had been bought by Israeli/zionist settlers and the Arabs were all tenants? I would have thought you would have learnt your lesson.

Crown Lands don't come to 12%. That is closer to the estimate of privately owned land. And, it was Morris and Bard who both stated that the only ones displaced during the formation of Israel were felaheen, less than 2000 families, and that the vast majority of Jewish land was bought from Arab landowners.

Corneliu

01-07-2006, 14:12

Allow me to point out that you just said you didn't remember it above. I don't remember it. A quick search for Sinai bombs gave me an article that mentioned 3 egyptian suspects being shot dead. B

And if they claimed it, they are hardly going to denounce it. Are you on some form of christian high? because thats rather confused thinking on your part.

And HRW have not made any comment since this re the beach shelling. I see no retreaction on their site.
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/06/20/israb13595.htm

Because he said that he cannot contradict what the IDF said. What part of that isn't sinking in?

Tropical Sands

01-07-2006, 14:13

And HRW have not made any comment since this re the beach shelling. I see no retreaction on their site.
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/06/20/israb13595.htm

No, HRW didn't. The investigator who wrote up their little report did. Of course HRW isn't going to post that fact, which is contrary to the report that they farmed out to Marc Garlasco.

Tropical Sands

01-07-2006, 14:15

Could you give a source for this please?

It was according to the Egyptian government that the April Sinai bombings were a Hamas move. They were also targetting Jews. That explictly violates their Hudna.

Egypt: Sinai suicide bombers trained by Hamas (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1149572653180&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)

Egyptian officials asserted on Saturday that they had evidence demonstrating that the suicide bombers who perpetrated the attacks in the Sinai Peninsula in April were trained in the Gaza Strip by Hamas operatives.

The Egyptian interior minister presented the evidence to his Palestinian counterpart in a meeting between the two in Cairo and demanded answers from the Palestinian Authority government, Israel Radio reported.

Arab Democratic States

01-07-2006, 14:30

It's just ridiculous that they don't release him. Israel has clearly stated they would pull out immediately if Gilad was released alive. It just shows that they don't want peace, and only want to escalate the conflict.

sure palestinians just love killing themselves and love getting bombed... hmmf...

common... whats your SAT score?? 300???

Tropical Sands

01-07-2006, 14:34

sure palestinians just love killing themselves and love getting bombed... hmmf...

I don't recall anyone claiming that Palestinians "love killing themselves" or that they "love getting bombed." Your use of hyperboile would make one suspicious that you aren't interested in a fair and objective picture of the conflict. However, the statistics (http://www.ict.org.il/casualties_project/stats_page.cfm) demonstrate that Palestinians do have a dispreportionate disregard for the lives of their own people.

Out of 3179 Palestinians killed between 2000 and 2005, 406 were killed by other Palestinians.

Corneliu

01-07-2006, 14:39

sure palestinians just love killing themselves and love getting bombed... hmmf...

common... whats your SAT score?? 300???

Well then why do the Palestinians continue to blow themselves up?

Dobbsworld

01-07-2006, 14:58

The Palestinians should just move to another Arabic country. The Arabs have lots of countries, but the Hebrews only have one little tiny one.
Only one little tiny one that for some reason had to be situated in Palestine. Palestinians shouldn't have to move anywhere.

Tropical Sands

01-07-2006, 15:20

Only one little tiny one that for some reason had to be situated in Palestine. Palestinians shouldn't have to move anywhere.

"Palestine" has only existed for about a hundred years. Further, a "Palestinian" ethnicity, or native inhabitants, have only existed over a similiar time frame. The vast majority of Palestinians alive today are descedents of people who moved to Palestine after Jews began to develop the land. They had previously viewed themselves as Syrians. The San Remo accord called for the division of the Palestinian Mandate into two parts - an Arab state and a Jewish state. The former became Jordan, and the latter was to become Israel. However, Palestinian terror split the land that was legally partitioned off forthe Jewish state into a SECOND Arab state, carved out of mandate land set aside for a Jewish state.

The idea that they should have to move somewhere isn't totally baseless. Its rooted in international legal precedent and ethnic lines.

Sel Appa

01-07-2006, 17:30

This is just another drop in the bucket that shows the Palestinians are just like Hitler and want all Jews dead. Israel must get rid of the Palestinians any way possible.

Tropical Sands

01-07-2006, 17:51

This is just another drop in the bucket that shows the Palestinians are just like Hitler and want all Jews dead. Israel must get rid of the Palestinians any way possible.

Interesting you would say that. While I wont go so far as to say that Palestinians are like Hitler or that Israel must get rid of them, this isn't totally inaccurate.

Palestinians voted in a group, Hamas, that calls for the genocide of all Jews worldwide as official policy. This says something, at least in part, about Palestinian desire to exterminate Jews.

Concerning Hitler, during WW2 Palestinian Arabs supported the Nazi party and Hitler. The Mufti of Jerusalem visited Eichcmann and oversaw Jews being exterminated in the gas chambers. Plans were drawn up to build gas chambers on Palestinian soil. Even today, the swastika is used as a symbol against Jews by Palestinian groups. It is painted on Jewish tombs and Jewish holy sites, Jewish cars, and Jewish houses by Palestinians in the same fashion that anti-Semites in Europe paint swastikas on synagogues and headstones.

Nodinia

01-07-2006, 18:47

The current Israeli figure for refugees displaced is 400,000. But, that isn't the real issue. The real issue is that you claim, falsely, that they were displaced by Israel. The UN doesn't claim this, Israel doesn't claim this, nor do the revisionistic historians (like Morris) that you like. They claim the displacement was a result of the war, not a result of a purely Israeli side of the war..

300 Arab villages emptied due to either Israeli military action, or deliberate expulsion. But as usual, you keep denying the facts.

The customs aren't significant enough to distinguish them from Jordanian Palestinians. They don't fit the anthropological criteria for a separate nation or ethnicity. Of course there are some differences, but they aren't more significant than the similiarities. ..

To you they aren't. But to the Jordanians and Palestinians they most certainly are.

Right. So again, you're accepting the Palestinian word over the Israeli word. You actually have nothing more than "his word vs theirs", literally, and you choose the Palestinian side. Which goes to demonstrate your bias. An objective person, who cared about the facts (and not just demonizing Israel), would have not drawn a conclusion and not attempted to present heresy, which wouldn't stand up in court, for objective fact...

But I was responding to the section which you highlighted as being the reasons given by Israel. They did not "drive through" the building(s). They came up, gave the people 30 miunutes to get out, and flattened it.

Kofi Annan has stated that the Israel investigation is sufficient and that he would accept those findings. Israel definately doesn't have to succumb to the whims of groups like HRW that call for investigations - groups that vote Jews out of their meetings - especially when the HRW investigator said that he could not contradict Israeli findings....

Really. Yet I can't find this.

"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."All "deporations" and "transfers" are forcable, by definition. This is why the Geneva conventions said, in paragraph 1, that it is a reference to forcable transfers. Thus, when the term occurs later, it only takes a syllogism to demonstrate that it refers to forcible transfers.

deport
One entry found for deport.

Main Entry: de·port
Pronunciation: di-'pOrt, -'port, dE-
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle French deporter, from Latin deportare to carry away, from de- + portare to carry -- more at FARE
1 : to behave or comport (oneself) especially in accord with a code
2 [Latin deportare] a : to carry away b : to send out of the country by legal deportation

transfer

Main Entry: 1trans·fer
Pronunciation: tran(t)s-'f&r, 'tran(t)s-"
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): trans·ferred; trans·fer·ring
Etymology: Middle English transferren, from Latin transferre, from trans- + ferre to carry -- more at BEAR
transitive senses
1 a : to convey from one person, place, or situation to another : TRANSPORT b : to cause to pass from one to another :

Only one implies force of some kind here.

In addition the Israeli government has never deported or transferred a settler into a settlement. Although, the Israeli govt has trasnferred and deported settlers out of the settlements. Are you going to condemn that as being illegal too, or just the settlements themselves?

Just the settlements. Evacuating would be not only complying with the law, but the start of making a bad situation better.

Crown Lands don't come to 12%. That is closer to the estimate of privately owned land. And, it was Morris and Bard who both stated that the only ones displaced during the formation of Israel were felaheen, less than 2000 families, and that the vast majority of Jewish land was bought from Arab landowners.

The amount owned by settlers in 1947 was about 7%. What do you say they had in acres (or Dunums)?

Morris states that the overwhelming majority of Arab villages were emptied due to either IDF military action or deliberate expulsion.

The vast majority of Palestinians alive today are descedents of people who moved to Palestine after Jews began to develop the land..

A lie.

It was according to the Egyptian government that the April Sinai bombings were a Hamas move..

Why was it that I couldnt find that on CNN?

NationStates Jolt Archive

Palestinians execute Jewish settler Eliyahu Asheri