NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/11/20/arbour-tour.html

Another damning report on Israel's human rights record, what do you make of this.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/11/20/arbour-tour.html

Another damning report on Israel's human rights record, what do you make of this.

What a fucking surprise that you spotted it

No intention on the part of the IDF though. That makes it different.

Last week, an Israeli woman was killed in a rocket attack.


Funny how you don't seem to consider or mention that a foreign power launching weapons into civilian areas and killing innocent people isn't a human rights violation.

Naaaaah, can't be that, it's only wrong when those damned jews do it, isn't it?

I don't think very much of the Palestinian "Human Rights Violations" either. Rocket attacks and suicide bombers targeting innocent civilians, but the UN and other "Human Rights" groups tend to ignore that, just like they ignore the atrocities committed by the terrorist groups against the people of Iraq. :mad:

Damn. If only some enlightened country - like saudi arabia - was in charge over there.

None of this would be happening if the terrorists weren't lobbing missiles into Israeli civilian areas with the express purpose of maximizing total casualties without regard for innocent life. When Israel retaliates, there is sometimes collateral damage; too bad. It is pretty clear where the blame falls.

I don't think very much of the Palestinian "Human Rights Violations" either. Rocket attacks and suicide bombers targeting innocent civilians, but the UN and other "Human Rights" groups tend to ignore that, just like they ignore the atrocities committed by the terrorist groups against the people of Iraq. :mad:

That just means that both parties are guilty of human rights violation. Don't you know that two wrongs don't make a right.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/11/20/arbour-tour.html

Another damning report on Israel's human rights record, what do you make of this.

You can't go on about human rights with a quote from Hitler in your sig. I suggest you grow up, or fuck off. Or both - I'm easy.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/11/20/arbour-tour.html

Another damning report on Israel's human rights record, what do you make of this.

When you chronicle all the human right violations done by Palestinians then I will pay attention. Even if you mention Israel's along side the Palestinian ones that would be fine. But it is funny how everyone cries foul when Israel does something and rarely hear a word of the Palestinians human rights violations. Yes by the way I am a Muslim.

Edit:

Here is the link to Amnesty International in case anyone wants to read up on both sides of the age old conflict.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/israel_and_occupied_territories/document.do?id=ENGMDE020272006

When you chronicle all the human right violations done by Palestinians then I will pay attention. Even if you mention Israel's along side the Palestinian ones that would be fine. But it is funny how everyone cries foul when Israel does something and rarely here a word of the Palestinians human rights violations. Yes by the way I am a Muslim.

This is the way you lot are arguing.

1) Israel is guilty of human rights violations against the Palestinians
2) Objection to 1: Palestinian's are guilty of human rights violations against the Isralies
Therefore, Israeli human rights violations are justified.

By the way, '2' is not a very good objection to '1' since '1' merely makes a claim about violations whhich none of you have addressed the truth or falsity of.

Again, two wrongs don't make a right.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/11/20/arbour-tour.html

Another damning report on Israel's human rights record, what do you make of this.

Firstly, if it came from another poster I'd be more concerned.

Secondly, the Palestinians do it equally as much, and do so in a cowardly fashion in any case.

Thirdly, good on israel for fighting a proper campaign with proper tactics.

This is the way you lot are arguing.

1) Israel is guilty of human rights violations against the Palestinians
2) Objection to 1: Palestinian's are guilty of human rights violations against the Isralies
Therefore, Israeli human rights violations are justified.

By the way, '2' is not a very good objection to '1' since '1' merely makes a claim about violations whhich none of you have addressed the truth or falsity of.

Again, two wrongs don't make a right.


Two wrongs don't make a right obviously.:rolleyes:

However when presenting facts both sides need to be there for someone to make an informative decision and formulate a correct opinion of the situation.

This is the way you lot are arguing.

1) Israel is guilty of human rights violations against the Palestinians
2) Objection to 1: Palestinian's are guilty of human rights violations against the Isralies
Therefore, Israeli human rights violations are justified.

By the way, '2' is not a very good objection to '1' since '1' merely makes a claim about violations whhich none of you have addressed the truth or falsity of.

Again, two wrongs don't make a right.

No, one doesn't justify the other. It is just unfair to neglect either side of an argument.

Two wrongs don't make a right obviously.:rolleyes:

However when presenting facts both sides need to be there for someone to make an informative decision and formulate a correct opinion of the situation.

Yeah, this is a thread that is inquiring into human rights violations by the Israelies towards the Palestinians. Whether or not the Palestinians have done the same to the Israaelies is not the issue. So, it cannot be used as an objection.

None of this would be happening if the terrorists weren't lobbing missiles into Israeli civilian areas with the express purpose of maximizing total casualties without regard for innocent life. When Israel retaliates, there is sometimes collateral damage; too bad. It is pretty clear where the blame falls.

How many civilian casualties has the missiles caused so far?

How many civilian casualties has the retaliatory strikes caused so far?

Might that be one reason why the focus is on the suffering of the palestinian civilians?

Yeah, this is a thread that is inquiring into human rights violations by the Israelies towards the Palestinians. Whether or not the Palestinians have done the same to the Israaelies is not the issue. So, it cannot be used as an objection.

Absolutely it can based on the number of anti-Israeli threads on NS. There is a pattern of not showing all the facts here on NS.

But of course "Your lot" wouldn't want to discuss the other side of the story.

"I will speak to the Palestinian Authority about their responsibility to enforce the law, to create an environment in which people can seek protection of the law and, of course, I will also speak to the Israeli authority.

She urged both Israeli and Palestinian leaders to stop the "cycle of violence" and do more to protect civilians.

Seems to me that she's decrying human rights violations by both the Israelis and the Palestinian Authority too...

How many civilian casualties has the missiles caused so far?

How many civilian casualties has the retaliatory strikes caused so far?

Might that be one reason why the focus is on the suffering of the palestinian civilians?

Given your questions, I presume you're equally as ignorant as myself. However, you wrongly presuppose that numerical disparity should lead to a disparity in coverage. I happen to agree with the retaliatory strikes of the Israelis, if only because they have the temerity to retaliate with a genuine, and denoted, army, not cowardly militants hiding in bushes.

Yeah, this is a thread that is inquiring into human rights violations by the Israelies towards the Palestinians. Whether or not the Palestinians have done the same to the Israaelies is not the issue. So, it cannot be used as an objection.

Well done for contradicting a point you appear to approve of. Very intelligent.

Absolutely it can based on the number of anti-Israeli threads on NS. There is a pattern of not showing all the facts here on NS.

But of course "Your lot" wouldn't want to discuss the other side of the story.

Actually, I'm not part of "Your lot" whoever they are. I'm just amazed at the inability to follow an argument. We could have been arguing about peanuts for all I care. Look at what I have just posted, it is all about how to argue, not really about Palestine and Israel.

How many civilian casualties has the missiles caused so far?

How many civilian casualties has the retaliatory strikes caused so far?

Might that be one reason why the focus is on the suffering of the palestinian civilians?


Here in the US if you go on a high speed chase from the cops you are responsible for everything that happens in that police chase. If a civilian dies from a police cruiser slamming into there vehicle in pursuit of you then you are charged with manslaughter. Why is that? The reason being if you didn't cause the crime in the first place you would not have been chased by the police. Hence the civilian would not have been struck by the police cruiser chasing you. Then you wouldn't be charged with manslaughter. Get it? Very simple logic. Actions have consequences for both sides over there. If Hezballah was not lobbing missles into Israel then they would not have invaded. Then civilians would not have been killed. See how that works?

Well done for contradicting a point you appear to approve of. Very intelligent.

Then you are decieved by mere appearence (see above).

Actually, I'm not part of "Your lot" whoever they are. I'm just amazed at the inability to follow an argument. We could have been arguing about peanuts for all I care. Look at what I have just posted, it is all about how to argue, not really about Palestine and Israel.

This is not a thread on how to argue my friend now is it. Sounds like that could be a thread all on it's own.

Yeah, this is a thread that is inquiring into human rights violations by the Israelies towards the Palestinians. Whether or not the Palestinians have done the same to the Israaelies is not the issue. So, it cannot be used as an objection.

An objection to the post? perhaps not.

An objection to the post by this particular poster? absolutly.

She urged both Israeli and Palestinian leaders to stop the "cycle of violence" and do more to protect civilians.

Thats a little difficult when you intentionally put civilians arround your military to stop the other side shooting at them without civilians dying.

How many civilian casualties has the missiles caused so far?

How many civilian casualties has the retaliatory strikes caused so far?

Might that be one reason why the focus is on the suffering of the palestinian civilians?

Civilian casulties in Palestine could be avoided if the Palestinans accepted the offer of the Isralie hospitals to allow Palestinians wounded in attacks to be treated there. Isralie hospitals are firecely non political.

When Isralies kill civilians it is because their missiles/shells missed

When Palestianiens kill civilians it is a because their rockets are very precise

Massive gulf of diffrence.

That just means that both parties are guilty of human rights violation. Don't you know that two wrongs don't make a right.

The point is, Where is the comdemnation of the Palistinians for human rights violations?

WHAT? WE GIVE OUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO THEM AND THIS IS THE BEST ARAB-KILLING THEY CAN DO? IT SHOULD INVOLVE CAR BATTERIES!


I'm sorry, I lost control of myself.

Meh, both sides deserve a firm swat on the wrist and a hard kick in the ass.

How many civilian casualties has the missiles caused so far?

How many civilian casualties has the retaliatory strikes caused so far?

Might that be one reason why the focus is on the suffering of the palestinian civilians?

Whomever starts a war should be prepared to suffer the consequences of the war. One of the consequnces is civilian casualties being higer than they should be if you hide weapons in places where civilians live and work. :rolleyes:

Given your questions, I presume you're equally as ignorant as myself. However, you wrongly presuppose that numerical disparity should lead to a disparity in coverage. I happen to agree with the retaliatory strikes of the Israelis, if only because they have the temerity to retaliate with a genuine, and denoted, army, not cowardly militants hiding in bushes.

But the retaliatory strikes have so much worse consequences on an already decimated area than the missile attacks have on the Israeli side - the destruction of infrastructure, homes, shops, power plants, water sources... These things cause long-term harm to the civilian populace. So it's not only the numbers we're talking about, but the wider effect.

And I'm sure the Palestinians would be thrilled to have a proper army of their own to fight with.
Here in the US if you go on a high speed chase from the cops you are responsible for everything that happens in that police chase. If a civilian dies from a police cruiser slamming into there vehicle in pursuit of you then you are charged with manslaughter. Why is that? The reason being if you didn't cause the crime in the first place you would not have been chased by the police. Hence the civilian would not have been struck by the police cruiser chasing you. Then you wouldn't be charged with manslaughter. Get it? Very simple logic. Actions have consequences for both sides over there. If Hezballah was not lobbing missles into Israel then they would not have invaded. Then civilians would not have been killed. See how that works?

Wrong area. It's about Gaza, not Lebanon.

And ask yourself this: If the police in your example had utilized attack helicopters that blew up the car and killed the civilian, would "you" still be to blame for the death?

There is a question of proportionality, reasonable amount of force, and correct targeting by the Israeli side.

Whomever starts a war should be prepared to suffer the consequences of the war. One of the consequnces is civilian casualties being higer than they should be if you hide weapons in places where civilians live and work. :rolleyes:

Strange that no matter where a childs corpse ends up in Gaza, a "militant" has his weapons cache. Invisible, hard to see ones at that. The fact that the OP was made by a confused lad doesnt actually let you off the hook. The fact is that the Palestinians are an occupied people, with a right to armed resistance. And why do they have the right to armed resistance?

Because of 40 years of this kind of thing - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6139968.stm

Meh, both sides deserve a firm swat on the wrist and a hard kick in the ass.

Actually, just palestine. Israel needs to be sodomized by the headon commercial.

Civilian casulties in Palestine could be avoided if the Palestinans accepted the offer of the Isralie hospitals to allow Palestinians wounded in attacks to be treated there. Isralie hospitals are firecely non political.
It would perhaps be reduced, but it would not be avoided.

Also, I have no links, but I seem to recall stories of wounded palestinians being turned away from Israeli hospitals. Makes me think it's not quite as simple.
The point is, Where is the comdemnation of the Palistinians for human rights violations?
It's in the article.
Whomever starts a war should be prepared to suffer the consequences of the war. One of the consequnces is civilian casualties being higer than they should be if you hide weapons in places where civilians live and work. :rolleyes:
So who started this war?

And why should we ignore the breaches of rights of the civilian population on either side?
Because some unknown person hides weapons where the civilians live, unbeknownst to them, it's OK to ignore those civilians human rights?

Umm..palestine's getting unjustly attacked by a pack of bloodthirsty bastards. They get to attack back.

A damning report, eh? Let us examine the article in question.

"'Massive' human rights violations are being committed in the Gaza Strip, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour said Monday as she kicked off a tour of the region."
Note that the Arbour never says who the violations are being committed by. The article slants the statement by including information on a Israeli airstrike to make it seem as though Arbour was condemning the Israelis. Most likely, she was refferring to human rights violations by both the Israelis and the Palestinians.

"Israeli officials have claimed it shelled the town in error."
You can choose to either believe the Israelis or tell those fucking Zionists that you aren't buying their dirty Jewish propoganda. The former means that you must concede that if they are human rights violators, they are awfully nice about it. The latter means that you won't be reading to examine the report, having already decided that Israel must die.

"Israel has been operating in the area to halt Palestinian rocket strikes."
That means that the "accident" did not come about from aggressive or arbitrary action on the part of the Israeli army.

"Arbour was swarmed by residents flashing pictures of their dead and wounded relatives and calling for punishment of the Israeli soldiers responsible for the attacks."
Now this is a most interesting paragraph to me. How their relatives were injured by Israeli troops remains to be seen, but on the surface it seems to suggest that the Israeli army routinely attacks Palestinian civilians. It either shows that conditions in the Gaza Strip approach the conditions in a concentration camp or that the author of this article has a slight anti-Israel bias.

"Arbour told reporters that she's not going to make political judgments — that her judgments would be based on the human rights record."
This means that she has not made judgements on who has violated what yet. However, I expect there to be more news as her tour continues.

That is just my take on the article, feel free to disagree, even post rebuttals. I am interested how this could be interpreted as a "Damning report" by any sensible, open-minded individual. Please explain.

:confused: Given your questions, I presume you're equally as ignorant as myself.

If you are ignorant about the subject matter, why the hell are you arguing the issue at all? :confused:

A damning report, eh? Let us examine the article in question.

Sure... Let's:

Note that the Arbour never says who the violations are being committed by. The article slants the statement by including information on a Israeli airstrike to make it seem as though Arbour was condemning the Israelis. Most likely, she was refferring to human rights violations by both the Israelis and the Palestinians.

The article does not slant anything. The IDF's bombardment of Beit Hanoun has made headlines around the world since the IDF's murder of 19 members of the same family. It included a UN resolution, and a US veto, too. So, unless you've been living under a rock since before it happened, you realize it's being considered the straw that broke the back of the MidEast Peace Process.

"Israeli officials have claimed it shelled the town in error."
You can choose to either believe the Israelis or tell those fucking Zionists that you aren't buying their dirty Jewish propoganda. The former means that you must concede that if they are human rights violators, they are awfully nice about it. The latter means that you won't be reading to examine the report, having already decided that Israel must die.

As for your former 'point', it is the first time Israel apologized for an attack. It does not mean that it is the first such attack or even the worst such attack. It just got more media coverage. The atrocities being committed in Gaza and the West Bank are well-documented.

And, as for your latter point, ah.. The fascist, anti-semite, Holocaust-denying card. How original.

"Israel has been operating in the area to halt Palestinian rocket strikes."
That means that the "accident" did not come about from aggressive or arbitrary action on the part of the Israeli army.

'TO HALT', not 'SINCE'. The rocket attack came AFTER Israel destroyed Beit Hanoun. The IDF's operations have been on-going since July, with periodic air attacks and 'targeted assassinations' that manage to kill scores of people way before this incident. Please, try to get some perspective and adopt a timeframe longer than one week.

Now this is a most interesting paragraph to me. How their relatives were injured by Israeli troops remains to be seen, but on the surface it seems to suggest that the Israeli army routinely attacks Palestinian civilians. It either shows that conditions in the Gaza Strip approach the conditions in a concentration camp or that the author of this article has a slight anti-Israel bias.

Once again, the thing you point out as 'interesting' is a well-documented fact. Conditions in Gaza are way past breaking point. Oh, and I loved the call back (you played the fascist, anti-semite, Holocaust-denying card again.)

First of all, Greenmanbry, I play all the political cards available to me.

The article does not slant anything. The IDF's bombardment of Beit Hanoun has made headlines around the world since the IDF's murder of 19 members of the same family. It included a UN resolution, and a US veto, too. So, unless you've been living under a rock since before it happened, you realize it's being considered the straw that broke the back of the MidEast Peace Process.
I realize the event's international significance. I am not uninformed, as you suggest, rather I am questioning why the article chose to juxaposition the statement with the mention of an Israeli artillery attack that killed 19 civilians. You cannot be saying that the article did not intend to associate the "massive" human rights violations with the Israeli army. Even if it was unintentional it still happened.

As for your former 'point', it is the first time Israel apologized for an attack. It does not mean that it is the first such attack or even the worst such attack. It just got more media coverage. The atrocities being committed in Gaza and the West Bank are well-documented.

And, as for your latter point, ah.. The fascist, anti-semite, Holocaust-denying card. How original.
Really, it is the first time Israel has apologized for an attack? No, you are mistaken if you think they apologized for the attack. They apologized for an accident; they do not regret attacking the area because there were rockets being launched at Israel from the area. As for my latter part, I never said that you denied the Holocaust or were fascist. In fact, in my experience more "liberals" oppose Israel, which is interesting to me because, ordinarily, they seem more sensible than their opponents.

'TO HALT', not 'SINCE'. The rocket attack came AFTER Israel destroyed Beit Hanoun. The IDF's operations have been on-going since July, with periodic air attacks and 'targeted assassinations' that manage to kill scores of people way before this incident.
Scores of people tend to die when one army fights another. In fact, scores is a low body count. But other than that, let me define aggressive and arbitrary for you. Aggressive: characterized by or tending toward unprovoked offensives, attacks, invasions, or the like; militantly forward or menacing. Arbitrary: subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion. Now tell me, how is a pre-emptive strike aggressive or arbitrary?

On a side-note, conditions in the Gaza may be appalling, but that does not mean that Israeli troops regularly shoot unarmed citizens who are minding their own business (at least not on purpose).

None of this would be happening if the terrorists weren't lobbing missiles into Israeli civilian areas with the express purpose of maximizing total casualties without regard for innocent life. When Israel retaliates, there is sometimes collateral damage; too bad. It is pretty clear where the blame falls.
But, the terrorists wouldn't exist if there wasn't a threat that was felt by the Palestinean people. It's a vicious cycle, with boths sides being both innocent and guilty. The innocent are those caught in the cross fire, (aka, - what you like to call 'collateral damage') and those who are doing the damage (aka - the IDF and the various terrorists that sprout up like a lawn of weeds; invasion of the ragweeds).

The Israelis wouldn't launch their attacks if the terrorists didn't lob their missiles, and the terrorists wouldn't exist if Israeli kept making 'tactical errors' that resulted in collateral damage.

One begets the other.

How does the cycle end if no one wants to lay down arms? It doesn't.

No matter who does it, it's a violation of human rights, and it's not 'too bad' that the collateral damage occurred. That collateral damage is a violation of human rights, whether done by the Palestineans or Israelis.

You say that the terrorists attack with the intent to maximise the deaths of the enemy, but they do it because in their eyes, the 'collateral damage' done by the IDF must be returned.

Eye for an eye... no wonder the violence won't end.

The only difference is where matters of legality start and end.

Actually, just palestine. Israel needs to be sodomized by the headon commercial.
Am I the only one getting weird ideas from this?

But, the terrorists wouldn't exist if there wasn't a threat that was felt by the Palestinean people. It's a vicious cycle, with boths sides being both innocent and guilty. The innocent are those caught in the cross fire, (aka, - what you like to call 'collateral damage') and those who are doing the damage (aka - the IDF and the various terrorists that sprout up like a lawn of weeds; invasion of the ragweeds).

The Israelis wouldn't launch their attacks if the terrorists didn't lob their missiles, and the terrorists wouldn't exist if Israeli kept making 'tactical errors' that resulted in collateral damage.

One begets the other.

How does the cycle end if no one wants to lay down arms? It doesn't.

No matter who does it, it's a violation of human rights, and it's not 'too bad' that the collateral damage occurred. That collateral damage is a violation of human rights, whether done by the Palestineans or Israelis.

You say that the terrorists attack with the intent to maximise the deaths of the enemy, but they do it because in their eyes, the 'collateral damage' done by the IDF must be returned.

Eye for an eye... no wonder the violence won't end.

The only difference is where matters of legality start and end.

Well said :)

Well said :)
Thank you.

I think someone had to say that both sides are neither wrong nor right. As long as people are being killed, no one is winning. No one wins until both sides can lay down their arms, but, there is too much distrust for that to happen.

Am I the only one getting weird ideas from this?

Weird, confused and now..... slightly erotic images.

Weird, confused and now..... slightly erotic images.
Meow!

But, the terrorists wouldn't exist if there wasn't a threat that was felt by the Palestinean people. It's a vicious cycle, with boths sides being both innocent and guilty. The innocent are those caught in the cross fire, (aka, - what you like to call 'collateral damage') and those who are doing the damage (aka - the IDF and the various terrorists that sprout up like a lawn of weeds; invasion of the ragweeds).

The Israelis wouldn't launch their attacks if the terrorists didn't lob their missiles, and the terrorists wouldn't exist if Israeli kept making 'tactical errors' that resulted in collateral damage.

One begets the other.

How does the cycle end if no one wants to lay down arms? It doesn't.

No matter who does it, it's a violation of human rights, and it's not 'too bad' that the collateral damage occurred. That collateral damage is a violation of human rights, whether done by the Palestineans or Israelis.

You say that the terrorists attack with the intent to maximise the deaths of the enemy, but they do it because in their eyes, the 'collateral damage' done by the IDF must be returned.

Eye for an eye... no wonder the violence won't end.

The only difference is where matters of legality start and end.
I think we need to face facts that while this stuff about an eye for an eye making the whole world blind might sound all nice and flowery, it doesn't work in the real world. If Israel laid down arms, the Palestinians would do what they've always said they aim for, driving the Israelis into the sea. If the other sides laid down arms, Israel would go on a massive land grab. Lasting peace will never be achieved until one side brutally destroys the other.

Lasting peace will never be achieved until one side brutally destroys the other.
Didn't they say that about France and Germany repeatedly?

I think we need to face facts that while this stuff about an eye for an eye making the whole world blind might sound all nice and flowery, it doesn't work in the real world. If Israel laid down arms, the Palestinians would do what they've always said they aim for, driving the Israelis into the sea. If the other sides laid down arms, Israel would go on a land grab. Lasting peace will never be achieved until one side brutally destroys the other.
I'm talking about both sides. In a follow up post, I said that neither will ever lay down arms because there is too much distrust. Though, I imagine Israel would like to, they can't, just as the Palestineans would like the terrorists to go away, but they don't say it all because they can't see the whole picture.

Thank you.

I think someone had to say that both sides are neither wrong nor right. As long as people are being killed, no one is winning. No one wins until both sides can lay down their arms, but, there is too much distrust for that to happen.

There's one fundamental difference. If the terrorists and Hamas were to lay down their arms, swear off attacking Israel, and stop their aggression then Israel would leave them alone.

If Israel and the IDF would stop their attacks, stop going after the terrorists, then the terrorists and Hamas would step up their activities.

Let's take Egypt for example. For years Israel and Egypt were hostile towards each other, embargos, blockades, wars, they were at each others throats.

Then Sadat, who was quite a wise man, said "enough, this is ludicrus, we're killing each other. We Egypt, from now on, recognize Israel's right to exist, pledge to halt our activities against Israel, and promise to no longer try to destroy it" and Israel said "OK, cool, do that and we won't continue to fight you either.

And egypt left Israel the hell alone. And Israel, in turn, left Egypt the hell alone. Israel as a nation has shown through history that they will tolerate and respect other nation's sovereignty provided those nation's dont seek to harm or destroy Israel. Israel has operated with one simple principle, leave us alone, and we will leave you alone.

Hamas and other palestinian terrorists have done differently. They have proported to want to destroy Israel, with no indication they're willing to back down from that proposition.

The simple fact is, if the Palestinians didn't want israel to keep killing them, they should stop killing Israelies, I am pretty sure Israel would leave them the hell alone.

edit: changed "Nasser" to "Sadat", wrong person, big historical error on my part

I If Israel laid down arms, the Palestinians would do what they've always said they aim for, driving the Israelis into the sea.

Agreed

If the other sides laid down arms, Israel would go on a massive land grab. Lasting peace will never be achieved until one side brutally destroys the other.

Disagreed. I think it's been pretty well established that modern Israel is pretty willing to "live and let live" provided the other side is willing to uphold the "let live" part.

There's one fundamental difference. If the terrorists and Hamas were to lay down their arms, swear off attacking Israel, and stop their aggression then Israel would leave them alone.


Don't know about that to be honest. I have as much faith in either side. Neither has shown any sign of trustworthyness in dealing with each other.

Um, is it just me or did anyone else notice she gave no examples of these massive human rights violations at all?

Um, is it just me or did anyone else notice she gave no examples of these massive human rights violations at all?

We've five pages in and NOW you're bringing this up? :p

Don't know about that to be honest. I have as much faith in either side. Neither has shown any sign of trustworthyness in dealing with each other.

I disagree.

Who violated the peace accords? Hamas.

In the recent Israeli/Hezbollah cease fire, who violated it first by continuing to arm themselves? Hezbollah.

In every iteration when a ceasefire was broken it was not Israel who violated it first. In instances when the other side has not (Egypt) then Israel hasn't either.

I'd like you to find one single instance when Israel acted in opposition to a ceasefire/peace agreement first. Even the preemptive attacks in the 6 day war was in response to military buildup for an impending invasion.

I disagree.

Who violated the peace accords? Hamas.

In the recent Israeli/Hezbollah cease fire, who violated it first by continuing to arm themselves? Hezbollah.

In every iteration when a ceasefire was broken it was not Israel who violated it first. In instances when the other side has not (Egypt) then Israel hasn't either.

I'd like you to find one single instance when Israel acted in opposition to a ceasefire/peace agreement first. Even the preemptive attacks in the 6 day war was in response to military buildup for an impending invasion.

Continued expansion of settlements in the West Bank followed by the building of that Wall to include them into Israel, for one.

It could be said that military means are not the only way they impinge on their neighbours. (Looking at it from their perspective- who controls the entrance and exits to their lands, who controls the water and therefore the irrigation to their farms, who builds walls cutting land in two, who disallows fishing boats to travels off shore to the stocks etc etc. Not everything comes down to purely rockets and gunships you know)

If the Palestinians were to lay down their arms, Israel couldn't expand simply because it would make them look really, really bad, all their neighbours would attack them and the USA might even withdraw their support. By contrast, if the Israelis laid down their arms and the Palestinians attacked Israel, much of the Middle East would probably join in the fun.

If the Palestinians were to lay down their arms, Israel couldn't expand simply because it would make them look really, really bad,
No offence, but Israel never gave two fucks what anybody said about them -US or no. Their PR dept is a dusty one roomed hovel.


all their neighbours would attack them and the USA might even withdraw their support. By contrast, if the Israelis laid down their arms and the Palestinians attacked Israel, much of the Middle East would probably join in the fun.

Never going to happen on so many counts.

I have an idea to solve the problem. Lets make the entire vicinity an international zone, where its governed by the world, and no one can fight over the land, since everyone can freely access it.

I have an idea to solve the problem. Lets make the entire vicinity an international zone, where its governed by the world, and no one can fight over the land, since everyone can freely access it.
Sounds like a great idea. Too bad no one will ever go for it because the people there are possessive paranoid asshats who can't agree on anything, from how to break bread to how to bomb the shit out of their neighbours.

<snip>

I agree wholeheartedly. Except it was Sadat, not Nasser. Nasser was an SOB.

I agree wholeheartedly. Except it was Sadat, not Nasser. Nasser was an SOB.

gah! Massive historical error on my part, you are quite correct. Sadat, not Nasser. I will edit to reflect.

We should expel all Israelis and Palestinians from Israel, Gaza, the Palestinian Authority territories, the West Bank, etc., and populate the area with Martians.