NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6184882.stm

So... any thoughts / reactions (retractions?) / bets on how long this'll last?

so lets take bets on how long this one will last...i put $10 on 3 days.

3 and a half minutes

Wow, that sucks.

Already violated.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3332528,00.html

A Qassam rocket fired from Gaza landed north of Sderot about an hour after the truce went into effect at 6 a.m. Sunday. Another rocket fired at around 8 a.m. landed in an open area in the western Negev city, and a third was fired at the western Negev a short time later; no injuries or damage were reported.

Fact remains, Palestinian missile attacks on Israel do little or no real damage, rarely if ever do they hit anything and even more rarely is property damaged or people wounded or even killed. In response for these tiny minority militant attacks Israel bulldozers houses, slaughters dozens, shells houses and it's siege forces the Palestinians even more into abject poverty and dislocation.

Israel or the IDF in particular needs to realise that the rockets do crap all to them, while when they disproportionately react the result is far worst.

Israel or the IDF in particular needs to realise that the rockets do crap all to them, while when they disproportionately react the result is far worst.
That's commendable but unrealistic idealism.

The Israeli politicians and military leaders are first and foremost responsible for their own people. After that, they're responsible for the integrity and sovereignty of Israel, and only after that can they start thinking about foreigners, especially foreigners who, on the whole, can't stand them.

I don't see how any country in the world would just sit there and have people fire missiles into their towns, even if they're crappy missiles. It's something that the IDF has to react to, pretty much by definition.

That being said, I hope for Abbas' sake that violations will remain isolated incidents, and that the Israelis give it an honest shot as well.

Well, that sucks. Seems like it only lasted around an hour.

I wonder if that's some sort of record...

Batuni: The funny thing is that you seem to have posted about seven minutes after it failed. :p

That's commendable but unrealistic idealism.

The Israeli politicians and military leaders are first and foremost responsible for their own people. After that, they're responsible for the integrity and sovereignty of Israel, and only after that can they start thinking about foreigners, especially foreigners who, on the whole, can't stand them.

I don't see how any country in the world would just sit there and have people fire missiles into their towns, even if they're crappy missiles. It's something that the IDF has to react to, pretty much by definition.

That being said, I hope for Abbas' sake that violations will remain isolated incidents, and that the Israelis give it an honest shot as well.

I am not saying they are not entitled to reaction, I just think the reaction should be proportionate, they should also realise that these disproportionate and reactionary attacks (that mostly target and kill innocent civilians) only foster the kind of extremist that would have Palestinians youths attacking Israel or the like.

When you stand back and look at it, when militants fire rockets into Israel, the IDF do not strategically go after the militants using pinpoint attacks (like they did with Hezbollah until they got annoyed and just started massacring civilians to punish the populace), in Palestine they just bomb the towns and infrastructure, they punish the Palestinians as a whole for the actions of tiny minorities (a minority that grows because of Israel, not in spite).

Israel obviously has the technology for this kind of pinpoint warfare, but I spose it's easier to bomb open towns that target militants. Now some people will say that it's not all black & white, and that militants hide with civilians. True yes but the IDF have a choice in such a situation, they simply should NOT attack whenever their is the slightly possibility of civilians casualties, anything less are war crimes.

Israel has no requirement to make proportional responses.

If you try to fight war under the rules of your enemy, you have automatically lost. Show me one war where proportionate responses have gotten a victory. By your logic, the US should've just bombed a Japanese Harbor and called it quits.

The democratically elected Israeli government's foremost duty is to protect its people.

Sitting idly by while Palestinians fire rockets would be a failure on the part of Israel's government. They therefore must act.

Israel and Palestine really should just go on an all out war and get it over with.

Israel has no requirement to make proportional responses.

If you try to fight war under the rules of your enemy, you have automatically lost. Show me one war where proportionate responses have gotten a victory. By your logic, the US should've just bombed a Japanese Harbor and called it quits.

The democratically elected Israeli government's foremost duty is to protect its people.

Sitting idly by while Palestinians fire rockets would be a failure on the part of Israel's government. They therefore must act.

So the occupation and subjugation of Palestinian Arab land by the Zionists (I do not say Jew, Zionist to Jew is what Nazi is to German) was justified because of the Holocaust, or are you saying the Palestinians committed the holocaust now?

And again, the missiles do nothing, they havent hit anything in months, Israel faces more danger from migrating camels than those rockets, so that point is void coupled with the fact that it is Palestinian minorities shooting rockets, not Palestinians as a whole.

So let me get this straight, your condoning war crimes under the UN Charter and wars of aggression as defined at Nuremburg, because their is a 0.000001 chance that one of your citizens might die from rocket attacks, your face worst than that from car crashes.

IDF is punishing the innocent Palestinian people for the actions of a tiny disenfranchised minority (disenfranchised by Israel btw), your saying you should not fight on the same terms as your enemy, so like the militants your suggesting you should use terrorist tactics like they do? That is certainly what you are suggesting, the murder of innocents to further a political goal.

That's.... interesting.

So the occupation and subjugation of Palestinian Arab land by the Zionists (I do not say Jew, Zionist to Jew is what Nazi is to German) was justified because of the Holocaust, or are you saying the Palestinians committed the holocaust now?
Your type is even more preoccupied with the Holocaust than the alleged Zionist you always rant against!

And again, the missiles do nothing, they havent hit anything in months, Israel faces more danger from migrating camels than those rockets, so that point is void coupled with the fact that it is Palestinian minorities shooting rockets, not Palestinians as a whole.
Look, whether or not the missiles kill anyone isn't really important. If I try to shoot you and miss, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't respond to my wish to kill you.

The disenfranchised minority is sadly not really a minority. These rockets are not constructed by private people, but by organisations in specially designated make-shift factories.

These organisations are vast in membership and vaster in the support they get from the general populace. That's a fact.

And Hamas itself claims to represent a majority, which is true, at least as far as the elections were concerned. And you may have heard in the news of the grandma suicide attack a day or two ago: that was Hamas, and it's part of a long line of such bombings, many of which did target civilians and not soldiers.

That is certainly what you are suggesting, the murder of innocents to further a political goal.
Look, this is urban warfare in a situation were most of the civilian population is busy blocking the roads, booing at you or throwing stones. And in the middle run the friendly neighbourhood militiamen and shoot at you.

As far as the official policies are concerned, the IDF has very strict guidelines regarding the behaviour of their soldiers, stricter than pretty much every other army. Occasionally these are breached, and I don't think the army is doing enough to punish offenders, but that's got to do more with organisational culture and a lost sense of ethics rather than with the official policy.

They don't intentionally target civilians. There has been no such case. At worst, what they've done is pay too little regard to collateral damage, cynically so. There's an art exhibition in Tel Aviv IIRC by ex-soldiers who took photos and published their experience and the horrid disregard and contempt for the Palestinians by the troops at times (and people were after them for creating that exhibition). I think they captured the point well enough.

The problem you have is that you don't seem to distinguish between bad people, bad organisations and bad goals.

Both sides have bad people. But Hamas is an infinitely worse organisation than the IDF, and the goal of destroying Israel is worse than the goal of protecting it if ordered to do so by the government.

Israel has no requirement to make proportional responses.

If you try to fight war under the rules of your enemy, you have automatically lost. Show me one war where proportionate responses have gotten a victory. By your logic, the US should've just bombed a Japanese Harbor and called it quits.

The democratically elected Israeli government's foremost duty is to protect its people.

Sitting idly by while Palestinians fire rockets would be a failure on the part of Israel's government. They therefore must act.Well, so why should Palestinians sit idly while Israel dwells on their land? You know, Palestine in its pre-1922 borders.

Well, so why should Palestinians sit idly while Israel dwells on their land? You know, Palestine in its pre-1922 borders.

The Turkish empire province? Cool!

Well, so why should Palestinians sit idly while Israel dwells on their land? You know, Palestine in its pre-1922 borders.
Because around 7 million Israelis live there?

Because around 7 million Israelis live there?Well, they are not supposed to live there.

The Turkish empire province? Cool!No, the British Mandate territory that was supposed to be returned to the Arabs one day entirely.

No, the British Mandate territory that was supposed to be returned to the Arabs one day entirely.
More like returned to the people who lived there in general. Which included a lot of Jews.

Well, they are not supposed to live there.
No one is supposed to be born anywhere. It really is down to chance which side of whichever arbitrary line on a map one is born on.

But the Israelis are supposed to live there. Plenty were born there, for a start. Even if you think it was wrong for the Israeli state to be set up after WWII, they've pretty much established their right to live there simply by being there for 50+ years.

Of course, the Palestinians who live there also have a right to be there as well, and not under Israeli occupation, in their own state. But the point is, this isn't a black and white "it's their fault" issue anyway. Only by recognising the needs and existence of both sides will there be peace - and that includes Israeli security and Palestinian statehood.

I'll try and re word that into something that doesn't ramble so much when it's not so early in the morning

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6184882.stm

So... any thoughts / reactions (retractions?) / bets on how long this'll last?


It won't last. :(

Nevermind. :p

No, the British Mandate territory that was supposed to be returned to the Arabs one day entirely.
Most of it was. Only a tiny part was actually handed over to the Jews who lived there. Look at a map of Jordan and the UN Partition plan.

It won't last. :(
It already hasn't. That's the problem: make a deal with one group and they'll either 1)break it or 2)another group will start bombing/rocketing.

Most of it was. Only a tiny part was actually handed over to the Jews who lived there. Look at a map of Jordan and the UN Partition plan.What do mean with "tiny"? It was the agriculturally relevant part in the northwest of the territory that was supposed to be given to Jews (for no reason really). I know the UN partition plan, or rather the various UN partition plans.

It already hasn't. That's the problem: make a deal with one group and they'll either 1)break it or 2)another group will start bombing/rocketing.

They're composed of numerous independent cells. Getting all palestinian militants to abide by a ceasefire is like getting all Texans to stop chewing tobacco. ;)

What do mean with "tiny"?
Consider the partition plan with a map of the entire mandate:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/65/BritishMandatePalestine1920.jpg

It was the agriculturally relevant part in the northwest of the territory that was supposed to be given to Jews (for no reason really).
Apart from the fact that was where they lived at the time.
http://www.palestine.org.nz/images/landgrab.jpg

I know the UN partition plan, or rather the various UN partition plans.
Excrement:D

They're composed of numerous independent cells. Getting all palestinian militants to abide by a ceasefire is like getting all Texans to stop chewing tobacco. ;)
Or Slashdot users from making geeky jokes :D

:D

I'm taking the morning off the middle east, but I just want to applaud your use of accurate maps there re land ownership.

Look, whether or not the Israelis are supposed to be where they are is (to some extent) irrelevant. The fact remains that they ARE there, and to expect them to leave en masse is not only unrealistic, it would also be a contravention of their human rights. We need a more sensible solution to the problem. Israel is as much the ancestral homeland of Zionists as it is of the Palestinians - indeed, given the biblical sources, possibly more so. Neither side, however, should be expected to leave.
And to briefly comment on the ceasfires, what we have here is exactly analagous to schoolchildren in the playground. A steals B's ball, so B hits him, so A kicks him, so B punches him in the mouth.... anyone recognise this? Violence IS NOT, AND HAS NEVER BEEN AN APPROPRIATE PALESTINIAN RESPONSE TO OCCUPATION. Furthermore, Israeli reprisals SERVE ONLY TO INFLAME PEOPLE AND ENSURE THAT THE SITUATION CONTINUES. :headbang: The deadly missile attacks from Gaza must stop, as must Israeli incursions into an already internally troubled region, before we have any chance at the peace all common citizens of the world want. Surely?

Violence IS NOT, AND HAS NEVER BEEN AN APPROPRIATE PALESTINIAN RESPONSE TO OCCUPATION.Yes it is and always has been. Just like any people always were right in fighting their oppressors and the occupiers of their land in history.

The percentage of Jews living in the region has been 5 to 10 over the last 1500 or so years. There was no reason to ever change that.

Look, whether or not the Israelis are supposed to be where they are is (to some extent) irrelevant. The fact remains that they ARE there, and to expect them to leave en masse is not only unrealistic, it would also be a contravention of their human rights.

The West Bank, Arab East Jerusalem and Gaza are not within Israel. Realistically, whats required is the removal of the settlements outside Israels borders, not the removal of the Israeli population.

And seeing as the avenue of non-violent redress is blocked by the US veto, what do you suggest is an "appropriate response"?

United Beleriand:
So you are approving of the Dolphinarium massacre in Tel Aviv, 2001, in which Hamas murdered 21 civilians? The Passover massacre in Netanya 2002, where Hamas callously blew up 30 people at a festive dinner? The Maxim restaurant suicide bombing in Haifa, 2003, where Islamic Jihad were responsible for the deaths of 21 Jews and Arabs, including two families and four children, including a two-month-old baby? I am sure you find these as repungent as I do. They are a world apart from armed conflict between armies - they constitute terrorism, pure and simple.
And there is no reason to stop any people living in any one place. There is no theoretical reason why Jews cannot live in Israel. They have as much right as anyone to.

Nodinia:
The Israelis withdrew from settlements in Gaza recently, with disasterous results. They are now subject to rocket attacks on their towns and raids on their army positions, neither of which are consistent with the goodwill needed for peace. Undoubtedly Israel should withdraw from occupied territories, but if they are to move forcibly tens of thousands of their people, they need to ensure that they will be safe from terror first. I am sure you will agree that to liberate Palestinians and submit the Israelis to terror would be stupid.
And the non-violent approach is blocked only for as long as Hamas refuses to refrain from violence. If they would step away from their missiles, I would be as delighted as anyone else, and would be more than happy to see negotiations with them taking place, with good faith on both sides. Besides - who cares about the US? You don't need the US to make peace in the Middle East - you need the Palestinians and the Israelis. If Hamas can give the Israelis peace as a goodwill gesture, the US veto is irrelevant.

Both of you:
Thanks for relpying with your points. I am always delighted to discuss my points of view with anyone. Everyone is welcome to telegram me in-game, post on the forum, anything. I will always be happy to debate.

United Beleriand:
So you are approving of the Dolphinarium massacre in Tel Aviv, 2001, in which Hamas murdered 21 civilians? The Passover massacre in Netanya 2002, where Hamas callously blew up 30 people at a festive dinner? The Maxim restaurant suicide bombing in Haifa, 2003, where Islamic Jihad were responsible for the deaths of 21 Jews and Arabs, including two families and four children, including a two-month-old baby? I am sure you find these as repungent as I do. They are a world apart from armed conflict between armies - they constitute terrorism, pure and simple.
And there is no reason to stop any people living in any one place. There is no theoretical reason why Jews cannot live in Israel. They have as much right as anyone to.

Both of you:
Thanks for relpying with your points. I am always delighted to discuss my points of view with anyone. Everyone is welcome to telegram me in-game, post on the forum, anything. I will always be happy to debate.I do approve of any action that is taken against the intruders. There is no reason to distinguish between Jews living in "Israel" and the military they support with their taxes and through their elections of anti-Arab governments. The military is merely a tool in the hands of the Jews. Targeting both is the natural right of the Arabs whose families have lived there since ancient times and prior to the Jewish immigration from Europe, Asia, and elsewhere in the last century.

The West Bank, Arab East Jerusalem and Gaza are not within Israel. Realistically, whats required is the removal of the settlements outside Israels borders, not the removal of the Israeli population.

And seeing as the avenue of non-violent redress is blocked by the US veto, what do you suggest is an "appropriate response"?

East Jerusalem is most assuredly within Israel. They took it after the Yom Kippur war - you remember, the one the Arabs started? The Israelis are under no obligation to return it, since the Palestinians used the area to attack Israel in that war, despite previously agreeing not to militarize the city - and agreement the Israelis honoured.

As for their method of redress, it is by no means blocked. The US veto prevents the Arab states from ganging up on Israel in the UN - it causes no difficulty in the Palestinians talking to the Israelis fact to face. They've managed cease-fire after cease-fire after cease-fire - every one of which the Palestinians have violated.

If the Palestinians ever really want peace, all they have to do is negotiate in good faith. It's not the Israeli's fault the Palestinians seem unable to do so.

I do approve of any action that is taken against the intruders. There is no reason to distinguish between Jews living in "Israel" and the military they support with their taxes and through their elections of anti-Arab governments. The military is merely a tool in the hands of the Jews. Targeting both is the natural right of the Arabs whose families have lived there since ancient times and prior to the Jewish immigration from Europe, Asia, and elsewhere in the last century.

Given that position, you cannot complain if the Israelis simply exterminate the Palestinians. What's fair tactics for one side in a conflict is always fair for the other.

Fortunately, unlike the Plaestinian militants, Israel is civilized.

I do approve of any action that is taken against the intruders.

(1) So, just to get this straight, you support the acts of terrorists, who randomly murder people on the streets? Does this sound to you like an accpetable way of life? Without question, your opinion wil not be shared by teh vast majority of the world, including, I am sure, the UN, and anyone else interested in human rights.

There is no reason to distinguish between Jews living in "Israel" and the military they support with their taxes and through their elections of anti-Arab governments.

(2) By the same token, it should be acceptable for supporters of Saddam Hussein to murder people in America. It's the military they voted to fund and support, isn't it?
(3) Wouldn't you be "anti" a nation that holds as a core tenet of it's existion the destruction of yours?

The military is merely a tool in the hands of the Jews.

(4) Of course. What else is the military power of a nation for? To ensure that it remains secure.

Targeting both is the natural right of the Arabs whose families have lived there since ancient times and prior to the Jewish immigration from Europe, Asia, and elsewhere in the last century.

(5) I cannot believe that you actually can say this. To suggest that the schoolchildren who get on a bus on their way to school in the morning are an acceptable target for terrible atrocities? WTF??? So does that mean that I can go and kill immigrants who come to England and start mugging people? They are infringing on my traditional rights as a member of a centuries-old nation. Wholesale murder is the only answer, clearly. (Note the sarcasm.)
Yet you laud those despicable men and women who bomb the innocent? Who destroy lives? The right to life is the first human right - to deny it is to deny one of the fundemental cores of society. You are also, by saying this, granting legitimacy to further large scale death and destruction in the Middle East. If the Palestinians can bomb Israelis, the Israelis can surely not be denied the right to fight back. So we will have more sensless killings, reprisals, buildings being destroyed and lives being ruined.
Surely, the ONLY SENSIBLE ANSWER must be for both sides to renounce violence? THEN can we step forward, instead of stagnating into ruin.

I submit that you MUST, for the sake of the world, reconsider this ill-advised position. I like to think that I am as much of an advocate for the rights of the Palestinians as you are, while supporting the Israelis too. I am convinced that while the fighting continues, both sides will lose. Campaign to stop it, on both sides, and our children may thank us some day.

East Jerusalem is most assuredly within Israel. They took it after the Yom Kippur war - you remember, the one the Arabs started? The Israelis are under no obligation to return it, since the Palestinians used the area to attack Israel in that war, despite previously agreeing not to militarize the city - and agreement the Israelis honoured..

You'll find that international law, the UN and mapmakers disagree. No state recognises Israeli control of Arab East Jerusalem.


As for their method of redress, it is by no means blocked. The US veto prevents the Arab states from ganging up on Israel in the UN - it causes no difficulty in the Palestinians talking to the Israelis fact to face. They've managed cease-fire after cease-fire after cease-fire - every one of which the Palestinians have violated...


Really...Arabs ganging up....Thats good. 10 nations voted for this vetoed resolution yet there is only one Arab state on the security council.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6140758.stm
When it was voted for (and passed) on the floor of the UN, it had the support of 156 nations. How many of them are "Arab"?

Heres a few others -
1973 Afirms the rights of the Palestinians and calls on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories. - vetoed by the US

1976 Condemns Israel for building settlements in the occupied territories. Vetoed by the US.

Now considering that the settlements are illegal no matter what the Palestinians do, doesnt that strike you as odd? If that motion and had led to legal sanctions against Israel, there would have been a clear and obvious alternative to violence. But like the 30 plus other motions, it was vetoed by the US.

Also, how can the Palestinians deal with the Israelis without an arbitrator given the unequal balance of power? And given the long history of almost unilateral backing of Israel by the US, its fairy obvious that it has not their interests in mind.

United Beleriand:
So you are approving of the Dolphinarium massacre in Tel Aviv, 2001, in which Hamas murdered 21 civilians? The Passover massacre in Netanya 2002, where Hamas callously blew up 30 people at a festive dinner? The Maxim restaurant suicide bombing in Haifa, 2003, where Islamic Jihad were responsible for the deaths of 21 Jews and Arabs, including two families and four children, including a two-month-old baby? I am sure you find these as repungent as I do. They are a world apart from armed conflict between armies - they constitute terrorism, pure and simple.
And there is no reason to stop any people living in any one place. There is no theoretical reason why Jews cannot live in Israel. They have as much right as anyone to.

Nodinia:
The Israelis withdrew from settlements in Gaza recently, with disasterous results. They are now subject to rocket attacks on their towns and raids on their army positions, neither of which are consistent with the goodwill needed for peace. Undoubtedly Israel should withdraw from occupied territories, but if they are to move forcibly tens of thousands of their people, they need to ensure that they will be safe from terror first. I am sure you will agree that to liberate Palestinians and submit the Israelis to terror would be stupid.
And the non-violent approach is blocked only for as long as Hamas refuses to refrain from violence. If they would step away from their missiles, I would be as delighted as anyone else, and would be more than happy to see negotiations with them taking place, with good faith on both sides. Besides - who cares about the US? You don't need the US to make peace in the Middle East - you need the Palestinians and the Israelis. If Hamas can give the Israelis peace as a goodwill gesture, the US veto is irrelevant.

Both of you:
Thanks for relpying with your points. I am always delighted to discuss my points of view with anyone. Everyone is welcome to telegram me in-game, post on the forum, anything. I will always be happy to debate.

Unfortunately every plan which has involved monitoring forces is rejected by the US/Israel. Including the latest French/Italian one, as far as I'm aware.

Forgive my ignorance, but how much good can monitoring forces actually do? The ONLY WAY to achieve a lasting, realisable peace is for the two sides themselves to ensure it, and NOT for others to enforce it on them. This is a VERY IMPORTANT BELIEF of mine.
And regarding your remark to Dododecapod about Palestinians being the underdogs, I would remind you that they are backed by the whole of the Arab world. So basically, Israel are outnumbered regionally by a VERY large amount. And this is not NationStates, they cannot simply change region.

Forgive my ignorance, but how much good can monitoring forces actually do? The ONLY WAY to achieve a lasting, realisable peace is for the two sides themselves to ensure it, and NOT for others to enforce it on them. This is a VERY IMPORTANT BELIEF of mine.
And regarding your remark to Dododecapod about Palestinians being the underdogs, I would remind you that they are backed by the whole of the Arab world. So basically, Israel are outnumbered regionally by a VERY large amount. And this is not NationStates, they cannot simply change region.

Numbers matter not a whit, if the last 50 years are anything to go by. And if you want any indication of the usefulness of monitoring forces - possibly even buffering forces - its there in Israels rejection. There must be third party intervention, by other than the US.

No, the British Mandate territory that was supposed to be returned to the Arabs one day entirely.

Wrong! The Mandate as given by the League of Nations stated that 2 states were to be created. An Arab one and a Jewish one. The Mandate accepted the Balfour Declaration as law. That would've happened had the Arabs not rejected partition and every single peace deal offered.

Wrong! The Mandate as given by the League of Nations stated that 2 states were to be created. An Arab one and a Jewish one. The Mandate accepted the Balfour Declaration as law. That would've happened had the Arabs not rejected partition and every single peace deal offered.

And given the amount of land they had to give up, if you look at the map on page 1, its not suprising.

You'll find that international law, the UN and mapmakers disagree. No state recognises Israeli control of Arab East Jerusalem.


First, there is no such thing as "international law". There are only treaties between states.
Second, it doesn't actually matter if the UN recognizes anything. Israel holds East Jerusalem, and their reasons for doing so are good enough that no one is really pressing the point - except the Palestinians, who, frankly, lost any right to speak on that matter when they used it as a base to attack Israel.


Really...Arabs ganging up....Thats good. 10 nations voted for this vetoed resolution yet there is only one Arab state on the security council.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6140758.stm
When it was voted for (and passed) on the floor of the UN, it had the support of 156 nations. How many of them are "Arab"?


About twenty, all up. And most of the rest don't really care, they just don't want to offend the Oil Kings. It's one of the major flaws of the UN - it's relatively easy to gather support for just about anything in the General Assembly, as long as you have something uninvolved nations want. That's also why the GA is a toothless institution - it just continuously spews out irrelevancies.


Also, how can the Palestinians deal with the Israelis without an arbitrator given the unequal balance of power? And given the long history of almost unilateral backing of Israel by the US, its fairy obvious that it has not their interests in mind.

No, the US would not be an uninvolved moderator. But I fail to see why the Palestinians need one. They have successfully negotiated the pull back of settlements (despite heated opposition to this from the more extreme elements in Israel), several cease-fires, the creation of the Palestinian Authority, rights of access to the Dome of the Rock, and came very close to recognised sovereign statehood.

Israel has not blocked any of this. They have negotiated in good faith, and usually held to the agreements despite considerable Palestinian provocation to abandon them. They HAVE been tough negotiators - but not unfair ones.

The only problem has been that the Palestinians have not held to the agreements signed.

Israel, as a whole, doesn't care about the West Bank, or Gaza, or even the Golan Heights. If they thought the Palestinians would honour the agreement, they'd give up the lot - and maybe even East Jerusalem too, if that was the price of peace. But their experience, over the last forty years, has been that Palestine cannot be trusted to keep it's agreements. And to be perfectly honest, I don't think they are wrong about that.

That's commendable but unrealistic idealism.

The Israeli politicians and military leaders are first and foremost responsible for their own people. After that, they're responsible for the integrity and sovereignty of Israel, and only after that can they start thinking about foreigners, especially foreigners who, on the whole, can't stand them.

I don't see how any country in the world would just sit there and have people fire missiles into their towns, even if they're crappy missiles. It's something that the IDF has to react to, pretty much by definition.

That being said, I hope for Abbas' sake that violations will remain isolated incidents, and that the Israelis give it an honest shot as well.

i find myself in complete agreement with neu on this,go figure.

i will add that the israili government could try a more porportional responce to the acts of these militants.
counter battery fire for example.

i understand the israilis predicament,and think they have every right to defend themselves,but by dozing homes and over responding to incidents...they are probably creating more militants they will have to contend with.

at least they have not responded to the latest provacation(post cease fire) as of yet,and hopefully will show some restraint to allow abbas time to chill out the militants.
this may show the palistinians they are not unreasonable...but...i doubt it will last for long,and it shouldn't.

First, there is no such thing as "international law". There are only treaties between states.
Second, it doesn't actually matter if the UN recognizes anything. Israel holds East Jerusalem, and their reasons for doing so are good enough that no one is really pressing the point - except the Palestinians, who, frankly, lost any right to speak on that matter when they used it as a base to attack Israel.
..

When did the Palestinians use it as a base to attack Israel?


About twenty, all up. And most of the rest don't really care, they just don't want to offend the Oil Kings. It's one of the major flaws of the UN - it's relatively easy to gather support for just about anything in the General Assembly, as long as you have something uninvolved nations want. That's also why the GA is a toothless institution - it just continuously spews out irrelevancies..

Just the Palestinians, two thirds of the security council and over two thirds of the UN representing the overwhelming majority of states on the planet. But fuck them, its only a bunch of Arabs.......


No, the US would not be an uninvolved moderator. But I fail to see why the Palestinians need one. They have successfully negotiated the pull back of settlements (despite heated opposition to this from the more extreme elements in Israel), several cease-fires, the creation of the Palestinian Authority, rights of access to the Dome of the Rock, and came very close to recognised sovereign statehood...

All of which was undermined and destroyed either by elements on their own side or the Israeli side. The pull back from Gaza was a unilateral move by Sharon to concentrate on the West Bank, btw.



Israel has not blocked any of this. They have negotiated in good faith, and usually held to the agreements despite considerable Palestinian provocation to abandon them. They HAVE been tough negotiators - but not unfair ones.
...

So they build settlements which provoke more extremes of violence and are protected by the abuse of the Veto, then can't stop building settlements because of the even greater violence caused by them and the blocking of recourse and its the Palestinians fault? Great logic there.....

All of which was undermined and destroyed either by elements on their own side or the Israeli side.

I think you'll find that the Palestinians are mostly responsible for their own failings in Gaza. They rioted and trashed up the equipment bought of Israel by the world bank for them, and then start killing each other because they can't agree on who should rule.

The pull back from Gaza was a unilateral move by Sharon to concentrate on the West Bank, btw.

How unbelieveable that even when Sharon took the corageous descision to pull out of Gaza, he is ridiculed and mocked by the ever-cynical world. If the Israelis DID massacre a village, you'd be happy, wouldn't you, 'cos of proving your point.

So they build settlements which provoke more extremes of violence...

But WHY does it provoke more violence? WHY is violence OK? I just don't get it.

And to Secret aj man,
i will add that the israili government could try a more porportional responce to the acts of these militants.
counter battery fire for example.

I fully agree with you about proportionality. Has it occured to you that destroying houses used for launching missiles falls under "counter-battery fire"?

And to Secret aj man,

Quote:
i will add that the israili government could try a more porportional responce to the acts of these militants.
counter battery fire for example.

I fully agree with you about proportionality. Has it occured to you that destroying houses used for launching missiles falls under "counter-battery fire"?

yes it has occurred to me,thats why i pointed out the bulldozing of houses,not houses targeted by air or counter battery assests.

please dont misread my intent...the israilis have every right to defend themselves,and with any force they deem sufficient...i was just pointing out it may be counter productive to go with the heavy hand approach in alot of situations.

hell,if i am going to a knife fight..i'm bringing a gun..lol...and the israilis have every right to use whatever force they want,i just think it can backfire sometimes..just a thought is all.

I think you'll find that the Palestinians are mostly responsible for their own failings in Gaza. They rioted and trashed up the equipment bought of Israel by the world bank for them, and then start killing each other because they can't agree on who should rule."


What you refer to was the glasshouses left behind by the settlers. While it was a stupid act by angry young lads, Israel has bulldozed far more greenhouses belonging to Palestinians, yet this draws little comment.



How unbelieveable that even when Sharon took the corageous descision to pull out of Gaza, he is ridiculed and mocked by the ever-cynical world. If the Israelis DID massacre a village, you'd be happy, wouldn't you, 'cos of proving your point.


"Sharon plan 'blocked peace talks'
A top Israeli official has claimed that Ariel Sharon's Gaza withdrawal plan was deliberately formulated to block peace negotiations with Yasser Arafat.
"The significance of the plan is the freezing of the peace process," Dov Weisglass told Haaretz newspaper, adding the US had given its backing.

Palestinian statehood, refugees and the status of Jerusalem had effectively been dropped off the agenda, he said.

But he later added Israel was open to talks with other Palestinian leaders"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3720176.stm

Well, so why should Palestinians sit idly while Israel dwells on their land? You know, Palestine in its pre-1922 borders.

The legitimate borders are those of 6AD. I demand all of Palestine be returned to the Roman Empire.

The Israelis will not give back Jerusalem. They want to retain their holy sites in Jerusalem. True, the Muslims have holy sites there as well, but those are under Muslim administration. Muslims are free to visit and pray at the Dome of the Rock or Al-Aqsa Mosque.

However, when East Jerusalem was under Jordanian rule, Jews were not allowed to visit the Western Wall, despite international agreements to the contrary.

I think someone summed up the two most important issues very nicely - Israeli security and Palestinian statehood. Neither can or should be compromised on.

When did the Palestinians use it as a base to attack Israel?


The Yom Kippur war. Palestinian and Jordanian forces were smuggled into East Jerusalem prior to the outbreak of hostilities, in direct contravention of the treaties covering the division of Jerusalem. When the Arab Alliance declared war, they assaulted the Israeli police units in West Jerusalem and attempted to capture the city. IDF units had to fight their way into the city, and went on to unify the city under Israeli rule.


All of which was undermined and destroyed either by elements on their own side or the Israeli side. The pull back from Gaza was a unilateral move by Sharon to concentrate on the West Bank, btw.


After the Palestinians had been asking for it for some time. I don't see anything wrong with doing what your neighbour has been requesting.

And I would say that the second intifada and the resumption of suicide attacks were more than sufficient reason to step away from the table.

More like returned to the people who lived there in general. Which included a lot of Jews.
Nitpick:
The Jewish population at the time of the partition was very small. Much smaller than the Palastinian population.
Even today only about half the Jewish population in Israel was acutally born there

The Israelis will not give back Jerusalem. They want to retain their holy sites in Jerusalem. True, the Muslims have holy sites there as well, but those are under Muslim administration. Muslims are free to visit and pray at the Dome of the Rock or Al-Aqsa Mosque.
Given that Palastinians are barely free to move within much of the West Bank and Gaza I very much doubt your claim that they are free to visit a site in Israel.



All this said - A part of the problem is that people on BOTH sides gain a lot politically from a continued conflict - everything wrong with the country can be blamed on the evil other side - hence the willingness by some to violate the ceasefire in its first hours. I am glad that on this occasion the Israelis have agreed to let this one slide rather than just resume hostilities.

The Yom Kippur war. Palestinian and Jordanian forces were smuggled into East Jerusalem prior to the outbreak of hostilities, in direct contravention of the treaties covering the division of Jerusalem. When the Arab Alliance declared war, they assaulted the Israeli police units in West Jerusalem and attempted to capture the city. IDF units had to fight their way into the city, and went on to unify the city under Israeli rule..

As the Jordanian forces were there quite openly under the 1948 Armstice, I think you have your facts confused. Secondly, can I have some relatively independent source that refers to these Palestinian forces....?



After the Palestinians had been asking for it for some time. I don't see anything wrong with doing what your neighbour has been requesting...

A smug answer which seeks to evade the objective of the withdrawal - not some mutually acceptable peace but further land grabs elsewhere.


And I would say that the second intifada and the resumption of suicide attacks were more than sufficient reason to step away from the table.

An intifada for which the one who walked away from the table can bear a great deal of responsibility. Not a coincidence, I think.

As the Jordanian forces were there quite openly under the 1948 Armstice, I think you have your facts confused. Secondly, can I have some relatively independent source that refers to these Palestinian forces....?


Jordanian forces were supposed to be OUTSIDE the city, as the Israeli ones were. Both sides were allowed police units only.


An intifada for which the one who walked away from the table can bear a great deal of responsibility. Not a coincidence, I think.

What, the responsibility of not giving Arafat everything he wanted, right now, no questions asked? Israel may not have been acting as quickly as the Palestinian Authority wanted, but they were acting. Until the second intifada finished that round of talks well and truly off.

There is no reason to distinguish between Jews living in "Israel" and the military they support with their taxes and through their elections of anti-Arab governments.

So you're saying it's okay to kill me? Even though I have voted (both times I have voted so far) for parties supporting peace with the Palestinians?

Jordanian forces were supposed to be OUTSIDE the city, as the Israeli ones were. Both sides were allowed police units only. .

Really? Thats not mentioned in the text, nor is it mentioned in the summary here.

"The agreement with Jordan was signed on April 3. The main points:

Jordanian forces remained in most positions held by them in the West Bank, particularly East Jerusalem which included the Old City. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1949_Armistice_Agreements



What, the responsibility of not giving Arafat everything he wanted, right now, no questions asked? Israel may not have been acting as quickly as the Palestinian Authority wanted, but they were acting. Until the second intifada finished that round of talks well and truly off.


A strange take on the matter. And as I said, the man who refused to negotiate was on the Israeli side.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taba_summit

But WHY does it provoke more violence? WHY is violence OK? I just don't get it.


Say I come round your house with a few hired hands and have them throw you out of your house, then I go round your friends and family and throw them out of their houses and fill them with my friends and family what would be an appropriate response?

Say I come to your back yard, put a fence up against your house and claim your back yard as my own - what will you do?

Really? Thats not mentioned in the text, nor is it mentioned in the summary here.

"The agreement with Jordan was signed on April 3. The main points:

Jordanian forces remained in most positions held by them in the West Bank, particularly East Jerusalem which included the Old City. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1949_Armistice_Agreements


It seems I'd misremembered. Thank you for correcting me.

Though that article does mention one other thing I was unaware of - that the borders drawn up there never meant to be permanent.

It still seems like Yom Kippur settled the issue.




A strange take on the matter. And as I said, the man who refused to negotiate was on the Israeli side.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taba_summit

No, by then the accords were already dead. The second intifada was already begun.

It seems I'd misremembered. Thank you for correcting me.

Though that article does mention one other thing I was unaware of - that the borders drawn up there never meant to be permanent.

It still seems like Yom Kippur settled the issue.


There was meant to be a negotiated settlement of borders. The issue is not "settled", or we wouldnt be discussing it, would we?



No, by then the accords were already dead. The second intifada was already begun.

Provoked by the same man who then used it as an excuse to walk.

There was meant to be a negotiated settlement of borders. The issue is not "settled", or we wouldnt be discussing it, would we?




Provoked by the same man who then used it as an excuse to walk.

The borders are not going to be exactly 1967 borders. Israel is authorized to take the strategically important grounds in order to create a defensible border.

The point on East Jerusalem is partially true. Jordan wasn't attacked by Israel in the 67 war. Israel in fact had diplomats tell them they would be safe if they stayed on the sidelines. Jordan decided to use the city to launch an attack into Israel. Israel was more than justified in taking that city and the West Bank in the counter-attack to Jordan's invasion of Israel.

As for the settlements, they would've been dismantled had the Palestinians not attacked. Olmert was elected in March on a campaign promise he would take down the West Bank settlements and do in the West Bank what was done in Gaza.

That plan went to hell when the Palestinians decided killing Jews is more important than getting a homeland.

---------------------------

To blame the intifada on Sharon would be like blaming Pearl Harbor on FDR.

Sharon has a right as person to visit the Kotel whenever he damn well pleases too. It's not his fault that Palestinian fascists have an issue with a Jew visiting a site that is holy to Jews and within Israeli territory.

It should be noted that from 1948-67, no Jew was allowed to visit any holy sites. Since 67, a person of any religion can go and visit the Old City.

The borders are not going to be exactly 1967 borders. Israel is authorized to take the strategically important grounds in order to create a defensible border..

Yes, I think I asked you to point out where in the UN resolution it stated this, and you were unable to point it out. We will try again however.

"*Resolution 242 of 22 November 1967

The Security Council,

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 of the following principles:
Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) 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. "

There you go and best of luck.

The point on East Jerusalem is partially true. Jordan wasn't attacked by Israel in the 67 war. Israel in fact had diplomats tell them they would be safe if they stayed on the sidelines. Jordan decided to use the city to launch an attack into Israel. Israel was more than justified in taking that city and the West Bank in the counter-attack to Jordan's invasion of Israel...

Justified in entering, driving forces from..yes. Occupying for a time, perhaps. But annexation and colonisation? I think not. That bespeaks not the need for defence but the desire to expand.



As for the settlements, they would've been dismantled had the Palestinians not attacked. Olmert was elected in March on a campaign promise he would take down the West Bank settlements and do in the West Bank what was done in Gaza....

When did Olmert promise to take down all the West Bank settlements and leave East Jerusalem? Link of some description please......




To blame the intifada on Sharon would be like blaming Pearl Harbor on FDR.

Sharon has a right as person to visit the Kotel whenever he damn well pleases too. It's not his fault that Palestinian fascists have an issue with a Jew visiting a site that is holy to Jews and within Israeli territory.....

Firstly, FDR was not responsible for building colonies in Japan. Neither was he implicated in refugee camp massacres in Japan. Neither did he then take a public campaign trail trip to Tokyo and hang around the Emperors palace.

Or are you saying Sharon is not a notorious figure, even considered so by many on the Israeli side?


It should be noted that from 1948-67, no Jew was allowed to visit any holy sites. Since 67, a person of any religion can go and visit the Old City.

The Jordanians are a pack of bastards? I NEVER WOULD HAVE GUESSED!!!111!!!

Originally Posted by IDF
The point on East Jerusalem is partially true. Jordan wasn't attacked by Israel in the 67 war. Israel in fact had diplomats tell them they would be safe if they stayed on the sidelines. Jordan decided to use the city to launch an attack into Israel. Israel was more than justified in taking that city and the West Bank in the counter-attack to Jordan's invasion of Israel...


Justified in entering, driving forces from..yes. Occupying for a time, perhaps. But annexation and colonisation? I think not. That bespeaks not the need for defence but the desire to expand.

Perhaps. But I also find it interesting that Jordan really didn't make an issue of it when they made peace with Israel. So, to whom are the Israelis to surrender East Jerusalem to? A Palestinian Authority that will, by it's actions and by it's own policies, use it to kill more Israelis?

Perhaps. But I also find it interesting that Jordan really didn't make an issue of it when they made peace with Israel. So, to whom are the Israelis to surrender East Jerusalem to? A Palestinian Authority that will, by it's actions and by it's own policies, use it to kill more Israelis?

As oppossed to the US intervening to allow Israel to use it to kill more Palestinians, by a majority of about 5 or 6 to 1....

Perhaps. But I also find it interesting that Jordan really didn't make an issue of it when they made peace with Israel. So, to whom are the Israelis to surrender East Jerusalem to? A Palestinian Authority that will, by it's actions and by it's own policies, use it to kill more Israelis?As opposed to Israel keeping East Jerusalem and by its actions and by its own policies use it to kill more Arabs/Palestinians?

As opposed to Israel keeping East Jerusalem and by its actions and by its own policies use it to kill more Arabs/Palestinians?

Your turn to put up or shut up - show one official policy on killing Palestinians by Israel.

As opposed to, say, Hamas' specific requirement in their charter to destroy Israel.

http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/articles/article0026567.html

http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/articles/article0026567.html

this organization talking about actions of soldiers or low level commanders. most of this cases staying inside the unit, and when finally exposed ending in military trial of the ones who did it.
"breaking silence" is important organization, and I agree the occupation should be ended if possible. still, it show nothing about poilcy of direct palastinian murder of the high command, and clearly nothing which show policy of the goverment, the parlamient or Israel as state.

keep searching for something else.

This might clarify matters.

"Unlike past practice, since the outbreak of the al-Aqsa intifada, the IDF has not issued soldiers serving in the Occupied Territories a booklet containing the Open-Fire Regulations. However, soldiers’ testimonies to B’Tselem, and information published in the media, provide numerous examples of the changes in the Regulations, which greatly increased the situations in which soldiers are allowed to use their firearms. Examples of the changes follow.

The term “life-threatening” is expanded to include situations not previously considered life-threatening, such as stone throwing;

Firing without warning (at certain times and in certain areas) at any Palestinian bearing arms is permitted;

Soldiers are allowed to fire live ammunition to enforce curfew;

Soldiers are required to open fire whenever Palestinians enter places defined as “dangerous areas” (primarily around the Gaza Strip fence);

The IDF is allowed to assassinate Palestinians suspected of having committed attacks against Israelis. "
http://www.btselem.org/English/Firearms/

Fact remains, Palestinian missile attacks on Israel do little or no real damage, rarely if ever do they hit anything and even more rarely is property damaged or people wounded or even killed. In response for these tiny minority militant attacks Israel bulldozers houses, slaughters dozens, shells houses and it's siege forces the Palestinians even more into abject poverty and dislocation.

Israel or the IDF in particular needs to realise that the rockets do crap all to them, while when they disproportionately react the result is far worst.

Yeah, the rockets seldom hit anything, but if a blind person is trying to shoot me with a gun I'll still shoot back. I'll probably end up killing him. That may seem "disproportionate" to some, but I'm not going to wait until the blind guy gets lucky.

Well, they are not supposed to live there.

Well they're there now. You and the Palestinians need to learn to live with that fact. The borders between the Palestinian lands and Israel need to be set so the Palestinians can have a viable state, but Israel simply isn't going to disappear. People like you who can't accept reality are a major factor in keeping this violence going. People like you have blood on your hands.

they simply should NOT attack whenever their is the slightly possibility of civilians casualties, anything less are war crimes.

That is ALL THE TIME. The very notion of terrorism is that the terrorists hide amoung civilians to ensure that Israel cannot respond without killing them. The civilains even help sometimes by actually acting as human shields. That is wrong.

This might clarify matters.

"Unlike past practice, since the outbreak of the al-Aqsa intifada, the IDF has not issued soldiers serving in the Occupied Territories a booklet containing the Open-Fire Regulations. However, soldiers’ testimonies to B’Tselem, and information published in the media, provide numerous examples of the changes in the Regulations, which greatly increased the situations in which soldiers are allowed to use their firearms. Examples of the changes follow.

The term “life-threatening” is expanded to include situations not previously considered life-threatening, such as stone throwing;

Firing without warning (at certain times and in certain areas) at any Palestinian bearing arms is permitted;

Soldiers are allowed to fire live ammunition to enforce curfew;

Soldiers are required to open fire whenever Palestinians enter places defined as “dangerous areas” (primarily around the Gaza Strip fence);

The IDF is allowed to assassinate Palestinians suspected of having committed attacks against Israelis. "
http://www.btselem.org/English/Firearms/


I agree that this is a change of policy that will lead to greater civilian casualties, and one I would strongly oppose.

But it is not an official policy to kill innocent Palestinians.

...despite the fact that should one Israeli die, large numbers of Palestinians will be soon to follow, the dead UN workers, the dead schoolchildren, the dead civillian NGO workers, the dead peacekeepers....for an army thats won every major confrontation its been in, thats an awful lot of "accidents" to have occurred, not to mention that these killings coincidentally serve a very distinct purpose....

...despite the fact that should one Israeli die, large numbers of Palestinians will be soon to follow, the dead UN workers, the dead schoolchildren, the dead civillian NGO workers, the dead peacekeepers....for an army thats won every major confrontation its been in, thats an awful lot of "accidents" to have occurred, not to mention that these killings coincidentally serve a very distinct purpose....

How can anyone be sure how many Palestinians are dying and how many of those numbers are made up? Remember the "massacre" at Jenin? How about documentaries like Pallywood that show how Palestinian casualties and suffering have in the past been exagerrated?

How can anyone be sure how many Palestinians are dying and how many of those numbers are made up? Remember the "massacre" at Jenin? How about documentaries like Pallywood that show how Palestinian casualties and suffering have in the past been exagerrated?

By the fact that they've been verified by a number of independent NGO's.

By the way......
If somebody said that about the Holocaust, what would you think their agenda was?

By the fact that they've been verified by a number of independent NGO's.

By the way......
If somebody said that about the Holocaust, what would you think their agenda was?

The thing is that holocaust deniers don't have videotaped evidence. I'm kind of skeptical about some of the Palestinian claims after Jenin and Pallywood.

The thing is that holocaust deniers don't have videotaped evidence. I'm kind of skeptical about some of the Palestinian claims after Jenin and Pallywood.

Especially after Jenin. The ICRC did their own independent investigation, and found that there was NO massacre as claimed by the Palestinians.

...despite the fact that should one Israeli die, large numbers of Palestinians will be soon to follow, the dead UN workers, the dead schoolchildren, the dead civillian NGO workers, the dead peacekeepers....for an army thats won every major confrontation its been in, thats an awful lot of "accidents" to have occurred, not to mention that these killings coincidentally serve a very distinct purpose....

Yes, they do. They serve the Palestinian cause very well.

That's not what you were getting at, of course, and I agree that you do have a point - the IDF has, at times, been more than a little trigger happy. But that has been neither Israeli policy nor IDF best practice.

And many of those dead you can lay at the door of the Palestinian militants. If a gunman starts shooting at me from a crowd, I probably WOULD shoot back. I value my life higher than the gunman, and higher than that of the crowd, and I will make no apology for that.

Less straightforward, an IDF jet spots a rocket battery being prepared. He takes it out with a precision weapon - but the fact that it is a precision weapon doesn't stop the blast wave from burying the family in the house next door.

Both sides are to blame for the Palestinian civilian casualties, there's no doubt about that. Neither is there any doubt that Israeli civilian casualties are solely caused by the Palestinians.

The thing is that holocaust deniers don't have videotaped evidence. I'm kind of skeptical about some of the Palestinian claims after Jenin and Pallywood.


No, they're just full of shit. The point is, when somebody questions figures in the Holocaust, 9 times out of 10 its not some academic debate about how one classifies dead, or the numbers who died in x camp - its to say that the Jews, or "the Jew" to use their lingo, has not suffered, is "faking" to further their "evil plan" (whatever version might be in on stormfront that week).

Likewise those who constantly seek to undermine the brutality of the occupation have an agenda, and that is to undermine the Palestinian case. The fact is that people did die in Jenin, and that much of the speculation that there was indeed a massacre was because the Israelis blocked outside access. However if you look at that series of incursions overall, hundreds died, civillian property was destroyed left right and centre - from greenhouses to homes, and it was a classic example of a reprisal raid.

While I certainly don't believe that the term "Palestinian" and "saint" are somehow interchangable, and I do indeed see that some idealise any group seen to be on the "receiving end", that doesnt lessen the fact that they get the shit kicked out of them on a regular basis, have been shafted, and by a country that is held up as being just the same as Belgium or Norway.

Also, this threads often devolve into a "killed by..." thing. We seldom get into the everyday details of beatings, arrests, land seizures and so on, which are essentially the fire under the violence and which happen off the TV news headlines, 7 days a week.

Yes, they do. They serve the Palestinian cause very well.

That's not what you were getting at, of course, and I agree that you do have a point - the IDF has, at times, been more than a little trigger happy. But that has been neither Israeli policy nor IDF best practice.

And many of those dead you can lay at the door of the Palestinian militants. If a gunman starts shooting at me from a crowd, I probably WOULD shoot back. I value my life higher than the gunman, and higher than that of the crowd, and I will make no apology for that.

Less straightforward, an IDF jet spots a rocket battery being prepared. He takes it out with a precision weapon - but the fact that it is a precision weapon doesn't stop the blast wave from burying the family in the house next door.

Both sides are to blame for the Palestinian civilian casualties, there's no doubt about that. Neither is there any doubt that Israeli civilian casualties are solely caused by the Palestinians.

According to you, its not Israeli policy. However "extrajudicial" killings, foreign kidnaps and commando raids are, torture is, support of the most dubious of parties (the christian militias) was, and theres a suspicuous amount of bodies reported by people who sport neither a swastika or a crescent. Its the bodies that convince me.

According to you, its not Israeli policy. However "extrajudicial" killings, foreign kidnaps and commando raids are, torture is, support of the most dubious of parties (the christian militias) was, and theres a suspicuous amount of bodies reported by people who sport neither a swastika or a crescent. Its the bodies that convince me.

Actually, I simply DOUBT that it is Israeli policy to kill INNOCENT Palestinians. Commando raids to capture or kill militants is something I have no doubts about. Nor do I have a problem with it, any more than I have a problem with Palestinian attacks on the IDF. I would also like to see any evidence of torture, please. And I don't see the Christian Militias as being any more dubious than Hezbollah, but that's getting into Lebanon, which is a whole different kettle of fish.

I'm sorry, but frankly you're sounding like a stuck record here. You keep on dredging up stuff against the Israelis. So fucking what? I've already said I don't like what the Israelis are doing in Palestine, multiple times. What you apparently can't admit is that your "saintly, angelic, put upon Palestinians" are as much to blame for the current problems as the Israelis are, since they have refused every oportunity to simply STOP KILLING ISRAELIS.

As I see it, that's the ultimate key. If the Israelis can stop worrying about a suicide murderer blowing up their shop or a Katyusha taking out their kids' school, everything else suddenly becomes an awful lot easier to deal with.

Actually, I simply DOUBT that it is Israeli policy to kill INNOCENT Palestinians. ..

Given the number of civliian dead caused by rifle fire/direct fire, I have no idea why.


. I would also like to see any evidence of torture, please. And I don't see the Christian Militias as being any more dubious than Hezbollah, but that's getting into Lebanon, which is a whole different kettle of fish..

The mere fact that you have to ask is worrying.

"Until the High Court of Justice ruling of September 1999, Israel's security forces annually tortured hundreds of Palestinian detainees. According to official data the security forces interrogated approximately 23,000 Palestinians during the Intifada (1987-1993). The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel estimates that almost all the above detainees suffered from some form of torture during their interrogation."

http://www.stoptorture.org.il/eng/background.asp?menu=3&submenu=1

"PCATI’s report published in April 2003 revealed the following:

Based on official data, GSS agents interrogated thousands of Palestinians per year during the Intifada, and over 200 at any given moment. In July 2002, the GSS related to the press that 90 Palestinians were defined as 'ticking bombs' and were tortured (that is, were exposed to 'physical pressure'). Research by the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel shows that the number tortured is actually much greater; and that GSS agents who interrogate Palestinian detainees torture them, degrade them, and otherwise ill-treat them routinely, in blatant violation of the provisions of international law, mainly in the following manners:

Violence: Beating, slapping, kicking, stepping on shackles; Bending the interrogee and placing him in other painful positions; Intentionally tightening the shackles by which he is bound; Violent shaking.

Sleep Deprivation.

Additional 'Interrogation Methods': Prolonged shackling behind the back; Cursing, threats, humiliations; Depriving the detainee of essential needs; Exposure to extreme heat or cold.
Secondary Methods: Isolation and secrecy; Imprisonment under inhuman conditions"
http://www.stoptorture.org.il/eng/background.asp?menu=3&submenu=3

Theres more, should that prove insufficient.



I'm sorry, but frankly you're sounding like a stuck record here. You keep on dredging up stuff against the Israelis. So fucking what? I've already said I don't like what the Israelis are doing in Palestine, multiple times. What you apparently can't admit is that your "saintly, angelic, put upon Palestinians" are as much to blame for the current problems as the Israelis are, since they have refused every oportunity to simply STOP KILLING ISRAELIS..

A strange statement given what I said in post 81.

As I see it, that's the ultimate key. If the Israelis can stop worrying about a suicide murderer blowing up their shop or a Katyusha taking out their kids' school, everything else suddenly becomes an awful lot easier to deal with.

Yet the only thing that seems to happen during relatively calm periods is increased settlement building. Hmmmm....

Yeah, the rockets seldom hit anything, but if a blind person is trying to shoot me with a gun I'll still shoot back. I'll probably end up killing him. That may seem "disproportionate" to some, but I'm not going to wait until the blind guy gets lucky.
If you were only shooting at the blind guy it would be OK. It's disproportionate when you blow up the entire city block to get the one blind guy who is shooting at you.

That is ALL THE TIME. The very notion of terrorism is that the terrorists hide amoung civilians to ensure that Israel cannot respond without killing them. The civilains even help sometimes by actually acting as human shields. That is wrong.

No, that is not the notion of terrorism, though it is wrong.

And it is not terrorism if the human shields are there voluntarily either.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6184882.stm

So... any thoughts / reactions (retractions?) / bets on how long this'll last?

about as long as it takes for one to make a "Your mother..." joke about the other

about as long as it takes for one to make a "Your mother..." joke about the other

"Your mother made a joke about the other"

:sniper: :gundge: :mp5:

[/realtime reinactment]

"Your mother made a joke about the other"

:sniper: :gundge: :mp5:

[/realtime reinactment]

minus the bio gun, of course. those fundamentalists dont have WMDs, remember? ;)

minus the bio gun, of course. those fundamentalists dont have WMDs, remember? ;)

Right then.

:sniper: http://209.85.48.10/3630/189/emo/slap.gif:mp5:

Given the number of civliian dead caused by rifle fire/direct fire, I have no idea why.

Because, frankly, the casualty levels range from ridiculously low (Israeli claims) to stupidly overinflated (Palestinian/Arab League claims). No doubt the true number is somewhere between, but where? I figure the ICRC is probably the best indicator of overall casualties, but they don't differentiate between innocent people caught in a crossfire and people trying to put an RPG into an APC. To be perfectly frank, casualties have been neither especially high nor unexpected. As far as I can see, there is no evidence that the IDF is deliberately targetting civilians.


The mere fact that you have to ask is worrying.

"Until the High Court of Justice ruling of September 1999, Israel's security forces annually tortured hundreds of Palestinian detainees. According to official data the security forces interrogated approximately 23,000 Palestinians during the Intifada (1987-1993). The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel estimates that almost all the above detainees suffered from some form of torture during their interrogation."

http://www.stoptorture.org.il/eng/background.asp?menu=3&submenu=1

"PCATI’s report published in April 2003 revealed the following:

Based on official data, GSS agents interrogated thousands of Palestinians per year during the Intifada, and over 200 at any given moment. In July 2002, the GSS related to the press that 90 Palestinians were defined as 'ticking bombs' and were tortured (that is, were exposed to 'physical pressure'). Research by the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel shows that the number tortured is actually much greater; and that GSS agents who interrogate Palestinian detainees torture them, degrade them, and otherwise ill-treat them routinely, in blatant violation of the provisions of international law, mainly in the following manners:

Violence: Beating, slapping, kicking, stepping on shackles; Bending the interrogee and placing him in other painful positions; Intentionally tightening the shackles by which he is bound; Violent shaking.

Sleep Deprivation.

Additional 'Interrogation Methods': Prolonged shackling behind the back; Cursing, threats, humiliations; Depriving the detainee of essential needs; Exposure to extreme heat or cold.
Secondary Methods: Isolation and secrecy; Imprisonment under inhuman conditions"
http://www.stoptorture.org.il/eng/background.asp?menu=3&submenu=3

Theres more, should that prove insufficient.


No, that's more than sufficient. Claims of torture are very serious, and I wanted to get the full background on your claim. Thank you.


A strange statement given what I said in post 81.


I call 'em like I see 'em. You can claim you're not beatifying the Palestinians, yet you excuse everything they do and demonize everything Israel does. Not exactly a balanced or fair view.


Yet the only thing that seems to happen during relatively calm periods is increased settlement building. Hmmmm....

What calm periods?

What calm periods?

"relatively calm periods"

"relatively calm periods"

I suppose there have been a few. Now, if we could string some of those periods together, long enough for both sies to let their guards down a bit, we might get somewhere.

For both sides.