NationStates Jolt Archive

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."
"You should try to get some new power sources... Sorry we blew up your last one. And withhold resources to make your current one work... And... And..." :rolleyes:

The only thing they try to do is to avoid fulfilling their obligations under international law.

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...

Was there an accusation of such a plan to begin with? Either way, you can bet that someone's going to screw it up.

Then Israel's going to drop some bombs on Palestine, and Palestine is going to lob some rockets at Israel. And we'll be back to square one.

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

Here's an idea. Draw a nice big line about 2-3km wide between Palestine and Israel. Make sure Jerusalem sits in the center of it. Declare the line a no man's zone with instant death penalty for anyone inside it, regardless of who it is. Make Jerusalem the only free access zone for both sides, but police it with an external force.

Staff the line with somebody both sides hate. I don't know, maybe Russians. Putin would probably be amenable to a billion dollar bribe for that. Or probably less pressure on Iran and sweeter oil deals. Whatever.

Lastly, put an ultimatum. Any attack that crosses the border, i.e. airstrikes, rocket launches, regardless of originator, will be automatic grounds for immediate destruction of both Palestine and Israel to the last man woman and child. Scorched earth policy, starting with Jerusalem. Make sure that it's very clear that both sides will be held accountable to the destruction of their people, personal selves and lands.

Realpolitik concerns aside. That's the only way you'll probably get peace there. Either through superior firepower or utter destruction.

Is that correct? So if I became an Israeli citizen, and started the 'National Socialist Israeli Workers Party' I and all other members would be executed?!?

"You should try to get some new power sources... Sorry we blew up your last one. And withhold resources to make your current one work... And... And..."

They never had a "last one". The bombed powerplant in Gaza wasn't damaged beyond repair. Israel funded the repairs, of course. They have a powerplant today, but it has a terrible network. That's what happens when you invest foreign money in explosives and not in infrastructure.


Was there an accusation of such a plan to begin with?

Yes.

Then Israel's going to drop some bombs on Palestine...

Olmert has an interest in renewing the peace process. He knows an unjustified bombardment on Gaza would result in an angry public demanding him to step down.

But, and it's a serious 'but', if the rocket attacks continue, I don't know what will happen.

-the idea-

For this kind of an idea to work, you need both sides to accept it. They don't.

Is that correct? So if I became an Israeli citizen, and started the 'National Socialist Israeli Workers Party' I and all other members would be executed?!?

I assume you're talking about the execution of Nazi war criminals. So the answer to your question is no. The rule applies to Nazi war criminals, meanins those who took part in the WWII genocide, and were convicted in Israeli court.

I assume you're talking about the execution of Nazi war criminals. So the answer to your question is no. The rule applies to Nazi war criminals, meanins those who took part in the WWII genocide, and were convicted in Israeli court.

But just to confirm, what would happen if someone created a Nazi Party in Israel?

But just to confirm, what would happen if someone created a Nazi Party in Israel?

Since Nazism contradicts the basic principals of democracy (let alone the fact that Israel is a Jewish state), it'll be outlawed, like in any other rational country.

Since Nazism contradicts the basic principals of democracy (let alone the fact that Israel is a Jewish state), it'll be outlawed, like in any other rational country.
You serious? Outlaw parties that want to overthrow the present system? If that were true I would have been in jail for being a DSP member long ago.

Also since when was Israel an ethnic state, what about it's Arab population?

Yes.


Factually based or conspiracy nut based?


Olmert has an interest in renewing the peace process. He knows an unjustified bombardment on Gaza would result in an angry public demanding him to step down.

But, and it's a serious 'but', if the rocket attacks continue, I don't know what will happen.

Like I said, someone will screw up the peace meeting, or shortly thereafter. Either a hardliner idiot from Palestine or expansionist fruitcake from Israel.

Maybe Olmert will be another Rabin. Maybe nothing will come out of the meeting. Whatever the outcome, you can bet that it'll be screwed up one way or another.


For this kind of an idea to work, you need both sides to accept it. They don't.

They don't have to accept it. They just have to realize that they'd be committing mass suicide if they tried anything stupid. And so far, I haven't seen anyone in power liking the idea of suicide for their personal selves when engaging in a "great struggle".

It has to be an utterly overwhelming display of power though.

Since Nazism contradicts the basic principals of democracy (let alone the fact that Israel is a Jewish state), it'll be outlawed, like in any other rational country.

The BNP is as close to a Nazi party as you can get. They aren't outlawed though.

You serious? Outlaw parties that want to overthrow the present system? If that were true I would have been in jail for being a DSP member long ago.

I don't know what DSP is. Is it an anti-democratic organization?

It is a besic principle of democracy, that it has to defend itself. Outlawing anti-democratic movements, is one way to do it.

I don't know what DSP is. Is it an anti-democratic organization?

It is a besic principle of democracy, that it has to defend itself. Outlawing anti-democratic movements, is one way to do it.

It's the Democratic Socialist Perspective, and our platform openly advocates the overthrow of bourgeoisie capitalist representative democracy. What you seem to advocate is an authoritarian two-party capitalist state where you can't try and change the present system.

Also since when was Israel an ethnic state, what about it's Arab population?

Arab-Israeli citizens are equal in rights. There are Arab parliament members and Arab parties... Hell, there are even Arab ministers (and show me a single Arab country that would allow a Jewish minister).

Also, every Israeli citizen must serve in the military for some time, but the Arab population doesn't have to, due to their religion (which forbids them from fighting a fellow muslim).

Arab-Israeli citizens are equal in rights. There are Arab parliament members and Arab parties... Hell, there are even Arab ministers (and show me a single Arab country that would allow a Jewish minister).

Also, every Israeli citizen must serve in the military for some time, but the Arab population doesn't have to, due to their religion (which forbids them from fighting a fellow muslim).
I know that, you don't have to tell me, I was replying to you saying Israel was a 'Jewish state', which clearly isn't true.

What you seem to advocate is an authoritarian two-party capitalist state where you can't try and change the present system.

The type of system does not matter. There were even prime ministers who thought about changing the system. The point here is whether a movement is or isn't anti-democratic. If it is - it's outlawed. That's it.

Huh? Another Jewish-conspiracy fan? most Jews in Israel are secular.And yet being Jewish and subsequently Israeli is entirely based on religion. There is no such thing as being genetically Jewish or Israeli.

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?Israel seeks to rule Palestine, that's enough of satanic evil.

I know that, you don't have to tell me, I was replying to you saying Israel was a 'Jewish state', which clearly isn't true.

Sorry, my misunderstanding.

Israel is defined as a Jewish state by its declaration of independence (which functions as a symbolic contitution), and by Israel's 'Basic Laws' (which function as a de-facto constitution). That definition is mainly to ensure that Israel will remain the Jewish homeland.

There is no such thing as being genetically Jewish or Israeli.

Israeli? No. Jewish? Of course yes. Judaism is not only a religion, it's a tradition, it's a people. I'm not a religious person, I'm not Jewish by religion, but I definitely am Jewish by race, and belong to the Jewish people. It's the same for some Arab countries. There is no such thing as being genetically Syrian, but there is being genetically Arab.

Israel seeks to rule Palestine, that's enough of satanic evil.

Some Israelis do, some don't. Some Palestinians seek to rule Israel, some don't. It goes both directions, and no one is innocent. Stop pretending one side is.

Sorry, my misunderstanding.

Israel is defined as a Jewish state by its declaration of independence (which functions as a symbolic contitution), and by Israel's 'Basic Laws' (which function as a de-facto constitution). That definition is mainly to ensure that Israel will remain the Jewish homeland.

If it were truly an ethnic country then you would expect racial laws.

If it were truly an ethnic country then you would expect racial laws.

Ok, so Israel is not truly an ethnic country. It's defined a Jewish-state by its own citizens, but has no racial laws.

Israeli? No. Jewish? Of course yes. Judaism is not only a religion, it's a tradition, it's a people. I'm not a religious person, I'm not Jewish by religion, but I definitely am Jewish by race, and belong to the Jewish people. It's the same for some Arab countries. There is no such thing as being genetically Syrian, but there is being genetically Arab.Judaism is a religion, it's not a people.

Some Israelis do, some don't. Some Palestinians seek to rule Israel, some don't. It goes both directions, and no one is innocent. Stop pretending one side is.All Israelis seek to rule Palestine. That's how Israel was created in the first place. It is the result of fanatics moving to Palestine with the fixed aim to create a state there regardless of the population already living there and in direct hostility against the population already living there. Zionism and the subsequent creation of Israel was a mistake and will always remain one. It's like giving half of Pennsylvania to the Amish. Or half of a southern US state to illegal catholic immigrants.

Has anyone here actually been to Israel? Do any of you actually live here? Hmm, I'm going to guess that they answer is about 95% "no".

Every single day here, Al-Qasam rockets are being launched from Gaza into the surrounding Israeli areas, like Sderot and very close to Ashkelon. Soon these rockets will hit a target, like a school where children will be killed. As soon as even 1 child is killed in this region, the Israelis will back a more militant government and the government will authorize the reoccupation of Gaza and the results will be worse than anything you see here.

Oh, and once those rockets can reach any major Israeli city completely, like Ashkelon or Tel Aviv, this whole thing will be over.

Some of you people need to do a little research before you make your comments.

Factually based or conspiracy nut based?

Based on experience. Israeli public would say exactly what you said - They'll probably fuck it all up - But of course pointing it to Hamas.

Like I said, someone will screw up the peace meeting, or shortly thereafter. Either a hardliner idiot from Palestine or expansionist fruitcake from Israel.

Yeah, that's what usually happens. I'm as frustrated as you are.

Maybe Olmert will be another Rabin. Maybe nothing will come out of the meeting. Whatever the outcome, you can bet that it'll be screwed up one way or another.

Olmert will not be another Rabin. I promise you that. He is a politician, not a leader. Currenty, I'm afraid that there's no real Israeli leader. Since Rabin, we've held elections once in two years, in average. That's called instability! Unfortunately, also none of those seeking to be elected are leaders. We're facing a decision between one idiot and another. Things will get better only when that dying generation will make room for fresh blood.

The BNP is as close to a Nazi party as you can get. They aren't outlawed though.

Do they contradict principles of democracy?

Do any of you actually live here?

yes.

Has anyone here actually been to Israel? Do any of you actually live here? Hmm, I'm going to guess that they answer is about 95% "no".

Every single day here, Al-Qasam rockets are being launched from Gaza into the surrounding Israeli areas, like Sderot and very close to Ashkelon. Soon these rockets will hit a target, like a school where children will be killed. As soon as even 1 child is killed in this region, the Israelis will back a more militant government and the government will authorize the reoccupation of Gaza and the results will be worse than anything you see here.

Oh, and once those rockets can reach any major Israeli city completely, like Ashkelon or Tel Aviv, this whole thing will be over.

Some of you people need to do a little research before you make your comments.

Given the Jewish/Israeli conduct in the past 110 years, Israel needs not wonder about being targeted with rockets. I'd say that's a natural reaction to foreign intrusion.

Judaism is a religion, it's not a people.

A people is defined by common history, culture, language and traditions.
The Jewish people have their history, culture, language and traditions.

It seems you don't know much about Judaism if you claim it's just a religion.

The type of system does not matter. There were even prime ministers who thought about changing the system. The point here is whether a movement is or isn't anti-democratic. If it is - it's outlawed. That's it.

But who defines 'democracy', I for one define democracy as revolutionary communism, while the bourgeoisie define it as a representative constitutional republic. What is stopping one group from saying 'my group is democratic, yours is not'.

A people is defined by common history, culture, language and traditions.
The Jewish people have their history, culture, language and traditions.

It seems you don't know much about Judaism if you claim it's just a religion.
Yeah, try applying that to somewhere like America, seriously ethnically homogeneous states went out of date long ago, and they will continue to do unless immigration and multiculturalism is stopped entirely.

But who defines 'democracy', I for one define democracy as revolutionary communism, while the bourgeoisie define it as a representative constitutional republic. What is stopping one group from saying 'my group is democratic, yours is not'.

Do you want me to sum up a bit of Israel's basic laws, to give you a perspective about what's considered democracy in israel? I'm serious, I have no problem writing it here. But I'm off to lunch, so I'll see your reply when I get back.

They never had a "last one". The bombed powerplant in Gaza wasn't damaged beyond repair. Israel funded the repairs, of course.
No, no they didn't...

Kittaneh was appointed PEA head nine months ago, shortly after the IDF bombing put the vital Gaza power plant out of operation. Originally from Tulkarem, he was formerly a university professor, and chairman of the Electrical Engineering Department at Bir Zeit University in Ramallah.

Kittaneh explained that Sweden had provided funding to purchase seven new transformers - of a different size and lesser capacity than the six destroyed - and that more transformers were still needed.

He added that, under the terms of the 1994 Paris Protocol, negotiated under the Oslo Process, Palestinians could only buy equipment from, or with the agreement of, Israel - and Israel does not have the matching transformers available on its market. In addition, to pay for any equipment under the present international sanctions, Palestinians must get Israel to release money from the frozen Palestinian tax revenues - but Israel is only willing to do so toward paying Israeli suppliers.
http://www.metimes.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20070608-063048-6715r

Oh, and that was from an article dated june 8th, 2007, which also states:

Nearly a year after an Israeli airstrike, Gaza's power plant cannot yet resume full operation to supply vitally-needed electricity to one of the most densely populated areas on earth - just as demand is about to peak during the hot summer months.

International sanctions and Israeli restrictions are to blame for the Palestinian inability to restore the plant to its full former capacity.
Continuing, Kittaneh said that he believed: "We shouldn't be the ones to ask - the donors should ask the Israelis to compensate for this [destruction and damage] - but the donors are very quiet."

Donors are also now paying some $8-million-a-month for fuel, purchased from Israel, to operate the Gaza power plant at what, today, is only half-capacity, he said.

They have a powerplant today, but it has a terrible network. That's what happens when you invest foreign money in explosives and not in infrastructure.
Another mistake.

You should have said "didn't have corrupt leaders stealing the money." That would have been more accurate.


Olmert has an interest in renewing the peace process. He knows an unjustified bombardment on Gaza would result in an angry public demanding him to step down.
Really?

Anything to back up that claim? Because it seems to me that the majority simply wouldn't care.

Arab-Israeli citizens are equal in rights.
...are almost, kinda equal in rights. At least formaly...

Institutional, legal, and societal discrimination against Israeli Arabs continued.

with for example:
The 2003 report of the Orr Commission, which the government established following the police killing of 12 Israeli-Arab demonstrators and a Palestinian in October 2000 (see sections 1.a. and 2.b.), stated that government handling of the Arab sector was "primarily neglectful and discriminatory," was not sufficiently sensitive to Arab needs, and that the government did not allocate state resources equally.

In 2004 the government adopted an interministerial committee's proposals to act on some of the Orr Commission's findings, including: establishment of a government body to promote the Arab sector; creation of a volunteer, national civilian service program for Arab youth; and the creation of a day of national tolerance. At year's end the government implemented neither these proposals nor the original Orr Commission recommendations. On January 6, the government directed a Deputy State Attorney to reexamine the 2005 decision by the PID to close its investigation into the 2000 killings (see sections 1.a. and 2.b.). At year's end there had been no further action.
In September MK Effie Eitam called for expulsion of most Palestinians from the West Bank and removal of Israeli Arabs, whom he called "traitors in the first degree," from the political system. According to the Israel Democracy Institute's annual Democracy Index, released on May 9, 62 percent of Jewish citizens believed the government should encourage Arab citizens to emigrate.
Israeli Arabs were underrepresented in most universities, professions, and businesses. In June a researcher from Haifa University and Sikkuy reported only 2.8 percent of the country's high technology workers were Arab. The Haifa University researcher also noted70 percent of Arabs with college degrees in high technology fields failed to find work in the country between 2001 and 2005.

Well‑educated Israeli Arabs often were unable to find jobs commensurate with their qualifications. According to a Civil Service Commission report on Israeli-Arab representation in government, in 2004 only three of 809 Finance Ministry employees were Israeli Arabs, while the Foreign Ministry, with 933 employees, employed seven. Approximately 56 percent of all Israeli-Arab government workers were employed by the Health Ministry, including government hospitals.

And that's the careful assesment of the US department of State. (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78854.htm)

Do you want me to sum up a bit of Israel's basic laws, to give you a perspective about what's considered democracy in israel? I'm serious, I have no problem writing it here. But I'm off to lunch, so I'll see your reply when I get back.

See, you have just answered your own question, democracy in Israel is defined by the bourgeoisie conservative construct of the republic, complete with laws protecting property (bourgeoisie privilege), limited democracy to ensure oligarchy and the like, much like most countries of the world. Democracy as a term is used much, but it's true meaning rarely used.

Based on experience. Israeli public would say exactly what you said - They'll probably fuck it all up - But of course pointing it to Hamas.

Naturally.


Yeah, that's what usually happens. I'm as frustrated as you are.


That's why I had that idea earlier. Israel and Palestine can't be trusted to create peace. It'd be a lot easier to have an external power step in.


Olmert will not be another Rabin. I promise you that.


I was thinking along the lines of coming up with a peace accord and getting gunned down by some dolt.


Currenty, I'm afraid that there's no real Israeli leader. Since Rabin, we've held elections once in two years, in average. That's called instability! Unfortunately, also none of those seeking to be elected are leaders.


Good odds are, they're just there to line their pockets. They're politicians. What do you expect?


We're facing a decision between one idiot and another. Things will get better only when that dying generation will make room for fresh blood.


Do you really believe that?


Do they contradict principles of democracy?

If by contradicting you mean expelling/exterminating everyone but people with white skin in Britain while spouting ideas of race superiority, yeah. They contradict its principles.

Democracy was supposed to be equality for all after all.

See, you have just answered your own question, democracy in Israel is defined by the bourgeoisie conservative construct of the republic, complete with laws protecting property (bourgeoisie privilege), limited democracy to ensure oligarchy and the like, much like most countries of the world.

Did I say anything about property?

stuff

About the powerplant: Unfortunately I don't have sources for my claims. What I said I read in the newspaper, so I guess I'll have to leave your claims unanswered..

About olmert: I'm a part of what's called "the Israeli public" and I know what people around me and in my country think (it is a small nation after all). Plus, there are polls all the time, presented in almost every news broadcast. Olmert needs support. Unjustified bombardments will not give him support.

About the Arab citizens:
Effie Eitam called for expulsion of most Palestinians from the West Bank and removal of Israeli Arabs
So a stupid hard-right idiot speaks. So what? Things like that will never happen. On every idiot like him (and I truely hate him) there are ten Israeli officials who would say the opposite.

The other numbers you quoted are indeed correct, and they represent a real problem in israel, I'm the first one to admit it. Though formaly Arab-Israelis are equal in rights, they do get discriminated because of their origin, but that is by no means a government decision. They're all citizens of the same country, but you can't expect decades of tention between the Jewish and Arab population of Israel to be unnoticed, and there are institutions who take affirmative action in order to diminish injustice (the university of Haifa, for example). Still, they are not considered second-class citizens, and most of them are proud to have Israeli citizenship.

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

I think theres Genetic proof otherwise. And it still doesn't justify the occupation.

This is not occupation. What don't you understand about that?.

The occupying forces in the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem, the control of all of Gazas borders....bit of a contradiction there.....


British owned the land?.

No, they did not. There was bugger all difference from who owned it under the Ottoman administration.

Yes my friend, in the same way which it builds schools to train kindergardeners to fire machine guns at Israelis?.

Heres where Israelis go to learn to fight for Israel
http://www.newstatesman.com/200709030003



But first, no not the entire world disagrees, ?.

Just 170 plus nations out of 198, as far as I recall. Are they all Arabs?


Mark Twain noted that what became Israel was pretty much deserted. Indeed
?.

A quote used without mentioning he arrived in high summer in an area with a low population. He said the same of Greece.

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?.

Yet the UN survey compiled in 1946/47 shows nearly 80% of produce coming from land held by Arabs. The source of your idea is the long discredited "From Time Immemorial" by Joan Peters, which repeated much of the rantings of Kahan and co verbatim as fact.

Has anyone here actually been to Israel? Do any of you actually live here? Hmm, I'm going to guess that they answer is about 95% "no".

Every single day here, Al-Qasam rockets are being launched from Gaza into the surrounding Israeli areas, like Sderot and very close to Ashkelon. Soon these rockets will hit a target, like a school where children will be killed. As soon as even 1 child is killed in this region, the Israelis will back a more militant government and the government will authorize the reoccupation of Gaza and the results will be worse than anything you see here.
.

Yeah, poor old Israel is taking a pounding allright......

It was a pretty quiet year, relatively speaking. Only 457 Palestinians and 10 Israelis were killed, according to the B'Tselem human rights organization, including the victims of Qassam rockets. Fewer casualties than in many previous years. However, it was still a terrible year: 92 Palestinian children were killed (fortunately, not a single Israeli child was killed by Palestinians, despite the Qassams). One-fifth of the Palestinians killed were children and teens - a disproportionate, almost unprecedented number. The Jewish year of 5767. Almost 100 children, who were alive and playing last New Year, didn't survive to see this one.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=907708

I was thinking along the lines of coming up with a peace accord and getting gunned down by some dolt.

I don't think that would happen again. Back then people thought it would never happen in Israel, and that's why Rabin wasn't wearing a bulletproof vest. Now that the possibility is out there, in the air, it's different.
But that's just what I think.

Good odds are, they're just there to line their pockets. They're politicians. What do you expect?

Nothing, that's why I don't like politicians.

Do you really believe that?

Yes, actually. There are so many students, young men and women who, if given the staff, can lead this coutry out of the depression. I know some personally. the problem is that most sane people decide not to enter politics.


If by contradicting you mean expelling/exterminating everyone but people with white skin in Britain while spouting ideas of race superiority, yeah. They contradict its principles.

Then I think it should be outlawed.

I found Jimmy Carter's book on the Palestinian situation quite enlightening.

article

The entire article you linked to is biased as hell. I don't recall such events took place, where are the reports? Where is the proof? Also, it only says the number of Palestinian killed, it doesn't give details about how many of them were militia members. Also, note that "children" in the Palestinian sense of the word, means "minors", those who are not 18 yet, while there are cases of 16 and 17 year-old "children" taking part in battles against the IDF.

I don't think that would happen again. Back then people thought it would never happen in Israel, and that's why Rabin wasn't wearing a bulletproof vest. Now that the possibility is out there, in the air, it's deifferent.
But that's just what I think.


Eh, all that means is that the potential assassin will have to plan better before he hits. Or aim better. Politicians generally don't wear ballistic helmets.


Nothing, that's why I don't like politicians.


You and me both.


Yes, actually. There are so many students, young men and women who, if given the staff, can lead this coutry out of the depression.


You see, that's the problem. The old guard jealously hold their power. Using the finances, influence and sheer presence of their positions, they pretty much establish a clique of the elite. By the time they're phased out, any idealist who joined in has either long since given up or sold out to the political elite and has too many skeletons to really reform anything without committing political suicide.

It's a vicious cycle really. And the only way you can break out of it is doing something extremely drastic like waiting until every bigwig politician is assembly and bringing the roof down on their heads.

You don't just need the old guard to die out. You need them to die out suddenly and completely.

That's the only way you'll get fresh blood in.


Then I think it should be outlawed.

Well a lot of things should be. But isn't.

It's a vicious cycle really. And the only way you can break out of it is doing something extremely drastic like waiting until every bigwig politician is assembly and bringing the roof down on their heads.

You don't just need the old guard to die out. You need them to die out suddenly and completely.

That's the only way you'll get fresh blood in.

There is another way. I requiers most people to not be stupid and to not vote for the same guy over and over again. Remember the 'Likud'? Do you know how they mainly keep their strength? They use fear, and claim that "If you vote for the labour party, attacks will renew" and things like that. They try to influence the public's heart and not its mind. It's the most corrupt party in the parliament, and personally I despise it. I can go on Likud-bashing all day long...

Actually politically I support the Fateh party, but yeah a compromise with Hamas will have to be done at some stage.

About the powerplant: Unfortunately I don't have sources for my claims. What I said I read in the newspaper, so I guess I'll have to leave your claims unanswered..
Indeed.

About olmert: I'm a part of what's called "the Israeli public" and I know what people around me and in my country think (it is a small nation after all). Plus, there are polls all the time, presented in almost every news broadcast. Olmert needs support. Unjustified bombardments will not give him support.
I'm not convinced. And I'm sure the bombardments can be justified sufficiently, at least in the eyes of the Israeli authorities. "Possible terrorists" alone go a long way.


About the Arab citizens:

So a stupid hard-right idiot speaks. So what? Things like that will never happen. On every idiot like him (and I truely hate him) there are ten Israeli officials who would say the opposite.
And how many Israelis agree with him? I mean...
The poll further revealed that 63 percent of Jewish Israelis agree with the statement, "Arabs are a security and demographic threat to the state." Thirty-one percent of Jews did not agree. Agreement with the statement was strongest among Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox Jews and low-income earners.

Forty percent of Jews believe "the state needs to support the emigration of Arab citizens" and just 52 percent don't agree with the statement.

Thirty-four percent also agreed with the statement that "Arab culture is inferior to Israeli culture." Fifty-seven percent did not agree with the statement.

Half of Israeli Jews express fear or discomfort when hearing people speaking Arabic. Eighteen percent of Jews said they feel hate when hearing Arabic speakers.
"Racism is becoming mainstream. When people talk about transfer or about Arabs as a demographic time-bomb, no one raises their voice against such statements. This is a worrisome phenomenon," Bachar Ouda, director of the Center for the Struggle Against Racism, said on Tuesday.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=697458&contrassID=1&subContrassID=7

I wouldn't trust that it would never happen, but I hope it won't...


The other numbers you quoted are indeed correct, and they represent a real problem in israel, I'm the first one to admit it. Though formaly Arab-Israelis are equal in rights, they do get discriminated because of their origin, but that is by no means a government decision.
From the link above:
Responding to the report, Hadash Chairman MK Mohammed Barakeh said racism against Israeli Arabs "is a direct result of official racist and discriminatory policies" dictated by the government.
From the US dept. of State, again:
Institutional, legal, and societal discrimination against Israeli Arabs continued.
I don't believe this is something that that the governments hands are clean on.

Actually politically I support the Fateh party, but yeah a compromise with Hamas will have to be done at some stage.

In compromise, both sides need to give something up. Hamas isn't willing to give anything up. Given that its ultimate goal is the destruction of israel, I don't think Hamas can be a partner. Besides, as I mentioned earlier in the thread - For Israelis, Hamas is not to be negotiated with. Any politician attempting to do so and remain in office in insane.

Fatah needs to be supported and assisted in a goal to disarm Hamas. Then a reasonable peace process could take place.

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.

There are two ways of addressing someone's point on this forum, the civil way and the asshole way; guess which of the two you picked. You could have dropped the first two words from this statement entirely because it reeks of 'flamebait' in an otherwise civil debate.

Even if the British didn't sell the land directly, they were the occupiers at the time, having seized the land from the Ottoman Turks in WWI, naming it the British Mandate of Palestine.

Why do you keep lumping the groups in that area as 'Arabs' when a good portion at the time were either Turks or Palestinians, given who had been controlling that swathe of land. This was for the original purchases.

The intent of these land purchases was NOT to make a nation but to make economically viable settlements.

The Arabs who were in the area are the ones who objected; the Turks are the ones who sold the land in the 19th century. But the British were occupying and they fueled the anti-Israeli sentiments by permitting the existence off terrorist groups that later would be the army of the nation.

The British weren't listening to the locals and allowed for limited immigration, and for the Jews to form different groups, including the Irgun who deliberately targeted Arab civilian populations. This limited immigration wasn't part of the land purchases.

In compromise, both sides need to give something up. Hamas isn't willing to give anything up. Given that its ultimate goal is the destruction of israel, I don't think Hamas can be a partner. Besides, as I mentioned earlier in the thread - For Israelis, Hamas is not to be negotiated with. Any politician attempting to do so and remain in office in insane.

Fatah needs to be supported and assisted in a goal to disarm Hamas. Then a reasonable peace process could take place.
Well I have to say if Fateh is willing to do it with foreign arms, I wouldn't shed a tear with Hamas were destroyed, but yeah I can't see Fateh having the stomach for that kind of bloodbath.

I can't see Fateh having the stomach for that kind of bloodbath.

Not now. With enough support and funding they will.

The problem is: Can we trust them? During Oslo we gave them guns, we funded them and we trained their people, but eventually they turned against us. How can Israel be sure it won't happen again?

IDF seems to be making the false assumption that private land ownership entails national sovereignty, and they are entirely different things.

Not now. With enough support and funding they will.

The problem is: Can we trust them? During Oslo we gave them guns, we funded them and we trained their people, but eventually they turned against us. How can Israel be sure it won't happen again?

I seriously doubt it.

Not now. With enough support and funding they will.

The problem is: Can we trust them? During Oslo we gave them guns, we funded them and we trained their people, but eventually they turned against us. How can Israel be sure it won't happen again?

You have to consider who is leading the group. If the leader is acting a certain way, the general sentiment will swing in that direction if the leader is popular enough. How popular is Abbas?

IDF seems to be making the false assumption that private land ownership entails national sovereignty, and they are entirely different things.

He made many false assumptions. Even as an Israeli I don't agree most of the things he said, this being only one of them. Simply ignore people you believe are flamers.

How popular is Abbas?



(Translation from Hebrew)

September 11th, 2007:
73% oppose the Hamas' taking over of Gaza.
59% support for Abbas, 36% support for Haniya (Hamas).
52% called Haniya to resign his office as prime minister.
Support of Hamas down from 33% to 31%, as support of Fatah rise from 43% to 48%, since last July.


Here, if you can read Hebrew. (http://www.jcpa.org.il/JCPA/Templates/showpage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=2&TMID=178&FID=398&PID=0&IID=8135)

There is another way. I requiers most people to not be stupid and to not vote for the same guy over and over again.

And how do you propose to do that?

He made many false assumptions. Even as an Israeli I don't agree most of the things he said, this being only one of them. Simply ignore people you believe are flamers.

The real irony is that he's an American Jew. Maybe it's something in the water.

And how do you propose to do that?

That's an inner Israeli issue. We'll just have to wait for the next election and see.

The (............) IDF.


The list in Hebrew is the most accurate, however I have to make do with the English version.
http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Casualties.asp


Can we trust them? During Oslo we gave them guns, we funded them and we trained their people, but eventually they turned against us..

Well, try not rushing in thousands of settlers this time, and getting rid of those that are there....that might help.

That's an inner Israeli issue. We'll just have to wait for the next election and see.

Yeah, but the caveat you specified was that the Israeli voting block not be stupid. People can be smart as individuals, but as a group, they're dumb as rocks.

Yeah, but the caveat you specified was that the Israeli voting block not be stupid. People can be smart as individuals, but as a group, they're dumb as rocks.

And given that I can't predict the future, I have nothing to add. Recent polls among Israelis show that there's significant support for negotiating with Abbas, and even moderate support for negotiating with Syria (which is rather new), so only time will tell.

The list in Hebrew is the most accurate, however I have to make do with the English version.

The numbers of israeli deaths listed there is substantially lower than it should be.

Note that this list is only until May 2006, and still contains much more names. (http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-%20Obstacle%20to%20Peace/Palestinian%20terror%20since%202000/Victims%20of%20Palestinian%20Violence%20and%20Terrorism%20sinc)

EDIT
I must go. I'll be back tonight or tomorrow, so don't expect my replies. Have a nice day.

He made many false assumptions. Even as an Israeli I don't agree most of the things he said, this being only one of them. Simply ignore people you believe are flamers.

I'd be curious to know what IDF said that was incorrect. Could you provide any examples?

(Translation from Hebrew)

September 11th, 2007:
73% oppose the Hamas' taking over of Gaza.
59% support for Abbas, 36% support for Haniya (Hamas).
52% called Haniya to resign his office as prime minister.
Support of Hamas down from 33% to 31%, as support of Fatah rise from 43% to 48%, since last July.


Here, if you can read Hebrew. (http://www.jcpa.org.il/JCPA/Templates/showpage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=2&TMID=178&FID=398&PID=0&IID=8135)

Which I can't read. But thanks for the stats and the translation. :)

Israel is a monster, and the United States of America needs to stop supporting them so blindly. What have we gotten ourselves into?

Down with the corrupt government of Israel, I say.

Has anyone here actually been to Israel? Do any of you actually live here? Hmm, I'm going to guess that they answer is about 95% "no".

Every single day here, Al-Qasam rockets are being launched from Gaza into the surrounding Israeli areas, like Sderot and very close to Ashkelon. Soon these rockets will hit a target, like a school where children will be killed. As soon as even 1 child is killed in this region, the Israelis will back a more militant government and the government will authorize the reoccupation of Gaza and the results will be worse than anything you see here.

Oh, and once those rockets can reach any major Israeli city completely, like Ashkelon or Tel Aviv, this whole thing will be over.

Some of you people need to do a little research before you make your comments.

lived there for 10 years

I think theres Genetic proof otherwise. And it still doesn't justify the occupation.


The occupying forces in the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem, the control of all of Gazas borders....bit of a contradiction there.....



No, they did not. There was bugger all difference from who owned it under the Ottoman administration.


Heres where Israelis go to learn to fight for Israel
http://www.newstatesman.com/200709030003




Just 170 plus nations out of 198, as far as I recall. Are they all Arabs?



A quote used without mentioning he arrived in high summer in an area with a low population. He said the same of Greece.


Yet the UN survey compiled in 1946/47 shows nearly 80% of produce coming from land held by Arabs. The source of your idea is the long discredited "From Time Immemorial" by Joan Peters, which repeated much of the rantings of Kahan and co verbatim as fact.

A. The British did own the land, you're wrong, this is a fact. I don't know where your nation count of 170/198 comes from but seems like your recollection is very source-based.
Your nice little link, which I have read in fact, speaks of an army-type simulation camp that prepares kids who are about to enter the Israeli army at 18 to do so. Many kids, from abroad, would have a bit of a shock entering the army at 18, and need some easier preparation. This is MUCH MUCH different than kindergardeners being taught that the Jew is the devil and that blowing themselves up for their country as long as they kill other innocent civilians is an honorable thing to do. Thats brainwashing.

Israel is a monster, and the United States of America needs to stop supporting them so blindly. What have we gotten ourselves into?

Down with the corrupt government of Israel, I say.

Hey look its another person who reads one headline once in a while, sees a forum about it and replies foolishly.
You have not said one smart thing in this post.
Israel is a monster. No.
USA is suporting them completely. No.
USA does stuff blindly. No.
'You got yourself into this'. No.
Israel's government is corrupt. No.
Hm, your 0/5, please try again next time.

Israel , the United States of America needs to stop supporting them so blindly. Yes. indeed.
.
Israel is a monster.No. ... Israel is just in the wrong place. But its not a monster.
.
What have we gotten ourselves into?A 21 century Crusade, a war on terror, a quagmire.
.
Down with the corrupt government of Israel, I say.Corruption is not the difference maker.. there are dozens of Governments more corrupt than this one.

Hey look its another person who reads one headline once in a while, sees a forum about it and replies foolishly.
You have not said one smart thing in this post.
Israel is a monster. No.
USA is suporting them completely. No.
USA does stuff blindly. No.
'You got yourself into this'. No.
Israel's government is corrupt. No.
Hm, your 0/5, please try again next time.

While I don't agree with Oakondra on most of his/her statement, I'd like to point out that that simply responding with a "No" isn't a very persuasive or compelling way of debating... Especially if people were to counter with random links, say.

Israel faces corruption 'epidemic' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6276071.stm)
Olmert faces new corruption probe (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7044335.stm)
Israeli police question Olmert in corruption investigation (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/09/news/mideast.php)
Poll in november 2006: Olmert, Peretz and Lieberman seen as most corrupt ministers (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/785373.html)

And given that I can't predict the future, I have nothing to add. Recent polls among Israelis show that there's significant support for negotiating with Abbas, and even moderate support for negotiating with Syria (which is rather new), so only time will tell.

I guess. But what do you predict?

No. ... Israel is just in the wrong place. But its not a monster.

Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein. - Friedrich Nietzsche



* He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze into the abyss, the abyss also gazes into you.

No. ... Israel is just in the wrong place. But its not a monster.Yes, it is a monster, because it has chosen this wrong place to be in. And everyone who supports Israel is saying that taking land away from Arabs is justified, because that's how Israel came into existence.

Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein. - Friedrich Nietzsche



* He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze into the abyss, the abyss also gazes into you.
But Arabs were not monsters before the Jews decided to create their state in the Arabs' land out of their strange ideology to be divinely chosen to possess that land. The Jewish desire for Palestine and the Balfour declaration and everything that came of it are inherently evil. And there can never be an excuse for that. Jews have come in aggression to Palestine and they have never ceased their aggression until this very day. Israel is still putting settlers in the West Bank and is using 80% of its water supply. Israel is a monster indeed.

But Arabs were not monsters before the Jews decided to create their state in the Arabs' land out of their strange ideology to be divinely chosen to possess that land. The Jewish desire for Palestine and the Balfour declaration and everything that came of it are inherently evil. And there can never be an excuse for that. Jews have come in aggression to Palestine and they have never ceased their aggression until this very day. Israel is still putting settlers in the West Bank and is using 80% of its water supply. Israel is a monster indeed.

I do not wish to get into the discussion of whom did what first, and how the state of Israel came into being. This thread is about Israel and it's use or desire to use collective punishment on the palestinian ciilians, and in my view, by agreeing to use such a strategy they move to become as monstrous as the monster of terrorism they seek to combat.

Just because some palestinians (the people firing these rockets may not even be affiliated with Hamas, but rather with some other "resistance group" btw) do heinous acts is no justification to punish all the palestinians in the area. If they go forward with this they do abandon the values that Israel was founded upon, and it is absolutely not worthy of a modern democracy.

I do not wish to get into the discussion of whom did what first, and how the state of Israel came into being. This thread is about Israel and it's use or desire to use collective punishment on the palestinian ciilians, and in my view, by agreeing to use such a strategy they move to become as monstrous as the monster of terrorism they seek to combat.

Just because some palestinians (the people firing these rockets may not even be affiliated with Hamas, but rather with some other "resistance group" btw) do heinous acts is no justification to punish all the palestinians in the area. If they go forward with this they do abandon the values that Israel was founded upon, and it is absolutely not worthy of a modern democracy.

I agree with you but at the same time, would you support santions against rulers that are harming their country or other countries (like Robert Maguabe) because is that not the same sort of collective punishment?

I agree with you but at the same time, would you support santions against rulers that are harming their country or other countries (like Robert Maguabe) because is that not the same sort of collective punishment?Collective punishment? No, I prefer other kind of sanctions for the Pinochets, the Duvaliers, the Shas, and the Marcoses.

Yes, it is a monster, because it has chosen this wrong place to be in. And everyone who supports Israel is saying that taking land away from Arabs is justified, because that's how Israel came into existence.

Britain had the right. No further justification is needed.

Britain had the right. No further justification is needed.

It was not Britain's right. The land was not theirs to give.

Britain had the right. No further justification is needed.Britain had control of Palestine/Jordan (most likely against the wishes of the local population), just like the US controls Iraq today.

Would you say Washington has the right to sell a piece of Iraq to Saudi Arabia or Turkey? -- Might makes right?

A. The British did own the land, you're wrong, this is a fact. I don't know where your nation count of 170/198 comes from but seems like your recollection is very source-based..

The British ran the area as a 'Class A' mandate, to be prepared for independence. It was not a colony, they did not "own the land".


Your nice little link, which I have read in fact, speaks of an army-type simulation camp that prepares kids who are about to enter the Israeli army at 18 to do so. Many kids, from abroad, would have a bit of a shock entering the army at 18, and need some easier preparation.
.

Militarising children. Yep.


This is MUCH MUCH different (....)rainwashing.

Yes, because its always bad when the evil Palestinians do it.


Israel is a monster. No.
USA is suporting them completely. No.
USA does stuff blindly. No.
'You got yourself into this'. No..

Israel runs a semit-apartheid province in the West Bank/Arab East Jerusalem. Some say that makes it a "monster". Personally I just take it as indicating that there are in power in Israel a pack of bastards. Not a unique situation, unfortunately.

The US does seem to give almost unliateral support to everything Israel does, including 40 years of occupation.

The USA may or may not do certain things blindly, however I think it irrelevant. Here its just covering for an ally, as it did for Chile and Saddam in his day.

"You got yourself into this" - Well, unless theres Palestinian gunmen supervising and forcing Israel to build settlements, yes, you fucking well did....

The British ran the area as a 'Class A' mandate, to be prepared for independence. It was not a colony, they did not "own the land".



Militarising children. Yep.



Yes, because its always bad when the evil Palestinians do it.



Israel runs a semit-apartheid province in the West Bank/Arab East Jerusalem. Some say that makes it a "monster". Personally I just take it as indicating that there are in power in Israel a pack of bastards. Not a unique situation, unfortunately.

The US does seem to give almost unliateral support to everything Israel does, including 40 years of occupation.

The USA may or may not do certain things blindly, however I think it irrelevant. Here its just covering for an ally, as it did for Chile and Saddam in his day.

"You got yourself into this" - Well, unless theres Palestinian gunmen supervising and forcing Israel to build settlements, yes, you fucking well did....

Anyone who begins to call the situation apartheid has no idea what the hell he's talking about. 'Not a unique situation'? what are you saying. The Palestinians in no way want to live in Israel with the other Jews in it. Israel would not mind having Arabs in Israel as it does. The seperation is because the Palestinians wanted it. Israel granted palestine its independence because it did not want to live peacefully with Israel. They can visit their holy sites and were even allowed to work in Israel. Israel gives them necessary supplies and other things. You have no idea what you are talking about. You are simply clueless. When one compares making it easier for 16 or 17 year olds who choose to join the military to do so in comparison building a kindergarden over a bunker and firing rockets from school grounds so that when retaliation occurs, 'Oh monster Israel is trying to destroy schools'. Suicide bombers are given drugs and brainwashed and sent to blow themselves up to kill innocent civilians. Israeli armys goal is to PROTECT innocent civilians. This is something you simply cannot understand. Israel allways tries to minimize casualties as much as possilbe, attempting to kill only terrorists. Paliestinians try to maximize innocent deaths. Are we looking at the same headlines? what is the matter with you? You tell me what you think the difference is between having mickey mouse say that Jews are evil and a country facilitating the transition into its armed forces to protect its civilians. Arabs and Muslims are both tolerated and given equal rights in israel. I had 4 friends that were Muslim Arabs, living a mere mile away. Apartheid is based on race, this is one of the stupidest comparisons I have heard. Israel defends itself, while Palestine tries to kill Israel's innocent civilians.
Sending your kids to throw rocks at Israelis, taking advantage of international law protecting ambulances and journalists, disguising terrorists as pregnant women all to bring death. Please, will you stop with the BS oh Israel is so bad. No, you are so wrong you don't even know.

It's going to be fun when Hamas gets chemical weapons.

I agree with you but at the same time, would you support santions against rulers that are harming their country or other countries (like Robert Maguabe) because is that not the same sort of collective punishment?
No, it's not a comparable kind of collective punishment, if you could call it that in the first place.

I would support sanctions against a country because such sanctions usually target the government and leadership primarily. Sanctions do not, unlike the collective punishment the Israelis plan to introduce, directly target the weaker and more voulnerable groups of civilians. The sanctions do not normally target the health and security of the civilian population.

I would fully support freezing the assets of the ruler outside his country, refuse to trade arms with him, limit the possibility for him, his collegues and his family to travel internationally, reducing financial ties and trade, and suspend banking operations. In short, actions that would hurt the leadership first and foremost.

It's going to be fun when Hamas gets chemical weapons.

Shut the hell up. What kind of a person are you? Are you in favor in of more death and killing? What is wrong with you? Do you get enterntainment from that? Are you just some kind of sadistic maniac? Its one thing to say Israel is wrong, and a very different thing to say that you are in favor of more innocent civilians dying. You are messed up. Played a little too many of those violent video games or something. You are evil and cruel and people like you make this world a dangerous place.

No, it's not a comparable kind of collective punishment, if you could call it that in the first place.

I would support sanctions against a country because such sanctions usually target the government and leadership primarily. Sanctions do not, unlike the collective punishment the Israelis plan to introduce, directly target the weaker and more voulnerable groups of civilians. The sanctions do not normally target the health and security of the civilian population.

I would fully support freezing the assets of the ruler outside his country, refuse to trade arms with him, limit the possibility for him, his collegues and his family to travel internationally, reducing financial ties and trade, and suspend banking operations. In short, actions that would hurt the leadership first and foremost.

That's exactly what has been done and did not suffice. Because so much funding is coming in from Iran.

I found Jimmy Carter's book on the Palestinian situation quite enlightening.

Of course the declaration that Israel was practicing apartheid on Palestinians resulted in an uproar against him from Israelis and their U.S. allies.

Hell, even when former South African Archibishop Desmond Tutu- a man who would be a damn good authority on knowing what an apartheid state looks, walks, and quacks like for most of his life- called Israeli policy on the Occupied Terroritories apartheid there was an uproar.

I'm surprised nobody outright called Carter and Tutu anti-Semitic Al'Qaeda operatives.

Nobody will think the less of you for using paragraphs......

Anyone who begins to call the situation apartheid has no idea what the hell he's talking about..

There are areas in the West Bank where Arabs are not allowed. There are "settler only" roads. Palestinian land can be seized to make "by pass roads" on which they may not travel. There are "Palestinian only" curfews. Palestinians who commit crime are subject to a military tribunal, a settler will face an Israeli court. Settlers enjoy the protection of Israeli civil law, Palestinians get whats given to them, as Israel refuses to apply the Geneva convention.

You are aware this goes on, aren't you?




'Not a unique situation'? what are you saying. ..

That theres a number of countries in the world who seem to be run by a pack of bastards...I gather reading comprehension is not your forte...Either that or you think Robert Mugabe is misunderstood.


Israel would not mind having Arabs in Israel as it does...

So theres no effort to keep a Jewish majority?



The seperation is because the Palestinians wanted it. Israel granted palestine its independence because it did not want to live peacefully with Israel.
...

Obviously you're confused here. Very confused.



Israeli armys goal is to PROTECT innocent civilians. This is something you simply cannot understand. Israel allways tries to minimize casualties as much as possilbe, attempting to kill only terrorists. ...

Thats amongst its goals. Another is to protect colonists, and ensure that the population in the occupied territories are kept subjugated. A secondary goal is to make life so uncomfortable for them they leave. Its slow drip ethnic cleansing. When nessecary to this end, they do indeed target civillians.


Israel defends itself, while Palestine tries to kill Israel's innocent civilians.
.

Its strange that you say Israel is defending itself, because this happens in an area that Israel is occupying and colonising. That means its an aggressor, not the victim.

Of course the declaration that Israel was practicing apartheid on Palestinians resulted in an uproar against him from Israelis and their U.S. allies.

Hell, even when former South African Archibishop Desmond Tutu- a man who would be a damn good authority on knowing what an apartheid state looks, walks, and quacks like for most of his life- called Israeli policy on the Occupied Terroritories apartheid there was an uproar.

I'm surprised nobody outright called Carter and Tutu anti-Semitic Al'Qaeda operatives.

Well, just anti-semites. There was an amusing attempt to paint Carter as pro Nazi.. The usual smear campaign.

Shut the hell up. What kind of a person are you? Are you in favor in of more death and killing? What is wrong with you? Do you get enterntainment from that? Are you just some kind of sadistic maniac? Its one thing to say Israel is wrong, and a very different thing to say that you are in favor of more innocent civilians dying. You are messed up. Played a little too many of those violent video games or something. You are evil and cruel and people like you make this world a dangerous place.

Fun as in interesting, not fun as in "OMG HAPPY FUN".

Anyone who begins to call the situation apartheid has no idea what the hell he's talking about. 'Not a unique situation'? what are you saying. The Palestinians in no way want to live in Israel with the other Jews in it. Israel would not mind having Arabs in Israel as it does. The seperation is because the Palestinians wanted it. Israel granted palestine its independence because it did not want to live peacefully with Israel. They can visit their holy sites and were even allowed to work in Israel. Israel gives them necessary supplies and other things. You have no idea what you are talking about. You are simply clueless. When one compares making it easier for 16 or 17 year olds who choose to join the military to do so in comparison building a kindergarden over a bunker and firing rockets from school grounds so that when retaliation occurs, 'Oh monster Israel is trying to destroy schools'. Suicide bombers are given drugs and brainwashed and sent to blow themselves up to kill innocent civilians. Israeli armys goal is to PROTECT innocent civilians. This is something you simply cannot understand. Israel allways tries to minimize casualties as much as possilbe, attempting to kill only terrorists. Paliestinians try to maximize innocent deaths. Are we looking at the same headlines? what is the matter with you? You tell me what you think the difference is between having mickey mouse say that Jews are evil and a country facilitating the transition into its armed forces to protect its civilians. Arabs and Muslims are both tolerated and given equal rights in israel. I had 4 friends that were Muslim Arabs, living a mere mile away. Apartheid is based on race, this is one of the stupidest comparisons I have heard. Israel defends itself, while Palestine tries to kill Israel's innocent civilians.
Sending your kids to throw rocks at Israelis, taking advantage of international law protecting ambulances and journalists, disguising terrorists as pregnant women all to bring death. Please, will you stop with the BS oh Israel is so bad. No, you are so wrong you don't even know.

Former Archbishop Desmond Tutu called Israeli policy towards the Palestinians apartheid. Are going to pull a Corneliu and say that an internationally respected man of the cloth who nobody can deny lived in what had been a full-blown apartheid state is talking out of his ass when he called Israel an apartheid state?

Nobody will think the less of you for using paragraphs......



There are areas in the West Bank where Arabs are not allowed. There are "settler only" roads. Palestinian land can be seized to make "by pass roads" on which they may not travel. There are "Palestinian only" curfews. Palestinians who commit crime are subject to a military tribunal, a settler will face an Israeli court. Settlers enjoy the protection of Israeli civil law, Palestinians get whats given to them, as Israel refuses to apply the Geneva convention.

You are aware this goes on, aren't you?




That theres a number of countries in the world who seem to be run by a pack of bastards...I gather reading comprehension is not your forte...Either that or you think Robert Mugabe is misunderstood.



So theres no effort to keep a Jewish majority?



Obviously you're confused here. Very confused.




Thats amongst its goals. Another is to protect colonists, and ensure that the population in the occupied territories are kept subjugated. A secondary goal is to make life so uncomfortable for them they leave. Its slow drip ethnic cleansing. When nessecary to this end, they do indeed target civillians.



Its strange that you say Israel is defending itself, because this happens in an area that Israel is occupying and colonising. That means its an aggressor, not the victim.

All of these things are precisely the result of terrorism I was speaking of and you completely disregarded. You only quote the parts of my posts which fit your argument? hmm thats an interesting way of conversing. Or maybe it was the long paragraph that made you skip over all the evil things I was speaking of. Yea right the aggressor not the victim are you kidding me. This is like saying that the US is not the victim of 9/11 but the aggressor because it simply is the stronger side of the two (US and Afghanistan). There is no effort at all to keep a Jewish majority through laws and especially not apartheid or anything close to ethnic cleansing. You are the one who has no idea what you are talking about. I bet not only that you've enver been to israel, but probably someone who has never left his country and sits there at home criticizing countries he doesn't like when innocent civilians are dying all around it. Oh who cares about the Israeli innocent civilians they are just a few more dead Jews. correct me if I'm wrong.

Former Archbishop Desmond Tutu called Israeli policy towards the Palestinians apartheid. Are going to pull a Corneliu and say that an internationally respected man of the cloth who nobody can deny lived in what had been a full-blown apartheid state is talking out of his ass when he called Israel an apartheid state?

Has he BEEN to Israel? Did he live there? A religiously respected man speaking about politics of a region that is not his own. You know people say things all the time. Just recently Watson was quoted saying that Africans are inferior and will always be because evolution gave them less intelligence. Oh wait, he's respected. He must be right. 100%. No doubt. Genius. He is the master of evolution and genetics. Wait he's right. Tutu and all those other blacks are just stupid right? You get two examples of people who might have something against Jews. (hmm, interesting question, he is a christian archbishop, and doesn't like Jews, wow there aren't a lot of people like that now are there). YES I AM PULLING A CORNELIU. If Tutu is right, Watson must be too, and then you are not only an anti-semite but also a racist.

You have two choices:
option #1: Anyone with authority is right: Tutu was right about Israel. Watson was right about Africans (including Tutu) therefore Tutu is stupid. and what he said was stupid
option #2: Not anyone with authority is right. Watson may have been wrong. Tut may have been wrong.

Tell me which one you choose.

I guess. But what do you predict?

Oh, you don't want to ask me... I'm pessimistic most of the time (I guess that's what you grow up to be down here:p).

Anyone who begins to call the situation apartheid has no idea what the hell he's talking about.
Of course...
The land seized forms a corridor from East Jerusalem to Jericho and is intended to be used for a road that would be for Palestinians only. Analysts said the road would run on one side of the Israeli security barrier, while the existing Jerusalem-Jericho road would be reserved for Israelis.
...there are no examples to support such a wild theory, (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2187227,00.html) is there?

But yeah, "Apartheid" is perhaps not the right term. "Massive, blatant and ongoing violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people" are much more accurate.

'Not a unique situation'? what are you saying. The Palestinians in no way want to live in Israel with the other Jews in it.
Doesn't matter if they do - the Israelis don't want them.
Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert recently told Haaretz that, "More and more Palestinians are uninterested in a negotiated, two-state solution, because they want to change the essence of the conflict from an Algerian paradigm to a South African one. From a struggle against 'occupation,' in their parlance, to a struggle for one-man-one-vote. That is, of course, a much cleaner struggle, a much more popular struggle - and ultimately a much more powerful one. For us, it would mean the end of the Jewish state."
Way back in 2004 (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=383879)


Israel would not mind having Arabs in Israel as it does. The seperation is because the Palestinians wanted it. Israel granted palestine its independence because it did not want to live peacefully with Israel. They can visit their holy sites and were even allowed to work in Israel.
Not really, no.
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.
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=24415&Cr=palestin&Cr1=

Israel gives them necessary supplies and other things.
Not really, no.
“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.
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=24415&Cr=palestin&Cr1=
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.
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=24399&Cr=middle&Cr1=east
Israel barely - and sometimes don't - fulfill their obligations under international law.


You have no idea what you are talking about. You are simply clueless.
Flame much?


When one compares making it easier for 16 or 17 year olds who choose to join the military to do so in comparison building a kindergarden over a bunker and firing rockets from school grounds so that when retaliation occurs, 'Oh monster Israel is trying to destroy schools'. Suicide bombers are given drugs and brainwashed and sent to blow themselves up to kill innocent civilians. Israeli armys goal is to PROTECT innocent civilians. This is something you simply cannot understand. Israel allways tries to minimize casualties as much as possilbe, attempting to kill only terrorists.
I get it. The Palestinian terrorists are evil, while the Israeli forces are just fatally incompetent. Do you think that is due to lack of ability in general, or lack of will to do a better job? Or do they just not care about civilian palestinian lives?


Paliestinians try to maximize innocent deaths.
And those who do should rightfully be condemned.


Are we looking at the same headlines? what is the matter with you? You tell me what you think the difference is between having mickey mouse say that Jews are evil and a country facilitating the transition into its armed forces to protect its civilians. Arabs and Muslims are both tolerated and given equal rights in israel. I had 4 friends that were Muslim Arabs, living a mere mile away. Apartheid is based on race, this is one of the stupidest comparisons I have heard.
Apartheid is a policy or practice of separating or segregating groups, and involves political, legal, and economic discrimination against said group. The group need not be based on race for the term to be valid.


Israel defends itself, while Palestine tries to kill Israel's innocent civilians.
Sure. That's all Palestine does :rolleyes:


Sending your kids to throw rocks at Israelis, taking advantage of international law protecting ambulances and journalists, disguising terrorists as pregnant women all to bring death. Please, will you stop with the BS oh Israel is so bad. No, you are so wrong you don't even know.
So two wrongs make a right? Because the palestinians has taken advantage of international law, it's OK for Israel to violate it?

That's exactly what has been done and did not suffice. Because so much funding is coming in from Iran.
Irrelevant. It does not justify collective punishment of the civilian population.
Oh who cares about the Israeli innocent civilians they are just a few more dead Jews. correct me if I'm wrong.
Consider yourself corrected.

Has he BEEN to Israel? Did he live there? A religiously respected man speaking about politics of a region that is not his own. You know people say things all the time. Just recently Watson was quoted saying that Africans are inferior and will always be because evolution gave them less intelligence. Oh wait, he's respected. He must be right. 100%. No doubt. Genius. He is the master of evolution and genetics. Wait he's right. Tutu and all those other blacks are just stupid right? You get two examples of people who might have something against Jews. (hmm, interesting question, he is a christian archbishop, and doesn't like Jews, wow there aren't a lot of people like that now are there). YES I AM PULLING A CORNELIU. If Tutu is right, Watson must be too, and then you are not only an anti-semite but also a racist.

I can't believe you actually wrote this... You are going to be pwned like so much jewelry.

1) Do you have proof that Archbishop Desmond Tutu "doesn't like Jews"? Someone with that much international public profile is going to have a damn difficult time hiding any oopsies regarding what he might have said about Jews. And if you don't, which I'm very confident is the case, you're generalizing that blacks and Christians don't like Jews. Which is complete bullshit in the case of the latter given that Christian Zionists are some of the biggest supporters of the state of Israel. That is of course unless you realize they're only supporting it in hopes of provoking a global crisis to hasten the Second Coming. In any case you're generalizing Archbishop Tutu as having something against Jews based on him being a black Christian, without documented proof. And if you're referring to his criticism of Zionism as racism, the American Jewish Committee addressed that specifically and emphasized that Tutu did not make any anti-Semitic comments.

2) Tutu has been to Israel. In 1989 he went to the Vad Yeshem Museum. And even if he didn't, how does not living in Israel disqualify him from knowing what apartheid is like first-hand? Racism is racism, and apartheid is apartheid regardless of whether you live in one country or another.

3) Comparing Tutu's observations on Israeli apartheid to Watson's racist comments? That's not a straw man, that's not a scarecrow. That's a fucking huge blazing Wicker Man, the kind that gets Edward Woodward peeing in his pants at the sight of. This is a Red Herring that reeks of rot, where you try to conditionally attach agreement with Tutu's observations to agreeing with Watson's supposed views on the comparative stupidity of Africans as opposed to Westerners. And in case you don't keep up with current events, Watson retracted his statement and apologized. Tutu hasn't.

4) And using that Red Herring of "If you agree with Tutu, you therefore agree with Watson," you're making an Ad Hominem attack on me. Brilliant.

There's a reason pulling a Corneliu is never a good debating tactic. Welcome to the state of Pwnsylvania.

Paragraphs =/= the enemy

All of these things are precisely the result of terrorism I was speaking of and you completely disregarded. .

"Those things" that are occurring outside Israels borders, largely as a result of its efforts to colonise the area......

This is like saying that the US is not the victim of 9/11 but the aggressor because it simply is the stronger side of the two (US and Afghanistan). There is no effort at all to keep a Jewish majority through laws and especially not apartheid or anything close to ethnic cleansing.

So you're saying there isn't settlements in the occupied territory, no two tier justice system and nobody mentions keeping a Jewish majority within Israel?
Please be clear, as I'd hate to embarrass you unnessecarily.


Oh who cares about the Israeli innocent civilians they are just a few more dead Jews. correct me if I'm wrong.

The religon or 'ethnicity' is unimportant. However it is the occupied that have suffered the greatest, so that a first world country can build colonies outside its borders.

Has he BEEN (........)choose..

Now you're being a bit stupid, to be honest.

I can't believe you actually wrote this... You are going to be pwned like so much jewelry.

1) Do you have proof that Archbishop Desmond Tutu "doesn't like Jews"? Someone with that much international public profile is going to have a damn difficult time hiding any oopsies regarding what he might have said about Jews. And if you don't, which I'm very confident is the case, you're generalizing that blacks and Christians don't like Jews. Which is complete bullshit in the case of the latter given that Christian Zionists are some of the biggest supporters of the state of Israel. That is of course unless you realize they're only supporting it in hopes of provoking a global crisis to hasten the Second Coming. In any case you're generalizing Archbishop Tutu as having something against Jews based on him being a black Christian, without documented proof. And if you're referring to his criticism of Zionism as racism, the American Jewish Committee addressed that specifically and emphasized that Tutu did not make any anti-Semitic comments.

2) Tutu has been to Israel. In 1989 he went to the Vad Yeshem Museum. And even if he didn't, how does not living in Israel disqualify him from knowing what apartheid is like first-hand? Racism is racism, and apartheid is apartheid regardless of whether you live in one country or another.

3) Comparing Tutu's observations on Israeli apartheid to Watson's racist comments? That's not a straw man, that's not a scarecrow. That's a fucking huge blazing Wicker Man, the kind that gets Edward Woodward peeing in his pants at the sight of. This is a Red Herring that reeks of rot, where you try to conditionally attach agreement with Tutu's observations to agreeing with Watson's supposed views on the comparative stupidity of Africans as opposed to Westerners. And in case you don't keep up with current events, Watson retracted his statement and apologized. Tutu hasn't.

4) And using that Red Herring of "If you agree with Tutu, you therefore agree with Watson," you're making an Ad Hominem attack on me. Brilliant.

There's a reason pulling a Corneliu is never a good debating tactic. Welcome to the state of Pwnsylvania.

Buddy, you are legitimizing what someone says because he has authority, you are just avoiding the fact that you are the one who was owned.

Has he BEEN to Israel? Did he live there? A religiously respected man speaking about politics of a region that is not his own. You know people say things all the time. Just recently Watson was quoted saying that Africans are inferior and will always be because evolution gave them less intelligence.
You misquote him.
In his Sunday Times interview, Dr Watson was quoted as saying he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really".

He was further quoted as saying that his hope was that everyone was equal but that "people who have to deal with black employees find this is not true".
Not that he never says they're stupid.

And he apologised for the remarks:

"To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologise unreservedly.

"That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7052416.stm
Your comparison doesn't hold up.

Paragraphs =/= the enemy



"Those things" that are occurring outside Israels borders, largely as a result of its efforts to colonise the area......



So you're saying there isn't settlements in the occupied territory, no two tier justice system and nobody mentions keeping a Jewish majority within Israel?
Please be clear, as I'd hate to embarrass you unnessecarily.



The religon or 'ethnicity' is unimportant. However it is the occupied that have suffered the greatest, so that a first world country can build colonies outside its borders.


Now you're being a bit stupid, to be honest.

haha this is not something I should be doing but what the hell. No, suicide attacks target major Israeli cities like tel-aviv, nowhere near the disputed settlements. Once again, you are misinformed. Israel just returned a whole bunch of settlements to palestinians. Guess what they did. Got in, had a party, set up rocket launchers and fired further into Israel. 'nobody mentions' keeping a Jewish majority oh so thats the goal of the country you are so right its amazing. I just realize its not the facts you get wrong necessarily. its the whole process of logic.

nobody mentions keeping a Jewish majority within Israel?

Now wait a second here. While I don't want to join this debate, I must clarify this: Yes, Israel is indeed defined a Jewish state. That doesn't mean treating non-Jewish inside Israel as second class citizens, but it does mean keeping the Jewish character of the nation as much as possible. It comes to expression in things like the nation's symbols, and granting citizenship to any Jew immigrating to Israel. That is why Israel exists, as it is the only Jewish state, it must preserve its nature. I don't see a reason to find this fact problematic, and therefor I don't see a reason that you use it as a counter-agrument.

EDIT
I'll be back later this night. Have fun arguing Intelligenstan.

in response to all the stuff gravlen said:

"The land seized forms a corridor from East Jerusalem to Jericho and is intended to be used for a road that would be for Palestinians only. Analysts said the road would run on one side of the Israeli security barrier, while the existing Jerusalem-Jericho road would be reserved for Israelis. "

Yes to avoid conflicts and terrorist attacks. This is not apartheid you are confused.

"Massive, blatant and ongoing violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people"

Never. Israel in all cases tries to be as respecting of human rights as possible with the safety of its people in mind.

"More and more Palestinians are uninterested in a negotiated, two-state solution, because they want to change the essence of the conflict from an Algerian paradigm to a South African one. From a struggle against 'occupation,' in their parlance, to a struggle for one-man-one-vote. That is, of course, a much cleaner struggle, a much more popular struggle - and ultimately a much more powerful one. For us, it would mean the end of the Jewish state."

EXACTLY. because they try to make it something which it is not. as do you. I couldn't agree with you more. If it was apartheid (nothing even close to the current situation) they would be right.

"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. "
No way really how unexpected considering terrorists coming out and supplies for terrorists coming in.

“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. "

If Israel got some help in checking whats going into Gaza, maybe more could be let in. Everything must be inspected to insure more rockets aren't shipped in.

"I get it. The Palestinian terrorists are evil, while the Israeli forces are just fatally incompetent. Do you think that is due to lack of ability in general, or lack of will to do a better job? Or do they just not care about civilian palestinian lives?
"
You are so wrong. Israel tries its best in every operation. its kind of hard to target a continuously firing rocket launcher in the middle of an operating kindergarden. Yet Israel amazingly succeeds with its incredibly competent army to kill these terrorists with minimal civilian casualties.

"And those who do should rightfully be condemned."
Thank you. I am glad we both view it this way. I think so too. P.S. many do.

"Sure. That's all Palestine does." Yea it basically is their main strategy.

"so two wrongs make a right? Because the palestinians has taken advantage of international law, it's OK for Israel to violate it?" Thats the thing - Israel tries its best not to.

Irrelevant. It does not justify collective punishment of the civilian population.," yea but this funding of terrorism must be stopped at all costs. Whats better a few hours of no electricity, or hundreds more innocent civilians dying? you decide.

"Consider yourself corrected." Im happy to find out you do care about Israeli innocent civilian deaths by terrorism. There still is hope.

You misquote him.

Not that he never says they're stupid.

And he apologised for the remarks:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7052416.stm
Your comparison doesn't hold up.

Hey there bud its ok. Admiting your wrong wont revoke your argument just say that the part of it I just owned you in was irrelevant.

You: Someone with authority is right
Me: Someone with authority is not necessarily right

You: 'Tutu'
Me: 'Watson'

Its ok, you lost this one. Doesn't mean Israel is right because of it (which I think it is). But just means that Israel is not wrong because Tutu said so.

Buddy, you are legitimizing what someone says because he has authority, you are just avoiding the fact that you are the one who was owned.

No, he's arguing that someone who has been in the water knows what it's like to be wet. Since Tutu lived under the South African apartheid, he would know what an apartheid system feels and looks like, wouldn't you think?

'course, he's not the only one who has that experience who uses that term...

Addressing the situations he had encountered during his trip of the occupied Palestinian territories, Gandhi said that what he saw here was ten times worse than the peak of the Apartheid era in South Africa, where he was raised.

"When I come here and see the situation [in the Palestinian territories], I find that what is happening here is ten times worse than what I had experienced in South Africa. This is Apartheid," he said.

Gandhi continued by referring to the Israeli Apartheid Wall, being built around West Bank cities and towns, saying that "I realized that the Wall is not a wall of security to keep out terrorists, it is a wall to create Bantustans. It is a wall that is isolating communities here, so then these communities can be frustrated and eliminated, not physically, but people can get totally demoralized and leave the town, and that's basically what they [the Israelis] want."
Dr. Arun Gandhi, founder of the M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence and grandson of Mahatma Gandhi in 2004 (http://www.ipc.gov.ps/ipc_e/ipc_e-1/e_News/news2004/2004_08/179.html)

With the illegal Jewish settlements, security road network and the construction of the monstrous wall around the militarily occupied West Bank, the remaining Palestinians are ghettoised within 12% of their original territory. This dispossession is reminiscent of apartheid and its 13% of Bantustan homelands. For many this is the fundamental cause of the conflict.
Ronald Kasrils, South African Minister for Intelligence Services (http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=282802&area=/insight/insight__comment_and_analysis/)

In March 1985, Denis Goldberg, a Jewish South African sentenced in 1964 to life imprisonment for “conspiring to overthrow the apartheid regime,” was released through the intercession of his daughter, an Israeli, and top Israeli officials, including the president of Israel.

Arriving in Israel, Goldberg said that he saw “many similarities in the oppression of blacks in South Africa and of Palestinians,” and he called for a total economic boycott of South Africa, singling out Israel as a major ally of the apartheid regime.
Denis Goldberg (http://www.ameu.org/summary1.asp?iid=165)


So yeah. I still believe "Massive and blatant human rights violations" are a better term, but meh.

Buddy, you are legitimizing what someone says because he has authority, you are just avoiding the fact that you are the one who was owned.

No. I'm legitimizing someone who has has experienced apartheid first hand and thus knows what to recognize in a state that practices apartheid. You're still pulling a Corny, trying to move the goalpost and otherwise weasel out of the corner you painted yourself into.

You're still in the state of Pwnsylvania.

Hey there bud its ok. Admiting your wrong wont revoke your argument just say that the part of it I just owned you in was irrelevant.

You: Someone with authority is right
Me: Someone with authority is not necessarily right

You: 'Tutu'
Me: 'Watson'

Its ok, you lost this one. Doesn't mean Israel is right because of it (which I think it is). But just means that Israel is not wrong because Tutu said so.

What is it with your obcession with Slippery Slope fallacies? You're still trying to falsely make agreement with Tutu automatically accepting of Watson's discredited and misquoted statement. Why don't you just be honest and say "Desmond Tutu is an anti-Semitic Al'Qaeda operative" like you really want to?

:rolleyes:

All of these things are precisely the result of terrorism ...Yes, Israeli terrorism.

To both of you poor guys.

Giving examples of people who don't like Israel is as easy as giving examples of people who like Israel. you don't prove anyhting.

Opinions of people are not facts my friends. This is a problem you have once and again. Opinion is opinion. fact is fact. You are wrong. it's as simple as that.

I just destroyed your argument so you bring up more exmples of people with the credentials that would say they know about the subject of apartheid.

This is the same as Watson knowing about genetics.

You are hopelessly trying to find ways to justify your argument that Israel is wrong. I wouldn't care if every SouthAfrican out there said that Israel is exactly like South Africa in every sense, you would still be wrong.

Your debating skills are lousy. Buddy just cuz your Gandi guy says that he thinks its apartheid cuz he lived in S. Africa so he knows what apartheid looks like, does'nt imply that human right violations occur in Israel.
Present this to any rational person and he will laugh at you and ridicule you in your face. So if this is the level you wish to speak on please stop.

I own you so u give more examples of people. Its humorous. Yea so now youu have 4 other people on your side so you are right. No, sorry. Hey its ok. You win some you lose some. Its life.

You bore me. Give me facts that are not debated and we will speak of them not whether they are true or not. Apartheid in any case is a word a term you give to it. Give me facts and we will speak of how we view these facts, not the validity of the facts themselves.

meh, this post just lowered my level by a lot but oh well someone has to do it.

Yes, Israeli terrorism.

haha no comment. To you all I can recommend is frosted animal crackers. They are delicious.

Yes to avoid conflicts and terrorist attacks. This is not apartheid you are confused.
I'm not saying it is apartheid, but it is strange that there is one set of roads that the Palestinians can use, and another that's only for the Israelis - INSIDE THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES - is it not?

If they wanted to avoid conflicts they'd remove the illegal setlements instead of violating the Palestinian peoples freedom of movement. Breach of human right right there.


Never. Israel in all cases tries to be as respecting of human rights as possible with the safety of its people in mind.
Never?

Amnesty international, B'Tselem, and the US deartment of State are but three humble groups that disagree with you, and I trust them over you. I've provided more than enough links to this fact. Israel massively and blatantly violates human rights. And that's just with the unnecessary restrictions on freedom of movement and the collective punishments, I've yet to mention torture or extrajudicial killings.


EXACTLY. because they try to make it something which it is not. as do you. I couldn't agree with you more. If it was apartheid (nothing even close to the current situation) they would be right.
So the existance of the jewish state trumps human rights, and arab Israelis should not have the right to vote then?


No way really how unexpected considering terrorists coming out and supplies for terrorists coming in.
Unexpected? Maybe not. Needlessly malignant by Israel? Yes. Hurting the innocent Palestinians? Most definately.


If Israel got some help in checking whats going into Gaza, maybe more could be let in. Everything must be inspected to insure more rockets aren't shipped in.
Doing a swell job at that, aren't they. Especially considering that they're in complete control of the borders. We're back to the question of competence here...


You are so wrong. Israel tries its best in every operation. its kind of hard to target a continuously firing rocket launcher in the middle of an operating kindergarden. Yet Israel amazingly succeeds with its incredibly competent army to kill these terrorists with minimal civilian casualties.
The evidence I've seen leads me to believe otherwise. But hey, feel free to, you know, back up your statements with... anything at all.

Extrajudicial killings via air-to-ground missiles in a crowded road killing innocent bystanders doesn't exactly inspire confidence.


Thank you. I am glad we both view it this way. I think so too. P.S. many do.
I know. And it's important to remember that both sides add fuel to the fire.

Yea it basically is their main strategy.
Prove it.

Thats the thing - Israel tries its best not to.
Either you're mistaken, or their best is far from sufficient.

yea but this funding of terrorism must be stopped at all costs. Whats better a few hours of no electricity, or hundreds more innocent civilians dying? you decide.
That's not the stakes. How many have dies from the rockets? Not many. How many will suffer from the periods without electricity? About 1.4 million. Is the suffering of that many people really a cost you're willing to accept for a measure that most likely will not work?

Im happy to find out you do care about Israeli innocent civilian deaths by terrorism. There still is hope.
Of course I do. And I started by saying that in the very first post in this thread, albeit not directly.

Hey there bud its ok. Admiting your wrong wont revoke your argument just say that the part of it I just owned you in was irrelevant.
You've got me confused with another poster.

To both of you poor guys.
This is off to a good start, I can tell. Condescend much?

Giving examples of people who don't like Israel is as easy as giving examples of people who like Israel. you don't prove anyhting.
Sure you do. You prove that there are people who dislike Israel, if that's your goal. More importantly, you illustrate their reasons for disliking Israel.


Opinions of people are not facts my friends. This is a problem you have once and again. Opinion is opinion. fact is fact. You are wrong. it's as simple as that.
I don't treat their statements as fact - I say that they argue that it is. So I'm not wrong, it's just your reading comprehension that's a bit lacking.

I just destroyed your argument so you bring up more exmples of people with the credentials that would say they know about the subject of apartheid.
You didn't destroy his arguments, and you haven't destroyed the arguments of the people that I presented either. All in all, you're not doing much more than saying "You're wrong!".

This is the same as Watson knowing about genetics.
No, not really.

You are hopelessly trying to find ways to justify your argument that Israel is wrong. I wouldn't care if every SouthAfrican out there said that Israel is exactly like South Africa in every sense, you would still be wrong.
Why?

Your debating skills are lousy.
...says the guy who can't/won't back up his arguments, or give a reason for his statement.


Buddy just cuz your Gandi guy says that he thinks its apartheid cuz he lived in S. Africa so he knows what apartheid looks like, does'nt imply that human right violations occur in Israel.
How so?
"I've seen this happening before, and the same thing, only worse, is happening here." How does that not imply that human rights violations occurs in the occupied territories?


Present this to any rational person and he will laugh at you and ridicule you in your face. So if this is the level you wish to speak on please stop.
I have no idea what you're on about. I can only assume you're trying to dodge the debate.


I own you so u give more examples of people. Its humorous. Yea so now youu have 4 other people on your side so you are right. No, sorry. Hey its ok. You win some you lose some. Its life.
You should know, it seems...


You bore me. Give me facts that are not debated and we will speak of them not whether they are true or not. Apartheid in any case is a word a term you give to it. Give me facts and we will speak of how we view these facts, not the validity of the facts themselves.
But you just ignore the facts, so... *Shrugs*


meh, this post just lowered my level by a lot but oh well someone has to do it.
Well, I can say this: You're not living up to your user name ;)

haha this is not something I should be doing but what the hell. No, suicide attacks target major Israeli cities like tel-aviv, nowhere near the disputed settlements.
.

But there are settlements, and the vast majority of Palestinian deaths are in the occupied territories. Again, when you're the aggressor, the odd bomb isn't really something you can complain about.


Once again, you are misinformed. Israel just returned a whole bunch of settlements to palestinians. .

"Just"? That was Gaza a few years back. The plan was to concentrate resources on Arab East Jerusalem and the West Bank, which has seen a surge of new settlement expansionm and construction since the Gaza pullout.


Guess what they did. Got in, had a party, set up rocket launchers and fired further into Israel. .

But as Israel still occupies the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem, its hardly to be expected that they forget their fellow palestinians still under the Israeli yoke, is it?



'nobody mentions' keeping a Jewish majority oh so thats the goal of the country you are so right its amazing. .

So if thats the case, then they cannot accept Arab immigrants, or annex the population of the West Bank by making them Israeli citizens can they? Thus, its creates a nessecity to discriminate - an apartheid province, which is what we have in the OT.

You bore me. Give me facts that are not debated and we will speak of them not whether they are true or not.

There is a two tier system of Justice in the OT.

Palestinians are not given the protection of the Geneva convention.

There are settler only areas, roads etc.

Palestinian land has been seized to build many of the settlements.

Settlers attack Palestinians with relative impunity.

Palestinians are treated with casual brutality.

You are so wrong. Israel tries its best in every operation. its kind of hard to target a continuously firing rocket launcher in the middle of an operating kindergarden. Yet Israel amazingly succeeds with its incredibly competent army to kill these terrorists with minimal civilian casualties.
Yeah...
In February the IDF launched a large-scale military operation into the city of Nablus and the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)-run Balata refugee camp; five Palestinians were killed and more than 24 injured. During this operation the IDF and Border Police entered an UNRWA-run girls' school in Balata Camp and used it for three days as a detention center and firing position, causing extensive damage. UNRWA staff sought compensation and assurances of nonrepetition of similar conduct from the Israeli government; however, the government had not responded as of year's end.
Not a lot of difference, is there?

Some other nuggets:
There were numerous credible reports of violence by settlers against Palestinians, particularly by residents of the Ma'on settlement in the southern Hebron Hills. On May 9, more than 30 Israeli artists and intellectuals sent a letter to the Israeli prime minister urging IDF protection for Palestinian children in the area. According to Ha'aretz, on May 10, the defense minister reportedly instructed IDF and police to increase the security for these Palestinian children on their way to and from school. However, settler harassment of the children continued without police response. On May 31, the Ma'on farm settlers reportedly were ordered to evacuate due to their attacks on schoolchildren; however, at year's end the Ma'on settlement remained.
Better to just remove the people attacked instead of dealing with the Israeli attackers?
According to B'Tselem Israeli security forces killed 22 Palestinians in targeted killings during the year and an undetermined number of bystanders.
Minimal casualties?

Regarding the Israeli occupying forces, there were reports of death and injuries to civilians in the conduct of military operations, numerous serious abuses of civilians and detainees, failure to take disciplinary action in cases of abuse, improper application of security internment procedures, temporary detention facilities that were austere and overcrowded, and limited cooperation with NGOs.
Never any violation of human rights?

In 2004 IDF soldiers shot and killed Iman al-Hams, a 13-year-old schoolgirl, as she approached an IDF outpost in southern Gaza carrying a bag of schoolbooks that troops suspected contained explosives. After the girl had been shot from a distance, the IDF company commander allegedly repeatedly fired his automatic weapon into her at close range. In February 2005 a military court released the company commander after soldiers who witnessed the incident recanted testimony.
Never!

During the year Israeli forces delayed the movement of, and occasionally fired upon, medical personnel and ambulances. HRW claimed that between May 30 and June 20, IDF forces attacked Palestinian medical emergency personnel on at least six separate occasions in Gaza, including two attacks by missile-firing drone aircraft.

The IDF abuse of Palestinians or their vehicles at checkpoints continued. In its monthly reports during the year, Machsom Watch (an Israeli women's organization that monitors checkpoints in the West Bank and Jerusalem) alleged a series of abuses. On January 3, a Machsom Watch volunteer observed IDF soldiers strip and search Palestinians, including an ambulance-attending doctor, at the Jubara checkpoint.

Israeli forces continued to use Palestinians as "human shields" in violation of Israeli law despite High Court rulings in 2002 and 2005 and an IDF Chief of Staff order in 2005.
Perish the thought.

Again, curtecy of the US department of State. (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78854.htm#ot)

I'm not saying it is apartheid, but it is strange that there is one set of roads that the Palestinians can use, and another that's only for the Israelis - INSIDE THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES - is it not?

If they wanted to avoid conflicts they'd remove the illegal setlements instead of violating the Palestinian peoples freedom of movement. Breach of human right right there.


Never?

Amnesty international, B'Tselem, and the US deartment of State are but three humble groups that disagree with you, and I trust them over you. I've provided more than enough links to this fact. Israel massively and blatantly violates human rights. And that's just with the unnecessary restrictions on freedom of movement and the collective punishments, I've yet to mention torture or extrajudicial killings.


So the existance of the jewish state trumps human rights, and arab Israelis should not have the right to vote then?


Unexpected? Maybe not. Needlessly malignant by Israel? Yes. Hurting the innocent Palestinians? Most definately.


Doing a swell job at that, aren't they. Especially considering that they're in complete control of the borders. We're back to the question of competence here...


The evidence I've seen leads me to believe otherwise. But hey, feel free to, you know, back up your statements with... anything at all.

Extrajudicial killings via air-to-ground missiles in a crowded road killing innocent bystanders doesn't exactly inspire confidence.


I know. And it's important to remember that both sides add fuel to the fire.


Prove it.


Either you're mistaken, or their best is far from sufficient.


That's not the stakes. How many have dies from the rockets? Not many. How many will suffer from the periods without electricity? About 1.4 million. Is the suffering of that many people really a cost you're willing to accept for a measure that most likely will not work?


Of course I do. And I started by saying that in the very first post in this thread, albeit not directly.


You've got me confused with another poster.

aright, its good that you dont consider it apartheid. the road issue is for security reasons. they have tried to remove settlements and have done so for many cases.
note: tries to be as respecting of human rights as possible . Didnt say never does.

arab israelis are equal to israelis.
'Unexpected? Maybe not.' security of innocent civillians comes before a large amount of imports at a fast pace. sorry.

"Extrajudicial killings via air-to-ground missiles in a crowded road killing innocent bystanders doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
"
A. they are not always innocent
B. terrorists surround themselves with innocents on purpose.

"That's not the stakes. How many have dies from the rockets? Not many. How many will suffer from the periods without electricity? About 1.4 million. Is the suffering of that many people really a cost you're willing to accept for a measure that most likely will not work?"
you have a bad sense of priorities. Hundreds have died from rocket attacks. electricity does not come before human lives. Whether it will work or not we will see.

"Of course I do. And I started by saying that in the very first post in this thread, albeit not directly." be more direct.

"You've got me confused with another poster."
for this im sorry.

"I've seen this happening before, and the same thing, only worse, is happening here."
try: 'I have studied genetics and human intelligence before and discovered chimps to be less intelligent, and the same thing, only worse, is happening in Africa.'

"There were numerous credible reports of violence by settlers against Palestinians, particularly by residents of the Ma'on settlement in the southern Hebron Hills. On May 9, more than 30 Israeli artists and intellectuals sent a letter to the Israeli prime minister urging IDF protection for Palestinian children in the area. According to Ha'aretz, on May 10, the defense minister reportedly instructed IDF and police to increase the security for these Palestinian children on their way to and from school. However, settler harassment of the children continued without police response. On May 31, the Ma'on farm settlers reportedly were ordered to evacuate due to their attacks on schoolchildren; however, at year's end the Ma'on settlement remained.

Better to just remove the people attacked instead of dealing with the Israeli attackers?"
You misunderstood this article and i suggest you reread it. (Note check what Ma'on is)

"In February the IDF launched a large-scale military operation into the city of Nablus and the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)-run Balata refugee camp; five Palestinians were killed and more than 24 injured. During this operation the IDF and Border Police entered an UNRWA-run girls' school in Balata Camp and used it for three days as a detention center and firing position, causing extensive damage. UNRWA staff sought compensation and assurances of nonrepetition of similar conduct from the Israeli government; however, the government had not responded as of year's end. " yea bud, one that is not operating. a little different.

"According to B'Tselem Israeli security forces killed 22 Palestinians in targeted killings during the year and an undetermined number of bystanders. " they're not perfect.

violations of human rights occassionaly do occur in a state of war. not on purpose. they try not to do them.

"In 2004 IDF soldiers shot and killed Iman al-Hams, a 13-year-old schoolgirl, as she approached an IDF outpost in southern Gaza carrying a bag of schoolbooks that troops suspected contained explosives. After the girl had been shot from a distance, the IDF company commander allegedly repeatedly fired his automatic weapon into her at close range. In February 2005 a military court released the company commander after soldiers who witnessed the incident recanted testimony. "
notice, the fact that they were actually tried at a court, oh no regard for human rights blah blah. shhh. she approached the outpost what the hell was she thinking. what would you do if you were a soldier and 13 year olds carrying explosives all the time approach your post and you must shoot at them to not die. huh? easy for you to sit at home and type.

There is a two tier system of Justice in the OT.

Palestinians are not given the protection of the Geneva convention.

There are settler only areas, roads etc.

Palestinian land has been seized to build many of the settlements.

Settlers attack Palestinians with relative impunity.

Palestinians are treated with casual brutality.

"But there are settlements, and the vast majority of Palestinian deaths are in the occupied territories. Again, when you're the aggressor, the odd bomb isn't really something you can complain about.
"
where else would they be? your a little shaky on facts.

"Just"? That was Gaza a few years back. The plan was to concentrate resources on Arab East Jerusalem and the West Bank, which has seen a surge of new settlement expansionm and construction since the Gaza pullout"
no. you don't know what you are talking about again. the expansion is constantly reduced. be quiet if you only have falsehoods to say.

'But as Israel still occupies the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem, its hardly to be expected that they forget their fellow palestinians still under the Israeli yoke, is it?'

My friend, you have just made the rank below Gauthier. Gravlen gets logic. you don't.
"
So if thats the case, then they cannot accept Arab immigrants, or annex the population of the West Bank by making them Israeli citizens can they? Thus, its creates a nessecity to discriminate - an apartheid province, which is what we have in the OT."
They don't want to become Israeli citizens. They want Israel. You don't understand the situation.

aright, its good that you dont consider it apartheid. the road issue is for security reasons. they have tried to remove settlements and have done so for many cases.
note: tries to be as respecting of human rights as possible . Didnt say never does.
"Security" is not a good excuse. They had at least one alternative option, and they didn't choose it. Instead, the Israelis have their own roads cutting through the landscape and there are areas inside the occupies Palestinian territories where the Palestinians aren't allowed to travel.

They don't try hard enough to respect human rights.

security of innocent civillians comes before a large amount of imports at a fast pace. sorry.
So Israeli civilians are worth more than Palestinian civilians, since it's OK to starve and empoverish the latter, and have no regard for their safety and security - in the name of Israeli security?

I wouldn't agree to that.


A. they are not always innocent
So? Doesn't excuse it that thee Israeli strike was lucky enough to catch some guilty people too.

B. terrorists surround themselves with innocents on purpose.
Yeah - like when they're on their way home from the office, the shop, or the marked, for example.

And where else would they be? Hiding in their secret lair in the active volcano? They live in a densely populated area - it's Israel's responsibilty to use the right level of force. They don't seem to take that responsibility seriously.


you have a bad sense of priorities. Hundreds have died from rocket attacks. electricity does not come before human lives. Whether it will work or not we will see.
Lack of electricity causes fatalaties. I stand by my sense of priorities.

And "hundreds"? From Gaza? Why don't you link me to that number. I see a much, much smaller one...


be more direct.
No.

It doesn't belong in this thread.


for this im sorry.
Righty-O.


try: 'I have studied genetics and human intelligence before and discovered chimps to be less intelligent, and the same thing, only worse, is happening in Africa.'
Invalid comparison.

Experiences are a valid factor for analyzing current trends though. That's why we (should) listen to for example Holocaust survivors when they say that they have seen the face of fascism before, and what they now experience is the same all over. No?


You misunderstood this article and i suggest you reread it. (Note check what Ma'on is)
Meh. If you can't be bothered to illuminate me, I can't be bothered to look it up. And it doesn't matter, it's just one example.

yea bud, one that is not operating. a little different.
I'll just take your word for that, eh? Link me, if you know better.

they're not perfect.
No, not even close.

violations of human rights occassionaly do occur in a state of war. not on purpose. they try not to do them.
I'm not convinced.


notice, the fact that they were actually tried at a court, oh no regard for human rights blah blah. shhh. she approached the outpost what the hell was she thinking. what would you do if you were a soldier and 13 year olds carrying explosives all the time approach your post and you must shoot at them to not die. huh? easy for you to sit at home and type.
It's very easy. But you know, it's even easier to not pull the trigger from close range after you've already disabled your possible target.

It's not the first shot that's the problem you see. It's the execution style murder the commander got away with after the soldiers recanted that is.

A. they are not always innocent


Really, so it's ok for them to kill civilians if they're not always innocent?

Well in that case, aren't Palestinian suicide bombers ok because some of the people that die aren't civilians? It's ok for them to send rockets into Israel because not all of the targets are civilians?

Really, so it's ok for them to kill civilians if they're not always innocent?

Well in that case, aren't Palestinian suicide bombers ok because some of the people that die aren't civilians? It's ok for them to send rockets into Israel because not all of the targets are civilians?

welcome to the thread. you must distinguish between civilian and not innocent because they are different. what I meant was often times people die who were not proven to aid the terrorist they were next to but in many cases did aid him and they are counted as 'civilian' deaths. Like the driver of a suicide bomber.

So you've gotten the hang of paragraphs, but have forgotten how to use the quote function.....


no. you don't know what you are talking about again. the expansion is constantly reduced. be quiet if you only have falsehoods to say..

My, aren't you the smart one. You will apologise for accusing me of uttering falsehoods.


The Israeli authorities are planning to build three new Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem, an area regarded as occupied land under international law.
The plan, which has yet to receive final approval, would involve building about 20,000 homes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6645777.stm

Israel has approved the construction of a new settlement in the occupied West Bank, Israeli officials have said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6210721.stm

Israel begins new settlement push
The Israeli government says it plans to build 700 new homes in two settlement blocs in the occupied West Bank.
Adverts published in Israeli newspapers invite bids for work in Maale Adumim just outside east Jerusalem and Beitar Illit to the south, near Bethlehem.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5312084.stm

A confidential report written for European Union foreign ministers has criticised Israel's policy on East Jerusalem, newspaper reports say.
The document, written by British officials, accuses Israel of rushing to annex Arab areas to prevent them becoming a future Palestinian capital.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4470118.stm

Comments?


They don't want to become Israeli citizens. They want Israel. You don't understand the situation.

But Israel wants there land, and doesn't want them as Israeli citizens either. Hence the slow-drip ethnic cleansing.

"Security" is not a good excuse. They had at least one alternative option, and they didn't choose it.

So Israeli civilians are worth more than Palestinian civilians, since it's OK to starve and empoverish the latter, and have no regard for their safety and security - in the name of Israeli security?

So? Doesn't excuse it that thee Israeli strike was lucky enough to catch some guilty people too.

Lack of electricity causes fatalaties. I stand by my sense of priorities.


I'm glad we're back to reasonable discussion. Good. You are a logical person.

Now we are talking about differences in opinion and analysis of the facts as debate should be about. Not the facts but the interpretation of them, good.

Which alternative action do you mean for the beginning of that?
Israeli civilians are definitely NOT worth more than Palestinians.Starve and empoverish? no. before the intifada they were allowed to work within israel and their economy began to revive. Sadly, attacks resumed.. Their safety and security is being threatened by their own fanatic extremist fellow Palestinians. Also, i think its one thing to kill, and another to not provide electricity.

"So? Doesn't excuse it that thee Israeli strike was lucky enough to catch some guilty people too."
This is good that we accept this. At times, killing the terrorist on the spot would save more lives than it kills of innocent civillians. its a choice to be made at all times during a war situation and something that actually is debateable and is always considered within the IDF.

Yes, when innocent people start dying because of the electricity cut off, it stops being justified. But it does not directly kill people, and they do have batteris and other such sources. I think I remember reading it was only a ertain percentage of electricity that was supplied by Israel (is that right?). Indeed priorities are important because on one side you have people dying from rocket attacks and on the other you have potential deaths from electricity shut offs, but that is why it is only 15 minutes a day with increasing amounts per day that the rocket attacks continue. Once they stop, all electricity would be returned.

Once again, i am very glad to debate with someone that is reasonable such as yourself (as opposed to others here like Nodina).

notice, the fact that they were actually tried at a court, oh no regard for human rights blah blah. .

He was tried for illegal use of his weapon and conduct unbecoming an officer. He was aquitted on all charges and transferred to another unit within the IDF, despite the fact a tape records his own troops telling him the child is an unarmed frightened child. The vast majority of the time, no one is charged at all.

welcome to the thread. you must distinguish between civilian and not innocent because they are different. what I meant was often times people die who were not proven to aid the terrorist they were next to but in many cases did aid him and they are counted as 'civilian' deaths. Like the driver of a suicide bomber.

Or like somebody sitting in a school desk, the mad fiends

At 09:15hrs this morning, Ghadeer Jaber Mokheimer, a grade five pupil at UNRWA's Co-Ed Elementary D School in Khan Younis in the Gaza Strip died of her injuries from a gunshot wound received while sitting at her desk in an UNRWA school. She had been hit in the stomach by a shot from an Israeli military position on the outskirts of Khan Younis camp. Ghadeer would have been ten years old on December 9. The nine year old is the second young child in recent weeks to die after being shot while sitting at her desk in an UNRWA school.
link (http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/eed216406b50bf6485256ce10072f637/52e082eeb35a757185256f2c0057eb4f!OpenDocument&Click=)

Or civillian injuries,incurred doing something equally radical - like walking children to school.
http://www.counterpunch.org/butterfly1123.html

In a reluctant response to Nodina :

About East jerusalem that is debateable.
But in territories that are designated Palestinian West Bank, I don't justify building of Israeli settlements. I'm not going to lie. There are some crazy religious Jews who think that God told them to settle in West Bank territories. They disregard any Palestinian claim to the land and I disagree with them. Israel is trying to stop these with a lot of force.

welcome to the thread. you must distinguish between civilian and not innocent because they are different. what I meant was often times people die who were not proven to aid the terrorist they were next to but in many cases did aid him and they are counted as 'civilian' deaths. Like the driver of a suicide bomber.

You mean civilian and innocent right?

The main difference between the Isreali and Palestinian fighter is that one uses conventional methods, the other does not. One has money, the other does not. Both have killed civilians (innocents), and it's foolish to say that one is justified in killing and the other is not.

So if someone lets their friend who is a "terrorist" use their cell phone, and they both die in a bombing, they should both be non-civilian casualties? And what's a driver of a suicide bombing?

You mean civilian and innocent right?

The main difference between the Isreali and Palestinian fighter is that one uses conventional methods, the other does not. One has money, the other does not. Both have killed civilians (innocents), and it's foolish to say that one is justified in killing and the other is not.

So if someone lets their friend who is a "terrorist" use their cell phone, and they both die in a bombing, they should both be non-civilian casualties? And what's a driver of a suicide bombing?

I think a differentiation in motives is apparent.

The IDF soldier who shoots a civilian accidentally has made a tragic error. His motivation was to protect himself and his comrades.

The suicide bomber who blows a bunch of civilians to chowder has done exactly what he planned and set out to do. His motivation is mass murder.

Yes, I do see a difference.

You mean civilian and innocent right?

The main difference between the Isreali and Palestinian fighter is that one uses conventional methods, the other does not. One has money, the other does not. Both have killed civilians (innocents), and it's foolish to say that one is justified in killing and the other is not.

So if someone lets their friend who is a "terrorist" use their cell phone, and they both die in a bombing, they should both be non-civilian casualties? And what's a driver of a suicide bombing?

no by civilian I meant innocent. The Israeli 'fighter' is in fact not a fighter but a soldier, protecting his country by killing terrorists, he does have money, and targets military targets. The Palestinian 'fighter' is in most cases either a suicide bomber wanting to go to heaven to get his 72 virgins if he manages to kill any israeli children, or someone who hides among kindergardeners and in bunkers situated in populated neighborhoods who gets funding from iran. If he succeeds in killing innocent non-military Israelis, his family gets a lot of money. an Israeli soldier is justified in killing a terrorist while the Palestinian 'fighter ' or whatever you want to call it is not justified in killing innocent civilians. Call me a fool if you want but this is how I see it.
By the driver I meant someone who assists the suicide bomber. Before the full emergence of the second intifada, when the borders were open and suicide attacks only began, Palestinian drivers would take a suicide omber with explosives strapped onto him and leave him off at a populated israeli area to blow up. At times, IDF was forced to fire at the car. The driver counted as a civilian casualty, when in fact he is not innocent. This is what i meant by the original statement, that they are not always innocent.

I think a differentiation in motives is apparent.

The IDF soldier who shoots a civilian accidentally has made a tragic error. His motivation was to protect himself and his comrades.

The suicide bomber who blows a bunch of civilians to chowder has done exactly what he planned and set out to do. His motivation is mass murder.

Yes, I do see a difference.

Well I was really talking about Isreali bombings, which are different.

Just wondering, how do you know what's in the mind of a suicide bomber so well?

Well I was really talking about Isreali bombings, which are different.

Just wondering, how do you know what's in the mind of a suicide bomber so well?

I'm extrapolating, of course, but I have run across that kind of fanaticism before in my life. Some of the most frightening experiences OF my life, in fact.

Mind you, don't get me wrong. I think the Palestinians have some very reasonable gripes against Israel, and I accept that attacks on IDF units and the like are acts of warfare. But the deliberate targeting of civilians (as opposed to collateral damage, which the IDF does appear to try to minimize) is a barbarous act.

Well I was really talking about Isreali bombings, which are different.

Just wondering, how do you know what's in the mind of a suicide bomber so well?

What goes through the mind of the bomber, except cocaine and amphetamines, are the koran verses and other extremist muslim teachings taken completely out of context which he was brainwashed with for the few weeks/months before his 'holy mission'. He is already fantasizing about the 72 virgins he will get in heaven if he succeeds in killing innocent Israelis (sometimes they are told that it is only if they kill children). And that he'll be regarded as a hero and his family will recieve lots of money. Thats basically the mindset of a suicide bomber.

Which alternative action do you mean for the beginning of that?
That would be what I've mentioned before - pulling out of the occupied territories and shutting down the illegal settlements.


Israeli civilians are definitely NOT worth more than Palestinians.
Good. Yet again we agree.


Starve and empoverish? no. before the intifada they were allowed to work within israel and their economy began to revive. Sadly, attacks resumed.. Their safety and security is being threatened by their own fanatic extremist fellow Palestinians. Also, i think its one thing to kill, and another to not provide electricity.
There is a vast difference between the two, but both are wrong - there's just a sliding scale between them.

Allow me to link you to a statement made last year by nine Israeli human rights organisations, after the Gaza power plant was blown up by Israeli forces:
On 28 June, Israel bombed Gaza ' s only independent power station, which produced 43% of the electricity needed by the residents in Gaza . Since then, most of the population has electricity between 6 and 8 hours each day, with disastrous consequences on water supply, sewage treatment, food storage, hospital functioning and public health.
http://www.btselem.org/English/Gaza_Strip/20061116_Brief_on_Gaza.asp
Electricity is vitally important.


This is good that we accept this. At times, killing the terrorist on the spot would save more lives than it kills of innocent civillians. its a choice to be made at all times during a war situation and something that actually is debateable and is always considered within the IDF.
Yeah, I know. I'm just mad at them because I firmly believe that they can do better, and that they can reduce casualties. And also that they should punish "bad apples" among their ranks, soldiers who abuse, hurt and murder Palestinians. Some are indeed punished, but in my view it's not nearly enough considering the magnitude of abuse that has become apparent.


Yes, when innocent people start dying because of the electricity cut off, it stops being justified. But it does not directly kill people, and they do have batteris and other such sources. I think I remember reading it was only a ertain percentage of electricity that was supplied by Israel (is that right?).
About 60% yes.


Indeed priorities are important because on one side you have people dying from rocket attacks and on the other you have potential deaths from electricity shut offs, but that is why it is only 15 minutes a day with increasing amounts per day that the rocket attacks continue. Once they stop, all electricity would be returned.
And the problem is that this punishes people who have nothing to do with the rocket attacks, people who cannot do anything to stop it. And I ask again for the number of people killed due to rocket attacks from Gaza, for without that number it's difficult to see how punishing 1.4 million people would be a price worth paying.


Once again, i am very glad to debate with someone that is reasonable such as yourself.
Cheers :)

And au revoir!
*Disappears for a while*

no by civilian I meant innocent. The Israeli 'fighter' is in fact not a fighter but a soldier, protecting his country by killing terrorists, he does have money, and targets military targets. The Palestinian 'fighter' is in most cases either a suicide bomber wanting to go to heaven to get his 72 virgins if he manages to kill any israeli children, or someone who hides among kindergardeners and in bunkers situated in populated neighborhoods who gets funding from iran. If he succeeds in killing innocent non-military Israelis, his family gets a lot of money.

an Israeli soldier is justified in killing ....You seem to say the Insurgents prefer to kill israeli children.
You seem to say the Insurgents prefer to kill non-military Israelis.

Do you really think we are going to buy that kind of retarded propaganda?

no by civilian I meant innocent. The Israeli 'fighter' is in fact not a fighter but a soldier, protecting his country by killing terrorists, he does have money, and targets military targets. The Palestinian 'fighter' is in most cases either a suicide bomber wanting to go to heaven to get his 72 virgins if he manages to kill any israeli children, or someone who hides among kindergardeners and in bunkers situated in populated neighborhoods who gets funding from iran. If he succeeds in killing innocent non-military Israelis, his family gets a lot of money. an Israeli soldier is justified in killing a terrorist while the Palestinian 'fighter ' or whatever you want to call it is not justified in killing innocent civilians. Call me a fool if you want but this is how I see it.
By the driver I meant someone who assists the suicide bomber. Before the full emergence of the second intifada, when the borders were open and suicide attacks only began, Palestinian drivers would take a suicide omber with explosives strapped onto him and leave him off at a populated israeli area to blow up. At times, IDF was forced to fire at the car. The driver counted as a civilian casualty, when in fact he is not innocent. This is what i meant by the original statement, that they are not always innocent.

Yeah, that's what I said.

Any "soldier" is a fighter.

And what about bombers? Bombs don't know who's innocent and who isn't, they just kill everything.

And what about the Palestinians who have seen their family members shot and have had family members killed in bombings? What about the Palestinians who have been driven from their homes and have had their property destroyed? The Palestinian "soldier" does not have the money to fight conventionally, he has not the means. Isreal wouldn't be letting them get guns and tanks in mass would they? So how the hell are they going to fight back? In the only way they can. Their ratio of civilians killed over soldiers is probably less than that of the Israeli bombing campaigns. And who do you think inflicts the most civilian casualties?

What does Iran have to do with this anyway?

Israeli bombers get paid and certainly aren't justified in killing civilians as well.

That's iffy, I see your point but it could go either way.

you seem to say the Insurgents prefer to kill israeli children.
You seem to say they prefer to kill non-military Israelis.

Do you really think we are going to buy that?

Unfortunately, he's pretty right, OD2, at least as far as the suicide bombers' chosen targets go. These guys aren't like the mujahideen fighters in Iraq or Afghanistan, who mostly seem to target military forces; the preferred target in Israel has always been soft (i.e. civilian) targets. Office building lobbies, buses, packed shopping districts, these are the areas the bombers targetted.

You don't have to take our word, though. Do some reasearch on the bombings, it's pretty much all available.

I'm extrapolating, of course, but I have run across that kind of fanaticism before in my life. Some of the most frightening experiences OF my life, in fact.

Mind you, don't get me wrong. I think the Palestinians have some very reasonable gripes against Israel, and I accept that attacks on IDF units and the like are acts of warfare. But the deliberate targeting of civilians (as opposed to collateral damage, which the IDF does appear to try to minimize) is a barbarous act.

I agree that targeting civilians is wrong.

What goes through the mind of the bomber, except cocaine and amphetamines, are the koran verses and other extremist muslim teachings taken completely out of context which he was brainwashed with for the few weeks/months before his 'holy mission'. He is already fantasizing about the 72 virgins he will get in heaven if he succeeds in killing innocent Israelis (sometimes they are told that it is only if they kill children). And that he'll be regarded as a hero and his family will recieve lots of money. Thats basically the mindset of a suicide bomber.

Again, how would you know?

Unfortunately, he's pretty right, OD2, at least as far as the suicide bombers' chosen targets go. These guys aren't like the mujahideen fighters in Iraq or Afghanistan, who mostly seem to target military forces; the preferred target in Israel has always been soft (i.e. civilian) targets. Office building lobbies, buses, packed shopping districts, these are the areas the bombers targetted.

You don't have to take our word, though. Do some reasearch on the bombings, it's pretty much all available.

The key thing is whether or not that justifies the indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas. Does it?

The key thing is whether or not that justifies the indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas. Does it?

No, I wouldn't support that. But from what I've read and seen, Israel has taken reasonable steps to limit civlian casualties. There's a difference between using a Maverick to destroy a building and carpet bombing a neighbourhood. (Not much of a difference, for the poor family living on the ground floor when Hamas uses the second to launch rockets from, I'll grant you.)

From "untermensch" to "ubermensch of God"... it seems like being a victim of oppression doesn't make a people more compassionate and less prone to doing it against other ethnicities. Though it isn't as brutal as the holocaust, there is no way to deny the Israeli treats Palestinians as subhumans and that Ariel Sharon was a miniaturized version of Adolf Hitler to the Palestinians and an unpunished war criminal.

Too bad US taps Israel back and the corrupt and deceitful corporate media aids them into hiding their atrocities done in the name of "counter-terrorism". ADL has become a powerful political tool instead of an anti-prejudice organization to shield any accusation against Israeli by dubbing it as "Antisemitism".

No, it's not a comparable kind of collective punishment, if you could call it that in the first place.

I would support sanctions against a country because such sanctions usually target the government and leadership primarily. Sanctions do not, unlike the collective punishment the Israelis plan to introduce, directly target the weaker and more voulnerable groups of civilians. The sanctions do not normally target the health and security of the civilian population.

I would fully support freezing the assets of the ruler outside his country, refuse to trade arms with him, limit the possibility for him, his collegues and his family to travel internationally, reducing financial ties and trade, and suspend banking operations. In short, actions that would hurt the leadership first and foremost.

Fair enough. I wasn't looking for a argument, more intrested in your opionion. So would you considering sanction which would cut trade and thus the ecomony to be not the same as Israel cutting the power because while the former is trying to reduce the leader's political power, the latter is basically designed for turn the Palestenian people against Hamas?

You don't have to take our word..I wont. Specially with the kind of crap you are trying to pull here.
.
You seem to say the Insurgents prefer to kill israeli children.
You seem to say the Insurgents prefer to kill non-military Israelis.Unfortunately, he's pretty right, OD2 (the Insurgents prefer to kill non-military innocent Israelis ..and Children)Like I said, I wont.
.
These guys aren't like the mujahideen fighters in Iraq or Afghanistan..someone's terrorist is someone else's Freedom fighter.
Same asymmetric warfare against a rich country armed to the teeth (über-militarized).
.
..the preferred target in Israel has always been soft (i.e. civilian)..Like I said, I wont.
.
You don't have to take our word..Like I said, I wont.

You say they prefer to target Children? I call your bullshit.
Prove they prefer to target Children, and I will retract this and the other related posts.

I wont. Specially with the kind of crap you are trying to pull here.
.
Like I said, I wont.
.
someone's terrorist is someone else's Freedom fighter.
Same asymmetric warfare against a Uber-militarized rich country armed to the teeth.
.
Like I said, I wont.
..
Like I said, I wont.

You say they prefer to target Children? I call your bullshit.
Prove they prefer to target Children, and I will retract this and the other related posts.

I didn't claim children. Civilians, yes.

No, I wouldn't support that. But from what I've read and seen, Israel has taken reasonable steps to limit civlian casualties. There's a difference between using a Maverick to destroy a building and carpet bombing a neighbourhood. (Not much of a difference, for the poor family living on the ground floor when Hamas uses the second to launch rockets from, I'll grant you.)

But that's not good enough, they still inflict more civilian casualties then Hezbollah or Hamas.

I didn't claim children. Civilians, yes.

It's hard to say who's targeting who? Are you going to take people on their word, because I guarantee you both sides will say they weren't targeting civilians. But the stats do show, Israel kills more civilians than Hamas.

But that's not good enough, they still inflict more civilian casualties then Hezbollah or Hamas.

I am not entirely certain that's true. The Palestinians claim more casualties, certainly, but they have motive to lie, and have been caught doing so at times (such as claiming massacres in refugee camps that never occurred).

Certainly, it wasn't the case before the wall went up. That has reduced Israeli civilian casualties massively - which I must admit, was a pleasent surprise. I'd figured it for a boondoggle.

There is also, of course, the question of what Israel is supposed to do. If Hamas is launching rockets at Israeli cities, the IDF has little choice but to try and destroy the launchers.

...so Israeli civilians are worth more than Palestinian civilians...

Indubitably, yes. From a completely impartial standpoint, Israelis tend to be better-educated and contribute more to the global economy than their impecunious and unskilled Palestinian counterparts.

It's hard to say who's targeting who? Are you going to take people on their word, because I guarantee you both sides will say they weren't targeting civilians. But the stats do show, Israel kills more civilians than Hamas.

Er, actually, Hamas has said they WILL target civilians. Repeatedly.

I didn't claim children. Civilians, yes.first: Intelligenstan was suggesting: "they prefer to kill Civilians AND Children."

second: "they prefer to kill innocent civilians" is still inaccurate, for both sides.

---------------------
Allow me to give you my PoV,

The Soldiers prefer to kill Insurgents.. but they cant.. because they hide in the populated areas.

The Insurgents prefer to kill soldiers.. bur they cant.. because the soldiers are well protected by state-of-the-art weapons, satellites, night vision, spy drones, tanks, helicopters, warplanes and Kevlar.

So they both kill civilians. They both use collective punishment.
The IDF soldiers kill more civilians than the Insurgents.

It is unfair for the innocent civilians (in both sides).. but thats what happens when you try to use brute force to impose a Jewish country inside someonelse's country.

Indubitably, yes. From a completely impartial standpoint, Israelis tend to be better-educated and contribute more to the global economy than their impecunious and unskilled Palestinian counterparts.

So my life is worth more than yours?

Er, actually, Hamas has said they WILL target civilians. Repeatedly.

When?

I am not entirely certain that's true. The Palestinians claim more casualties, certainly, but they have motive to lie, and have been caught doing so at times (such as claiming massacres in refugee camps that never occurred).

Certainly, it wasn't the case before the wall went up. That has reduced Israeli civilian casualties massively - which I must admit, was a pleasent surprise. I'd figured it for a boondoggle.

There is also, of course, the question of what Israel is supposed to do. If Hamas is launching rockets at Israeli cities, the IDF has little choice but to try and destroy the launchers.

Well their claim is quite believable seeing as one side is being slowly starved to death and the other has plenty of money to back it up.

Do you have any statistics for the second paragraph?

I guess my main point is that they can't really claim a moral high ground.

first: that what Intelligenstan was suggesting: "they prefer to kill Civilians and Children."

second: "they prefer to kill innocent civilians" is still inaccurate, for both sides.
---------------------
Allow me to give you my PoV,

The Soldiers prefer to kill Insurgents.. but they cant.. because they hide in the populated areas.

The Insurgents prefer to kill soldiers.. bur they cant.. because the soldiers are well protected by satellite, night vision, spy drones, tanks, helicopters, bombers and Kevlar.

So they both kill civilians. They both use collective punishment.
The IDF soldiers kill more civilians than the Insurgents.

Well, as I said, I'm not totally sold on the numbers. But assuming they're correct, I would still point out one important fact:

Israel officially does not target civlians. Hamas does.

Therefore, all the Palestinians would have to do to stop Israel blowing the shit out of them is not attack Israel.

But Hamas would still be attacking Israeli civilians.

So my life is worth more than yours?

That depends on how much you earn per year; or to adopt a wider stance, the comparative value of your life to mine is proportional to the amount you will earn in your lifetime compared to the amount I will earn in mine.

So my life is worth more than yours?



When?

Right after they won the election in the West Bank. One of their leaders shouted it out to the crowd that attacks on Israeli civilians would continue. They've also said as much in interviews with al-Jazeera.



Well their claim is quite believable seeing as one side is being slowly starved to death and the other has plenty of money to back it up.

Do you have any statistics for the second paragraph?

Not on me, but I'll see what I can dig up.

However, the "slowly starved to death" part eludes me. I know of no food shortages in the Palestinian areas.

I guess my main point is that they can't really claim a moral high ground.

Yes and no. I'd call not deliberately targetting civilians somewhat superior to doing so.

Right after they won the election in the West Bank. One of their leaders shouted it out to the crowd that attacks on Israeli civilians would continue. They've also said as much in interviews with al-Jazeera.





Not on me, but I'll see what I can dig up.

However, the "slowly starved to death" part eludes me. I know of no food shortages in the Palestinian areas.



Yes and no. I'd call not deliberately targetting civilians somewhat superior to doing so.

Well if they had just won an election they might say a lot of things they don't actually intend to do.

It was a figure of speech, I was referring to the constantly worsening plight of the Palestinians.

I'd say killing more innocents than your foe does not give you the moral high ground.

What goes through the mind of the bomber, except cocaine and amphetamines, are the koran verses and other extremist muslim teachings taken completely out of context which he was brainwashed with for the few weeks/months before his 'holy mission'. He is already fantasizing about the 72 virgins he will get in heaven if he succeeds in killing innocent Israelis (sometimes they are told that it is only if they kill children). And that he'll be regarded as a hero and his family will recieve lots of money. Thats basically the mindset of a suicide bomber.

There would be no cocaine or amphetamines going through the mind of the suicide bomber.

O ye who believe! Strong drink and games of chance and idols and divining arrows are only an infamy of Satan's handiwork. Leave it aside in order that ye may succeed. -- 5:90

As the suicide bombing is part of Jihad; Holy War, the follower wouldn't violate his body; the body that Allah gave him by infesting any type of intoxicant because it would interfere with the mission at hand. Intoxication as a means of achieving an objective is contrary to Islamic teachings.

Say: Shall I inform you of something better than that ? For those who keep from evil, with their Lord, are Gardens underneath which rivers flow wherein they will abide, and pure companions, and contentment from Allah. Allah is Seer of His bondmen -- 3:15

And there is no concrete number given for the pure companions that await the holy warrior of Allah at the gates of paradise. So, where do you get this number? Sure the number seventy-two appears in the Qu'ran but not as a value for the number of virgins or pure companions.

You cannot prove the mindset of a suicide bomber you claim is zealously following the Qu'ran; one who has been brainwashed. If he has indeed been brainwashed, he would not do anything contrary to the word of Allah, which means, he wouldn't take drugs or allow for any distractions in his holy mission.

...ethnic cleansing.

From one of my earliest posts in the thread:

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 Israeli population?

I'm not arguing whether Israel is innocent or not, but I do seek to maintain this thread as 'assumption-less' as possible.

From "untermensch" to "ubermensch of God"...

It seems that you see the Israeli society as an orthodox religious one. As I said before, most of the Israelis are secular. Most of those who serve in the IDF are secular. There is no Jewish conspiracy claiming that Jews are the supreme being, and so and so. Please, stop using this argument, for the sake of respectability. We want facts here, not unreasonable assumptions. For the last time: The Israeli public does not have the greatness syndrome.

From one of my earliest posts in the thread:



I'm not arguing whether Israel is innocent or not, but I do seek to maintain this thread as 'assumption-less' as possible.



It seems that you see the Israeli population as an orthodix religious one. As I said before, most of the Israelis are secular. Most of those who serve in the IDF are secular. There is no Jewish conspiracy claiming that Jews are the supreme being, and so and so. Please, stop using this argument, for the sake of respectability. We want facts here, not unreasonable assumptions. For the last time: The Israeli public does not have greatness syndrome.

Then why was the butcher Ariel Sharon a prime minister?

Then why was the butcher Ariel Sharon a prime minister?

Ever heard of 'democratic elections'? You know, the same system that got Bush into power...? :p

Then why was the butcher Ariel Sharon a prime minister?

1. By that logic, you can claim that the Palestinians are blood-thirsty because they elected Hamas to lead their government. That's not true, of course, and neither is your claim.

2. Perhaps that will come as a great shock to you, but Israel has its own internal problems and issues, that are not related to the conflict. Also, Don't forget that a lot if his platform at the time was the Gaza disengagement plan, and most Israelis were in favor of it.

3. Calling Ariel Sharon a 'butcher' is simply stating your own point of view, and is a result of your own ideological leaning. You call him a butcher for what you believe is a massacre, while other will call him a hero for leading triumphal battles in the past. Personally, I don't like him.

1. By that logic, you can claim that the Palestinian population is blood-thirsty because they elected Hamas to lead their government. That's not true, of course, and neither is your claim.

2. Perhaps that will come as a great shock to you, but Israel has its own internal problems and issues, that are not related to the conflict. Also, Don't forget that a lot if his platform at the time was the Gaza disengagement plan, and most israelis were in favor of it.

3. Calling Ariel Sharon a 'butcher' is simply stating your own point of view, and is a result of your own ideological leaning. You call him a butcher for what you believe is a massacre, while other will call him a hero for leading triumphal battles in the past. Personally, I don't like him.

1. After years of oppression, and considering their cultural leanings, there is no way to deny many of them seek revenge against Israel and this is the origin of terrorism. It's a cyclic situation where each side retaliates the other with their available resources.

2. What do internal problems(besides the retaliation from the Palestinians) have to do with pounding Palestinians? Should I put a link to a site where it's graphically exhibited what Israeli soldiers do with Palestinian children? And wasn't this "disengagement plan" just a form of politically motivated diversion?

3. Some people also have a ideological leaning which make them think Hitler was an hero that leaded triumphal battles in the past and that claim the holocaust never happened and is an invention of a Jew bankers global conspiracy.

After years of oppression, and considering their cultural leanings, there is no way to deny many of them seek revenge against Israel and this is the origin of terrorism. It's a situation where each side retaliates the other with their available resources.

And yet, it was widely stated that Hamas was elected due to the corruption of the Fatah party and welfare issues, and not in order to retaliate against Israel.

What do internal problems(besides the retaliation from the Palestinians) have to do with pounding Palestinians?

That's exactly my point. You asked why was Sharon elected, and I'm telling you that the conflict is not the only thing in the average Israeli mind, and other reasons may make him vote for one party over the other.

Should I put a link to a site where it's graphically exhibited what Israeli soldiers do with Palestinian children?

In order to do what? To shock the viewers? I know this kind of sites. I also know sites where it's graphically exhibited how Israeli children look like after a suicide bombing. Besides, how is that related to what I said?

And wasn't this "disengagement plan" just a form of politically motivated diversion?

Absolutely not. A politically motivated diversion isn't supposed to nearly cause a civil-war.

Some people also have a ideological leaning which make them think Hitler was an hero that leaded triumphal battles in the past...

But unlike sharon, Hitler actually did try to cleans an entire race. And as I mentioned above, what's happening in the territories is not even close to ethnic cleansing. Besides, Sharon is a plant now, so it doesn't matter why or how he was elected. You now have a new 'villain' to aim at, isn't that right?

...and that claim the holocaust never happened and is an invention of a Jew bankers global conspiracy.

Well, they have their opinions, and recorded history has its facts. I pity for those who believe that there actually are grand-Jewish-conspiracies.

... a result of your own ideological leaning. You call him a butcher for what you believe is a massacre, while other will call him a hero ...Someone's terrorist is someonelse's hero.

yup, if this works for the Palestineans, it should work for the other side too.

Someone's terrorist is someonelse's hero.

yup, if this works for the Palestineans, it should work for the other side too.

Of course the Palestinians see us as terrorists, like we see them as such. The difference is determined by what unbiased, objective viewers see, and All I was trying to say is that this is not the case here, because we're all biased towards one side or the other. I'm an Israeli, so of course I'll be more supportive to my country, as you support the Palestinian side.

This is exactly why I think debates like this one are irrelevant and a total waste of time - We won't convince anyone who isn't already convinced.

Ethnic cleansing is not the only form of atrocity an ethnic group can suffer. There is another word for what Israeli government do in Palestine, it's a kind of psychological warfare as they wish to punish the Palestinians as a form of keeping them under control so they conform by fear on being second-class citizens and also to further their own government's interests in the region. And the reasons for a political party being elected aren't singular, there are many reasons and the more militant nature of Hamas it is one of them. Plus there is always the role of the media in politics and many Farfurs teaching kids to Jihad against Israel while

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/shells.jpg

It's a very sad situation there. Only the mass media tries to deceive people with their lies as Israel government is an US ally in the Middle East and many fall on such deceptive lies.

Note: Of course, one day the truth will come out of all this incident.

Of course the Palestinians see us as terrorists, like we see them as such.true.

The difference is determined by what unbiased, objective viewers see..There is very few unbiased, objective viewers in my country.

There is very few unbiased, objective viewers in my country.

Just out of curiosity, which country is it?:p

Just out of curiosity, which country is it?:pLos poderosos Estados Unidos d'Amérique,

Home of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.. The greatest thing since sliced bread

Oh, you don't want to ask me... I'm pessimistic most of the time (I guess that's what you grow up to be down here:p).

Pessimism is rarely wrong, and when it is, it's only pleasantly wrong.

Los poderosos Estados Unidos d'Amérique,

Home of Jon Steward and Stephen Colbert.. The greatest thing since sliced bread

No, they are greater than sliced bread!

Pessimism is rarely wrong, and when it is, it's only pleasantly wrong.

Exactly! If you're always expecting the worst, you can't really be disappointed, only pleasantly surprised.

In a reluctant response to Nodina :

About East jerusalem that is debateable..

Given the increased settlement building around it, and the increase in revocation of papers allowing Arabs to reside there, no, it isn't.

But in territories that are designated Palestinian West Bank, I don't justify building of Israeli settlements. I'm not going to lie. There are some crazy religious Jews who think that God told them to settle in West Bank territories. They disregard any Palestinian claim to the land and I disagree with them.
.

Theres far more than "some crazy religous Jews" involved.

Israel is trying to stop these with a lot of force.

No, they are not. Those proposals came from the Israeli Government.

I see no sign of your apology. Why?

The IDF soldier who shoots a civilian accidentally has made a tragic error. His motivation was to protect himself and his comrades.

Thats what I call a tragi-comic statement.


. The Israeli 'fighter' is in fact not a fighter but a soldier, protecting his country by killing terrorists, he does have money, and targets military targets.
.

Yet you've been shown a number of incidents where that wasnt the case. We must therefore assume that the IDF are the most short-sighted bad shots in the world.....

.......Thats basically the mindset of a suicide bomber..

...and nothing to do with avenging the brothers, sisters, mother, aunts and uncles and liberating his or her people?


There is also, of course, the question of what Israel is supposed to do...

Well, first thing would be to fuck off back to their own side of the border, out of the OT.

Of course the Palestinians see us as terrorists, like we see them as such. The difference is determined by what unbiased, objective viewers see, and All I was trying to say is that this is not the case here, because we're all biased towards one side or the other. I'm an Israeli, so of course I'll be more supportive to my country, as you support the Palestinian side.

This is exactly why I think debates like this one are irrelevant and a total waste of time - We won't convince anyone who isn't already convinced.
Totally agree with this.

Totally agree with this.

I don't. NSG has actually changed my position on this issue and convinced me that both sides are cold, cruel, heartless bastards with the blood of innocent children on their hands. Evil motherfuckers they are, many of them.

Not all, but more than enough in power on both sides.

Fair enough. I wasn't looking for a argument, more intrested in your opionion. So would you considering sanction which would cut trade and thus the ecomony to be not the same as Israel cutting the power because while the former is trying to reduce the leader's political power, the latter is basically designed for turn the Palestenian people against Hamas?

Depends on the trade cut. Food and other humanitarian assistance is not something I'd consider stopping, but sanctions that do not directly hurt the citizens and their health and security would be acceptable. It's a gray area and difficult to give an accurate response as to where the line is, because you'll have to judge each case seperately.

In short, I'd look in part at the motivations for the sanctions, and in part the results of any sanctions imposed.

Does that answer your question? ;)

I don't. NSG has actually changed my position on this issue

Really? That's quite interesting, actually. I never thought forum debates (especially an open forum, where every inexpert can express his/her opinion) could change one's position. I always saw it as a stage to express and explain your opinion, not to persuade other.

Well, first thing would be to fuck off back to their own side of the border, out of the OT.

Do you honestly believe this would stop the attacks? I don't.

Really? That's quite interesting, actually. I never thought forum debates (especially an open forum, where every inexpert can express his/her opinion) could change one's position.on several issues, NSG has given me new information I did not have before, or has clarified/expanded the bits of information I previously had.

As a consequence I am not the same ## of 3/4 years ago. My knowledge base has expanded.

Do you honestly believe this would stop the attacks?It would be a first step towards it. Or do you seriously expect any cooperation from those you keep under military occupation? And then, of course, the steadily growing number of Israeli settlers must leave the West Bank.

Do you honestly believe this would stop the attacks? I don't.

Entirely overnight?Not nessecairly, no. Would it dissipate the worst of the "heat"? Yes. Given a state, secure borders of which they are in control, and without IDF guns and settlers in their faces, a great deal of the source of the struggle dissipates. You will always have a few lunatics. I'd imagine every now and again some nut will try to launch his own personal Jihad, just as some scum (like those settlers in Hebron) will do something equally provocative. In time they will settle down into the kind of distanced hate the Greeks and Turks have.

Do you honestly believe this would stop the attacks? I don't.
It would certainly help. It's not going to have a massive impact instantly. But that's not the point. If you think that the problems between Palestine and Israrel are going to be solved particularly quickly, then you're lacking the kind of intellectual capacity needed for this debate (no worries, most people do).

If you think that keeping fortified settlements of what is essentially an invading force in the eyes of many in the region is going to help stop the attacks, then I'd simply love to hear your reasoning.

Entirely overnight?Not nessecairly, no. Would it dissipate the worst of the "heat"? Yes. Given a state, secure borders of which they are in control, and without IDF guns and settlers in their faces, a great deal of the source of the struggle dissipates. You will always have a few lunatics. I'd imagine every now and again some nut will try to launch his own personal Jihad, just as some scum (like those settlers in Hebron) will do something equally provocative. In time they will settle down into the kind of distanced hate the Greeks and Turks have.

I have to admit, it's a plan. One I could support.

Depends on the trade cut. Food and other humanitarian assistance is not something I'd consider stopping, but sanctions that do not directly hurt the citizens and their health and security would be acceptable. It's a gray area and difficult to give an accurate response as to where the line is, because you'll have to judge each case seperately.

In short, I'd look in part at the motivations for the sanctions, and in part the results of any sanctions imposed.

Does that answer your question? ;)

:p pretty much.

Entirely overnight?Not nessecairly, no. Would it dissipate the worst of the "heat"? Yes. Given a state, secure borders of which they are in control, and without IDF guns and settlers in their faces, a great deal of the source of the struggle dissipates. You will always have a few lunatics. I'd imagine every now and again some nut will try to launch his own personal Jihad, just as some scum (like those settlers in Hebron) will do something equally provocative. In time they will settle down into the kind of distanced hate the Greeks and Turks have.

It's a little like the N.Irish situation. There were points when the idea of there ever being a resolution to all the violence looks so remote as to be impossible. I belive that a solution can be found but that it will take time and effort on both sides. Israel is going to have to be ready to compromise especially at the beginning.

Just to invigorate the discussion a little but, here are some poll results I've found, translated from Hebrew, relevant to August 2007:

Belief that armed confrontations between the two sides will continue.
Among Israelis: 89%
Among Palestinians: 76%

Belief that negotiations will resume.
Among Israelis: 47%
Among Palestinians: 51%

Among Palestinians, 31% believed it is possible to reach a compromise settlement with the current Israeli leadership.

Among Israelis, 42% believed that it is possible to reach a compromise with Abu Mazin (Abbas), and 25% - with a Palestinian national unity government.

And to those who suggest international forces to separate:
Among Israelis, 65% support the deployment of international forces along the borders of Gaza, Egypt and Israel, in order to prevent arm smuggling and rocket launching on Israel, while 35% of the Palestinians support it.

Israel is going to have to be ready to compromise especially at the beginning.

I agree. of course, that should be true to both sides. Processes like this one start with small steps and gestures. A total evacuation of all settlements instantly will not happen, due to the complexity of such a move, and its consequences (for example, a political vacuum in the evacuated territories, that would result in exremists taking control, like what happened in Gaza with Hamas).

Those small gestures include giving control to Palestinian security forces inside Palestinian cities, approval for Palestinians to cross into Israel for work (they would really like that, actually), and finally, reopening of the Errez joint industrial complex.

After those are met with Palestinian steps, such as fluent activity of the Palestinian security forces and relative quiet and security inside Israel, more steps can be taken, such as removing of checkpoints in areas that are less problematic, and coordinated Israeli-Palestinian crack down on extremists.

That's how Oslo started, and that's how any process would start (and actually, some of those steps are being taken all the time, but not in any organized and cmoplete process). Slowly, surely, in order to gradually reduce tensity and mistrust between the two populations.

I agree. of course, that should be true to both sides. Processes like this one start with small steps and gestures. A total evacuation of all settlements instantly will not happen, due to the complexity of such a move, and its consequences (for example, a political vacuum in the evacuated territories, that would result in exremists taking control, like what happened in Gaza with Hamas).

Those small gestures include giving control to Palestinian security forces inside Palestinian cities, approval for Palestinians to cross into Israel for work (they would really like that, actually), and finally, reopening of the Errez joint industrial complex.

After those are met with Palestinian steps, such as fluent activity of the Palestinian security forces and relative quiet and security inside Israel, more steps can be taken, such as removing of checkpoints in areas that are less problematic, and coordinated Israeli-Palestinian crack down on extremists.

That's how Oslo started, and that's how any process would start (and actually, some of those steps are being taken all the time, but not in any organized and cmoplete process). Slowly, surely, in order to gradually reduce tensity and mistrust between the two populations.

Yeah. Basically Israel needs to win the support of the people of Palestine and Hamas. In order to do so, it needs to make sure it doesnt reteliate to attacks in such an extreme manner. This collective punishment is only adding fuel to the fire. Paramilitary organisations like Hamas rely on the community they live in supporting them, take away the support and the way is open for peace.

Yeah. Basically Israel needs to win the support of the people of Palestine and Hamas. In order to do so, it needs to make sure it doesnt reteliate to attacks in such an extreme manner. This collective punishment is only adding fuel to the fire. Paramilitary organisations like Hamas rely on the community they live in supporting them, take away the support and the way is open for peace.First of all Israel needs to stop using the Palestinans' water. This is not about ideologies, this about resources and livelihood.

First of all Israel needs to stop using the Palestinans' water. This is not about ideologies, this about resources and livelihood.

How exactly is Israel using the Palestinians' water? Almost all of Israel gets its water from the Kinneret. The rest (mostly in the Negev and in the Galil) use water from springs in their area.

How exactly is Israel using the Palestinians' water? Almost all of Israel gets its water from the Kinneret. The rest (mostly in the Negev and in the Galil) use water from springs in their area.

http://mondediplo.com/maps/israelwater2000

Water in the occupied territories has been under military control since 1967. The Arab inhabitants are forbidden to dig new wells, while the Jewish settlements may drill for water without restriction. According to World Bank figures, 90% of the water in the West Bank is used for Israel’s benefit and only 10% remains for the Palestinians. The highly complicated water issue has been left to the final-status negotiations.

http://mondediplo.com/maps/israelwater2000

I already clarified that I'm against the settlement enterprise, and in my question I referred to Israel, not including the West Bank (sorry, I should have said that). There are no towns or cities inside Israel that receive their water from the territories (even Jerusalem), and that's my concern.

Regarding the settlements: As said, I think they should be evacuated, and when they will, that problem will be solved.

Let's return to the thread's topic for a while, with fresh news brought to you by "The Secular Resistance Inc.":

Israeli human rights activists filed a petition to the supreme court. Eliezer Rivlin, deputy-chairman of the court, instructed the government to cease the prevention of electricity supply, and to reply to the petition within five days. This morning (Monday), a sitting, headed by attorney general Menachem Mazuz, will take place, in which the legality of the government's decision will be examined.

How exactly is Israel using the Palestinians' water? Almost all of Israel gets its water from the Kinneret. The rest (mostly in the Negev and in the Galil) use water from springs in their area.
So that's what the Negev and Galil are named after!



Oh, as the legality thing posted previously - hurrah, hope they win the case.

So that's what the Negev and Galil are named after!

Lol, the weapons?:D

Lol, the weapons?:D
Yes, exactly.

Let's return to the thread's topic for a while, with fresh news brought to you by "The Secular Resistance Inc.":

Israeli human rights activists filed a petition to the supreme court. Eliezer Rivlin, deputy-chairman of the court, instructed the government to cease the prevention of electricity supply, and to reply to the petition within five days. This morning (Monday), a sitting, headed by attorney general Menachem Mazuz, will take place, in which the legality of the government's decision will be examined.
Good news.

I do like how this thread has stayed relatively calm, and there's even been some constructive feedback :)

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


ex·e·cute /ˈɛksɪˌkyut/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ek-si-kyoot] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -cut·ed, -cut·ing.
–verb (used with object)
1. to carry out; accomplish: to execute a plan or order.
2. to perform or do: to execute a maneuver; to execute a gymnastic feat.
3. to inflict capital punishment on; put to death according to law.
4. to murder; assassinate.



The dictionary appears to disagree with you

The dictionary appears to disagree with you

While:

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=26871&dict=CALD
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Execute
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/execute?view=uk

It depends which dictionary you're looking at. In any case, it doesn't really matter. He chose to use that word to describe what he meant.

Let's return to the thread's topic for a while, with fresh news brought to you by "The Secular Resistance Inc.":

Israeli human rights activists filed a petition to the supreme court. Eliezer Rivlin, deputy-chairman of the court, instructed the government to cease the prevention of electricity supply, and to reply to the petition within five days. This morning (Monday), a sitting, headed by attorney general Menachem Mazuz, will take place, in which the legality of the government's decision will be examined.

That ought to be interesting to see the end results. I wonder what the politicians would do if ruled against.

That ought to be interesting to see the end results. I wonder what the politicians would do if ruled against.

What polititians always do run or litigate...or cross-country litigation

I wonder what the politicians would do if ruled against.

They would probebly try other forms of sanction.

fresh news brought to you by "The Secular Resistance Inc.".Your stock -@NSG- is rising..

Call me when you want to sell some shares. ;)

They would probebly try other forms of sanction.

Yeah, that's what I figured.

I already clarified that I'm against the settlement enterprise, and in my question I referred to Israel, not including the West Bank (sorry, I should have said that). There are no towns or cities inside Israel that receive their water from the territories (even Jerusalem), and that's my concern.Israel is reducing the water that flows down the Jordan considerably. I think that amounts to stealing the water from those who might have used it downstream.

Regarding the settlements: As said, I think they should be evacuated, and when they will, that problem will be solved.But we both know they won't be evacuated. Instead, the number of settlers is still increasing (about 20000 per year). And Israel is continuing to build a Wall/Fence deep inside the West Bank to achieve further land grab. Israel is just scum, and in fact has never been anything else. In fact, there should be no Israel. But what can be expected of folks who believe to be divinely chosen?...

Israel is just scum, and in fact has never been anything else. In fact, there should be no Israel. But what can be expected of folks who believe to be divinely chosen?...

Well, you can't push me to a corner by denying my country's right to exist, and incorrectly generalize like you did. I have insisted many times that most of Israel's Jewish population is secular, yet you keep ignoring what I say, and then expect me to have a debate/argument with you. Have a nice life, I have nothing to say to you.

Eh, pay no attention to UB, TSR. In some aspects, he's almost as bad as Andaras Prime. We get froth at mouth hard heads on either side of the political spectrum here on NSG, and it's generally better to just ignore them.

On the main topic though, how exactly does your election system work? You mentioned it was a new one every two years like it was a recent occurrence. Were the terms longer before?

You mentioned it was a new one every two years like it was a recent occurrence. Were the terms longer before?

The terms were always 4 years. The shorter terms are just an expression of political instability, as we've had for more than 10 years now, since Rabin was assassinated (And that is one of the reasons Olmert seeks to change the form of government, from parliamentary to presidential). Investigation commissions, public criticism and corruption lead to more and more election campaigns. The Arab-Israeli conflict is also a reason, of course. Only one of the last 8 parliament assemblies completed its full term.

EDIT!
Oh my, olmert has prostate cancer! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7067177.stm) His medical files were published today, and it turnes out several days ago they found a prostate tumor. Lol, and I was just talking about unstable governments... But they say he'll be able to function well.

Color me cynical, but I bet that at least half the drive behind those investigations and public criticisms are political maneuvering by the participants to position themselves for the next big seat.

It's a feeding frenzy.

EDIT: And didn't Sharon have some sort of cancer too?

I bet that at least half the drive behind those investigations and public criticisms are political maneuvering by the participants to position themselves for the next big seat.

As long as they do their job and actually investigate or criticize, I don't care what's their drive (talking about independent commissions, like the Vinograd commission [the one meant to investigate the recent war], not those appointed by the government).

EDIT: And didn't Sharon have some sort of cancer too?

Sharon suffered a stroke. He is still in coma, btw.

This morning (Monday), a sitting, headed by attorney general Menachem Mazuz, will take place, in which the legality of the government's decision will be examined.

That was quick... Well, the aforementioned Mazuz criticized the government's plan to impose sanctions on Gaza, and decided to halt those plans.

Btw, lately (since the war, actually), the Israeli judiciary grew in power, and is really giving the politicians a hard time.

Only a few Palestinians are actually launching the rockets.

And only ONE Israeli is actually turning the power off.

So why are people blaming all of Israel from doing something to all of Gaza?

But you got to hand it to the Israelis- in the history of Humanity, no one has ever supplied ANY power to an enemy nation in wartime.

And the sheer gall of the rest of the world in thinking it's "a right" for the Palestinians?

Could you possibly imagine the reaction in 1941: "Damn you Americans, only 440 Japanese men bombed your fleet, why do you punish ALL of Japan by cutting off our oil supply?"

That was quick... Well, the aforementioned Mazuz criticized the government's plan to impose sanctions on Gaza, and decided to halt those plans.

Btw, lately (since the war, actually), the Israeli judiciary grew in power, and is really giving the politicians a hard time.
Really? Good news! :)


...you wouldn't happen to have a link handy, would you?

Really? Good news! :)
...you wouldn't happen to have a link handy, would you?

I'm quoting from Israeli news sites, so I'm sorry...

EDIT: And here (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/918258.html) I found it.

I'm quoting from Israeli news sites, so I'm sorry...

EDIT: And here (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/918258.html) I found it.

Thanks :)

And that's good news. I hope they'll won't take that step...

And that's good news. I hope they'll won't take that step...

I promised to update, so here's an update (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/919787.html).

I promised to update, so here's an update (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/919787.html).

Thanks for the update.

The scary thing is, the Israeli government's position does seem to have some merit. But on the positive side, it de facto recognizes Palestine as a separate state - you can't put sanctions against part of your own nation.

You can't put sanctions against part of your own nation.

After Hamas were elected, the Israeli government declared the Gaza strip "a hostile entity", which is why they refer to it as a separate territory from Israel.

After Hamas were elected, the Israeli government declared the Gaza strip "a hostile entity", which is why they refer to it as a separate territory from Israel.

Kind of like GWB's "enemy combatants" huh?

The situation is currently very fragile. Olmert definitely doesn't want the negotiations to fail, because then his term would be associated with the war in Lebanon and nothing more. He needs a political progress.

Meanwhile, Hamas continues to arm itself and to organize itself as an army, as tons of explosives and hundereds of weapons are smuggled from Sinai to the Gaza strip, behind the Egyptians' back (or with their support?). Rockets and mortars are falling on Israeli towns every day, and the public demands action, any action. The Israeli public, which considers Hamas a hostile regime, doesn't unerstand why the government keeps supplying that regime with power and fuel.

Then comes the attorney general and forbids the government from sanctioning the strip, thus eliminating their last weapon against Hamas that doesn't include using the IDF.

The IDF is ready for a large ground operation in Gaza. Hamas is ready for that kind of an operation as well, with more than 20,000 fighters and the advantage of fighting in its own territory. It will be messy, long, and will cost many lives (of Hamas members, Israeli soldiers, and probably some civilians as collateral damage).

Everything comes down to what will happen in Annapolis.

Well, you can't push me to a corner by denying my country's right to exist, and incorrectly generalize like you did. I have insisted many times that most of Israel's Jewish population is secular, yet you keep ignoring what I say, and then expect me to have a debate/argument with you. Have a nice life, I have nothing to say to you.What does secular mean in a group whose existence and "culture" is exclusively defined by religion, and whose urge for statehood in the Middle East is based entirely on religion? Judaism is a religion and nothing else. The origin of Jews is a religious group among many who lived in Canaan, Israel, and Palestine of ancient times, there is nothing except their faith that distinguished them then from other Levantine folks. They are not a people or even a race, they are a religious group. And it is only their fabricated god that allegedly gave them the territory between the Jordan and the Mediterranean. No other "reason" was ever given for the creation of the modern "state" of Israel in Arabian Palestine. It was not the holocaust or any hardship that they had endured in Europe or elsewhere that caused their greed for Arab land, it was solely their religion. If it had been just about the survival and a safe place they could have gone elsewhere, but their arrogant ideology of being (their own) God's chose people made them want and demand Palestine for themselves. And since Palestine was already populated, the only way to create a Jewish state there was to remove the population living there. Since the 1890ies Jews pursued the aim of getting in possession of Palestine by all means necessary regardless of the Arabs. That's just evil to the core, and the injustice caused by this evil to the Arabs of Palestine remains until this Israel is either gone are makes all Palestinian Arabs full citizens of Israel and lets them return to what they had to leave due to Jewish immigration and subsequent "statehood" since the downfall of the Ottoman Empire. The Palestinian Arabs' right to self-determination after the end of Turkish oppression was sacrificed by the old colonial powers and later by the UN for the Jewish ideology-based greed for statehood in Palestine. That was unacceptable then and it is unacceptable now.

When the British promised the Jews land in Palestine, why was no referendum held there to see what the actual population in the land thought of the idea? I guess we all know why no such effort of reaching a decision democratically was made.

When the British promised the Jews land in Palestine, why was no referendum held there to see what the actual population in the land thought of the idea? I guess we all know why no such effort of reaching a decision democratically was made.

"promised the Jews land in Palestine"?
"why was no referendum held"?
OMG, Have you even read the Balfour Declaration? Have you read about it and its circumstances, or you're just throwing out whatever comes to your head, hoping to get it right?

Also, most religious Jews where against the return to Israel. The Zionist movement's leaders were secular, and their aim to return to "homeland" was for historical reasons, and not religious. The fact is that the Jews had sovereignty in Israel, no matter what was the biblical reason for it.

"promised the Jews land in Palestine"?
"why was no referendum held"?
OMG, Have you even read the Balfour Declaration? Have you read about it and its circumstances, or you're just throwing out whatever comes to your head, hoping to get it right?

Also, most religious Jews where against the return to Israel. The Zionist movement's leaders were secular, and their aim to return to "the homeland" was for historical reasons, and not religious.

Wasting your time with that one.

Wasting your time with that one.

Sorry, what were you referring to? Him, or what I said?

Sorry, what were you referring to? Him, or what I said?

Him, sorry, wasn't clear.

Sorry, what were you referring to? Him, or what I said?

UB's the mirror image of the likes of FAG. Factually resistant and not worth wasting time on. Put him on ignore. It'll be better for everyone involved.

"promised the Jews land in Palestine"?
"why was no referendum held"?
OMG, Have you even read the Balfour Declaration? Have you read about it and its circumstances, or you're just throwing out whatever comes to your head, hoping to get it right?

Also, most religious Jews where against the return to Israel. The Zionist movement's leaders were secular, and their aim to return to "homeland" was for historical reasons, and not religious. The fact is that the Jews had sovereignty in Israel, no matter what was the biblical reason for it.The Balfour declaration was made without any consent from any Arabs. Those who had to suffer the consequences of British rule and Jewish immigration were simply not asked. Why was there no referendum? Why?
There are no "historical" reasons to create a state in a land that is inhabited by someone else. And what sovereignty, if past sovereignty is a criterion at all, did Jews have in Palestine? It was a Persian satrapy, then a province of Ptolemaic Egypt, then a Roman dependency, and finally a part of the Umayyad Caliphate. And what is the significance of assumed past sovereignty in the mists of ancient history when it is used as a reason to assault the 20th century population of the land? And the historical claim to the land is also based entirely on religion, exactly because of the biblical tale. Zionism was not really a secular movement. It was/is a movement of Judaism, and Judaism is a religion.

Foreign Office,
November 2nd, 1917.

Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet:
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country"
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely
Arthur James BalfourIt is obvious that the bolded part is ridiculous, since it assumes that two people could possibly farm the same land. Immigration and land grab does in any case disturb the population, and in fact causes their removal from the land.

The contradiction between the letter of the Covenant is even more flagrant in the case of the independent nation of Palestine than in that of the independent nation of Syria. For in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country, though the American Commission has been going through the forms of asking what they are. The four great powers are committed to Zionism and Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long tradition, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder importance than the desire and prejudicies of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land. In my opinion, that is right.Balfour is a racist who puts the ideological desires of Zionists and Jews ahead of the population of the land, doing so at his desk in distant England.

Btw, dwelling on tradition is rather stupid. Because according to tradition the Arabs are descended from Abraham's eldest son, while Israel is only Abraham's grandson who usurped his inheritance. So the Arabs are always one generation ahead in their traditional claim to the land.

I promised to update, so here's an update (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/919787.html).
Thanks again :)
The scary thing is, the Israeli government's position does seem to have some merit. But on the positive side, it de facto recognizes Palestine as a separate state - you can't put sanctions against part of your own nation.
That is true... It might be a good step.
Then comes the attorney general and forbids the government from sanctioning the strip, thus eliminating their last weapon against Hamas that doesn't include using the IDF.
...I disagree, I think they have other weapons against Hamas than to initiate a collective punishment regime targeting the civilian population.

And btw, it's apparently mostly Islamic Jihad that fires these rockets at present, according to a report I read. Hamas is unwilling and unable to do anything about it though, but I mention it just so you'll remember that there's more than one faction at work here.

Meh. It's certainly inventive, and it's hardly as though there are a plethora of more efficacious alternatives.

I mention it just so you'll remember that there's more than one faction at work here.

And that's an understatement... There are many factions at work. Hamas is the strongest and biggest, of course (it has tens of thousands of members, while the Islamic Jihad has few hundreds, I think). Hamas has enough influence over the Islamic Jihad, and it's not that they oppose the rocket launching...

It does get very "Life of Brian" in all armed struggles, it must be said....

The Judean People's Front! :eek:

*Flees*

The Judean People's Front! :eek:

*Flees*

The only time in history a band of Jews killed themselves on purpose to fight their enemies.

The Balfour declaration was made without any consent from any Arabs. Those who had to suffer the consequences of British rule and Jewish immigration were simply not asked. Why was there no referendum? Why?
There are no "historical" reasons to create a state in a land that is inhabited by someone else. And what sovereignty, if past sovereignty is a criterion at all, did Jews have in Palestine? It was a Persian satrapy, then a province of Ptolemaic Egypt, then a Roman dependency, and finally a part of the Umayyad Caliphate. And what is the significance of assumed past sovereignty in the mists of ancient history when it is used as a reason to assault the 20th century population of the land? And the historical claim to the land is also based entirely on religion, exactly because of the biblical tale. Zionism was not really a secular movement. It was/is a movement of Judaism, and Judaism is a religion.

It is obvious that the bolded part is ridiculous, since it assumes that two people could possibly farm the same land. Immigration and land grab does in any case disturb the population, and in fact causes their removal from the land.

Balfour is a racist who puts the ideological desires of Zionists and Jews ahead of the population of the land, doing so at his desk in distant England.

Btw, dwelling on tradition is rather stupid. Because according to tradition the Arabs are descended from Abraham's eldest son, while Israel is only Abraham's grandson who usurped his inheritance. So the Arabs are always one generation ahead in their traditional claim to the land.

So is dwelling on history that can neither be changed nor made right.

I am a historian. History is my calling. But I know that ultimately, history is only useful for the lessons we gain from it.

Personally, I see the founding of Israel as something the British, as the government in charge, had the right to prevent or allow. But ultimately, it does not matter. Because the probelms caused thereby cannot be fixed by turning back the clock.

If every Israeli were turfed out tomorrow and every millimeter of land was "returned" to the Palestinians (most of whom have never even seen the land they claim), it would not solve anything, because the day after tomorrow, an organization of the people whose land was just stolen - the Israeli-born citizens - would start THEIR campaign to oust the "thieves" from Jerusalem.

Attempting to solve a "historical wrong" in such a way that others are harmed is an exercise in not mere futility, but in making the problem worse.

This morning, a Qassam rocket hit a high voltage line in Sderot, causing a power cut. Look at that... The Israeli judiciary decides not to cut Gaza from power, so they cut us from it.

This morning, a Qassam rocket hit a high voltage line in Sderot, causing a power cut. Look at that... The Israeli judiciary decides not to cut Gaza from power, so they cut us from it.

The irony is staggering.

But this way, Israel's hands are clean. Nobody can blame them, and it kills support for whichever group fired that rocket.

This morning, a Qassam rocket hit a high voltage line in Sderot, causing a power cut. Look at that... The Israeli judiciary decides not to cut Gaza from power, so they cut us from it.
It's a sad, sad state of affairs. :(
The irony is staggering.

But this way, Israel's hands are clean. Nobody can blame them, and it kills support for whichever group fired that rocket.
Wanna bet?

An amusing caricature I found in an Israeli news site:

It shows Olmert and Abbas standing ready for a run. A uniformed Hamas gunman sitting on abbas' back, and Olmert is pulled back by his coalition members. Meanwhile Condoleezza Rice waits in the distance, asking them "Are you ready?"

http://mad.walla.co.il/archive/384333-5.jpg

So is dwelling on history that can neither be changed nor made right.It can be made right. Of course, it can. If they could ship Jews to Palestine for decades, they could ship them back just as easily.

I am a historian. History is my calling. But I know that ultimately, history is only useful for the lessons we gain from it.The lesson of it is that implanting a foreign population and state in a land without the consent and against the livelihood of those already living in the land is a crime. They make a big story in that holy book of theirs out of the Babylonian Captivity when their supposed ancestors were removed from Palestine and replaced by others, and yet they commit the same crime to modern Palestinian Arabs. Apparently these folks only detect atrocities when they are directed at themselves. They are unable to learn from their own history, and they behave exactly as their Nazi oppressors did.

Personally, I see the founding of Israel as something the British, as the government in charge, had the right to prevent or allow. But ultimately, it does not matter. Because the probelms caused thereby cannot be fixed by turning back the clock.Yes, it can. And Britain had no right whatsoever to do anything against the will of the Arabs of Palestine. Only a complete butthole would support or justify such an act of colonialism.

If every Israeli were turfed out tomorrow and every millimeter of land was "returned" to the Palestinians (most of whom have never even seen the land they claim), it would not solve anything, because the day after tomorrow, an organization of the people whose land was just stolen - the Israeli-born citizens - would start THEIR campaign to oust the "thieves" from Jerusalem.They should not be born there but elsewhere. Israel's existence is a crime, and those who are born in it continue the crime of their parents. But I suppose these folks have no decency.

Attempting to solve a "historical wrong" in such a way that others are harmed is an exercise in not mere futility, but in making the problem worse.Why? Jews could just leave the land as they came to it. I don't see what harm that would mean to anybody. The problem exists because Israel exists. That's pretty obvious. So remove the cause for the problem and the problem is solved for good. The Palestinian Arabs are still waiting in all the refugee camps to return what was theirs and their parents'. They've been living there for two and more generations now, and while the West tends to forget those who suffer from the Jewish greed for statehood the injustice continues. Their situation hasn't changed in 60 years and time has not passed for them since then, and Jewish guilt is still the same. It is the Palestinian Arabs' human right to go back to their homes. And as long Jews don't accept that they'll remain the utter scum that they are. Seeking statehood and decadence at the expense of others is the ultimate final sin. Whoever supports Israel is a declared enemy of Arabs, a real literal anti-semite (as opposed to the twisted modern meaning of the word).

...as long Jews don't accept that they'll remain the utter scum that they are.

meh...:rolleyes:

And as long Jews don't accept that they'll remain the utter scum that they are.

Every word that crawls from you undermines the Palestinian cause and - more generally - faith in humanity. Please fuck off, thanks.

Wanna bet?

Well, pinprick it.

Every word that crawls from you undermines the Palestinian cause and - more generally - faith in humanity. Please fuck off, thanks.
Yeah, you are ready to make concessions to the occupiers. Some type of Stockholm syndrome, huh?

Yeah, you are ready to make concessions to the occupiers. Some type of Stockholm syndrome, huh?

Not at all. I'm just motivated by general principal, whereas you're motivated a principle hatred of jews. You have nothing to contribute. Nada, zero, SFA. Anything you spout that may be correct is corrupted by your having uttered it.

Not at all. I'm just motivated by general principal, whereas you're motivated a principle hatred of jews. You have nothing to contribute. Nada, zero, SFA. Anything you spout that may be correct is corrupted by your having uttered it.I am motivated by the principle of absolute justice that does not depend on laws or fashions. The creation of Israel was wrong. Time will not change that. Israel's actions are wrong. Time will not change that. Ever. Wrong remains wrong, no matter how much time passes. And everything that develops out of such wrong is equally wrong. I don't carer how nice some Israelis may be as long as they continue living on land where they just shouldn't be and as long as they keep the families who had their livelihood in this land from returning. How can you possibly justify the expulsion of a single Palestinian Arab to make room for a Jewish immigrant, let alone the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Arabs? Does it matter that this was 60 years ago? No, it doesn't, because those who have suffered from this expulsion are still alive or have had children who are alive and wait to return. You are unable to see the magnitude of the inhumanity of what Jewish desire for land has caused. Although you criticize Israelis for some of their actions, you clearly are not willing to solve the root of this conflict. The root of this conflict is that Jews came to a land that had no space and no welcome for them. They came not in peace but with demand for land. That was evil and no passage of time will ever change that. Send them somewhere else and finally leave the Arabs alone. E.g. the US has plenty of space and the folks there are fond of Jews and their weird ideologies.
One question: would a state like Israel be created today if a group of Jews asked for it? Would the UN reach a decision to slice up somebody else's land to artificially create room for a bunch of people?

Jewish desire for land .

Exhibit for the prosection number (lost count....). You have absolutely nothing to contribute.


Jews and their weird ideologies.

Yep, thats the kind of thing I meant. Raging anti-semitism. Had you said anything worth saying in that little rant, or attached some event or news item to it, it would be utterly devalued by its association with you and your bile. You are some form of creeping rot.

Exhibit for the prosection number (lost count....). You have absolutely nothing to contribute.Are you denying that the creation of a Jewish state was based on the desire to create a Jewish state, for which naturally land would be needed? What logic is that? Jews wanted their own state and they wanted the land for it. Somebody else's land. Are you denying that?

Yep, thats the kind of thing I meant. Raging anti-semitism. Had you said anything worth saying in that little rant, or attached some event or news item to it, it would be utterly devalued by its association with you and your bile. You are some form of creeping rot.No, Judaism is creeping rot. The ideology of being a divinely chosen people and deserving of the land at issue is the deeper cause for the conflict about Palestine. They wanted Palestine exactly because they were Jews. Facts are not anti-semitic, are they? And even if they were, what does it change? Judaism is a religion centered around a fabricated god and it's an ideology centered around a self-styled ethnic group that is given a special status by said god. Altogether this makes an unacceptable mixture of pride and presumption. And they were allowed to live out their national fantasy on the backs of those Arabs living in Palestine when it happened to be under British administration. There is nothing that justifies the existence of a Jewish state in the form that Israel is. If someone steals my land, I won't negotiate with him. And if I meet the one whose father stole my father's land, I won't negotiate with him either. How can you expect Palestinians to negotiate while Israel is still occupying and stealing their land, their home land? Israelis are demanding peace from the Palestinians while bulldozing their homes and taking their water and building a wall/fence. And what about the refugees? Israel has demonstrated in countless occasions that it has no interest in ever talking Palestinians as equals, and as those whose land they have intruded, stolen, conquered. Might does not make right, not even in the case of Israel.

Judaism is a religion centered around a fabricated god

As opposed to...?

As opposed to...?There needs to be no opposing thing to that. This is not a comparison.

Yes, it can. And Britain had no right whatsoever to do anything against the will of the Arabs of Palestine. Only a complete butthole would support or justify such an act of colonialism.

Of course they did. They were the government - that which governs. They had taken over the area from the Ottomans, by perfectly legal and respectable means. The choice was theirs, and theirs alone, since they did not hide the fact that it was not a democracy. No justification is required - it was their choice to make.


They should not be born there but elsewhere.

Utterly irrelevant. We are talking reality here, not fantasyland.

Israel's existence is a crime, and those who are born in it continue the crime of their parents. But I suppose these folks have no decency.

No decency? They are not the ones trying to bring back attainder of blood.

By your argument, every country in the Americas, Australia and Western Europe is a criminal act. Sheer stupidity.


Why? Jews could just leave the land as they came to it.

But why should they? To the Israeli born, it is their land. They were born to it, giving them as good a claim as anyone.


I don't see what harm that would mean to anybody.

You claim to empathize with the Palestinians for losing their lands, yet would steal those lands from others? And you ask, "what harm"?



The problem exists because Israel exists. That's pretty obvious.

So obvious that, apparently, you still can't get it right. Israel is NOT the problem. The problem is that two groups claim the same territory.

So remove the cause for the problem and the problem is solved for good.

No; it's solved for about thirty seconds. Then the now-displaced Israelis start a guerilla war to get back what was stolen from them. And we're right back where we started from.

The Palestinian Arabs are still waiting in all the refugee camps to return what was theirs and their parents'. They've been living there for two and more generations now, and while the West tends to forget those who suffer from the Jewish greed for statehood the injustice continues. Their situation hasn't changed in 60 years and time has not passed for them since then, and Jewish guilt is still the same. It is the Palestinian Arabs' human right to go back to their homes.

If you get turfed out of your home and have to go into a refugee centre, that's the fault of whoever or whatever turfed you out. If you're still there ten years later, it's by your own choice.

And as long Jews don't accept that they'll remain the utter scum that they are.

I guess that pretty much sums up your attitude...

Seeking statehood and decadence at the expense of others is the ultimate final sin.

Jeeze, you are so naive. You just condemned every nation that does now, and ever has, existed.

Whoever supports Israel is a declared enemy of Arabs, a real literal anti-semite (as opposed to the twisted modern meaning of the word).

You, and people like you, are the reason for most of the bloodshed in the middle east.

You see black and white, right and wrong, and demand simplistic, stupid solutions, rather than looking at things as they really are and applying your intellect to actually solving the problem. You speak in rhetoric rather than reasoned argument, act with passion instead of impassionate reason, and your certainty of rectitude blinds you to great chasms of illogic and bigotry that span what we can laughingly call your "body of argument".

Ultimately, you will never be part of the solution, but only another problem.

No, Judaism is creeping rot. .

Digging yourself in deeper there I see. Total nonsense. I think I'll call you NTC in future.

Israel is NOT the problem. The problem is that two groups claim the same territory.Israel IS the problem, because they are the ones who claimed the territory that the Arabs were already living in. The Jews came from outside and wanted what the Arabs had. This is not a question of two equal groups equally claiming the same territory, but of one group trying to supplant the other. THAT is the problem. Arabs were there since ancient times while Jews had their lives in Europe and elsewhere. Jews had no connection to the land except through their ideology/religion all the while the Arabs were actually living in and of the land. Zionism was a phenomenon among European Jews who shared the Europe's imperialistic views. The Arabs were and are the victims in this game.


You see black and white, right and wrong, and demand simplistic, stupid solutions, rather than looking at things as they really are and applying your intellect to actually solving the problem. You speak in rhetoric rather than reasoned argument, act with passion instead of impassionate reason, and your certainty of rectitude blinds you to great chasms of illogic and bigotry that span what we can laughingly call your "body of argument".

Ultimately, you will never be part of the solution, but only another problem.Looking at things as they are? How are things? Israelis have indiscriminately butchered Palestinians for 60 years. That's how things are. They take their water, their homes, their jobs, their land, their livelihood, and build a wall/fence around them. That's how things are. They have started wars and blamed them on others. That's how things are. Every time they made a superficial peace initiative they simultaneously bulldozed Palestinian houses or expanded Jewish settlements in the West Bank. That's how things are. But you are ready to look past all the atrocities and expect the Palestinians to just forget their sufferings and give way to the Jews wishes. It is not the Palestinian Arabs who stole, steal, and occupy someone else's land, it's the Israelis, but somehow you seem to forget who is the intruder and aggressor here. The Arabs are the good ones. They aided the British in defeating the Ottomans and cast off their own oppression by the Turks. And the British were supposed to administer the area on behalf of its inhabitants, but they abused their power and let in the foreign Jews en masse.

The Jews .... Jews ...... Jews ......Jews ...... Jewish ......Jews .... Jews ........

I'd say you're a barrel of laughs when 'Fiddler on the roof" is on.......

Israel IS the problem, because they are the ones who claimed the territory that the Arabs were already living in. The Jews came from outside and wanted what the Arabs had. This is not a question of two equal groups equally claiming the same territory, but of one group trying to supplant the other. THAT is the problem. Arabs were there since ancient times while Jews had their lives in Europe and elsewhere. Jews had no connection to the land except through their ideology/religion all the while the Arabs were actually living in and of the land. Zionism was a phenomenon among European Jews who shared the Europe's imperialistic views.

Overemotive, and not especially accurate, but one way of looking at the events of sixty years ago.

Unfortunately, of course, it has little bearing on things now. Even if we accept that the Israelis were in the wrong back then (an assumption I do NOT accept), the simple fact is, there are a good two or three generations of Israeli born citizens who share no blame for it at all. Guilt is not inheritable, nor are we, or anyone, obliged to right the wrongs of those who came before us.

The Arabs were and are the victims in this game.

Victimhood has a time limit. Sixty years after events, if you're still paying the victim card, don't expect anyone to cash it.

Looking at things as they are? How are things? Israelis have indiscriminately butchered Palestinians for 60 years. That's how things are.

False.

They take their water, their homes, their jobs, their land, their livelihood, and build a wall/fence around them. That's how things are.

The fence is around Israel, not Palestine. And even Israel has acknowledged the wrongness of the settlements and is trying to do something about it.


They have started wars and blamed them on others. That's how things are.

Outright lie. Israel started ONE of the wars - in order to prevent the Arab nations completing their preparations to attack. Every other has been in response to attack upon Israel.

Every time they made a superficial peace initiative they simultaneously bulldozed Palestinian houses or expanded Jewish settlements in the West Bank. That's how things are.

Sometimes. Other times, the Palestinians decided to blow up some Israeli kids to stop the talks, or launched missiles or mortar rounds into Israeli suburbs. Both sides have demonstrated a decidedly schizophrenic attitude towards peace talks.

But you are ready to look past all the atrocities and expect the Palestinians to just forget their sufferings and give way to the Jews wishes.

No. To forget is impossible.

What is possible, is to step past the past. Israel and Palestine claim the same land. So the conflict can only end in one of two ways: negotiation, or genocide.

The Palestinians have to forgive the settlements, the economic marginalization, the bulldozings, the blood shed. That will be very hard.

The Israelis have to forgive the suicide murderers, the rocket attacks, the masscred Kibbutzes, four wars, the blood shed. That will also be very hard.

But if they don't, the only option is genocide of one side. And the Palestinians are onthe wrong side of the power equation.

It is not the Palestinian Arabs who stole, steal, and occupy someone else's land, it's the Israelis, but somehow you seem to forget who is the intruder and aggressor here.

Intruder? Perhaps. Aggressor? Four wars prove you wrong.

The Arabs are the good ones.

Good? Bad? What are you, five years old?

They aided the British in defeating the Ottomans and cast off their own oppression by the Turks. And the British were supposed to administer the area on behalf of its inhabitants, but they abused their power and let in the foreign Jews en masse.

A decision the British had, as government of the region, the right to make. And one which cannot be undone.

Victimhood has a time limit. Sixty years after events, if you're still paying the victim card, don't expect anyone to cash it.

Unless of course it's the Holocaust Card, which has no expiration date whatsoever.

The fence is around Israel, not Palestine. And even Israel has acknowledged the wrongness of the settlements and is trying to do something about it..

The wall annexes and isolates parts of the West Bank, etc and does not strictly follow Israels borders.

As to the settlements, not from what I can gather, no.


The Palestinians have to forgive the settlements,
..

...as long as they become a thing of the past.

The wall annexes and isolates parts of the West Bank, etc and does not strictly follow Israels borders.

As to the settlements, not from what I can gather, no.



...as long as they become a thing of the past.

Fair and reasonable.