NationStates Jolt Archive

...but say they won't cause a humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

Deputy Defence Minister Matan Vilnai, who led the team which formulated the plan, said Israel would "dramatically reduce" the power it supplied to Gaza over a period of several weeks.

"We are left with no choice but to take these steps. I assume they will have an effect, even if not immediately," he told Israeli Army Radio.

"The recommendation is to start disconnecting gradually, without causing anything that could create a humanitarian problem, like hospitals."

Officials said the electricity would be cut at first for 15 minutes after each rocket attack and then for longer and longer periods.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7061617.stm

Grrr. The rocket attacks most certainly should stop, but collective punishments like this is not the way to go. Violation of international law should not happen - in my view this is just that, the declaration that Gaza is a "hostile entity" does not change that, as well as it doesn't change the fact that it's an occupied territory.

The only good thing is
Israel has vowed not to cause a humanitarian crisis in Gaza - despite plans to cut fuel and electricity in a bid to halt rocket attacks.

"We will take the steps needed but we will not allow a humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip," PM Ehud Olmert told Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7064107.stm

Doesn't change much though. They're cold-hearted bastards on both sides, and as always it's the civilians who pay the price. Grrr.

This isn't good.

This isn't good.

"Good" comes in small doses in that region, and it's portions are few and far between.

I haven't given up hope, but yeah, this isn't good...

Oh yeah, pissing off the entire population by making it very obvious you consider all of them terrorists is going to totally stop the rocket attacks. :rolleyes:

This is one Israeli move I can oppose. It punishes the civilians, and won't work with regards to the rockets.

I know that they think that people will turn on Hamas, but having been on the recieving end of collective punishment, the punisher is the one who people hate.

I have another idea. Create a list of Palestinian terrorists in Israeli jails who the Israelis will NOT release. For every Israeli killed by a rocket attack, one terrorist is added to the list. In future deals to release terrorists, these guys stay in jail. Of course, Israel MIGHT release them in the future, but that would require additional concessions from the Palestinians. Release of the 'usur l'mutar' prisoners becomes another card in Israel's hand.

Oh yeah, pissing off the entire population by making it very obvious you consider all of them terrorists is going to totally stop the rocket attacks. :rolleyes:

I think you would use something more stringent then turning-off electricity when dealing with terrorists. It sounds like a great idea to me.

This is one Israeli move I can oppose. It punishes the civilians, and won't work with regards to the rockets.

I know that they think that people will turn on Hamas, but having been on the recieving end of collective punishment, the punisher is the one who people hate.

I have another idea. Create a list of Palestinian terrorists in Israeli jails who the Israelis will NOT release. For every Israeli killed by a rocket attack, one terrorist is added to the list. In future deals to release terrorists, these guys stay in jail. Of course, Israel MIGHT release them in the future, but that would require additional concessions from the Palestinians. Release of the 'usur l'mutar' prisoners becomes another card in Israel's hand.

Better idea: for each Israeli killed in a rocket attack kill two prisoners.

Yay Israel, way to prove you're the bigger people and not at all trying to goad the Palestinians. Bravo. :rolleyes:

Better idea: for each Israeli killed in a rocket attack kill two prisoners.Yet better idea: get Israel out of Palestine.

I think you would use something more stringent then turning-off electricity when dealing with terrorists. It sounds like a great idea to me.
Please explain.
Better idea: for each Israeli killed in a rocket attack kill two prisoners.
And how would that help?

And for each Palestinian civilian killed by IDF forces, or innocentjailed summarily executed without trial, how many Israeli civilians should be killed you think?

Your "idea" is pure crap, and seriously, there's way to much of that in the middle east already.

This is one Israeli move I can oppose. It punishes the civilians, and won't work with regards to the rockets.

I know that they think that people will turn on Hamas, but having been on the recieving end of collective punishment, the punisher is the one who people hate.
I'm glad to see you say that.


I have another idea. Create a list of Palestinian terrorists in Israeli jails who the Israelis will NOT release. For every Israeli killed by a rocket attack, one terrorist is added to the list. In future deals to release terrorists, these guys stay in jail. Of course, Israel MIGHT release them in the future, but that would require additional concessions from the Palestinians. Release of the 'usur l'mutar' prisoners becomes another card in Israel's hand.
I don't think that would help either.

Better idea: for each Israeli killed in a rocket attack kill two prisoners.

Slight problem: Israel doesn't execute anyone who isn't an actual Nazi.

Collective punishment doesn't work. Period. The vast majority who are subject to this punishment are trying to just live their lives. Israel will only fuel anti-Israeli sentiments by targeting civilian populations.

Just because Hamas was voted in doesn't mean the majority of those voted for them because of their anti-Israeli policies. There are many reasons for voting for someone.

Slight problem: Israel doesn't execute anyone who isn't an actual Nazi.

Extrajudicial killing don't count?

Israel doesn't execute anyone who isn't an actual Nazi.Is that sarcasm?

Slight problem: Israel doesn't execute anyone who isn't an actual Nazi.

Bollocks they don't. They assassinate terrorist leaders quite often.

As far as collective punishment goes, I'm amazed they're being this stupid. THIS NEVER WORKS! They're just going to drive more and more Palestinians into Hamas. They're making the same "us and them" dichotomy that Hamas WANTS: not seeing the other side as human beings, but as targets to be destroyed.

It's pure idiocy.

Is that sarcasm?

No, Israel has only used capital punsihment once and it was for Eichmann.

No, Israel has only used capital punsihment once and it was for Eichmann.

I guess lobbing missiles and leveling city blocks to "assassinate" people isn't capital punishment.

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." (Matthew 5:38-42)

No, Israel has only used capital punsihment once and it was for Eichmann.and how many times has Israel assassinated people?

I guess lobbing missiles and leveling city blocks to "assassinate" people isn't capital punishment.
We spend 2 millenia turning the other cheek.

All it got us was pogroms, the inquisition, the crusades, being thrust into ghettos, and the Holocaust.

The Jewish people are done "turning the other cheek." If you understood that much you would know why Israel acts the way it does.

I guess lobbing missiles and leveling city blocks to "assassinate" people isn't capital punishment.

Er, Khadgar, you do realise you quoted the NEW testament, don't you?

We spend 2 millenia turning the other cheek.

All it got us was pogroms, the inquisition, the crusades, being thrust into ghettos, and the Holocaust.

The Jewish people are done "turning the other cheek." If you understood that much you would know why Israel acts the way it does.

I do understand it. But don't say "Israel doesn't kill people" if it's obviously untrue. Just weakens your argument.

I guess lobbing missiles and leveling city blocks to "assassinate" people isn't capital punishment.

Less than 1/2% of the Jewish population of Israel would care what Jesus of Nazareth said. Unfortunately, this is so even in the rest of the world. There will be no peace in Israel until the Prince of Peace returns.

And no, an act of self-defense to eliminate missile sites that are used to fire on your own people is not "capital punishment."

Slight problem: Israel doesn't execute anyone who isn't an actual Nazi.Yes it does. It sends helicopters to drop bombs on market places. It executes alleged terrorists and civilians indiscriminately. But what's life to someone who believes to be a part of the chosen people of a certain genocidal deity?

Er, Khadgar, you do realise you quoted the NEW testament, don't you?

Yeah I know, they ignore it, point being they probably ought not.

Yeah I know, they ignore it, point being they probably ought not.Yes, they ought. Just as they ought to ignore the OT. It's the same rubbish.

I do understand it. But don't say "Israel doesn't kill people" if it's obviously untrue. Just weakens your argument.
I didn't say they don't kill people. I said they don't execute prisoners through the legal system (capital punishment)

Killing Hamas leaders in a military attack is part of the ongoing war, not the Israeli justice system.

You do realize that Israel is carrying out those operations today because the city of Sderot is getting bombed every single day. Israel has enough cause to launch a full scale military operation tomorrow if they want.

The only reason they aren't is that they don't want Abbas to back out of the Annapolis summit.

Yeah I know, they ignore it, point being they probably ought not.

We turned the other cheek for 1900+ years. We got the Holocaust, pogroms, ghettos, the Inqusition, Crusades, etc.

After that, our attitude is that if you slap our cheek, we're going to punch back harder and make you regret it. Fuck turning the other cheek. That nearly got us exterminated.

I didn't say they don't kill people. I said they don't execute prisoners through the legal system (capital punishment)

Killing Hamas leaders in a military attack is part of the ongoing war, not the Israeli justice system.

You do realize that Israel is carrying out those operations today because the city of Sderot is getting bombed every single day. Israel has enough cause to launch a full scale military operation tomorrow if they want.

The only reason they aren't is that they don't want Abbas to back out of the Annapolis summit.

I'm only going to shoot you a little bit. No hard feelings!

We spend 2 millenia turning the other cheek.

All it got us was pogroms, the inquisition, the crusades, being thrust into ghettos, and the Holocaust.

The Jewish people are done "turning the other cheek." If you understood that much you would know why Israel acts the way it does.
I see. You want to turn into the monsters you've met before. You want to become your enemies. You wish to abandon the values that make you jewish.

And you are The Jewish People, and you are Israel.

Heh.

Good luck with all that.

You know in that other thread when I said leaders in the middle east aren't crazy. I'm starting to re-evaluate that opinion.

I see. You want to turn into the monsters you've met before. You want to become your enemies. You wish to abandon the values that make you jewish.

And you are The Jewish People, and you are Israel.

Heh.

Good luck with all that.
Guess what, Egypt never wanted peace with Israel until they got their asses handed to them for the fourth straight time. Force worked there and Sadat made peace with Israel.

Turning the other cheek has brought nothing but misery for us. Fighting back has preserved Israel and made us proud to be Jewish. We no longer have to hold our heads in shame as people call us a bunch of a pathetic kikes to be exterminated. People know the Jews can fight and won't take shit.

Guess what, Egypt never wanted peace with Israel until they got their asses handed to them for the fourth straight time. Force worked there and Sadat made peace with Israel.

Turning the other cheek has brought nothing but misery for us. Fighting back has preserved Israel and made us proud to be Jewish. We no longer have to hold our heads in shame as people call us a bunch of a pathetic kikes to be exterminated. People know the Jews can fight and won't take shit.

Good luck with that, I just wish you'd leave us out of it. US ought sever all ties with Israel post haste, frankly ya'll are a liability.

...but say they won't cause a humanitarian crisis in Gaza.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7061617.stm

Grrr. The rocket attacks most certainly should stop, but collective punishments like this is not the way to go. Violation of international law should not happen - in my view this is just that, the declaration that Gaza is a "hostile entity" does not change that, as well as it doesn't change the fact that it's an occupied territory.

The only good thing is

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7064107.stm

Doesn't change much though. They're cold-hearted bastards on both sides, and as always it's the civilians who pay the price. Grrr.
Idiots. We need diplomacy in there, not more violence. The Israelies should step back to purely defensive measures and try to work diplomatically with those attacking Israel. Violence will solve nothing.

We almost has peace accords a decade or two ago, with Yassir Arafat. Let's try to achieve that again, and THIS TIME let's prevent radical right-winged fuckmunches from messing it up.

I didn't say they don't kill people. I said they don't execute prisoners through the legal system (capital punishment)

Killing Hamas leaders in a military attack is part of the ongoing war, not the Israeli justice system.

You do realize that Israel is carrying out those operations today because the city of Sderot is getting bombed every single day. Israel has enough cause to launch a full scale military operation tomorrow if they want.

The only reason they aren't is that they don't want Abbas to back out of the Annapolis summit.

And I accept that. Military actions are not executions.

Blowing somebody's face off with an exploding mobile phone, on the other hand...that's an assassination however you want to cut it. And an assassination by a government is, more or less, the non-judicial execution of someone.

I actually don't have that much of a problem with that. In this oh-so-imperfect world, extreme sanction is sometimes necessary. Even desirable. But call it what it is: an execution, just as much as Che Guevara's was.

Regarding the actions Israel is taking now: Yes, I do know about the situation. I just believe that this is a really stupid action to fall back upon, and one that will ultimately backfire on Israel.

I was reading this the other day. It seems somewhat relevant.....

It is also from the example of Gaza that hunger for territory goes hand in hand with the attempt to empty it of its inhabitants. Ever since it captured Gaza, Israel has tried to diminish it by starvation and suffocation, driving residents to emigrate. Segev has some stunning evidence about this. ‘I want them all to go, even if they go to the moon,’ Eshkol told Ada Sereni, whom he had appointed head of a committee briefed to rid Gaza of its Palestinians. Because this failed, Gaza is today a hunger-stricken ghetto. The West’s obsession with Hamas’s ascendancy is a result of Western refusal to see Israel’s age-old policy for what it is: the aim has always been to seize the maximum amount of land while inheriting a minimum number of Palestinians.
link to PDF (http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/articles/pdfCacheOfArticle0072581.pdf)


Slight problem: Israel doesn't execute anyone who isn't an actual Nazi.

Technically. However they do target anyone they consider a threat. Yer man in the wheelchair, for instance, that founded Hamas. And that Lebanese lecturer. And all the various "militants"......


We spend 2 millenia turning the other cheek.

All it got us was pogroms, the inquisition, the crusades, being thrust into ghettos, and the Holocaust.

The Jewish people are done "turning the other cheek." If you understood that much you would know why Israel acts the way it does.

As this is to do with the occupation and colonisation of a bunch of badly armed Arabs firing glorified fireworks, you'll find thats a bit of a stretch.


There will be no peace in Israel until the Prince of Peace returns..

...in which case, if I remember the bullshit correctly, the vast majority of Jews are killed by the Anti-Jesus. But thats ok with the "christian" right apparently....Nonsense, but distasteful nevertheless.

As this is to do with the occupation and colonisation of a bunch of badly armed Arabs firing glorified fireworks, you'll find thats a bit of a stretch.




Those "glorified fireworks" have destroyed the entire city of Sderot. As for colonization, Israel pulled out of Gaza and is planning on giving up East Jerusalem at the Annapolis Summit. Hell they were willing to give up 97% of land taken from Egypt and Jordan in 2000 and the Palestinians refused it.

How the hell is that Israel's fault?

We turned the other cheek for 1900+ years. We got the Holocaust, pogroms, ghettos, the Inqusition, Crusades, etc.

After that, our attitude is that if you slap our cheek, we're going to punch back harder and make you regret it. Fuck turning the other cheek. That nearly got us exterminated.


You know that there were resistance groups in the Eastern front that were Jewish?

We turned the other cheek for 1900+ years. We got the Holocaust, pogroms, ghettos, the Inqusition, Crusades, etc.

After that, our attitude is that if you slap our cheek, we're going to punch back harder and make you regret it. Fuck turning the other cheek. That nearly got us exterminated.

Why don't you kill some Germans instead of Arabs

I talked to somone on the internet once that told me the media was biased toward Muslims and against Israel lol

Why don't you kill some Germans instead of Arabs
Maybe because it is the Arabs who are currently trying to destroy Israel and have since before it was even founded (look into the Mufti's riots in the 20s and 30s).

Why don't you kill some Germans instead of Arabs
Maybe because it is the Arabs who are currently trying to destroy Israel and have since before it was even founded (look into the Mufti's riots in the 20s and 30s).


And they are the ones currently killing us.

As this is to do with the occupation and colonisation of a bunch of badly armed Arabs firing glorified fireworks, you'll find thats a bit of a stretch.


A 2 meter long rocket packed with 10kg of high explosive is a wee bit more then a "glorified firework".

Why don't you kill some Germans instead of Arabs?

Because the Germans/Italians/Spanish/Russians/(Name any other ethnic group in Europe except maybe the Romany) aren't the ones currently attempting genocide.

Though they used to.

Ok, my thoughts.

Over the past 50 years, it seems that Israelis and Arabs can't live together. One side will have to be destroyed in order for there to be peace.

Because the Germans/Italians/Spanish/Russians/(Name any other ethnic group in Europe except maybe the Romany) aren't the ones currently attempting genocide.

Though they used to.That's true. The gradual ethnic cleansing of Palestine and its resettlement with Jews is the pursuit of the Israelis, not the Germans/Italians/Spanish/Russians/(Name any other ethnic group in Europe except maybe the Romany).

Ok, my thoughts.

Over the past 50 years, it seems that Israelis and Arabs can't live together. One side will have to be destroyed in order for there to be peace.Since Israel is an entirely artificial construct, forced on the indigenous population by foreign powers, it's naturally the one that has to go.

That's true. The gradual ethnic cleansing of Palestine and its resettlement by Jews is the pursuit of the Israelis, not the Germans/Italians/Spanish/Russians/(Name any other ethnic group in Europe except maybe the Romany).

Provide proof of such ethnic cleansing. If we wanted to wipe out the Palestinians, there would be no such thing as a Palestinian today.

Of course you're a pathetic anti-semite and just talking out of your ass.

Over the past 50 years, it seems that Israelis and Arabs can't live together."seems" is not the word I would use. They are like cats and dogs.
.
One side will have to be destroyed in order for there to be peace.I dont agree.

We just have give the cat or the Dog to aunt Leticia.. Its nice at her place anyways.

Provide proof of such ethnic cleansing. If we wanted to wipe out the Palestinians, there would be no such thing as a Palestinian today.

Of course you're a pathetic anti-semite and just talking out of your ass.
there is no palistine it is occupied by Isreal

there is no palistine it is occupied by Isreal

and that is ethnic cleansing how?:rolleyes:

you're a pathetic anti-semiteBingo!!!

tuh tuh!! pinhatas , confettis , enchilada :D

he cant help it.. IDF cant help it.. its like Cartman tourettes :D

Guess what, Egypt never wanted peace with Israel until they got their asses handed to them for the fourth straight time. Force worked there and Sadat made peace with Israel.
I don't see why you believe the Palestinians should continue a violent intifada. I don't believe that force will work for them. Even with reinforcements, I don't think it would solve anything in the long run.



What, I can't reverse your utterly irrelevant argument?

Turning the other cheek has brought nothing but misery for us. Fighting back has preserved Israel and made us proud to be Jewish. We no longer have to hold our heads in shame as people call us a bunch of a pathetic kikes to be exterminated. People know the Jews can fight and won't take shit.
You did, huh? You have the blood of innocent women and children on your hands? You torture, maim, abuse and mutilate innocent people? Shooting unarmed schoolchildren shows that you can fight, does it? Killing families and punishing people who have done nothing wrong.

No, now you can be the hangman. You can be the monster. Congratulations. You really are the Pride of Israel! Israel would weep in sorrow if they knew.

And is this snide? You bet your ass. It's only what you deserve when you have the utter gall as to pretend that you are the collective voice of the Jewish People and Israel. Thank God that is not true! Thank the Lord that there are people out there who doesn't suffer from such delusions who are making policy and trying to make Israel and indeed the world a better place.

You are part of the problem. Stop that!

Bingo!!!

tuh tuh!! pinhatas , confettis , enchilada :D

he cant help it.. IDF cant help it.. its like Karman turrettes :D
OD why don't you go STFU and explain yourself in these cases coward:



http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=458338
## Jewish Senator(D) Lieberman Set to Replace Rumsfeld?
That title is clearly showing OD’s anti-semitism. This is one of the several instances where OD has expressed his anti-semitism through implying Jewish control of the world, media, money, etc
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9065937&postcount=43
Those Jews with their little Jew horns control the media with their money.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9070016&postcount=51
More of “Jews control world’s money and media”

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

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12753080&postcount=1
Apparantly Sarkozy (who isn't actually Jewish) is Jewish and part of the mass conspiracy to take over the world.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12753080&postcount=1
Sarkozy isn’t Jewish, but I’ll make a big deal about a rumor that he is so I can scare the world into believing J00z are after me.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=493542
Intentional misreporting of facts: Nasrallah himself said that he ordered the Hezbollah raid across Israel’s border.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=491765
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11359363&postcount=1
I don’t think the targeting of weapons on civilians is something to be celebrated with exclamation points
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=494441
So supporting Israel in a war that was fought through proxy by Iran is treason
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=498949
Them ebil J00z control the media and are taking over our minds
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=520143

Ok, my thoughts.

Over the past 50 years, it seems that Israelis and Arabs can't live together. One side will have to be destroyed in order for there to be peace.

Will the Arabs were there first

I am more than justified in calling UB out for the bigotted filth he is.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12814204&postcount=58

Will the Arabs were there first

Actually the Jews were. The Arabs didn't move in until the rise of Islam.

The Jews have lived in the land uninterrupted since the era of the Judges. They just haven't been in control of the country.

Maybe because it is the Arabs who are currently trying to destroy Israel and have since before it was even founded (look into the Mufti's riots in the 20s and 30s).
And this justifies collective punishment of the civilian population how?

And they are the ones currently killing us.

"us"?

what?
they're not going to do that?

everybody knows that collective punishment is nazi.


no, i'm not going to apologize about what i'm calling collective punishment.
i don't care who does it. Israeli military, your 4th grade school teacher.
nazis

Bingo!!!

tuh tuh!! pinhatas , confettis , enchilada :D

he cant help it.. IDF cant help it.. its like Cartman tourettes :D

I posted evidence, now go defend yourself or bug off clown.

historicly Arab/Muslims and Jews were great with each other

it's not untill Israel was made that things got missed up :upyours: The Jews should have gotten Berlin

historicly Arab/Muslims and Jews were great with each other

it's not untill Israel was made that things got missed up :upyours: The Jews should have gotten Berlin

Uh read up on the riots of the 1920s and the attacks on Jewish settlers who were living on LEGALLY purchased land.

Actually the Jews were. The Arabs didn't move in until the rise of Islam.

The Jews have lived in the land uninterrupted since the era of the Judges. They just haven't been in control of the country.

What about the Hittites and the Canaanites?

What about the Hittites and the Canaanites?

I don't believe they are Arab. Most Palestinians descend from the Muslim invaders of the Caliphate.

I don't believe they are Arab. Most Palestinians descend from the Muslim invaders of the Caliphate.

No, I ment that they were the original inhabitants of the area which is now Israel. Says so in the scriptures, even.

Collective punishment doesn't work. Period. The vast majority who are subject to this punishment are trying to just live their lives. Israel will only fuel anti-Israeli sentiments by targeting civilian populations.

Just because Hamas was voted in doesn't mean the majority of those voted for them because of their anti-Israeli policies. There are many reasons for voting for someone.

The main slogan in their running for elections was 'to use the militant branch of our political party to destroy Israel'. Imagine the new slogan for Republicans running is 'destroy Mexico' and it getting a majority in Congress. Same thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RjnvQHWyLE

note: I don't agree with his idea of ending Israel now that it's been established though

OD why don't you go STFU Because I shower myself with "Freedom-Of-Speech" Body wash.. everyday.
You should try it sometimes :D :D :p :D

You would smell less like censorship.. it stinks.. bad.

Fucksakes, this isn't going to help them.

The main slogan in their running for elections was 'to use the militant branch of our political party to destroy Israel'. Imagine the new slogan for Republicans running is 'destroy Mexico' and it getting a majority in Congress. Same thing.

If you imagine Mexico occupying the US, and the democrats being corrupt beyond belief - to such a degree that they were unable to govern and protect their populus - and include a breakdown in law and order, and society in general, while Mexico would harsly retaliate to the actions of resistance and terrorism with seemingly no regard for collateral damage, and while withholding funds and severely restricting your freedom of movement...

Yeah, it's not an easy comparison to make...

If you imagine Mexico occupying the US, and the democrats being corrupt beyond belief - to such a degree that they were unable to govern and protect their populus - and include a breakdown in law and order, and society in general, while Mexico would harsly retaliate to the actions of resistance and terrorism with seemingly no regard for collateral damage, and while withholding funds and severely restricting your freedom of movement...

Yeah, it's not an easy comparison to make...

1. No mexico would not be occupying the US, it would let the US manage its own affairs and even allow Americans to work peacefully in Mexico and revive their economy until Americans decide for some reason that they want to destroy Mexico. They are more than able to govern their populus if it wasn't for extremists within their country that they couldn't control. Mexico would be in every right to retaliate and kill terrorists within the US. Once the majority of people in the US vote for terrorists and support them both financially and with manpower, do you expect Mexico to continue allowing funds to be transfered into the US of which a large percentage goes to terrorism which kills innocent Mexican civilians?

P.S. IDF great job supporting arguments full of facts and evidence as opposed to the loads of BS I've read in this thread.

1. No mexico would not be occupying the US
There. The comparison fails.

Palasinians

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQDXu8Hm5m8

Bah. What else is new?

Honestly? I don't recall any good reason for Israel to exist. Holocaust? Yes, yes, billions of jews (along with others. See also: Communists, homosexuals, and the disabled.) died... that doesn't give you the right to seized land where you don't really belong anyway, nor the right to screw up the balance that existed prior to conception of it. Crusades, Inquisition? You weren't specifically targeted for hate. You don't see non-christians crying out for their own nation. But somehow you, the jewish, are entitled.

Sorry, but I really don't see any reason to. And it isn't because of bigotry. It, if anything, is because of an entitlement complex that stems from the jewish going 'BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW' whenever their right to seized land is under question.

Uh read up on the riots of the 1920s and the attacks on Jewish settlers who were living on LEGALLY purchased land.

And who did the buy the land from? The British who didn't legally own it. So while it may have in practice been legally purchased from the Jewish settler's perspective, it had been acquired as spoils of war by the British; ill-gotten gains of WWI.

There. The comparison fails.

No, because Israel is not Occupying Gaza, what part of this do you not understand? What is occupying? Is there any IDF military personel permanently within Gaza? no. Are there settlements that are part of Gaza which are now in Israeli control? No. Were there even Settlements returned to Gaza from Israeli hands? Yes. Do they have political freedom? Yes. Are they dependent on Israel? Yes, economically. This is not occupation. What don't you understand about that?

Collective punishment doesn't work. Period. The vast majority who are subject to this punishment are trying to just live their lives. Israel will only fuel anti-Israeli sentiments by targeting civilian populations.

Just because Hamas was voted in doesn't mean the majority of those voted for them because of their anti-Israeli policies. There are many reasons for voting for someone.

Hamas was voted in on a platform of social and infrastructure reform, not to mention as a reaction against deep-seated Fatah corruption and cronyism.

But Israel and the United States prefer to see that election as "The Terrorists Won."

P.S. IDF great job supporting arguments full of facts and evidence as opposed to the loads of BS I've read in this thread.

ORLY? What arguments, facts or evidence has he presented to justify collective punishment of the civilian palestinian people? Please, share!

Israel started in 1947 or so.
then they invaded and took over and now continue to illegally occupy land that was not Israel.


i refuse to get into some argument about what it might say in some book that is used to justify killing someone, especially when it makes them a hypocrit.

Yaweh, Allah, or God did not make countries.
humans invented them.
if you don't recognize that, then just go fuck yourself - nazi
nazi

Bah. What else is new?

Honestly? I don't recall any good reason for Israel to exist. Holocaust? Yes, yes, billions of jews (along with others. See also: Communists, homosexuals, and the disabled.) died... that doesn't give you the right to seized land where you don't really belong anyway, nor the right to screw up the balance that existed prior to conception of it. Crusades, Inquisition? You weren't specifically targeted for hate. You don't see non-christians crying out for their own nation. But somehow you, the jewish, are entitled.

Sorry, but I really don't see any reason to. And it isn't because of bigotry. It, if anything, is because of an entitlement complex that stems from the jewish going 'BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW' whenever their right to seized land is under question.

Hey there bud, its OK. You'll be fine. Once you stop with the crack of course. Lets go through your post to see where you have errored, K? billions -no try millions. majority of the killed were jews. British owned the land. They gave it to the Jews. Who owns the land now? Where else do you want them to go?

Israel started in 1947 or so.
then they invaded and took over and now continue to illegally occupy land that was not Israel.


i refuse to get into some argument about what it might say in some book that is used to justify killing someone, especially when it makes them a hypocrit.

Yaweh, Allah, or God did not make countries.
humans invented them.
if you don't recognize that, then just go fuck yourself - nazi
nazi

Easy with the Nazism accusations lets save them for the real nazis. Indeed I agree with you 100% that God should not play any role in this conflict. It is purely humans. The British humans which owned the land and gave it to israel. The humans who made the UN which voted on the legitimacy of the creation of the state of israel.

Hamas was voted in on a platform of social and infrastructure reform, not to mention as a reaction against deep-seated Fatah corruption and cronyism.

But Israel and the United States prefer to see that election as "The Terrorists Won."

http://www.cfr.org/publication/8968/#6

No. In addition to its military wing, the so-called Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigade, Hamas devotes much of its estimated $70-million annual budget to an extensive social services network. It funds schools, orphanages, mosques, healthcare clinics, soup kitchens, and sports leagues. "Approximately 90 percent of its work is in social, welfare, cultural, and educational activities," writes the Israeli scholar Reuven Paz. The Palestinian Authority often fails to provide such services; Hamas's efforts in this area—as well as a reputation for honesty, in contrast to the many Fatah officials accused of corruption—help to explain the broad popularity it summoned to defeat Fatah in the PA's recent elections.

I found this to support your argument in case anyone demands it. This doesn't mean that Hamas doesn't engage in terrorism, it just means that they aren't solely a terrorist organisation.

Hey there bud, its OK. You'll be fine. Once you stop with the crack of course. Lets go through your post to see where you have errored, K? billions -no try millions. majority of the killed were jews. British owned the land. They gave it to the Jews. Who owns the land now? Where else do you want them to go?


Israel exists and everyone should get over it.
that said,
it was not Britain's to give away.
imperialists/colonizers are always in the wrong.

that said, Israel exists, get over it.

Hamas was voted in on a platform of social and infrastructure reform, not to mention as a reaction against deep-seated Fatah corruption and cronyism.

But Israel and the United States prefer to see that election as "The Terrorists Won."

Yes my friend, in the same way which it builds schools to train kindergardeners to fire machine guns at Israelis, the same way it ran a summer camp just this last summer to train the youth to hate Jews, the same way in which it created a whole children TV channel, only to feature mickey mouse telling kids its the right thing to do to destroy Israel, and the same way it pays families lots of money to donate their eldest boy for suicide attacks. Of course these guys like them.

No, because Israel is not Occupying Gaza, what part of this do you not understand? What is occupying? Is there any IDF military personel permanently within Gaza? no. Are there settlements that are part of Gaza which are now in Israeli control? No. Were there even Settlements returned to Gaza from Israeli hands? Yes. Do they have political freedom? Yes. Are they dependent on Israel? Yes, economically. This is not occupation. What don't you understand about that?

Israel is still occupying Gaza, even if the military presence is gone. Not gone, reduced... Anyway, who controls the power? Who controls the borders? The airways? The waterways? Who controls the movement into and out of the area? The supplies? No, the occupation is not over, Gaza has just been reduced to the worlds largest prison. And that includes the West Bank, which is also a part of the Palestinian territories.

But sure, feel free to disagree. Doesn't matter, when the world in general disagrees with you. :)

Israel is still occupying Gaza, even if the military presence is gone. Not gone, reduced... Anyway, who controls the power? Who controls the borders? The airways? The waterways? Who controls the movement into and out of the area? The supplies? No, the occupation is not over, Gaza has just been reduced to the worlds largest prison. And that includes the West Bank, which is also a part of the Palestinian territories.

But sure, feel free to disagree. Doesn't matter, when the world in general disagrees with you. :)

I will answer every one of your questions. But first, no not the entire world disagrees, and no that would still not mean I am wrong. there are almost a billion arabs while there are perhaps 7 million Israelis so that wouldn't be hard would it. As to your questions.
Who controls the power? they do, democratically. right now, Hamas.
Who controls the borders. Northern border - israel because it is with Israel. Southern border - egypt because it is with egypt. Airways - Israel built its own airport by itself and is now using it. waterways - Palestine. Supplies- Israel 70% but thats just because they are economically dependent on Israel.

Easy with the Nazism accusations lets save them for the real nazis. Indeed I agree with you 100% that God should not play any role in this conflict. It is purely humans. The British humans which owned the land and gave it to israel. The humans who made the UN which voted on the legitimacy of the creation of the state of israel.

what?
some neo-nazi skin-head group that will never get anywhere?
the real "next reich" or whatever, wouldn't call themselves that.
and they wouldn't necessarily go after any specific group.
definitely minority or non-conformist groups.
that may include groups that the nazis-in-name go after.
it may not.
in fact, such groups that don't call themselves nazis are probably more dangerous because people wouldn't be looking for them.

I guess lobbing missiles and leveling city blocks to "assassinate" people isn't capital punishment.

Correct. He did say "execute," not "kill," "murder," or "assassinate." The term "execution" is usually pretty specific. As is the term "capital punishment."

And who did the buy the land from? The British who didn't legally own it. So while it may have in practice been legally purchased from the Jewish settler's perspective, it had been acquired as spoils of war by the British; ill-gotten gains of WWI.

Well, who else but the legal owners. The Jews bought land from the Arabs from as early as the mid 19th Century. Not only did they legally buy the land, but they also bought the worst land at very high prices - remembering that at the time, most of the agricultural land in what became Israel was very bad quality - the area was one of the poorest regions of the Ottoman Empire.

Also, while the Arabs may have been there in more recent times; their numbers were not that large - as late as the mid 19th Century, Mark Twain noted that what became Israel was pretty much deserted. Indeed, it is more than likely that a large number of "Palestinians" were descendents of Arab migrants who moved to what became Israel due to the economic opportunities that were generated by guess who? The Jews

Hey there bud, its OK. You'll be fine. Once you stop with the crack of course. Lets go through your post to see where you have errored, K? billions -no try millions. majority of the killed were jews. British owned the land. They gave it to the Jews. Who owns the land now? Where else do you want them to go?

Oh, bravo. Yes, I totally do cocaine because...

...all I remember is the holocaust being a large number of people who dropped dead in various ways.

...I've yet to see how Britain owning the land is relevant, as it was seized.

...I've yet to see why the jews should feel entitled to a nation.

Yeah, bravo. Totally a justified implication of drug abuse. No obvious holes or anything, no sir. Congratulations, you found me out.


And the jews don't need to "go" anywhere in the sense you're probably implying, namely a 'Where else is there a huge chunk of land we could give to the jews for no real reason?' implication. What they should do instead is just immigrate to other nations like everyone else. Is that so unbelievably beneath them?

Oh, bravo. Yes, I totally do cocaine because...

...all I remember is the holocaust being a large number of people who dropped dead in various ways.

...I've yet to see how Britain owning the land is relevant, as it was seized.

...I've yet to see why the jews should feel entitled to a nation.

Yeah, bravo. Totally a justified implication of drug abuse. No obvious holes or anything, no sir. Congratulations, you found me out.


And the jews don't need to "go" anywhere in the sense you're probably implying, namely a 'Where else is there a huge chunk of land we could give to the jews for no real reason?' implication. What they should do instead is just immigrate to other nations like everyone else. Is that so unbelievably beneath them?

Well your memory is impaired. Britain was the previous owner of the land. The jews should be entitled because the UN majority voted that this would be a good thing for the world in general. That's a fine proposition, let all the jews immigrate to New york state say, a lot would agree.

Prove it.

It is beneath me.

...majority of the killed were jews. Prove it.

It is beneath me.Its in your sig?

I canNOT see it.. set your account to "show signature"

Well your memory is impaired. Britain was the previous owner of the land. The jews should be entitled because the UN majority voted that this would be a good thing for the world in general. That's a fine proposition, let all the jews immigrate to New york state say, a lot would agree.

And what makes it a good thing? Just because the majority has voted for it does not mean it's a good thing. Just because it was voted and agreed upon doesn't make it a "good thing for the world".

Its in your sig?

I canNOT see it.. set your account to "show signature"

Lets not argue about the holocaust that is not the main reason as to whether Israel is justified. And really my fellow co-forum poster, lets not argue about facts of the holocaust, especially as this one is irrelevant to the discussion. Look it up somewhere I'm not going to do that for you.

And what makes it a good thing? Just because the majority has voted for it does not mean it's a good thing. Just because it was voted and agreed upon doesn't make it a "good thing for the world".

no but the UN grants legitimacy to new nations. Therefore israel is legitimate.

Lets not argue about the holocaust that is not the main reason as to whether Israel is justified. And really my fellow co-forum poster, lets not argue about facts of the holocaust, especially as this one is irrelevant to the discussion. Look it up somewhere I'm not going to do that for you.

If you make an assertion on this forum and someone challenges you to prove it, it's your burden to prove. You don't just say 'look it up'. You do indeed have to prove it. Until then, it is heresy; conjecture.

I would say this to anyone saying that they don't want to look it up in order to prove their point or validate what they're saying.

Well your memory is impaired. Britain was the previous owner of the land. The jews should be entitled because the UN majority voted that this would be a good thing for the world in general. That's a fine proposition, let all the jews immigrate to New york state say, a lot would agree.

My memory is impaired, yet you are the one who doesn't recall how the land became Britain's. Yes, I see...

The jews were entitled because of the UN, huh? The problem, though, is that just because the UN voted on it doesn't mean it's a justifiable reason for anything. Consider, for instance, sanctions in nations. Guess who gets hurt the hardest? The civilians, who often starve and die while the government meant to be effective is relatively unharmed. Does the UN advocate suffering? No, but they made a majority vote on the sanction, knowing that would happen. Just because it was agreed upon by a lot of people doesn't make it right.

Where did I say every jew, and to one specific area? They don't need to be clustered in any one place.


I'd advise you lay off attacking me because you don't have an argument to make, please. It's getting dull.

If you make an assertion on this forum and someone challenges you to prove it, it's your burden to prove. You don't just say 'look it up'. You do indeed have to prove it. Until then, it is heresy; conjecture.

I would say this to anyone saying that they don't want to look it up in order to prove their point or validate what they're saying.

Very well then I take my argument back as it was not relevant to the discussion only a side note to correct a mistaken assumption, just something someone else would have had to do. Just to point out a falacy, it was in no way part of my argument.

no but the UN grants legitimacy to new nations. Therefore israel is legitimate.

And what makes Israel MORE legitimate than say Taiwan who has asserted its independence before but has not been recognised by China? They aren't recognised because China, who is on the SC won't allow it.

What makes the UN a fair source for granting nations legitimacy?

My memory is impaired, yet you are the one who doesn't recall how the land became Britain's. Yes, I see...

The jews were entitled because of the UN, huh? The problem, though, is that just because the UN voted on it doesn't mean it's a justifiable reason for anything. Consider, for instance, sanctions in nations. Guess who gets hurt the hardest? The civilians, who often starve and die while the government meant to be effective is relatively unharmed. Does the UN advocate suffering? No, but they made a majority vote on the sanction, knowing that would happen. Just because it was agreed upon by a lot of people doesn't make it right.

Where did I say every jew, and to one specific area? They don't need to be clustered in any one place.


I'd advise you lay off attacking me because you don't have an argument to make, please. It's getting dull.

How did the land become Britain's? They conquered it from Turkey - the previous owners, during WWI. The UN gave LEGITIMACY to Israel - that's all I have to say. If you want to dismiss the UN's legitimacy that's another thing. Whenver things get too dull for you, you may leave. AS I am, and will return in approximately an hour. Hopefully not too many stupid things will be posted until then.

And what makes Israel MORE legitimate than say Taiwan who has asserted its independence before but has not been recognised by China? They aren't recognised because China, who is on the SC won't allow it.

What makes the UN a fair source for granting nations legitimacy?

Actually, Taiwan HASN'T asserted independence yet.

And the UN is the best source because it is the only thing close to a planetary government we have. It's them or nothing.

If you want to dismiss the UN's legitimacy that's another thing. He is not dismissing the UN altogether.. He is explaining why the UN structure (Vetoes) does not allow it to be fair often enough. The UN is just not a trustable reference for nationship legitimacy.

BTW suggesting that someone uses Cocaine only because he/she disagrees with you.. belongs in LoserTown.

no but the UN grants legitimacy to new nations. Therefore israel is legitimate.

So the United Nations is relevant when it grants Israel legitimacy, but irrelevant and obsolete when it passes resolutions condemning Israel for its apartheid practices towards the Palestinians in the occupied territories?

[Church Lady]Hooooow convenient.[/Church Lady]

I will answer every one of your questions. But first, no not the entire world disagrees, and no that would still not mean I am wrong. there are almost a billion arabs while there are perhaps 7 million Israelis so that wouldn't be hard would it. As to your questions.
Who controls the power? they do, democratically. right now, Hamas.
Who controls the borders. Northern border - israel because it is with Israel. Southern border - egypt because it is with egypt. Airways - Israel built its own airport by itself and is now using it. waterways - Palestine. Supplies- Israel 70% but thats just because they are economically dependent on Israel.

I said generally, not "the entire world".

Power - Israel controls the fuel transports and 60% of the electricity. (Not who has the power, but who controls it.)

Airspace - Israel, regardless of who built the airport.
The border - Israel and Egypt, but Israel has quite a lot of influence on the egyptian border crossing.
Waterways - Israel.

Israel is continuing a de facto occupation.

But regardless: How would you justify collective punishment of the palestinian civilians? I'm still waiting for that.

How did the land become Britain's? They conquered it from Turkey - the previous owners, during WWI. The UN gave LEGITIMACY to Israel - that's all I have to say. If you want to dismiss the UN's legitimacy that's another thing. Whenver things get too dull for you, you may leave. AS I am, and will return in approximately an hour. Hopefully not too many stupid things will be posted until then.

Thank you for proving my point. Yes, they conquered it. Seized. Stole. It was illegitimately obtained, and simply calling it a 'spoil of war' doesn't make it right.

Why do you need to emphasize legitimacy? All they (probably) did was take a vote, right some fancy deed, and give it to the head hancho of the jews while Turkey got the shaft... and again, for no reason. You still haven't address me on the reason why they deserve anything at all.


Why should I leave because you refuse to be civil? I haven't insulted you once without prior provocation.

But regardless: How would you justify collective punishment of the palestinian civilians? I'm still waiting for that.

Like most Israeli apologists, he probably believes that all Palestinians are Hamas Jihadis who need to be exterminated to bring about world peace. In other words, they're just more Muslims to cleanse.

Thank you for proving my point. Yes, they conquered it. Seized. Stole. It was illegitimately obtained, and simply calling it a 'spoil of war' doesn't make it right.


But it does make it LEGAL.

The Palestininans, on the other hand have NEVER owned the land they claim. There has never been a period when they were in control of that land.

there are 2 things that make a nation legit,

1) the most important one being individuals decide they collectively are a nation.

2) others not of this nation recognize it



there's even laws or something within the un allowing for new countries or nations to form out of old ones, and do it peacefully.
thing is domestically, the powers that be within any already existing nation deem seperation to be against their interests. these are usually economic. therefore seperation is usually met with violence by these powers that be

But it does make it LEGAL.

The Palestininans, on the other hand have NEVER owned the land they claim. There has never been a period when they were in control of that land.

No, it doesn't. Seizing land is a rather illegal thing, and simply writing it off with a euphemism is equally as wrong.


I don't care about the Palestininans, honestly. My argument is against Israel; please tell me how Palestine relates to this, because I see a 'they did it first' argument sprouting.

The jews should be entitled because the UN majority voted that this would be a good thing for the world in general.

That was then. This is now:
The humanitarian situation in Gaza is “deteriorating alarmingly,” Mr. Pascoe said. In June and July, around 100 truckloads of humanitarian goods were entering Gaza daily, but that figure has shrunk to 50. In July, an average of 40 critical medical cases crossed Erez into Israel for medical treatment not available in Gaza, but that number has since dwindled to five.

Poverty levels are on the rise, food prices are increasing, and tens of thousands of workers have lost incomes, the Under-Secretary-General said.

“We are also concerned that one of the two crossings that remain open for humanitarian goods – Sufa – is slated to be closed towards the end of this month,” Mr. Pascoe said, pointing out that the number of trucks going through there was nearly four times the number which went through Kerem Shalom which, although upgraded, is “unlikely to have the capacity” required to meet the humanitarian needs of the population.

“It is difficult to see how security concerns can justify the hardship these measures are causing,” said Mr. Pascoe, reiterating Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s strong injunction against punishment of the civilian population of the Gaza Strip.
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=24399&Cr=middle&Cr1=east

UN relief chief warns on deteriorating conditions facing Palestinians

25 October 2007 – The humanitarian situation inside the occupied Palestinian territory is deteriorating every day, the United Nations Emergency Relief Coordinator said today, warning that Israel’s threat to cut electricity and fuel supplies to the Gaza Strip if rocket attacks continue will only worsen the situation.

John Holmes, who is also Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, told journalists in Geneva that restrictions in Gaza and the West Bank were making it harder and harder for normal economic activity to be maintained, especially in Gaza.

“The squeeze was tightening all the time,” he said, noting that while the UN had been able to get more than 3,000 truckloads of humanitarian aid into Gaza in July, only 1,508 truckloads made it through last month.

The main crossing point into Gaza for goods, Karni, has been closed since June, he said, with only one conveyor belt available twice a week. One of the two smaller crossing points for goods, Sufa, is also expected to be closed by the end of this month. The major crossing point for people, Rafah, has also been closed since June.

Mr. Holmes also said the number of Palestinian patients allowed to cross into Israel for health care had fallen from 40 a day in July to less than five a day in September.

“Denial of freedom of movement for medical reasons would appear to be a breach of international humanitarian law,” he said.

The Under-Secretary-General said that while the UN condemned ongoing rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel, he was concerned that Israel was threatening to cut off electricity and fuel supplies if they continued.

“It did not appear to be an appropriate response to those rocket attacks to punish the population of Gaza.”

He called on Israel to lift its economic blockade on Gaza and relax its restrictions on humanitarian aid, in part to improve the chances of progress at Israeli-Palestinian talks scheduled to take place in the United States next month.

Given the conditions inside both Gaza and the West Bank, the population increasingly depends on outside aid to survive, he said.

“That is not a good situation for their livelihoods, their dignity and the possibility of their participating in any kind of peace process.”

Mr. Holmes’ warning comes a day after the Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs B. Lynn Pascoe told the Security Council about the humanitarian situation that Palestinians face and the potential impact of further Israeli restrictions.
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=24415&Cr=palestin&Cr1=

The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) today voiced concern about reports from the Gaza Strip that a shortage of anaesthetics, caused by Israeli import restrictions, has resulted in the closure of surgery rooms and health-care centres.

“The economic noose continues to tighten around the necks of the people of Gaza, who are being manifestly punished as part of a political strategy,” said Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator John Holmes.

OCHA is also concerned about the inability of people with emergency health conditions to leave the Gaza Strip to obtain medical care elsewhere, a UN spokesperson said in New York.

The closures and restrictions have resulted in increasing shortages of many basic food items and supplies in Gaza, according to OCHA.
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=24372&Cr=palestin&Cr1=

Who cares about the UN today?

But it does make it LEGAL.

The Palestininans, on the other hand have NEVER owned the land they claim. There has never been a period when they were in control of that land.

are you saying there was no "land deed" therefore they could not have owned it?
or no force to defend against aggressors?

you can flush the land deed one down the toilet, as not everybody's culture is into that sort of thing, and please don't act like a supremacist towards peoples with such beliefs

No, it doesn't. Seizing land is a rather illegal thing, and simply writing it off with a euphemism is equally as wrong.


I don't care about the Palestininans, honestly. My argument is against Israel; please tell me how Palestine relates to this, because I see a 'they did it first' argument sprouting.

Under the laws of war of the time, Britain's seizure of the Middle East from the collapsing Ottoman Empire was an entirely legal annexation. "Right" and "wrong" are totally subjective, and irrelevant.

As the legal owners, Britain could do as they chose with that land, and did. There is no legal basis to challenge the creation of Israel.

Like most Israeli apologists, he probably believes that all Palestinians are Hamas Jihadis who need to be exterminated to bring about world peace. In other words, they're just more Muslims to cleanse.

I've noted that he has avoided answering the question on two occasions now...

are you saying there was no "land deed" therefore they could not have owned it?
or no force to defend against aggressors?

you can flush the land deed one down the toilet, as not everybody's culture is into that sort of thing, and please don't act like a supremacist towards peoples with such beliefs

No, I'm saying they didn't have control of the land in the first place, so saying it was taken from them has no meaning.

Under the laws of war of the time, Britain's seizure of the Middle East from the collapsing Ottoman Empire was an entirely legal annexation. "Right" and "wrong" are totally subjective, and irrelevant.

As the legal owners, Britain could do as they chose with that land, and did. There is no legal basis to challenge the creation of Israel.

legal?
i would not say.
de facto owners at best.

since empires (& kings & oligarchs) are illegitimate all, (and without honor i might add)
so was their control of the land.

Under the laws of war of the time, Britain's seizure of the Middle East from the collapsing Ottoman Empire was an entirely legal annexation. "Right" and "wrong" are totally subjective, and irrelevant.

As the legal owners, Britain could do as they chose with that land, and did. There is no legal basis to challenge the creation of Israel.

Under the laws of war of the time,

war of the time

of the time

of the time


And please don't presume I mean "right" and "wrong" in a subjective, moral sense unless I state that I mean them as such.

No, I'm saying they didn't have control of the land in the first place, so saying it was taken from them has no meaning.

so there were no Palestinians on the eastern coast of the Mediteranean Sea prior to the great anti-fascist war of the early 1940s?

Under the laws of war of the time,

war of the time

of the time

of the time

Only the rules that applied at the time matter.


And please don't presume I mean "right" and "wrong" in a subjective, moral sense unless I state that I mean them as such.

They HAVE no other meaning.

so there were no Palestinians on the eastern coast of the Mediteranean Sea prior to the great anti-fascist war of the early 1940s?

Of course there were. But they were not in control. Until 1919 the Turks were; after that, the British were.

since empires (& kings & oligarchs) are illegitimate all, (and without honor i might add)
so was their control of the land.

They are as legitimate as any other form of government. And more effective and efficient than many.

Only the rules that applied at the time matter.




They HAVE no other meaning.

You want me to bring up a list of laws that were legal at the time that are now illegal?

Furthermore...


right
1. in accordance with what is good, proper, or just: right conduct.
2. in conformity with fact, reason, truth, or some standard or principle; correct: the right solution; the right answer.
3. correct in judgment, opinion, or action.
4. fitting or appropriate; suitable: to say the right thing at the right time.

wrong
1. not in accordance with what is morally right or good: a wrong deed.
2. deviating from truth or fact; erroneous: a wrong answer.
3. not correct in action, judgment, opinion, method, etc., as a person; in error: You are wrong to blame him.
4. not proper or usual; not in accordance with requirements or recommended practice: the wrong way to hold a golf club.


Yes, they do.

You want me to bring up a list of laws that were legal at the time that are now illegal?



No, because they, also, would be completely irrelevant to the question.

It does not matter that laws have changed. The actions of the time remain legal.

Only the rules that applied at the time matter.

only rules made by those doing fighting and controlling matter?

other peoples rules don't apply?
most people don't matter, according to that theory of what rules apply.

They are as legitimate as any other form of government. And more effective and efficient than many.

i guesss, if you're into dictatorships

only rules made by those doing fighting and controlling matter?

other peoples rules don't apply?
most people don't matter, according to that theory of what rules apply.

That is not what I said. Please stop trying to twist my words to a different meaning.

The internationally accepted laws of war at that time are the only rules that matter, as regards the annexation of the Middle East. These were followed, which makes the annexation entirely legal.

i guesss, if you're into dictatorships

If you're confusing a dictatorship with feudal and imperial systems, I'd strongly suggest you do a little research on the subject.

No, because they, also, would be completely irrelevant to the question.

It does not matter that laws have changed. The actions of the time remain legal.

It would be rather relevant; it's the same thing as what should have happened now.

It does matter, because there is no real justification for Israel's existence beyond a simple transcript.

The Jews: lolz we get persecuted a lot. We're entitled to repayment, lol

United Nations: BAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW! u r rite, here iz sum landz

For a metaphor, let's say a thief of 1850 could be justified in stealing according to the law of the time that changed now. Because it changed now, the thief is now a criminal. Why is it different in this scenario?

We almost has peace accords a decade or two

ago, with Yassir Arafat. Let's try to achieve that again, and THIS

TIME let's prevent radical right-winged fuckmunches from messing it

up.

Arafat admitted that his goal in the Oslo accords was to deceive the Israeli government. Besides, Rabin wasn't the only one who led the process - People like Peres and Beilin were in this as much as he was, and if the accords failed, it's not as aresult of the assasination. Maybe it's because immediately after the assasination, a wave of terrorist bombings took place and the Israeli public didn't think of peace? That's the reason.

The gradual ethnic cleansing of

Palestine and its resettlement with Jews is the pursuit of the

Israelis

What gradual cleansing? In ethnic cleansing, the population tends to lessen with time. Please explain, then, how can it be that the Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza grows over time, and even more rapidly than the Israelis?

Like most Israeli apologists, he probably believes that all Palestinians are Hamas Jihadis who need to be exterminated to bring about world peace. In other words, they're just more Muslims to cleanse.

Well, no. Most of the Israelis believe that putting pressure on the Palestinian population would result in anti-HAMAS feelings (I don't know if this assumption it correct or not). Besides, If you're correct, why don't we (Israelis) do the same in the West Bank? Hell, let's shut their power too! But wait, they are (still) not the ones firing missiles on towns every fucking day (and all of this while their leaders try to make peace overseas).

It would be rather relevant; it's the same thing as what should have happened now.

It does matter, because there is no real justification for Israel's existence beyond a simple transcript.

The Jews: lolz we get persecuted a lot. We're entitled to repayment, lol

United Nations: BAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW! u r rite, here iz sum landz

For a metaphor, let's say a thief of 1850 could be justified in stealing according to the law of the time that changed now. Because it changed now, the thief is now a criminal. Why is it different in this scenario?

What you are talking about is retroactive or ex post facto law. Aside from being forbidden in the US under the constitution, it is an abomination against mankind and inherently unjust to all concerned (yes, that's subjective, but I'm not going to apologize for it).

Fundamentally, you are wanting to make the action of people who acted in good faith, and with the blessings of the law, and making their actions criminal.

You are not good enough or wise enough to be trusted with such absolute power. Neither am I, nor anyone.

Your hypothetical thief has done nothing criminal, and should be released.

That is not what I said. Please stop trying to twist my words to a different meaning.

The internationally accepted laws of war at that time are the only rules that matter, as regards the annexation of the Middle East. These were followed, which makes the annexation entirely legal.


who is included in making these "internationally accepted laws (of war at the time)" ?
those doing the conquering of course.

accepting the "internationally accepted laws" of Britain, France, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, American, etc...employed among themselves in dividing up the rest of the world one is accepting the rules of the conquerer.

were the various Muslim peoples of the world consulted for these "laws"?
the various peoples of the African or Asian continents? the rest of the peoples of the Americas, indigenous or non-? others?


the rules of the annexors,
not the annexees.
the conquerors,
not the conquered.

who is included in making these "internationally accepted laws (of war at the time)" ?
those doing the conquering of course.

accepting the "internationally accepted laws" of Britain, France, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, American, etc...employed among themselves in dividing up the rest of the world one is accepting the rules of the conquerer.

were the various Muslim peoples of the world consulted for these "laws"?
the various peoples of the African or Asian continents? the rest of the peoples of the Americas, indigenous or non-? others?


the rules of the annexors,
not the annexees.
the conquerors,
not the conquered.

Actually, IIRC, Nationalist China was a signee of the Hague Convention. Also the Ottoman Empire.

Anyway, the winners make the laws. That has always been the case, and always will be. It does not invalidate the law.

And back to the thread's topic:

There's another reason for this decision (my source is Israeli media) - With this step, the government hopes to signal the Palestinians that Israel wants to completely disengage from Gaza. The announcement "We'll shut your power on every rocket" actually means "Seriously, you should try to get new fucking power sources, because we're not going to give it to you anymore."

I wish you could all read Hebrew, so I would send you the link. It's a very interesting article.

...but say they won't cause a humanitarian crisis in Gaza.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7061617.stm

Grrr. The rocket attacks most certainly should stop, but collective punishments like this is not the way to go. Violation of international law should not happen - in my view this is just that, the declaration that Gaza is a "hostile entity" does not change that, as well as it doesn't change the fact that it's an occupied territory.

The only good thing is

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7064107.stm

Doesn't change much though. They're cold-hearted bastards on both sides, and as always it's the civilians who pay the price. Grrr.

idiots .... not saying collective punishment works .... but they should watch super nanny .... 15 mins each time no more no less or eventually gaza will have no electricity ever and people wont consider it a punishment but the norm as it gets longer each time

.... that said ... both isreal and the militants are idiots for carrying on the tit for tat retals

If you're confusing a dictatorship with feudal and imperial systems, I'd strongly suggest you do a little research on the subject.

no.

kings are family dictatorships.
(there are those "constitutional kings" or whatever in which a queen or king might have no real power, but that is different)

empires are dictatorships as well. (by dictatorship, i do not mean "one person". duh! such is hardly ever "one person")
they dictate to other nations and peoples.
btw, i'm not speaking of someone's far out theory of any delusion of "benevolent empire".
because they dictate, therefore are not, by definition, benevolent.

What you are talking about is retroactive or ex post facto law. Aside from being forbidden in the US under the constitution, it is an abomination against mankind and inherently unjust to all concerned (yes, that's subjective, but I'm not going to apologize for it).

Fundamentally, you are wanting to make the action of people who acted in good faith, and with the blessings of the law, and making their actions criminal.

You are not good enough or wise enough to be trusted with such absolute power. Neither am I, nor anyone.

Your hypothetical thief has done nothing criminal, and should be released.

An abomination against mankind... and this is because a law may just need correction? I'll agree that you are neither good enough nor wise enough for that power, but tell me how that even relates to this debate.

Fundamentally, I want to know why a certain subculture of people are entitled to land, and until explained irrefutably will deny their right to it. I am not anti-semite, I am not a bigot. I want an answer.

People who steal for their own gain don't act in good faith, especially when it's entirely probable they gave it up to ease whatever sense of morality they have and not simply because "they're nice."

no.

kings are family dictatorships.
(there are those "constitutional kings" or whatever in which a queen or king might have no real power, but that is different)

empires are dictatorships as well. (by dictatorship, i do not mean "one person". duh! such is hardly ever "one person")
they dictate to other nations and peoples.
btw, i'm not speaking of someone's far out theory of any delusion of "benevolent empire".
because they dictate, therefore are not, by definition, benevolent.

Except that, in most cases, a King or Emperor is anything BUT all powerful.

Feudal and Imperial systems were remarkably complex. While the King made the overall law and controlled foreign policy, local rulers - Dukes, Counts, Barons - held their own courts, ran their own fiefs as they saw fit. And a King intruding on those rights could well have a rebellion on his hands.

It was a system of checks and balances. We forget that, because we only remember the end of the Feudal period, when the system broke down and power became centralized. But that was not the norm.

An abomination against mankind... and this is because a law may just need correction? I'll agree that you are neither good enough nor wise enough for that power, but tell me how that even relates to this debate.

Fundamentally, I want to know why a certain subculture of people are entitled to land, and until explained irrefutably will deny their right to it. I am not anti-semite, I am not a bigot. I want an answer.

People who steal for their own gain don't act in good faith, especially when it's entirely probable they gave it up to ease whatever sense of morality they have and not simply because "they're nice."

because they were pushed out of europe enmass as a religion not a country based people ... cant recall if israel was part of recaptured german territory but if so and (in theory) they were supposed to share it with the other locals it seemed like a good idea ... if they had been pushed out because of being from a certain country it wouldnt have been a prob when germany was defeat but being kicked out because of religion .... im sure if any religon was kicked out of anywhere enmass countries would try to find them a home they could call home ... not being an anti non bigot .. being a drunk pita devils advocate

hmmm quoted wrong bit lol .. will re edit ... lol might have to stop posting soon ... was the right quote ignore the edit

Actually, IIRC, Nationalist China was a signee of the Hague Convention. Also the Ottoman Empire.

Anyway, the winners make the laws. That has always been the case, and always will be. It does not invalidate the law.

oh, i'm not saying there isn't something called a "law" that those conquerors sought to impose upon others.

i'm saying empire is always illegitimate.
as i would say slave masters are always illegitimate.



but what seems to be written in your posts (whether intended or not) is that because some groups of people because they were not organized into social units at least substantially similar to a nation-states, their voices were not legitimate.
Ottomans, who did not live in the area on the eastern coast of the meditaranean sea did not have any more right to control said area anymore than Britain did. Neither's control was legit.

because they were pushed out of europe enmass as a religion not a country based people ... cant recall if israel was part of recaptured german territory but if so and (in theory) they were supposed to share it with the other locals it seemed like a good idea ... if they had been pushed out because of being from a certain country it wouldnt have been a prob when germany was defeat but being kicked out because of religion .... im sure if any religon was kicked out of anywhere enmass countries would try to find them a home they could call home ... not being an anti non bigot .. being a drunk pita devils advocate

hmmm quoted wrong bit lol .. will re edit ... lol might have to stop posting soon ... was the right quote ignore the edit

If that was the case and they were ejected from Europe en mass, why couldn't they just immigrate like everyone else? I can understand wanting a home, but why did they need to be granted land?

lol. Enjoy your drink(s).

An abomination against mankind... and this is because a law may just need correction? I'll agree that you are neither good enough nor wise enough for that power, but tell me how that even relates to this debate.

Because you weren't just proposing a change in the law, which is something I have no problem with. You were proposing to backdate that law so that law-abiding people were suddenly classified as criminals for following the law as it was written down. I don't know about you, but requiring people to be psychic in order to be law-abiding seems a bit much!


Fundamentally, I want to know why a certain subculture of people are entitled to land, and until explained irrefutably will deny their right to it. I am not anti-semite, I am not a bigot. I want an answer.

No one is "entitled" to anything.

The British had control. They voluntarily gave that control to the founders of Israel.

"Entitlements" don't come into it. "Rights" don't come into it. "Morality" has no place in it. The Israelis came into possession of that land COMPLETELY LEGALLY.

People who steal for their own gain don't act in good faith, especially when it's entirely probable they gave it up to ease whatever sense of morality they have and not simply because "they're nice."

No one stole anything.

Except that, in most cases, a King or Emperor is anything BUT all powerful.

Feudal and Imperial systems were remarkably complex. While the King made the overall law and controlled foreign policy, local rulers - Dukes, Counts, Barons - held their own courts, ran their own fiefs as they saw fit. And a King intruding on those rights could well have a rebellion on his hands.

It was a system of checks and balances. We forget that, because we only remember the end of the Feudal period, when the system broke down and power became centralized. But that was not the norm.


i repeat (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13167173#post13167173):

since empires (& kings & oligarchs) are illegitimate all, (and without honor i might add)
so was their control of the land.

oh, i'm not saying there isn't something called a "law" that those conquerors sought to impose upon others.

i'm saying empire is always illegitimate.
as i would say slave masters are always illegitimate.



but what seems to be written in your posts (whether intended or not) is that because some groups of people because they were not organized into social units at least substantially similar to a nation-states, their voices were not legitimate.
Ottomans, who did not live in the area on the eastern coast of the meditaranean sea did not have any more right to control said area anymore than Britain did. Neither's control was legit.

Only in your eyes - and you do not have the power to change the fact that these actions are seen as perfectly legitimate by everyone else. (Incidentally, it is not that their voices were not legitimate - it is that, in the corridors of power, they had no voice at all.)

i repeat (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13167173#post13167173):

Nations do not need your approval to exist.

Except that, in most cases, a King or Emperor is anything BUT all powerful.

Feudal and Imperial systems were remarkably complex. While the King made the overall law and controlled foreign policy, local rulers - Dukes, Counts, Barons - held their own courts, ran their own fiefs as they saw fit. And a King intruding on those rights could well have a rebellion on his hands.

It was a system of checks and balances. We forget that, because we only remember the end of the Feudal period, when the system broke down and power became centralized. But that was not the norm.


i know not much has changed since the dark ages,
with the legal entities of privilege, the corporations, (http://www.poclad.org/images/illustrations/umbrella.jpg) largely replacing kings,
but you almost seem to be stating it was not such a bad time back then.
Sure renasance(sp?) faires are fun, but that's about all that should be brought forward from that time.

And who did the buy the land from? The British who didn't legally own it. So while it may have in practice been legally purchased from the Jewish settler's perspective, it had been acquired as spoils of war by the British; ill-gotten gains of WWI.

You fail. The British didn't sell the land. The landowners were Arabs who sold the Jews the then swamp laden lands of the Galilee and Jezreel Valleys. The Jews then drained the malaria infested swamps and built Kibbutzim atop of them.

I said generally, not "the entire world".

Power - Israel controls the fuel transports and 60% of the electricity. (Not who has the power, but who controls it.)

Airspace - Israel, regardless of who built the airport.
The border - Israel and Egypt, but Israel has quite a lot of influence on the egyptian border crossing.
Waterways - Israel.

Israel is continuing a de facto occupation.

But regardless: How would you justify collective punishment of the palestinian civilians? I'm still waiting for that.

Hello! I'm back and will respond to all of you one by one by order of posting. Lucky first, The cutting off of electricity to Palestine started from 15 minutes a day and increased 15 minutes each day rocket attacks continues. This is a last-resort type measure. Would you rather a full-scale attack on Palestine? No, neither would I, and these rocket attacks must be stopped. The motive is not collective punishment but pressure to the people to encourage the stop of attacks. As Israel is not obliged to provide electricity to Palestine (Palestine could generate its own electricity if it chooses to attempt to destroy Israel in my opinion), this is not a punishment, only a type of sanction.

If that was the case and they were ejected from Europe en mass, why couldn't they just immigrate like everyone else? I can understand wanting a home, but why did they need to be granted land?

lol. Enjoy your drink(s).

gah touche (sp?) good question! my guess is the victors felt like being genourus with the spoils/recaptures ... my history aint to good (niether is my spelling lol) at the best of times but thats what i think ... can you imagen now if all of the democrats (or something else that was repected and badly mistreated) was kicked out of somewhere the size of europe and there friends rescued them ... (not sure if im a demo or what lol) but if i helped beat there oppressors id want to give them somewhere safe to live (away from me lol) ... really would there be an issue if they were a religious based group ... if say all Jews were from say england and it got taken in a war it would be easy to say have it back .. no moving needed .... now if all people that looked english or agreed with the english were kicked out of every country what would you do with them if you felt they were persicuted and you helped them??

and cheers lol Jack Daniels ftw (Though you lot might be thinking ftl by the end of the night lol)

ps if anyone else is having a bit of a tipple enjoy lol

i know not much has changed since the dark ages,
with the legal entities of privilege, the corporations, (http://www.poclad.org/images/illustrations/umbrella.jpg) largely replacing kings,
but you almost seem to be stating it was not such a bad time back then.
Sure renasance(sp?) faires are fun, but that's about all that should be brought forward from that time.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm pleased as punch to live in a Liberal Democracy, thank you! But no, the feudal systems were not, in general such terrible things for the average person to live under. He had a place in his society, he would be looked after if need be, generally had a good bit of security and a safe, quiet life.

In many ways early democracies were much harder and more vicious towards their citizens than feudal systems were in general. Thankfully, we now seem to be past that stage.

Like most Israeli apologists, he probably believes that all Palestinians are Hamas Jihadis who need to be exterminated to bring about world peace. In other words, they're just more Muslims to cleanse.

no in fact you are very mistaken. one of my very closest friends is a Palestinian. I would never. I have many Muslim friends. I think its terribly sad that so many of them support Hamas and its violence because they are not fully aware of the facts of reality. I am NOT for extermination or cleansing. These are senseless accusations.

Nations do not need your approval to exist.

myself, one person? of course not.

note how i did not state (no pun intended) "nations" are illegitimate.
since empires (& kings & oligarchs) are illegitimate all, (and without honor i might add)
so was their control of the land.
a nation is a group of people (and you can look it up for the more specific details), with or without a state.


empires, kings, & oligarchs only need force to exist or conversely really good P.R. (i.e. propaganda)

But it does make it LEGAL.

The Palestininans, on the other hand have NEVER owned the land they claim. There has never been a period when they were in control of that land.

good point.

Under the laws of war of the time, Britain's seizure of the Middle East from the collapsing Ottoman Empire was an entirely legal annexation. "Right" and "wrong" are totally subjective, and irrelevant.

As the legal owners, Britain could do as they chose with that land, and did. There is no legal basis to challenge the creation of Israel.

another good point

Because you weren't just proposing a change in the law, which is something I have no problem with. You were proposing to backdate that law so that law-abiding people were suddenly classified as criminals for following the law as it was written down. I don't know about you, but requiring people to be psychic in order to be law-abiding seems a bit much!

They wanted land when they could have immigrated to, for example, the united states.

And here's where your argument breaks down. See, you've been misinterpreting it.

A thief who steals knowing that if the crime was against anyone else it would be illegal is a criminal after the laws were rectified to prevent legalized hate. Stealing from a mexican is legal versus stealing from an American which is illegal.

There is nothing that required psychic power in realizing that is rather blatant racism, and that exploiting it should be illegal.

Stealing land is illegal. But if a military is involved, it somehow isn't. That id illegal now, even if it wasn't before. Therefore, one can say Israel itself is illegal.


No one is "entitled" to anything.

But they were entitled to land and special treatment because of the holocaust. They couldn't simply immigrate like everyone else.

The British had control. They voluntarily gave that control to the founders of Israel.

The British gave them stolen land. I know. In any other non-military context this would be illegal beyond annexation.

"Entitlements" don't come into it. "Rights" don't come into it. "Morality" has no place in it. The Israelis came into possession of that land COMPLETELY LEGALLY.

Oh boy... rights don't come in to it? Then why do they have the right to anything? Rights are social fabrications anyway, so can we do away with those? Sounds fun, you first. :)

For the record, the only one who brought up morality is you.

CAPSLOCK MAKES EVERYTHING TRUTHFUL OMG.


No one stole anything.

lol.

.. this is not a punishment, only a type of sanction.meh..

What is the difference?

Hello! I'm back and will respond to all of you one by one by order of posting. Lucky first, The cutting off of electricity to Palestine started from 15 minutes a day and increased 15 minutes each day rocket attacks continues. This is a last-resort type measure. Would you rather a full-scale attack on Palestine? No, neither would I, and these rocket attacks must be stopped. The motive is not collective punishment but pressure to the people to encourage the stop of attacks. As Israel is not obliged to provide electricity to Palestine (Palestine could generate its own electricity if it chooses to attempt to destroy Israel in my opinion), this is not a punishment, only a type of sanction.

parts of that post are so stole from my brain ... i think exactly the same with the Iran situation ... all the Iranians believe there government is just going for nuke power and thus hate everyone else for saying differently ... in my opinion tell the irainians .. yep go for nuclear power it rocks (barr the waste) ... but if your leaders have lied to us and you ... do the decent thing ... boot them out destroy the weapons and prove your selves people of honour unlike your leaders

punishment that is ever mounting like more sanctions or retaliation with moe missiles etc just gives the masses who arent involved more hardship and creates more hate and alligence to the minority attacking and coursing the probs

Arafat admitted that his goal in the Oslo accords was to deceive the Israeli government. Besides, Rabin wasn't the only one who led the process - People like Peres and Beilin were in this as much as he was, and if the accords failed, it's not as aresult of the assasination. Maybe it's because immediately after the assasination, a wave of terrorist bombings took place and the Israeli public didn't think of peace? That's the reason.



What gradual cleansing? In ethnic cleansing, the population tends to lessen with time. Please explain, then, how can it be that the Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza grows over time, and even more rapidly than the Israelis?



Well, no. Most of the Israelis believe that putting pressure on the Palestinian population would result in anti-HAMAS feelings (I don't know if this assumption it correct or not). Besides, If you're correct, why don't we (Israelis) do the same in the West Bank? Hell, let's shut their power too! But wait, they are (still) not the ones firing missiles on towns every fucking day (and all of this while their leaders try to make peace overseas).

great point, you are a wise man.

And back to the thread's topic:

There's another reason for this decision (my source is Israeli media) - With this step, the government hopes to signal the Palestinians that Israel wants to completely disengage from Gaza. The announcement "We'll shut your power on every rocket" actually means "Seriously, you should try to get new fucking power sources, because we're not going to give it to you anymore."

I wish you could all read Hebrew, so I would send you the link. It's a very interesting article.

Please do send the link (I do read hebrew)

Please do send the link (I do read hebrew)

http://news.walla.co.il/?w=//1186954

I have no problem with the existence of the state of Israel. The land they now hold was conquered by the British Empire from the Turkish Empire in a massive World War (as they say, all's fair in love and war...I think thats how the saying goes anyway) because of this; the land was legally the dominion of the British Crown and the British Crown opted to give the land to the Jews; the state was deemed legal and recognized by the United Nations, thus the state of Israel is sovereign and can do whatever the fuck it wants to (though what they do is not always morally correct, but moral correctness is subjective and different for different peoples).

Now on to the good stuff...Vectrova, if your so tore up about the jewish state being illegal because the land given to them by the British was illegally stolen (which it wasn't)...why aren't your raising hell about the United States illegally and quite brutally stealing land from the Native Americans and treating them like animals and savages? I ask this because the argument you keep sounding off is awefully repeditive and sounds American. Just some food for thought.

Only in your eyes - and you do not have the power to change the fact that these actions are seen as perfectly legitimate by everyone else. (Incidentally, it is not that their voices were not legitimate - it is that, in the corridors of power, they had no voice at all.)

"everyone else"?
there must not have been very many people around back then.


"corridors of power",
uh, nice, warm and fuzzy way of putting it.
almost makes me want to stand up, salute a flag, and eat pumpkin pie.

those "corridors of power" you speak of, considered those not there to have no legitimacy to power. maybe if they went through prep school or something they might accept them.
it's not even a matter of "being there".
those without power were not of "royal" (haha) or of "the right" blood and were illegitimate because of this.

Israel would only execute someone according to the Ten Comandments writin by God I being a Christian know these laws and um they would not execute unless the criminal they went against one of the books of the Bible or th eTen Comadments and cutting electricity and fuel is the United Nations job they would have to be approved to do this.And if they did it would take the aproval of the police if they were on Israel side.Still confused????????????????????????????????????????????????

http://news.walla.co.il/?w=//1186954

לנסות "מדרגה" נוספת של תגובה נגד עזה, בטרם תיגרר ישראל לפעולה צבאית גדולה


בדיוק מה שאמרתי לפני דקה בפורום.

Israel would only execute someone according to the Ten Comandments writin by God I being a Christian know these laws and um they would not execute unless the criminal they went against one of the books of the Bible or th eTen Comadments and cutting electricity and fuel is the United Nations job they would have to be approved to do this.And if they did it would take the aproval of the police if they were on Israel side.Still confused????????????????????????????????????????????????

wow wt he11 are u talking about

I have no problem with the existence of the state of Israel. The land they now hold was conquered by the British Empire from the Turkish Empire in a massive World War (as they say, all's fair in love and war...I think thats how the saying goes anyway) because of this; the land was legally the dominion of the British Crown and the British Crown opted to give the land to the Jews; the state was deemed legal and recognized by the United Nations, thus the state of Israel is sovereign and can do whatever the fuck it wants to (though what they do is not always morally correct, but moral correctness is subjective and different for different peoples).

Now on to the good stuff...Vectrova, if your so tore up about the jewish state being illegal because the land given to them by the British was illegally stolen (which it wasn't)...why aren't your raising hell about the United States illegally and quite brutally stealing land from the Native Americans and treating them like animals and savages? I ask this because the argument you keep sounding off is awefully repeditive and sounds American. Just some food for thought.

indeed

stuff

You can telegram me those messages if you want, but please don't post Hebrew here, because it's not fair to others, and this is a public forum. :)

You can telegram me those messages if you want, but please don't post Hebrew here, because it's not fair to others, and this is a public forum. :)

I wanted to but noticed you didnt have a nationstate as your home page sorry.

indeed

Thanks. :cool:

They wanted land when they could have immigrated to, for example, the united states.

And here's where your argument breaks down. See, you've been misinterpreting it.

A thief who steals knowing that if the crime was against anyone else it would be illegal is a criminal after the laws were rectified to prevent legalized hate. Stealing from a mexican is legal versus stealing from an American which is illegal.

No, he actually isn't a criminal. In this case he has done something morally reprehensible, but not the least illegal.

There is nothing that required psychic power in realizing that is rather blatant racism, and that exploiting it should be illegal.

SHOULD be. By whose lights? According to whom? If you had suggested that laws against racism would be the norm one day in 1949, you would have been laughed at! Racism was NORMAL then. And generally not considered wrong (though that was changing).

Stealing land is illegal. But if a military is involved, it somehow isn't. That id illegal now, even if it wasn't before. Therefore, one can say Israel itself is illegal.

You can say it, of course, but that doesn't make it anything like accurate. Israel's founding was, and remains, totally legal. To apply modern law to a historical situatio is unfair to the people then, and the law now. It is abomination.

But they were entitled to land and special treatment because of the holocaust. They couldn't simply immigrate like everyone else.

Of course they could have. But Britain allowed the creation of the state of Israel, as was their right with land they owned.

The British gave them stolen land. I know. In any other non-military context this would be illegal beyond annexation.

Legal annexation is not theft.

"everyone else"?
there must not have been very many people around back then.


"corridors of power",
uh, nice, warm and fuzzy way of putting it.
almost makes me want to stand up, salute a flag, and eat pumpkin pie.

those "corridors of power" you speak of, considered those not there to have no legitimacy to power. maybe if they went through prep school or something they might accept them.
it's not even a matter of "being there".
those without power were not of "royal" (haha) or of "the right" blood and were illegitimate because of this.

Those with the power, make the rules. This surprises you?

the state of Israel is sovereign and can do whatever the fuck it wants to (...)

Now on to the good stuff...Vectrova, if your so tore up about the jewish state being illegal because the land given to them by the British was illegally stolen (which it wasn't)...why aren't your raising hell about the United States illegally and quite brutally stealing land from the Native Americans and treating them like animals and savages? I ask this because the argument you keep sounding off is awefully repeditive and sounds American. Neesika is that You? :D

either way.. I cant wait for a president with the balls to stop the millions -in Welfare- being shipped to Israel all the time.

Nations do not need your approval to exist.

myself, one person? of course not.

note how i did not state (no pun intended) "nations" are illegitimate.

since empires (& kings & oligarchs) are illegitimate all, (and without honor i might add)
so was their control of the land.
a nation is a group of people (and you can look it up for the more specific details), with or without a state.


empires, kings, & oligarchs only need force to exist or conversely really good P.R. (i.e. propaganda)




btw,
i've said repeatedly: Israel exists, get over it.
just in case someone might think otherwise and might think me arguing against Britain's claim to any middle eastern territory is an attempt to de-legitimize the state of Isreal.
it has not been.
merely arguing against empire, kings, and oligarchies as illegitimate.
i repeat: Israel exists, get over it.

Those with the power, make the rules. This surprises you?

so simply because a king, empire, or oligarchy has power, they are legitimate.

this is what seems to come from your statements out of our exchanges.


beyond that, i don't know what you are saying in the quoted post as a response to my post

:confused: This thread should be titled "Hammas approve rocket attacks on innocent civilians". You know, on account of their *rocket attacks* on Israel that started it. A little blackout for 15 minutes or so every now and then is hardly more noteworthy. :rolleyes:

Those with the power, make the rules. This surprises you?

I guess some people, like the guy you quoted, fail to realize that governments run countries (whether the people like it or not in some cases) and around the time of WWI (everyone keeps refering back to this) monarchy was really the only form of government around that was stable minus the United States. These various monarchies went to war and they conquered land; and in war conquered land is legally the property of those doing the conquering. Britain fought a war against the Ottoman Turks, lost thousands of british soldiers and gave the land they conquered to the Jews.

Also as a side note, wartime conduct was not as strictly regulated back then as it is now. Why you say? Because the Imperial Monarchies of the time were busy racking up land wherever available. In recent times many a people would have cried "Oh noes, Terists, Dicktakers, EVIL DOERS! OH MY!" but then everybody just sorta went "Meh..." because it was an everyday thing and was acceptable.

And again, to the people crying about how the evil europeans stoled land. Why don't you say something about the ebul Americans stealing land from the so-called Savages. Huh? 'Cause to you, this is just as bad as anything the europeans have done.

:confused: This thread should be titled "Hammas approve rocket attacks on innocent civilians". You know, on account of their *rocket attacks* on Israel that started it. A little blackout for 15 minutes or so every now and then is hardly more noteworthy. :rolleyes:

Greatly put. Somehow since september everyone has forgotten how the leading political power in rule in Palestine declared that the rockets were 'Happy new year welcome back presents to all Israeli children for the up coming school year.' haha funny that Israel is being accused of collective punishment. talk about the KILLING of innocent civilians - not to mention children, ON PURPOSE.

so simply because a king, empire, or oligarchy has power, they are legitimate.

this is what seems to come from your statements out of our exchanges.


beyond that, i don't know what you are saying in the quoted post as a response to my post

You're ignoring where the power comes from.

Power comes from the people. They either grant it or acknowledge it's possession.

If the general populace acknowledges a government of any type as legitimate, then effectively, it is. And without that acknowledgement, a government's power is limited, and it's lifespan generally short.

Neesika is that You? :D

either way.. I cant wait for a president with the balls to stop the millions -in Welfare- being shipped to Israel all the time.

Nein! I am myself not this Neesika person of which you speak!!



Seriously, I'm not.

Neesika is that You? :D

either way.. I cant wait for a president with the balls to stop the millions -in Welfare- being shipped to Israel all the time.

Really well I can't wait for a president with the balls to tell the entire Arab world that he doesn't care about the oil supply and therefore must not comply with their calls to destroy Israel, and give Israel outward military aid as well as sanction Syria (and Iran which we already have a president with the guts to do).

Really well I can't wait for a president with the balls to tell the entire Arab world that he doesn't care about the oil supply and therefore must not comply with their calls to destroy Israel, and give Israel outward military aid as well as sanction Syria (and Iran which we already have a president with the guts to do).

We could if we would pull out of the Iraqi shithole and put the billions of dollars saved into something that is actually productive, such as say... alternate fuels sources...universal healthcare...etc...just to name a few.

...around the time of WWI monarchy was really the only form of government around that was stable minus the United States. :confused:


WWI: 1914 to 1918.
Just how many functioning monarchies do you think were still around (functional monarchies, were the King is the Gov, not a decorative figurehead)

:confused:


WWI: 1914 to 1918.
Just how many functioning do you think were still around (functional monarchies, were the King is the Gov, not a decorative figurehead)

BP's overstating, but off the top of my head:

Austria/Hungary

Germany

Romania

Greece

Ottoman Empire

Russia

:confused:


WWI: 1914 to 1918.
Just how many functioning do you think were still around (functional monarchies, were the King is the Gov, not a decorative figurehead)

(Let me clarify: Constitutionaly Monarchies are included with the absolute monarchies.)

If it is a functioning monarchy able to declare war and actually fight I would call this a stable monarchy...sort of...and to answer your question, there were quite a few: The German Empire, The British Empire, The Russian Empire, The Ottoman Empire...The Austro-Hungarian Empire... these are just the major players.

EDIT: Actually your probably right...I think the Russian Empire was the only absolute monarchy at the time.

You're ignoring where the power comes from.

Power comes from the people.

well no shit.

turd-duddly could have told you that one


maybe i should just add "the state" in general is illegitimate.
no sense in wasting another couple centuries trying to end harm to our fellow - all equal - human beings.

better yet, "authority is illegitimate".
i'm not saying it, i'm just sharing the statement

:confused:


WWI: 1914 to 1918.
Just how many functioning do you think were still around (functional monarchies, were the King is the Gov, not a decorative figurehead)

and how many people/s didn't organize themselves into anything similar to a nation/state?

well no shit.

turd-duddly could have told you that one


maybe i should just add "the state" in general is illegitimate.
no sense in wasting another couple centuries trying to end harm to our fellow - all equal - human beings.

better yet, "authority is illegitimate".
i'm not saying it, i'm just sharing the statement

How is authority illegitimate? Are you saying the democratically elected government of the United States of America is illegitimate? Or just the monarchies, cause last I talked to a British person, they had nothing but love for the crown...same with the people of Monacoe (I spelled that wrong probably)

(Let me clarify: Constitutionaly Monarchies are included with the absolute monarchies.)

If it is a functioning monarchy able to declare war and actually fight I would call this a stable monarchy...sort of...and to answer your question, there were quite a few: The German Empire, The British Empire, The Russian Empire, The Ottoman Empire...The Austro-Hungarian Empire... these are just the major players.

EDIT: Actually your probably right...I think the Russian Empire was the only absolute monarchy at the time.

Absolute, probably. But all of the ones I listed had powerful monarchies that ran the state.

Absolute, probably. But all of the ones I listed had powerful monarchies that ran the state.

We had the same list practically. Oh...we forgot Imperial Japan. And was China already nationalist or was it still under the [Insert name here] Dynasty? I don't really recall.

We had the same list practically. Oh...we forgot Imperial Japan. And was China already nationalist or was it still under the [Insert name here] Dynasty? I don't really recall.

Nationalist since '03, off the top of my head.

Nationalist since '03, off the top of my head.

Oh... I didn't think it became nationalist until after WWI and Japan started making plays to take over the place once some of the European powers started to high tail it out of there and head back to their home country.

Oh... I didn't think it became nationalist until after WWI and Japan started making plays to take over the place once some of the European powers started to high tail it out of there and head back to their home country.

Nah - it was foregone conclusion after the death of the Dowager Empress. She was the only thing holding the Empire together, at the end. With Pu Yi only a child and a lack of anything resembling a strong Regency, the Nationalists were the only real option.

How is authority illegitimate? Are you saying the democratically elected government of the United States of America is illegitimate? Or just the monarchies, cause last I talked to a British person, they had nothing but love for the crown...same with the people of Monacoe (I spelled that wrong probably)

yeah.
there are also plenty of British people who have absolutely no use for any crown.
whether or not they support the republican movement.
a lot of them believe it is a waste of their tax dollars.


i cannot elaborate.
my opinion could not matter.
for if it did, would it not be an authority?

Nah - it was foregone conclusion after the death of the Dowager Empress. She was the only thing holding the Empire together, at the end. With Pu Yi only a child and a lack of anything resembling a strong Regency, the Nationalists were the only real option.

Thats right. But Communism won out in the end; which really isn't that bad a thing. Communism seems to be working out just fine for the Chinese at the moment; what with the fastest growing economy in the world. (Though this is a liability for the world economy as a whole, cause if China crashes we all suffer).

yeah.
there are also plenty of British people who have absolutely no use for any crown.
whether or not they support the republican movement.
a lot of them believe it is a waste of their tax dollars.


i cannot elaborate.
my opinion could not matter.
for if it did, would it not be an authority?

Sir, you perplex me.

How is authority illegitimate? Are you saying the democratically elected government of the United States of America is illegitimate? Or just the monarchies, cause last I talked to a British person, they had nothing but love for the crown...same with the people of Monacoe (I spelled that wrong probably)

*coughs* ... i dont lub our monarcy ... we got it its just a tradition i got to live with ..... next you will be saying that bloke Michael Moore's new film saying that the british national health service is ace and all brits lub it

(other than that found nothing i really diasgree with as a drunken ghet on this page :rolleyes:)

As for who should have the right to own the land, I'm not sure. But I'm in favor of Israel because it has contributed much more to the global society with it's economy and inventions etc. Is that racist?

I wonder, what would Israel be like if it never had all the foreign aid from America pumped into it..

*coughs* ... i dont lub our monarcy ... we got it its just a tradition i got to live with ..... next you will be saying that bloke Michael Moore's new film saying that the british national health service is ace and all brits lub it

(other than that found nothing i really diasgree with as a drunken ghet on this page :rolleyes:)

I didn't say everyone loves the monarchy in Britain just that one person. Joe Wheeler; he's a friend of mine, born and raised London. (He said he didn't really like the city though...never said why.)

(Let me clarify: Constitutionaly Monarchies are included with the absolute monarchies.)

If it is a functioning monarchy able to declare war and actually fight I would call this a stable monarchy...sort of...and to answer your question, there were quite a few: The German Empire, The British Empire, The Russian Empire, The Ottoman Empire...The Austro-Hungarian Empire... these are just the major players.

EDIT: Actually your probably right...I think the Russian Empire was the only absolute monarchy at the time.Most of the World decided to side with the so called Allied (Entente) Powers against the Central Powers..
maybe because WWI was originally sold (advertised) as the war of Democracy VS Dictatorship.

At the beginning of the War The most notorious Central powers were these 3 expansionist Dictators (Emperors):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/4b/Drei_Kaiser_Bund.jpg/340px-Drei_Kaiser_Bund.jpg

..waging war on the Democracies of England, France and the United States.. at the time Russia was advertised as a people's dictatorship.

like I said, this advertising campaign got most of the world to side with us:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f4/WWI.png/300px-WWI.png

as the war raged on.. it became evident that the Good guys "allied/entente" would not hesitate to enlist big or small bloody dictators on their side. (not such good guys)


it safe to say the Central power "emperors" were not as aware of the importance of playing(manipulate) the Public opinion.. they could not have as much experience.. as they never had to win elections. ;)

I am glad the entente won, as it was an advancement of the world movement towards democracy.. I just wish we did it without pacting with the Devils..

As for who should have the right to own the land, I'm not sure. But I'm in favor of Israel because it has contributed much more to the global society with it's economy and inventions etc. Is that racist?

I wonder, what would Israel be like if it never had all the foreign aid from America pumped into it..

5 possible things may have happened:

1: Israel would have been royally owned by its arab neighbors.

2: Israel would still be around but would be a total shithole. Worse than Iraq.

3: European countries would have taken the place of America with the funding thing and Israel may actually have been better off then it is now.

4: The Soviet Union, while it was around, would have begun supporting Israel because of its strategic position; or it may have done the exact opposite and aide the arab nations in destroying Israel.

5: Israel would have been just fine, worked out a peace treaty with no American ambitions for democracy in the Mideast attached and the world would be at peace. Muslim radicals would have nothing to bitch about and I would get some sleep.

ah fair enough ... im drunk enough to have messed up and miss read thats cool ... me thinks your mate and my gran will get on like a house on fire though ... to me the royals are a tax drain ... make em pay tax seen as they are one of the biggest land owners (and do nothing) and i might start to like em (i think the most goes for the rest of the mordernist brits)


but heck yeah most monicans(word?) must lub the monican monarcy ..... as soon as the royal blood line runs out over there monaco returns to being part of france and all there tax exemptions etc are gone ... heck even i as a non monico person have lub for the monico royalty .... more money to for the non royals rocks lol

ah fair enough ... im drunk enough to have messed up and miss read thats cool ... me thinks your mate and my gran will get on like a house on fire though ... to me the royals are a tax drain ... make em pay tax seen as they are one of the biggest land owners (and do nothing) and i might start to like em (i think the most goes for the rest of the mordernist brits)


but heck yeah most monicans(word?) must lub the monican monarcy ..... as soon as the royal blood line runs out over there monaco returns to being part of france and all there tax exemptions etc are gone ... heck even i as a non monico person have lub for the monico royalty .... more money to for the non royals rocks lol

Were cool. I take nothing personally; there is no point in it because life, unfortunatly, is just too damn short.

SNIPPAGE


Meh. So if the Central Powers had a better advertising campaign the war may have turned out differently?

EDIT:

I'm heading out for the night. Shh...its okay, I won't be gone forever...oh stop crying, your big boys now...y-...I love you too.

:D. Seriously, speak to ya later.

Meh. So if the Central Powers had a better advertising campaign the war may have turned out differently?the Entente had a better campaign.. thats why most of the world sided.

Were cool. I take nothing personally; there is no point in it because life, unfortunatly, is just too damn short.

cool .. im prob way oftopic with most of my replies anyway (and i definatly dont mean anything by my replies!!(just posting thoughts etc))) ... but agrees with life is to short hence im making the most of my wkend evenings ... unfortunatly you lot are on the ecieving end of some of my posts lol

and Blasphemous Priest you know if it had of been option number 5 you would have ended up agruing for fun in the best console thread so 5 is a null or good reason for israel being lol

Typical despicable Israeli policy.

I'll grant though that it isn't as despicable as the Israeli war-crimes against the Lebanese people last year.

Israel needs to return to its legal borders and behave decently or else it should be deprived of all outside support and left to fend for itself. Rewarding wickedness soils our hands.

Israel needs to return to its legal borders.

Border with Jordan: Check.
Border with Egypt: Check. Palestinians smuggle weapons into Gaza through it.
Border with Lebanon: Check. Acknowledged by the UN, and constantly attacked by Hizballah since the Israeli withdrawal in May 2000.
Border with Syria: Disputed. Israel is still in a state of war with Syria, thus a "border" is something irrelevant.

Did I miss any border?

Typical despicable Israeli policy.

I'll grant though that it isn't as despicable as the Israeli war-crimes against the Lebanese people last year.

Israel needs to return to its legal borders and behave decently or else it should be deprived of all outside support and left to fend for itself. Rewarding wickedness soils our hands.

/pokes (though nicely lol) wasnt there anti israel extremists hiding there or something ... agrees isael shouldnt have gone in ... but double pokes Lebanese for allowing extremists to hide in the borders with israel

(and gah if israel and it nieghbours were left with out any sort of bad publicity to sort themselves out wouldnt it be evben more insane/carnage over there?)


(and yes my last post of the night lol)

I bet the West (and Israel) are regretting calling for Palestinian democratic elections now, they don't seem to understand how the Middle East works, the only way to keep the Islamist nuts in check is to keep them either a) dead or b) imprisoned, for an example of this see how Egypt deals with the Muslim Brotherhood. The only good way that I can see a viable and stable independent Palestinian state is a PLO-Fateh one-party-state, this may sound yucky to some of you here but you all know it's the only solution. Hamas must be destroyed and an iron-fist nationalist secular government must be enforced.

Ok, my thoughts.

Over the past 50 years, it seems that Israelis and Arabs can't live together. One side will have to be destroyed in order for there to be peace.

One? Try both. Mark my words. If the Middle East emptied of all Arabs overnight, the Israeli leaders who rode in on the war drum will look elsewhere for enemies.

The only peace that will arrive in the Middle East is the peace of the grave when everybody there is dead and the land rendered utterly uninhabitable.

One? Try both. Mark my words. If the Middle East emptied of all Arabs overnight, the Israeli leaders who rode in on the war drum will look elsewhere for enemies.

The only peace that will arrive in the Middle East is the peace of the grave when everybody there is dead and the land rendered utterly uninhabitable.

It seems like the Arabs like eachother enough. Get rid of the Jews. That will make it better.

Mark my words. If the Middle East emptied of all Arabs overnight, the Israeli leaders who rode in on the war drum will look elsewhere for enemies.

You seem to have studied the psychological profile of every Israeli leader in the past, present and future.

It doesn't matter what the leader wants, but what the public wants. The Israeli public wanted to make peace with Egypt, so Begin (the right-wing hardliner, btw) made peace with Egypt, and evacuated the Sinai (a thing he never dreamed of doing, but it wasn't up to him). The Israeli public wanted to make peace with Jordan, so Rabin signed a peace treaty with Jordan. The Israeli public wanted to make peace with the Palestinians, so Rabin signed the Oslo accords, but then came several years of bombings against civilian population, and in response, the Israeli public said 'no' to peace, and chose Netanyahu as prime minister.

Do you think Olmert goes to Annapolis because he suddenly feels like making peace? It's because the recent decline in terrorist activities made the Israeli public more tolerant towards the Palestinians, and that caused the public opinion to move leftwards. Hamas, however, doesn't like it that things get better (like what happend with the Oslo accords), so it fires rockets on Israeli towns. How does the Israeli public react? It demands the government to make the rocket attacks stop. Knowing that a military operation is a terrible option, the government chose the easy option: Sanctions.

There is another thing: The Israeli public (the majority, for that matter) wants to completely disengage from Gaza. That means several things, such as closing all border passages, and cutting all power lines and fuel transports to Gaza. It can't, of course, be done instantly, because that would create a humanitarian disaster, and since Hamas turns its back to the Israeli warnings, the only option left is to signal them we're serious about it, and that they better find alternatives (and invest their money more in infrastructure and welfare, and less in guns and bombs).

Conclusion: The main (notice I didn't say 'only', I admit blame falls on both sides, but not equally, in my opinion) setback for peace was, is, and always will be the Hamas. It must be disarmed, denounced, deprived of funding, and eventually destroyed.

It seems like the Arabs like eachother enough. Get rid of the Jews. That will make it better.

Yeah, they like each other enough to where they continually blow the shit out of each other because one side believes Cloister wore a Blue Hat while the other says it was a Red Hat.

You seem to have studied the psychological profile of every Israeli leader in the past, present and future.


I'm a cynic. I've bet on national leaders doing stupid things to increase human misery and if they don't, that someone else would mess it up every single time. And so far, I haven't been wrong.


It doesn't matter what the leader wants, but what the public wants. The Israeli public wanted to make peace with Egypt, so Begin (the right-wing hardliner, btw) made peace with Egypt, and evacuated the Sinai (a thing he never dreamed of doing, but it wasn't up to him). The Israeli public wanted to make peace with Jordan, so Rabin signed a peace treaty with Jordan. The Israeli public wanted to make peace with the Palestinians, so Rabin signed the Oslo accords, but then came several years of bombings against civilian population, and in response, the Israeli public said 'no' to peace, and chose Netanyahu as prime minister.

And you don't think that a certain idiot of an Jew who didn't like the peace accords and shot Rabin to death had anything to do with it?

Half the problem with Israel is that the Orthodoxes have way too much power and are almost as bad as Iranian mullahs. And they aren't interested in co-existence.


Conclusion: The main (notice I didn't say 'only', I admit blame falls on both sides, but not equally, in my opinion) setback for peace was, is, and always will be the Hamas. It must be disarmed, denounced, deprived of funding, and eventually destroyed.

As far as I'm concerned, the blame falls equally on both sides.

It seems like the Arabs like eachother enough. Get rid of the Jews. That will make it better.

Like Iran and Iraq liked each other? Sunni's and Shia's don't like each other very much in case you hadn't noticed. They fracture up on clan/tribal lines.

Yeah, they like each other enough to where they continually blow the shit out of each other because one side believes Cloister wore a Blue Hat while the other says it was a Red Hat.

Only in Iraq. You don't see that much everywhere else.

And you don't think that a certain idiot of an Jew who didn't like the peace accords and shot Rabin to death had anything to do with it?

Yigal Amir. One of Israel's unofficial national heroes right up there with Meir Kahane and Baruch Goldstein.

Half the problem with Israel is that the Orthodoxes have way too much power and are almost as bad as Iranian mullahs. And they aren't interested in co-existence.

Of course this day and age criticizing anything even lightly draping itself in Jewishness is considered the same as dressing up in an S.S. uniform for the Holocaust Memorial, while crying out how Muslims are evil, troglodyte zealots will earn you cheers and showers of flower petals.

Like Iran and Iraq liked each other?
Iran and Iraq waged war cause CIA put in front of USAs government two options:
- to leave Iran alone with their islamic revolution
- to use Sadam (that CIA brought on power) and block expansion of harsh and anti-"western" Iranian islamic ideas in area
Sadam accepted with both hands, cause those Iranians ideas threatened his own power structure.

Entire Middle East and some or most "hot spots" on the world will stay as that till time worlds powers decide different, as through entire history. Bad thing in story that right now only one power is left. Long live military industry, isn't it?

And you don't think that a certain idiot of an Jew who didn't like the peace accords and shot Rabin to death had anything to do with it?

That idiot Jew indeed caused trouble, but his acts were counter productive. Most of the Israeli public reacted to the assassination by making Rabin and his ways a symbol, thus strengthening the Israeli left. Besides, I mentioned earlier in the thread that Rabin wasn't only one leading the accords. Peres and Beilin were the main force behind the accords, and they lived on.

So no, the reason was not the assassination. The bombings that took place during the entire process caused it.

Half the problem with Israel is that the Orthodoxes have way too much power and are almost as bad as Iranian mullahs. And they aren't interested in co-existence.

That is wrong. the Orthodoxes indeed have power, but not nearly enough to control the government (and they focus their attention on social justice and things like that, because they don't have enough seats in the parliament for things like security and foreign afafirs).

The problem you are talking about is that of the national-religious jews (called "crocheted skullcaps" by most Israelis), the people behind the entire settlement enterprise, who miraculously find their way into the budget committee almost every parliamentary session. They have a bit more influence, which is a real problem. They were chosen as the Israeli public's reaction to the recent Intifada. I hope, however, that my people will be smart enough not to let them pull this off again by not voting for them in the next election (in which I'll be able to vote, for the first time, yay!:)).

The settlments are a painful issue to the Israeli society, because it splits the public in two, almost equal in size. I believe that massive evacuation of settlements will be possible only if the israeli public realizes that bargaining chips are no longer needed, and that can be achieved by a single thing: Destroying Hamas.

Yigal Amir. One of Israel's unofficial national heroes right up there with Meir Kahane and Baruch Goldstein.

I hope you were being cynic. Yigal amir is maybe the most hated person in Israel.

EDIT: Btw, I'm sorry for all grammar and spelling mistakes. I hope reading my posts doesn't give you a headache. :P

That idiot Jew indeed caused trouble, but his acts were counter productive. Most of the Israeli public reacted to the assassination by making Rabin and his ways a symbol, thus strengthening the Israeli left. Besides, I mentioned earlier in the thread that Rabin wasn't only one leading the accords. Peres and Beilin were the main force behind the accords, and they lived on.

Really now? From what I remember, the Oslo accords were for a 5 year period, and if Rabin had lived, would have been made permanent at the end of that time. His death certainly did a lot to derail any possible peace process for a long time. After that, the hawks cruised to power and we all know how well that went.


That is wrong. the Orthodoxes indeed have power, but not nearly enough to control the government (and they focus their attention on social justice and things like that, because they don't have enough seats in the parliament for things like security and foreign afafirs).

The problem you are talking about is that of the national-religious jews (called "crocheted skullcaps" by most Israelis), the people who are behind the entire settlement enterprise, who miraculously find their way to the budget committee almost every parliamentary session.


Aren't they of the same group? Like the one which produced the radicals who torched crematoriums?


That is a real problem and it's also against public opinion. I hope my people will be smart enough not to let them pull this off again in the next election.


The inner cynic says they'll be there. And they'll pull it off.


The settlments if a painful issue to the Israeli society, because it splits the public in two, almost equal in size. I believe that massive evacuation of settlements will be possible only if the israeli public realizes that bargaining chips are no longer needed, and that can be achieved by a single thing: Destroying Hamas.

So much for another attempt at the Oslo peace accords.

Like Iran and Iraq liked each other?

Iranians aren't Arabs.

Maybe because it is the Arabs who are currently trying to destroy Israel and have since before it was even founded (look into the Mufti's riots in the 20s and 30s).
And they are the ones currently killing us.
If only someone could go back in time and beat the ever loving crap out of the Mufti before he started spouting his hate.

None of this would have happened to this extent.

Typical despicable Israeli policy.

I'll grant though that it isn't as despicable as the Israeli war-crimes against the Lebanese people last year. A little biased? And Hezbollah was minding their own business right?


Israel needs to return to its legal borders
Done.

and behave decently
Why? NO nation behaves decently.

or else it should be deprived of all outside support and left to fend for itself. Rewarding wickedness soils our hands.
Okay Enjoy thermonuclear war when Israel gets owned and implements the Samson option.

Iranians aren't Arabs.

Well fine. Persians.

Well fine. Persians.

Aryans, to be exact. They are quite explicit that they are not Arabs.

Okay Enjoy thermonuclear war when Israel gets owned and implements the Samson option.

Since the US administration loves to yak about their much touted missile defense system for containing "rogue" states, why hasn't it put an insurance policy on Israel by surrounding it with them?

I'm sure they could spin it as "protection for our Middle East allies".

Aryans, to be exact. They are quite explicit that they are not Arabs.

Aryans are Persians? Now I'm confused. I thought the ethnic makeup or 1940s Germany and current day Iran were two entirely different things.

Really now? From what I remember, the Oslo accords were for a 5 year period, and if Rabin had lived, would have been made permanent at the end of that time. His death certainly did a lot to derail any possible peace process for a long time. After that, the hawks cruised to power and we all know how well that went.

Actually, I can't tell.These things (the bombings and the rise of the Hamas, the assassination and the rise of the Israeli right) happened in the same time, making it hard to determine what caused the other. It's still an open wound in the Israeli society (we marked 12 years since the murder [according to Jewish calendar] last thursday).

Aren't they of the same group?

No. The Orthodoxes are a bunch of black-suited religious people who think Israel should be a religious state. They're not influential enough to achieve that (and they never will be, as most of the Israelis are secular).

The national-religious Jews don't really care about the form of regime, but thay want Israel to rule the biblical Land of Israel. They established settlements in order to insure that, and that's why they oppose evacuation so much. Yigal Amir, the known assassin, was one of them, and Baruch Goldstein (the shooter in the cave of Machpela) was one of them. They are the real danger. From time to time, the Israeli secret service arrests some of those that are suspected in planning attacks on Arabs.

The inner cynic says they'll be there. And they'll pull it off.

I really hope not. We'll see, and be sure it'll be one of the major issues in the next election.

So much for another attempt at the Oslo peace accords.

Hamas wasn't strong enough back then, and that's what made the accords possible. I don't it's possible today.

Actually, I can't tell.These things (the bombings and the rise of the Hamas, the assassination and the rise of the Israeli right) happened in the same time, making it hard to determine what caused the other.

If Rabin had survived, things might have turned out a lot differently, I'll tell you that much.


No. The Orthodoxes are a bunch of black-suited religious people who think Israel should be a religious state. They're not influential enough to achieve that (and they never will be, as most of the Israelis are secular).

The national-religious Jews don't really care about the form of regime, but thay want Israel to rule the biblical Land of Israel. They established settlements in order to insure that, and that's why they oppose evacuation so much. Yigal Amir, the known assassin, was one of them, and Baruch Goldstein (the shooter in the cave of Machpela) was one of them. They are the real danger. From time to time, the Israeli secret service arrests some of those that are suspected in planning attacks on Arabs.


So you've got two slightly different groups of religious fundamentalist crackpots running around.


Hamas wasn't strong wnough back then, and that what made the accords possible. I don't it's possible today.

Arafat was strong then, and alive too, but that's moot. He's dead now. Hamas is the one in power now. Saying that there's no possible chance of a peaceful resolution and acting on that is the same as saying you don't want a peaceful resolution.

Hamas leadership didn't get to where it was by being stupid. I suspect stupidity in Palestine gets you a bullet real quick. They may talk big to look strong to their supporters, but it's unlikely they actually believe half the crap they spout.

The key is getting Israeli leadership and Hamas both on the table without them shooting each other. It might work from there.

And of course, if it does look like it will work, some idiot hardliner from either side will come along and screw it up.

Aryans are Persians? Now I'm confused. I thought the ethnic makeup or 1940s Germany and current day Iran were two entirely different things.

European "Aryan" and Iranian "Aryan" are two different things.

So you've got two slightly different groups of religious fundamentalist crackpots running around.

As I said, the Orthodoxes don't cause trouble. They just worry about their own voters. The other group in indeed an annoying problem, but the difference between them and Hamas is that they get arrested and judged for even planning to attack Arabs. They can't move a finger without the Israeli security service tracking it. We hold our crackpots back. The Palestinians don't.

Arafat was strong then, and alive too, but that's moot. He's dead now. Hamas is the one in power now. Saying that there's no possible chance of a peaceful resolution and acting on that is the same as saying you don't want a peaceful resolution.

Hamas leadership didn't get to where it was by being stupid. I suspect stupidity in Palestine gets you a bullet real quick. They may talk big to look strong to their supporters, but it's unlikely they actually believe half the crap they spout.

That's a common mistake. Yes, they actually do mean all the crap they say. For a proof of that, you can take a look in every official and unofficial document they have - Their website, their doctrine, their platform, their school textbooks and their everyday expressions, and to all of that you can add the rocket attacks and suicide bombings.

The key is getting Israeli leadership and Hamas both on the table without them shooting each other. It might work from there.

No sane Israeli politician would do that. Hamas is to the Israeli public as Al Qaeda is to the American public.

The Palestinian Authority still exists. Abbas is still the Palestinian prime minister. He is the one to talk to. He should be given the support over Hamas.

And of course, if it does look like it will work, some idiot hardliner from either side will come along and screw it up.

Perhaps...

come the rapture...

can i have your car?

you seem like that woman in the movie Jaws who is clutching her own kid in the water, thinking that if she dies, kid dies too.

Enjoy your hell...i wont be goin...ill be dancing naked commiting random acts of witchcraft celebrating the end of the B.S. brought on by a homicidal multi-personality sexist excuse of a diety. :mad:

ohh, and ill be finally able to marry my boyfriend of 5 years, no thanks to your homophobic theology.

-Rafe
militant minded tonight.

[QUOTE=Messiah Jesus;13166848]Less than 1/2% of the Jewish population of Israel would care what Jesus of Nazareth said. Unfortunately, this is so even in the rest of the world. There will be no peace in Israel until the Prince of Peace returns.
SNIPPED FOR LENGTH QUOTE]

Guess what, Egypt never wanted peace with Israel until they got their asses handed to them for the fourth straight time. Force worked there and Sadat made peace with Israel.

Turning the other cheek has brought nothing but misery for us. Fighting back has preserved Israel and made us proud to be Jewish. We no longer have to hold our heads in shame as people call us a bunch of a pathetic kikes to be exterminated. People know the Jews can fight and won't take shit.

You have broken the one, and only commandment of NS: you have told the truth, and used facts. Sinner!

Israel is still occupying Gaza, even if the military presence is gone. Not gone, reduced... Anyway, who controls the power? Who controls the borders? The airways? The waterways? Who controls the movement into and out of the area? The supplies? No, the occupation is not over, Gaza has just been reduced to the worlds largest prison. And that includes the West Bank, which is also a part of the Palestinian territories.

But sure, feel free to disagree. Doesn't matter, when the world in general disagrees with you. :)

Israel needs to occupy it. They were invaded by people who genuinely loved Hitler. I'm sorry innocents have to be occupied, but hey: Israel isn't turning it into a "ghetto", so they are not trying to collectively kill a race, contrary to the cries of "NAZIS!" They just need the land as a buffer-zone. On their one day of peace and forgiveness (Yon Kipper) a bunch of buttheads tried to invade them. They hold the land for defensive measures. It's fully justifiable. They were not the aggressors.

The only time they are aggressors is when they're threatened (or when some asshatter repossess international property; namely a certain canal). Also fully justifiable.

We hold our crackpots back. The Palestinians don't.

More like can't, but if they wanted peaceful coexistence, you'd think Israeli would work hand in hand with Abbas to smack down the Palestinian crackpots. So far, to me it looks more like "It's your problem until they hit us, then it's your problem x2."


No sane Israeli politician would do that. Hamas is to the Israeli public as Al Qaeda is to the American public.

Al Qaeda is an idea now. The definition has been stretched to the point where it doesn't really exist as a coherent organization.

And before Rabin, who would have thought of making peace with the Palestinians?


The Palestinian Authority still exists. Abbas is still the Palestinian prime minister. He is the one to talk to. He should be given the support over Hamas.


Is Israel even doing that? I haven't seen it yet.

More like can't, but if they wanted peaceful coexistence, you'd think Israeli would work hand in hand with Abbas to smack down the Palestinian crackpots. So far, to me it looks more like "It's your problem until they hit us, then it's your problem x2."

That's exactly how it should be. We gave them guns and trained their police force, so they could do that, but after the Hamas claimed Gaza by force, it also took those weapons, and is now using them against us.

Since Abbas can't smack down the crackpots, we have to do it for him, and unfortunately, that sometimes results in harming civilians. that's what happens when the enemy shoots and then runs to hide between school kids (or even worse - launch rockets from school yards).

Right now, my government is considering a large military operation in Gaza. Most Israelis don't want that, and even the government itself doesn't want that, but the rocket attacks must stop. That's why we try anything else (like collective punishments) before even thinking about the worst option.

Al Qaeda is an idea now. The definition has been stretched to the point where it doesn't really exist as a coherent organization.

Right, but in the eyes of Israelis - So is Hamas (there are other organizations. 'Hamas' is used as a general name for them because it is the strongest), or at least what it represents.

And before Rabin, who would have thought of making peace with the Palestinians?

Actually, almost no one thought about the Palestinians at all before Rabin, because it was only about 3 years before him that the Palestinians started the Intifada. Rabin was the security minister when is started, and everyone, including him, thought back then that it would end very quickly. He used to say "brake their bones" in order to suppress the riots, but when images of M-16 in front of stones (and I think that before 1993 there were only stones) got to the mainstream media, Israelis realized there's a real problem here that needs to be solved. So yes, many people thought about making peace with the Palestinians before Rabin.

Is Israel even doing that? I haven't seen it yet.

I think that is why they're planning to meet in Annapolis soon. Let's see what comes out of that.

EDIT
Recent headline from Israeli media - "Hamas: We will not thwart Annapolis. Hamas official denies planning of major attack in Israel."
Oh well...

You have broken the one, and only commandment of NS: you have told the truth, and used facts. Sinner!
Actually this is wildly untrue, as is most of the stuff that has been said in this thread.

As Israel's "New Historians", notably Avi Schlaim, Benny Morris, and Ilan Pappe have proven through extensive archival evidence, the common history of Israel is wrought with a high degree of incorrect information. As they explain, notably in Schlaim's "The Debate About 1948", the original history of Israel was biased on many fronts, mainly due to the fact it was written by participants (thus not objective analysts), in many cases had propaganda purposes (such as documents released directly after 1948 that attempted to build a positive image of Israel to garner Western support for the regime), and any number of easily understandable reasons for a new state that at that time was still conceivably in danger.

As Schlaim and Morris in particular have shown quite extensively, the views on the policies of the Arabs are wrought with incorrect information. From their epic demolition of the "driving Israel into the sea" myth of 1948, in which they proved that Arab states were largely acting in self-interest, attempting merely to grab lands that were largely designated for the Palestinians (also disproving Arab support for the Palestinians throughout the conflict). As the authors point out, Israel and Jordan had engaged in talks for years prior to 1948 working out a defacto partition of the Mandate (with tacit British approval, given the British still held a great deal of power in Jordan) wherein the Jews would take one half of the Mandate, and the Jordanians would take the West Bank. The major issue that emerged in 1948 was that Jerusalem had never been discussed by the two parties, and for this reason it was the object of the vast bulk of fighting between the two nations.

Returning to the point about Egypt however, both Schlaim and Morris have proved virtually beyond refutability that Egypt attempted not only to establish a peace treaty with Israel post-1948 (mainly along the lines of Egypt receiving Sinai, Gaza, and a strip of the Nagev), but also prior to the 1956 crisis, and in the early 60s, when Nasserist peace feelers were rejected by the post Ben-Gurion government due to internal domestic politics (mainly Ben-Gurion hammering his successor for being too weak, making any peace talks with Egypt a very dangerous topic to pursue).

In any case, anyone who wants to have any idea what they are talking about really needs to read the works of Schlaim, Morris (in particular), and Pappe. If you haven't...well, you're probably working off very biased information, and you're probably making a damn fool out of yourself in an argument with anyone who has any real knowledge of the situation.

Unfortunately of course, the vast majority of people on NS will skip this post, because not only does it present inconvenient facts, but its also too long, and actually requires looking things up to prove one's point.

Final Note: The Palestinians did not love Hitler. Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, tried to ally with Hitler to get a Palestinian state in the Mandate, however he was a very divisive leader, and his power base eroded very quickly over the course of the war. To view his opinions as that of all Palestinians is not only wrong, but racist to the extreme.

Aryans are Persians? Now I'm confused. I thought the ethnic makeup or 1940s Germany and current day Iran were two entirely different things.
Actually, Hitler had a great affinity for Persia as he felt that they were a kindred blood, and the birthplace of the Aryan race. Technically speaking, Persians are an Aryan people along with various other smaller ethnic groups in the region. They are very much NOT Arab, and in fact Arab-Persian rivalry and hostility has been a longer source of tension than has been the more recent Shi'a-Sunni split in the same region (as that largely emerged solely because the Sassanid dynasty converted to Shi'ism in order to distinguish their nation from the Sunni Ottomans).

Although "Arabs" are not a people in the way that "Germans" or "French" people are (as they worship different religions, speak different dialects, live in multiple countries, etc) they are also wildly different from Persians, Turks, Israelis, and other ethnic groups (some would throw the Kurds in with the Persians, Turks, etc group, but given the lack of Kurdistan I didn't bother).

This is Israel just asking to be attacked by Hezbollah again..

Many things (And yes, I read it all).

The "New Historians" have reasons to say what they say as the normal historians do. They come in a post-Zionist ideology, and therefor pointing them as correct over other historians is simply choosing one bias over another. My guess is that there will never be a completely unbiased documentation of the Israeli-Arab history, and the only thing left to do is simply to read it all and decide what you think is correct.

This is Israel just asking to be attacked by Hezbollah again..

Perhaps in the same way those rocket attacks from Gaza are Palestinians just asking for this Israeli response.

Perhaps in the same way those rocket attacks from Gaza are Palestinians just asking for this Israeli response.
Well the Zionist Empire will continue it's oppression regardless, the only way to stop it is by a protracted people's war, to make Israel continue occupy Arab countries and ground them down in constant asymmetrical attack. Hezbollah proved that a determined force can stand up to the Zionist Empire.

Israel needs to occupy it. They were invaded by people who genuinely loved Hitler. I'm sorry innocents have to be occupied, but hey: Israel isn't turning it into a "ghetto", so they are not trying to collectively kill a race, contrary to the cries of "NAZIS!" They just need the land as a buffer-zone. On their one day of peace and forgiveness (Yon Kipper) a bunch of buttheads tried to invade them. They hold the land for defensive measures. It's fully justifiable. They were not the aggressors.

The only time they are aggressors is when they're threatened (or when some asshatter repossess international property; namely a certain canal). Also fully justifiable.
First off: Calling the Suez Canal international property is the same as calling the Panama Canal (now solely owned by the Panama Government) an international property, or Iranian oil fields international property. The Suez Canal is a domestic source of revenue for Egypt with broad implications on trade, no different from oil deposits or other resources. Its ownership by Britain and France was simply the vestigial remant of unequal treaties signed during the Colonial era.

Secondly: As Israel's own defense ministers (notably Dayan in comments revealed post-mortem) have recently been revealed as saying, Israel was in the fact the aggressor in multiple instances. The 1967 war, for which most of the blame should go the USSR for trying to manipulate the region to enhance its own prestige, was however set-up by Israel. The reasons for this, as Dayan explained, was designed and constistent incursions by Israeli tractors and other equipment in the DMZ (where they were not allowed), where they would keep moving until fired upon by the Syrians, which would then allow the Israelis to pound the Syrians with artillery fire. Dayan also admitted that the invasion of the Golan Heights was not about national security, but rather was the result of pressure by Israeli farmers in the area surrounding the Heights who were very interested in acquiring the fertile soil of the Heights themselves. Dayan dismissed the threat of Syrian attacks into Israel, and artillery (noting that Israel had longer range, and a stronger airforce allowing them to wipe out artillery positions that threatened them with ease, as they did in a number of larger retaliatory strikes in the 1960s) were the real factor, and called the decision to invade the worst of his career.

The Israelis were also the aggressors in the 1956 conflict. The Egyptians were actually the best nation in the region at stopping Palestinian incursions into Israel, almost stopping 100% of them by the early 1950s (Jordan expended the most effort to stop incursions, however they had a larger border to defend). It was only after the Lavon affair and a number of other aggressive Israeli moves that Nasser decided to start arming Fedayin to attack Israel through the Strip.

Lastly, the Gaza Strip is not a "buffer" for anything. Egypt has zero interest whatsoever in attacking Israel today, as not only does Israel vastly outgun them, but US aid is directly tied to good behaviour from the regime in regards to Israel. If you do not believe the Palestinians are oppressed, or held in a "ghetto" I suggest you visit the region. It would not surprise me if the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip are the single most oppressed people in the modern world, except for possibly certain areas of the West Bank. Honestly, until you've seen conditions on the ground, seen the checkpoints, talked to the people, seen the poverty, disease, seen the shelled out schools, hospitals, homes, etc, you have no idea just how destitute these people are. The Palestinians have one of the highest rates of college graduation and literacy in the Middle East...yet despite that their unemployment is among the highest, and per capita income among the lowest. Just as an anecdote, a Palestinian civilian once came to where I lived at the time, I believe for educational purposes. She described how her grandfather had died, because the ambulance carrying him to the closest hospital (actually only minutes away) was stopped by an Israeli checkpoint, which forced them to take him out of the ambulance, wait for an ambulance to come from the other side of the checkpoint, then procede to the hospital. Needless to say, he died on the way to hospital after getting into the second ambulance, which took too long to arrive. He had only suffered a mid-level heart attack, so he had a good chance at survival had he reached surgery in time. Stories such as that are far from uncommon.

Well the Zionist Empire will continue it's oppression regardless, the only way to stop it is by a protracted people's war, to make Israel continue occupy Arab countries and ground them down in constant asymmetrical attack. Hezbollah proved that a determined force can stand up to the Zionist Empire.

Yes, of course, the evil Zionist empire, seeking to take over the world and make everyone bow down to the almighty sheep. Oh, I can't wait for the sequel!

Yes, of course, the evil Zionist empire, seeking to take over the world and make everyone bow down to the almighty sheep. Oh, I can't wait for the sequel!
Well, here's the prequel: Jews have made everyone bow down to their fake almighty God.

Perhaps in the same way those rocket attacks from Gaza are Palestinians just asking for this Israeli response.Rocket attacks from Gaza are already a response. One to 60 years of international injustice performed against Arabs.

The "New Historians" have reasons to say what they say as the normal historians do. They come in a post-Zionist ideology, and therefor pointing them as correct over other historians is simply choosing one bias over another. My guess is that there will never be a completely unbiased documentation of the Israeli-Arab history, and the only thing left to do is simply to read it all and decide what you think is correct.
...this is really not true. The "New Historians" are true historians. As in they are academics, virtually every one of them is a professor at a Israeli University (I believe Pappe may have actually gotten a job at an American University, I'm not positive about that), and they use the same objective approach as the historians of World War Two, Vietnam, the Civil War, etc.

Its really quite simple to understand. The first history that is written about events is typically written by the victors, and thus has obvious biases. Just look at how men like Amherst are idolized in much early American history, his distribution of smallpox ridden blankets ignored. As time moves on, the actual participants die off, and archival documents that were once either too controversial, or possibly a threat to security, are slowly revealed, allowing people to get a true picture of what happened. Do you really believe that a real history of the story behind the War in Iraq will emerge in the next 10, or even 20 years? It will take a great deal of time for the men involved to lose sway, and for those documents to see the light of day.

Luckily for us, Israel has instituted the good old fashioned British rules regarding archival documents, namely that after a certain period of time (I'm afraid I have forgotton how long, I think it is in the vicinity of 30 years) almost all documents are released, and only a few are given another period of secrecy. In both the British and Israeli case it is rare for a document to be made secret again, with the only example springing to mind for me being the British archival evidence about Roger Casement, which they still refuse to allow to become public...for quite obvious reasons for anyone who knows anything about Ireland, and Casement's impact therein.

Back to the main point however, what this means is that the "New Historians" have access to all the data, notes, and official documents that earlier chroniclers could only have dreamed about. Its much easier to understand that David Ben-Gurion was adamently pro-transfer when the archival evidence about his comments on that subject get revealed, as opposed to merely his public comments which obviously have different intentions.

Finally, its actually really interesting to see what is happening to the "New Historians", as not only where they bashed at their inception as liars, anti-Israel, calling for Israel's destruction, blaming it with "original sin" etc, but nowadays some are slowly sliding away from their earlier stances. Benny Morris is the most obvious example, as he has in recent years moved to the extreme right, and now espouses a viewpoint more in line with that issued in the post-1948 era than things he himself wrote. One of the most interesting examples of this was his vicious attacks on Walt and Mearsheimer for their "The Israel Lobby", where they quoted him extensively...and he promptly said they were full of shit...at which time they simply quoted him even more to show just how much of a 180 he's done in recent years. Its quite stunning actually.

...this is really not true. The "New Historians" are true historians. As in they are academics, virtually every one of them is a professor at a Israeli University (I believe Pappe may have actually gotten a job at an American University, I'm not positive about that), and they use the same objective approach as the historians of World War Two, Vietnam, the Civil War, etc.

Its really quite simple to understand. The first history that is written about events is typically written by the victors, and thus has obvious biases. Just look at how men like Amherst are idolized in much early American history, his distribution of smallpox ridden blankets ignored. As time moves on, the actual participants die off, and archival documents that were once either too controversial, or possibly a threat to security, are slowly revealed, allowing people to get a true picture of what happened. Do you really believe that a real history of the story behind the War in Iraq will emerge in the next 10, or even 20 years? It will take a great deal of time for the men involved to lose sway, and for those documents to see the light of day.

Luckily for us, Israel has instituted the good old fashioned British rules regarding archival documents, namely that after a certain period of time (I'm afraid I have forgotton how long, I think it is in the vicinity of 30 years) almost all documents are released, and only a few are given another period of secrecy. In both the British and Israeli case it is rare for a document to be made secret again, with the only example springing to mind for me being the British archival evidence about Roger Casement, which they still refuse to allow to become public...for quite obvious reasons for anyone who knows anything about Ireland, and Casement's impact therein.

Back to the main point however, what this means is that the "New Historians" have access to all the data, notes, and official documents that earlier chroniclers could only have dreamed about. Its much easier to understand that David Ben-Gurion was adamently pro-transfer when the archival evidence about his comments on that subject get revealed, as opposed to merely his public comments which obviously have different intentions.

Finally, its actually really interesting to see what is happening to the "New Historians", as not only where they bashed at their inception as liars, anti-Israel, calling for Israel's destruction, blaming it with "original sin" etc, but nowadays some are slowly sliding away from their earlier stances. Benny Morris is the most obvious example, as he has in recent years moved to the extreme right, and now espouses a viewpoint more in line with that issued in the post-1948 era than things he himself wrote. One of the most interesting examples of this was his vicious attacks on Walt and Mearsheimer for their "The Israel Lobby", where they quoted him extensively...and he promptly said they were full of shit...at which time they simply quoted him even more to show just how much of a 180 he's done in recent years. Its quite stunning actually.

pwned

She described how her grandfather had died, because the ambulance carrying him to the closest hospital (actually only minutes away) was stopped by an Israeli checkpoint, which forced them to take him out of the ambulance, wait for an ambulance to come from the other side of the checkpoint, then procede to the hospital.

You do know that Hamas tried to smuggle explosives into Israel by ambulances so many times I can't even count them, right? Great, you're full of details about shelled schools and hospitals, but you forget to mention the fact that these same organizations use those schools and hospitals as shelters for their activists, and many times an IDF operation was cancelled because they didn't want to bomb a certain structure fearing civilians might be inside. And of course, how comfortable it is to describe how Palestinians suffer, completely ignoring hundreds of people who will never walk again, nor will ever move a finger, simply because they chose to hang out in this pub and not the other.

Give it up. This is not the topic here. You're entering debates that will never end, and will never convince anyone. I beg you, don't reply to this message, because I don't have the time for this kind of a discussion.

You can claim I'm biased towards a certain side, but it'll be a lie to say that you are not, so let's not deviate from the thread's topic and stop bullshiting (both of us) about pointless matters.

Well, here's the prequel: Jews have made everyone bow down to their fake almighty God.

Huh? Another Jewish-conspiracy fan? most Jews in Israel are secular.

Rocket attacks from Gaza are already a response. One to 60 years of international injustice performed against Arabs.

You know what, I don't think I'll be able to convince you, so what's the point?
I don't mind debating with people who disagree with me, and think Israel is not innocent, but I don't have the time to argue pointlessly with people who seem to think Israel is some kind of a satanic evil that seeks to rule the world. Let's agree that you keep your exremist approach to the situation, and I won't bother telling you otherwise, ok?

stuff

What? Nothing you said contradicts what I said. Those historians still come in the name of post-Zionism, and the same way they have access to the information, so do historians like Anita Shapira, with their rather Zionist approach, who claim the opposite. "Enough research would support any theory". I know all about those old documents, I read about them and some of them are even published in newspapers. It's not new. Have you heard about the historian Zvi Yavetz? He claims that those "new historians" are just a part of a western-world trend in recent years, of "myth-smasher" historians.

Hello! I'm back and will respond to all of you one by one by order of posting. Lucky first, The cutting off of electricity to Palestine started from 15 minutes a day and increased 15 minutes each day rocket attacks continues. This is a last-resort type measure.
Last resort? Pfft! I don't believe that for a second. There are other ways, ways that won't hurt and alienate the civilians.

Would you rather a full-scale attack on Palestine? No, neither would I,
How do you know I wouldn't? Maybe it would cause less long-term suffering among the civilian population, and be more effective in stopping the rocket attacks.

and these rocket attacks must be stopped.
Here we agree.

The motive is not collective punishment but pressure to the people to encourage the stop of attacks.
Hah! When they shut off the power when someone else fire rockets, that is, by definition, a collective punishment. Regardless of the second motive, namely to put pressure on the palestinians to stop the attacks.


As Israel is not obliged to provide electricity to Palestine (Palestine could generate its own electricity if it chooses to attempt to destroy Israel in my opinion), this is not a punishment, only a type of sanction.
Actually, they are - as the occupiers they are. Especially after blowing up the main power plant in Gaza during their last big incursion. They seem to like punishing the civilian population...

:confused: This thread should be titled "Hammas approve rocket attacks on innocent civilians". You know, on account of their *rocket attacks* on Israel that started it. A little blackout for 15 minutes or so every now and then is hardly more noteworthy. :rolleyes:
That Israel openly initiates a policy to punish people who have nothing to do with the rocket attacks is indeed noteworthy, and worthy of condemnation.

Is the fact that Hamas has little regard for human life news to you?

Oh, and you should try to live under such conditions yourself. After a month or two, you could tell us if rolling blackouts at random times and indetermined lengths of time feels like a punishment or not.

Greatly put. Somehow since september everyone has forgotten how the leading political power in rule in Palestine declared that the rockets were 'Happy new year welcome back presents to all Israeli children for the up coming school year.' haha funny that Israel is being accused of collective punishment. talk about the KILLING of innocent civilians - not to mention children, ON PURPOSE.
So because Hamas are bastards that fire rockets indescriminate at Israel, it's OK for Israel to hurt innocent palestinians at random too? Nice ethics you display.

And it's not collective punishment what Hamas does - Hamas doesn't have the power to punish Israelis - it's just plain old terrorism.

The authorities on both sides of the border have the blood of children on their hands. That does not justify the collective punishment of other civilians.
Israel needs to occupy it. They were invaded by people who genuinely loved Hitler. I'm sorry innocents have to be occupied, but hey: Israel isn't turning it into a "ghetto", so they are not trying to collectively kill a race, contrary to the cries of "NAZIS!" They just need the land as a buffer-zone. On their one day of peace and forgiveness (Yon Kipper) a bunch of buttheads tried to invade them. They hold the land for defensive measures. It's fully justifiable. They were not the aggressors.

The only time they are aggressors is when they're threatened (or when some asshatter repossess international property; namely a certain canal). Also fully justifiable.
Regardless of this, the collective punishment of civilians is not in any way justifiable.

I disagree with a lot of your post, but can't be bothered to get into that endless debate. I will say this though: Israel isn't turning Gaza into a ghetto. They have turned into a prison.
You do know that Hamas tried to smuggle explosives into Israel by ambulances so many times I can't even count them, right? Great, you're full of details about shelled schools and hospitals, but you forget to mention the fact that these same organizations use those schools and hospitals as shelters for their activists, and many times an IDF operation was cancelled because they didn't want to bomb a certain structure fearing civilians might be inside. And of course, how comfortable it is to describe how Palestinians suffer, completely ignoring hundreds of people who will never walk again, nor will ever move a finger, simply because they chose to hang out in this pub and not the other.

Give it up. This is not the topic here.

It is a part of it. But let's make it more general instead of relying on anecdotes, shall we?

Mr. Holmes also said the number of Palestinian patients allowed to cross into Israel for health care had fallen from 40 a day in July to less than five a day in September.

“Denial of freedom of movement for medical reasons would appear to be a breach of international humanitarian law,” he said.
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=24415&Cr=palestin&Cr1=

The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) today voiced concern about reports from the Gaza Strip that a shortage of anaesthetics, caused by Israeli import restrictions, has resulted in the closure of surgery rooms and health-care centres.

“The economic noose continues to tighten around the necks of the people of Gaza, who are being manifestly punished as part of a political strategy,” said Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator John Holmes.

OCHA is also concerned about the inability of people with emergency health conditions to leave the Gaza Strip to obtain medical care elsewhere, a UN spokesperson said in New York.

The closures and restrictions have resulted in increasing shortages of many basic food items and supplies in Gaza, according to OCHA.
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=24372&Cr=palestin&Cr1=