NationStates Jolt Archive

My basic question is "Has the situation in Israel caused grave damage to the Jewish and Palestinian souls. For the discussion, I'm just using the term soul to represent a sort of communal average band of morals, ethics, etc.
The situation is twofold. 1. The Jews are opporessing the Palestinians (even the most ardent Israeli supporting would have a hard time disagreeing with that)
2. The Jews are in constant fear of dying through terrorism.

I know Israel threads normal hit flame very quickly, so I'm requesting some rules to be adhered to.

Some things I'd request not to happen.

1. The "occupation of Palestine is right" arguments. That's a different thread.
2. "We suffered the holocaust, you heartless bastard". Just because you suffered doesn't give you the right to cause others to suffer. A different thread again.
3. "Those Palestinians deserve it". "Those Jews deserve it". That is for another thread. Not to mention I think that level of hate supports the damaged soul hypothesis.
4. There is a Jewish conspiracy to rule the world. You nut job, make your own thread.

There have been wholesale deportations of Palestinians and they need I.D. badges to move anywhere. Remind anyone of Germany? I.D. badge = star of David armband. Forced deportations. The parallels to Germany, I think, cause a psychological disconnect and scar amongst Israelis.

They want a homeland, it is ordained by god, but is it right to do actions like Nazi Germany? Most choose to try to ignore it. It is only brave people like Amira Haas who accept the truth. Even those who willfully ignore it, have it eating at their conscience. Every time a suicide bomber hits, the more preceptive Israeli asks, well, what would I do in his shoes?

For the Palestinians. They are were the Israeli's were in '48. They are a culture who know nothing but pain and suffering. The most dangerous person is someone with nothing to lose. The Palestinian soul is a tortured beast, lashing out whenever it can.

Yes on both counts, for the reasons listed. The Palestinians have hit rock bottom, the Israelis are nearly there.

Yes on both counts, for the reasons listed. The Palestinians have hit rock bottom, the Israelis are nearly there.

There are still people on both sides that can still see things straight though.

My basic question is "Has the situation in Israel caused grave damage to the Jewish and Palestinian souls. For the discussion, I'm just using the term soul to represent a sort of communal average band of morals, ethics, etc.
The situation is twofold. 1. The Jews are opporessing the Palestinians (even the most ardent Israeli supporting would have a hard time disagreeing with that)
2. The Jews are in constant fear of dying through terrorism.

...

There have been wholesale deportations of Palestinians and they need I.D. badges to move anywhere. Remind anyone of Germany? I.D. badge = star of David armband. Forced deportations. The parallels to Germany, I think, cause a psychological disconnect and scar amongst Israelis.

They want a homeland, it is ordained by god, but is it right to do actions like Nazi Germany? Most choose to try to ignore it. It is only brave people like Amira Haas who accept the truth. Even those who willfully ignore it, have it eating at their conscience. Every time a suicide bomber hits, the more preceptive Israeli asks, well, what would I do in his shoes?

For the Palestinians. They are were the Israeli's were in '48. They are a culture who know nothing but pain and suffering. The most dangerous person is someone with nothing to lose. The Palestinian soul is a tortured beast, lashing out whenever it can.

Wow, good topic. You're going to get people to stop and think about that one. This is demonstrative of the fact that the situation is clearly murky; cowering beneath the invisible hand of fear, wallowing through shades of grey into the uncertainty of tomorrow.

I'm high...

Isn't there a saying, a proverb that best applies to this? A quotation of immense popularity that conveys the meaning of the moment... ah yes, "history repeats itself." That's so, isn't it? And that we are bound to repeat the mistakes of those before us because we have chosen to close the book on history instead of displaying it and keeping it bookmarked for when we need to resume from our last stop point.

I'm high...

Suffering is desire. People have desire. A desire that they cannot overcome, and this case, a desire for something called a homeland. Desire drives ambitions, making people blind to everything around them. Through this blindness, desire flies. It doesn't hit anything but it has many near misses, as it leaves a flurry of utter destruction in its wake. This is the collateral damage; that is the people who stand in the way of those seeking desire.

they just need some marmite, that's all.

they just need some marmite, that's all.
ewwwwww... Vegemite is better.

I think once people get over the idea of "homelands" ordained by god maybe we can start making progress.

I think once people get over the idea of "homelands" ordained by god maybe we can start making progress.So you ask the Jews to drop Judaism?

So you ask the Jews to drop Judaism?

I ask for everyone to drop religion in general or keep it a private matter

I ask for everyone to drop religion in general or keep it a private matterA fine point of view.

My basic question is "Has the situation in Israel caused grave damage to the Jewish and Palestinian souls. For the discussion, I'm just using the term soul to represent a sort of communal average band of morals, ethics, etc.
The answer is no, because there's no such thing.

The situation is twofold. 1. The Jews are opporessing the Palestinians (even the most ardent Israeli supporting would have a hard time disagreeing with that)
2. The Jews are in constant fear of dying through terrorism.

There have been wholesale deportations of Palestinians and they need I.D. badges to move anywhere. Remind anyone of Germany? I.D. badge = star of David armband. Forced deportations. The parallels to Germany, I think, cause a psychological disconnect and scar amongst Israelis.

Every time a suicide bomber hits, the more preceptive Israeli asks, well, what would I do in his shoes?

Palestinians are where the Israeli's were in '48. They are a culture who know nothing but pain and suffering.

1.Israel is not deliberately oppressing the Palestinians but is acting to the utmost humane extent as possible to insure the safety of innocent civilians within it.
2. Israelis are not in constant fear of dying, but terrorism is a problem.

ID badges are NOTHING like Nazi Germany. You have no idea what you're talking about like other people who probably look at the occassional news articles.
Palestinians live among themselves for the most part. There are many muslim arabs, some former Palestinians, that live in Israel and don't need an ID badge. The ID badge is necessary to cross into Israel. This has been a consequence of countless terrorist attacks.

Every time a suicide bomber hits, the Israeli says: 'If i were in his shoes, I would convince all of my fellow Palestinians to stop committing suicide attacks against innocent Israeli civilians so we can finally live in peace'.

In fact, your final statement is not true in many ways:
a. they have where to go (.5 million Palestinians fled to Jordan and other neighboring countries in 48).
b. they did live in relative tranquility and began to revive their economy before the commencement of the 2nd intifada.

1.Israel (...............)intifada.

Isn't that the kind of thing the OP QUITE SPECIFICALLY ASKED THAT YOU NOT FUCKING INCLUDE?

Yes on both counts, for the reasons listed. The Palestinians have hit rock bottom, the Israelis are nearly there.I'm pretty sure there's plenty more space to plunge. Not sure how you characterize "rock bottom" but Israeli society definitely isn't it by any measure. I'd argue that neither is Palestinian society.

As for "souls," I definitley think so many years of war and killing have changed the way Israelis and Palestinians approach each other (and the world). But it's not all bad. Most people fro mthat region are, if not more moderate, certainly much more pragmatic and forward-thinking than "activists" on both sides here. I think the pathology of violence and death-cult is the biggest problem in the palestinian collective psyche (if there is such a thing). In Israel the biggest one might be an over-active fear of destruction.

Isn't that the kind of thing the OP QUITE SPECIFICALLY ASKED THAT YOU NOT FUCKING INCLUDE?Maybe, but the OP can't list controversial statements in the "don't discuss" section and then honestly expect them not to be discussed.

Isn't that the kind of thing the OP QUITE SPECIFICALLY ASKED THAT YOU NOT FUCKING INCLUDE?

No, actually, I haven't violated any of those 4, no. By making the claims Fishutopia makes, such as the ones below, he is bringing the issues I adressed into the thread. Sorry.


1. The Jews are opporessing the Palestinians (even the most ardent Israeli supporting would have a hard time disagreeing with that)
2. The Jews are in constant fear of dying through terrorism.

1. The "occupation of Palestine is right" arguments. That's a different thread.
2. "We suffered the holocaust, you heartless bastard". Just because you suffered doesn't give you the right to cause others to suffer. A different thread again.

Palestinians need I.D. badges to move anywhere. Remind anyone of Germany? I.D. badge = star of David armband. Forced deportations.

They want a homeland, it is ordained by god, but is it right to do actions like Nazi Germany? Most choose to try to ignore it. It is only brave people like Amira Haas who accept the truth. Even those who willfully ignore it, have it eating at their conscience. Every time a suicide bomber hits, the more preceptive Israeli asks, well, what would I do in his shoes?

For the Palestinians. They are were the Israeli's were in '48. They are a culture who know nothing but pain and suffering. The most dangerous person is someone with nothing to lose. The Palestinian soul is a tortured beast, lashing out whenever it can.

You removed 3. & 4.

Lol

because I found neither of those as controversial statements, and obviously did not violate either of them if you had actually read my post.

There's no real common 'soul' between them, it's a very diverse place, most of the Israelis are immigrants, there is little interaction culturally between the two. The issue is more about creating a common 'soul' through peace and cooperation.

No, actually, I haven't violated any of those 4, no. By making the claims Fishutopia makes, such as the ones below, he is bringing the issues I adressed into the thread. Sorry.

You removed 3. & 4.

Lol

most of the Israelis are immigrants

Actually, no, most are natives.

because I found neither of those as controversial statements, and obviously did not violate either of them if you had actually read my post.

Tis not a quote if it's not a quote.

The way you state your opinion kind of violates 3., and the way you're heading could be a violation of 1.

Buddy, reread. I was quoting the controversial statements the author made and I responded to directly.

Actually, no, most are natives.

I mean in a general sense of bringing a different culture to an area of land. Now most were born there, but the two cultures are very separate.

...
Every time a suicide bomber hits, the Israeli says: 'If i were in his shoes, I would convince all of my fellow Palestinians to stop committing suicide attacks against innocent Israeli civilians so we can finally live in peace'.
...


You are blaming it all on the Palestinians, which would be a violation of 3., which you did not quote.

I mean in a general sense of bringing a different culture to an area of land. Now most were born there, but the two cultures are very separate.

Oh yes, in that sense, definitely.

Oh yes, in that sense, definitely.

And there will be no 'common soul' until inter-mingling of cultures happens, and that will only happen with peace and equal freedoms for everyone. But is a 'common soul' of the two countries really necessary in the long run? I think long-lasting peace and the separation (but some mixing) of two 'normal' adjacent countries is perhaps a better idea.

And there will be no 'common soul' until inter-mingling of cultures happens, and that will only happen with peace and equal freedoms for everyone. But is a 'common soul' of the two countries really necessary in the long run? I think long-lasting peace and the separation (but some mixing) of two 'normal' adjacent countries is perhaps a better idea.

I think the two groups must learn live together, if they just seperate, the violence will not just disappear.

I think the two groups must learn live together, if they just seperate, the violence will not just disappear.

I don't mean completely separate, I mean more like, say, France and Germany now. They are separate in some important ways, but enjoy a decent relationship and play a large role in the EU together and with others.

Sorry. Just for a clarification. If you disagree with my basic premises, such as "The Jews are oppressing the Palestinians", then I would appreciate a polite "I think the Jews aren't oppressing the Palestinians, but in regards to your question about the souls" <your post>

I would request a new thread for that topic though. I understand I am not a mod, and these are just requests.

Also, I definately do not think there is a communal Palestinian/Jewish soul. I consider them 2 seperate entities. It's just that their future is intertwined, and should be discussed in the same thread.

I think the two groups must learn live together, if they just seperate, the violence will not just disappear.

You are clearly not aware of the situation.

Yes. However, the idea of a communal soul as you defined it is fairly pointless, because in all likelihood about 99.99% of Israelis and Palestinians deviate from it.

Averaging people is a risky business, and one to be avoided if possible.

My solution depends on strong leadership on both sides, so right now I don't see it happening. It involves a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip with a guaranteed connection between them, Jerusalem being made a shared or free city, the administrative capital of Israel being moved to Tel Aviv and the two countries forming a free trade zone with a common currency.

Question is what to do with Hamas, but there are no easy answers to it.

You are clearly not aware of the situation.

It's called looking at the future, it's people like you who are not aware, people like you who cause the problems of the world.

You're advocating that there be two seperate reasons, in other words...

You're asserting that reconciliation is not possible, that it is not possible for the two groups to coexist. And if they can coexist, why not keep the country as one?

If you divide the land, you will have two different cultural groups, and they will develop differently. Yes we already have two different cultural groups, but if we end this segregation we allow for a coming together. If the two groups exist in the same country, together, they will eventually reconcile. On the other hand, creating two seperate states will only lead to more wars, and possibly genocide. There must be unity, not division.

You see, the problem with todays world is that people now think that making a bunch of imaginary lines, and drawing them on paper (for visual support), somehow solves problems. These lines will only create problems, and make the conflict worse.

...
Question is what to do with Hamas, but there are no easy answers to it.

It's telling when a people are willing to elect a terrorist group. Perhaps they should be treated better?

It's telling when a people are willing to elect a terrorist group. Perhaps they should be treated better?
Hamas wasn't elected because they want to die as martyrs, they were elected because Fatah was a bunch of nepotistic, corrupt, kleptocratic crap. So yeah, they should have been treated better, but I wouldn't blame the Israelis for it.

It's called looking at the future, it's people like you who are not aware, people like you who cause the problems of the world.

You're advocating that there be two seperate reasons, in other words...

You're asserting that reconciliation is not possible, that it is not possible for the two groups to coexist. And if they can coexist, why not keep the country as one?

If you divide the land, you will have two different cultural groups, and they will develop differently. Yes we already have two different cultural groups, but if we end this segregation we allow for a coming together. If the two groups exist in the same country, together, they will eventually reconcile. On the other hand, creating two seperate states will only lead to more wars, and possibly genocide. There must be unity, not division.

You see, the problem with todays world is that people now think that making a bunch of imaginary lines, and drawing them on paper (for visual support), somehow solves problems. These lines will only create problems, and make the conflict worse.

You don't know what you're talking about. It sounds like you don't know the first thing about the middle east.
1. 'Reconcilliation'? RE? last time there was any sort of concilliation (i.e. prior to the 2nd intifada) it was disturbed by one of the sides breaking it.
2. coexist? what is wrong with you? you don't realize that the Palestinians don't want to live with the Israelis?
As I've said there are many Muslim Arabs living perfectly fine in Israel as equal Israeli citizens. Many of whom were former Palestinians.
Combining the Palestinians, you'll just have a government with a majority of Israelis and a minority of Palestinians. They have opposite interests. As of right now, the elected Hamas wants to come closer to traditional Shariah law, while Israel is very liberal, not to mention - primarily Jewish. You don't understand these are two different groups of people. +Most Palestinians would never live with Israelis (and quite frankly I won't be surprised if there will be many Israelis who will not feel so safe living amongst those who formerly supported the killing of their children).
Why doesn't the US join up with Mexico? Why doesn't France and Britain just join? You don't understand the situation.

You don't know what you're talking about. It sounds like you don't know the first thing about the middle east.
1. 'Reconcilliation'? RE? last time there was any sort of concilliation (i.e. prior to the 2nd intifada) it was disturbed by one of the sides breaking it.
2. coexist? what is wrong with you? you don't realize that the Palestinians don't want to live with the Israelis?
As I've said there are many Muslim Arabs living perfectly fine in Israel as equal Israeli citizens. Many of whom were former Palestinians.
Combining the Palestinians, you'll just have a government with a majority of Israelis and a minority of Palestinians. They have opposite interests. As of right now, the elected Hamas wants to come closer to traditional Shariah law, while Israel is very liberal. You don't understand these are two different groups of people. +Most Palestinians would never live with Israelis (and quite frankly I won't be surprised if there will be many Israelis who will not feel so safe living amongst those who formerly supported the killing of their children).
Why doesn't the US join up with Mexico? Why doesn't France and Britain just join? You don't understand the situation.

You're the one that doesn't fucking understand. I acknowledge there has been a lot of conlfict in the Middle East, but it's because of racists like you who only see things one-dimensionally that shit happens. Tell me, what will you do with Jerusalem and other sites holy to both Judaism and Islam? What land will you give to the Palestinians? Tell me, exactly how do you plan to divide things up?

You're the one that doesn't fucking understand. I acknowledge there has been a lot of conlfict in the Middle East, but it's because of racists like you who only see things one-dimensionally that shit happens. Tell me, what will you do with Jerusalem and other sites holy to both Judaism and Islam? What land will you give to the Palestinians? Tell me, exactly how do you plan to divide things up?

Haha you make me laugh. You don't know what you are saying. Go read A LOT about the situation and come back.
'Racism'. haha omg. Let me guess, an American?
As is currently done with Jerusalem, it is divided, and Muslims are allowed to visit their holy sites within Israeli territory. As are Christians. Palestinians already have Gaza (+the extras conceded to them a few years ago) and most of the West Bank. I shouldn't be the one telling you this, you should go read about it. You can't just ramble about with an 'opinion' without knowing what the hell you are talking about first.

Hamas wasn't elected because they want to die as martyrs, they were elected because Fatah was a bunch of nepotistic, corrupt, kleptocratic crap. So yeah, they should have been treated better, but I wouldn't blame the Israelis for it.

True, Fatah isn't much better. But part of the blame does fall on the policies of the Israeli government.

True, Fatah isn't much better. But part of the blame does fall on the policies of the Israeli government.
Israel has no interest in Hamas being in a position of control. So any contribution would have been accidental.

The problem here is populism in a democracy. I'd say the Israeli leadership knows perfectly well that the checkpoints, security walls and incursions don't solve the problem and just serve to alienate the next generation of Palestinians. But if they don't do it and even one suicide bomber blows himself up in Tel Aviv, they lose their jobs to the first person who promises security through retribution. It's very hard to argue for rational policies in a climate of fear.

That's why I was saying that both sides need strong leadership. The Palestinian would have to convince people that there will be no right to return and that there will never be a Palestine without an Israel. He'd also have to deal with Hamas and the other factions and heal the rifts within the community in general. Arafat might have been able to, but his senility and the Intifada came between it.

And the Israeli leader would have to convince the Israelis that security will never be possible without peace and peace will never be possible without concessions. Giving up Jerusalem as a capital will be extremely hard, given the way religious prophecies and politics can be intertwined there, as will be the idea that the settlements must be abandoned completely, and stop firing back when rockets come flying across the border.

Neither side has such a leader, nor is there anyone able to play the role of the mediator (Blair has no power, Bush has no skill), so the best I realistically hope for in the next few years is that progress is made in talking Hamas into a more moderate stance and that channels stay open for once there is someone able to use them.

Israel has no interest in Hamas being in a position of control. So any contribution would have been accidental.

The problem here is populism in a democracy. I'd say the Israeli leadership knows perfectly well that the checkpoints, security walls and incursions don't solve the problem and just serve to alienate the next generation of Palestinians. But if they don't do it and even one suicide bomber blows himself up in Tel Aviv, they lose their jobs to the first person who promises security through retribution. It's very hard to argue for rational policies in a climate of fear.

That's why I was saying that both sides need strong leadership. The Palestinian would have to convince people that there will be no right to return and that there will never be a Palestine without an Israel. He'd also have to deal with Hamas and the other factions and heal the rifts within the community in general. Arafat might have been able to, but his senility and the Intifada came between it.

And the Israeli leader would have to convince the Israelis that security will never be possible without peace and peace will never be possible without concessions. Giving up Jerusalem as a capital will be extremely hard, given the way religious prophecies and politics can be intertwined there, as will be the idea that the settlements must be abandoned completely, and stop firing back when rockets come flying across the border.

Neither side has such a leader, nor is there anyone able to play the role of the mediator (Blair has no power, Bush has no skill), so the best I realistically hope for in the next few years is that progress is made in talking Hamas into a more moderate stance and that channels stay open for once there is someone able to use them.

You're right for the most part. The only part I might have a problem with is the 'stop firing back when rockets come flying across the border'. The Israeli populace currently does understand (the majority) that concessions must be made for peace and are willing to make them. The issue of the settlements is very tough to enforce, but I agree that steps should be taken in that direction.

Haha you make me laugh. You don't know what you are saying. Go read A LOT about the situation and come back.
'Racism'. haha omg. Let me guess, an American?
As is currently done with Jerusalem, it is divided, and Muslims are allowed to visit their holy sites within Israeli territory. As are Christians. Palestinians already have Gaza (+the extras conceded to them a few years ago) and most of the West Bank. I shouldn't be the one telling you this, you should go read about it. You can't just ramble about with an 'opinion' without knowing what the hell you are talking about first.

Racist by the nature of your post. You essentially placed the entire blame for the current situation on the Palestinians, so while you may not be a racist (it's hard to convey one's true opinion on an internet forum, I admit), it certainly sounded racist.

I know of the current situation, I'm not an idiot. I'm asking how you'd deal with things if you were going to make another nation. For instance, Gaza and the West Bank are not physically connected, so are you going to give them part of Israel? There are tons of problems that will come up in such a process, I'm simply asking for your plan.

But for instance, if you feel that Israelis and Palestinians do not seek to mix, why not allow for more regional government. I admit that living in one country would take a lot of work, and a changing of perceptions from both sides, but I think that generally it is the best solution. If this future government gives equal rights to all, I think it would be fine, regardless of who forms the countries majority. I recognize it is a difficult path, and one that would take time, but again, I think it is the best solution.

The Jews are not oppressing the Palestinians - the Israelis are. Israeli is not synonymous with Jewish. there are many, many Jews - including some very conservative Orthodox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism#Orthodox_Jewish_Opposition) - who oppose zionism, some going as far as to say the very existence of the modern state of Israel is blasphemous. (they would argue it violates the Torah on several counts). equating "Israeli" with "Jewish" is a tool of zionist fanatics used to slander their opponents as anti-semites, despite the obvious fact that much of the most ardent opposition is from Jews themselves.

do not equate Judaism as a religion with the state of Israel. they are distinct entities, and the oversimplification of this conflict into one of religion is a contributor to its existence. many Palestinians are christians (nothing has been worse for Palestinian, Arabic speaking christians who have been there than Islam has existed than Zionism - the state of Israel has even tear-gassed pilgrimages and is strategically chipping away at the monasteries and christian holy places).

Judaism is not Zionism.
Jews are not all Israeli.
Israelis are not all Jews.
Palestinians are not all Muslim.

again, please, please do not equate Jews and Israelis. this is a tool of zionist extremism that doesn't help anything.

...


I can agree with that. I suppose as long as travel is unrestricted between the two countries, and that relations are good, it would not be bad. Regardless, even this will take time.

Racist by the nature of your post. You essentially placed the entire blame for the current situation on the Palestinians, so while you may not be a racist (it's hard to convey one's true opinion on an internet forum, I admit), it certainly sounded racist.

I know of the current situation, I'm not an idiot. I'm asking how you'd deal with things if you were going to make another nation. For instance, Gaza and the West Bank are not physically connected, so are you going to give them part of Israel? There are tons of problems that will come up in such a process, I'm simply asking for your plan.

But for instance, if you feel that Israelis and Palestinians do not seek to mix, why not allow for more regional government. I admit that living in one country would take a lot of work, and a changing of perceptions from both sides, but I think that generally it is the best solution. If this future government gives equal rights to all, I think it would be fine, regardless of who forms the countries majority. I recognize it is a difficult path, and one that would take time, but again, I think it is the best solution.

How is blaming the Palestinians for the situation in any way racist? Are you kidding me? Not only read about the situation, but look up the word racist.

There is NO WAY you'll connect the West Bank and Gaza (because then Israel would be split - duuhhh). That's what I mean by not understanding the situation. I didn't say you were an idiot.
There will be a protected road designed for safe interterritorial crossing, a plan that was in place to begin prior to the commencement of the second intifada.
What you have difficulty accepting is that most Palestinians want to 'drive the Jews into the ocean'. They want an extremist Shariah law enforced where they live. Most terrorists want all infidels dead and the world made entirely Islamic. Most Palestinians feel that Israelis stole their land and would not give up until they have it back. The perception of the people is what you don't realize. They don't WANT to live together, they want Israel, for them to live alone in.

...


I think the majority of people assumed that he meant Israeli where he put Jewish, or at least I did.

The Jews are not oppressing the Palestinians - the Israelis are. Israeli is not synonymous with Jewish. there are many, many Jews - including some very conservative Orthodox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism#Orthodox_Jewish_Opposition) - who oppose zionism, some going as far as to say the very existence of the modern state of Israel is blasphemous. (they would argue it violates the Torah on several counts). equating "Israeli" with "Jewish" is a tool of zionist fanatics used to slander their opponents as anti-semites, despite the obvious fact that much of the most ardent opposition is from Jews themselves.

do not equate Judaism as a religion with the state of Israel. they are distinct entities, and the oversimplification of this conflict into one of religion is a contributor to its existence. many Palestinians are christians (nothing has been worse for Palestinian, Arabic speaking christians who have been there than Islam has existed than Zionism - the state of Israel has even tear-gassed pilgrimages and is strategically chipping away at the monasteries and christian holy places).

Judaism is not Zionism.
Jews are not all Israeli.
Israelis are not all Jews.
Palestinians are not all Muslim.

again, please, please do not equate Jews and Israelis. this is a tool of zionist extremism that doesn't help anything.

The Israelis aren't oppressing the Palestinians, but it's true that there are other religious groups within Israel, although the majority is Jewish. Similarly, the majority of Palestinians are Muslim. Israel identifies itself as the 'Jewish State' - meaning mostly that it is a place that welcomes Jewish immigrants freely.

"the state of Israel has even tear-gassed pilgrimages and is strategically chipping away at the monasteries and christian holy places"
BS alert
What the hell are you talking about? Where'd you pull that nonsense out of.

Zionism represents the fascist mentality which has been passed down through the years by abuse of certain religions. The new religion in itself (zionism) being practiced by mostly jews but also Christians in the United States as of indoctrination from the old testament, as opposed to europe's great distancing between the two major religions. The current zionazi ideology has grown as a result of the nazi atrocities committed during the early part of the 20th century, and seems to have adopted many of its fascist ideas of ethnic cleansing, especially in Israel. In this holocaust memorial state and its surrounding areas (occupied Palestinian territories) you will find evidence of racism being practiced against the arabic speaking populations - even those who were born citizens of the state of Israel are regarded as 2nd class citizens. Segregation is the plan as is shown by the 'seperation barrier' (more of a segregation wall) designed to 'keep out suicide bombers' or more likely to keep muslims and jews seperated through apartheid of the former Palestinians by stealing their arab lands!

Zionism represents the fascist mentality which has been passed down through the years by abuse of certain religions. The new religion in itself (zionism) being practiced by mostly jews but also Christians in the United States as of indoctrination from the old testament, as opposed to europe's great distancing between the two major religions. The current zionazi ideology has grown as a result of the nazi atrocities committed during the early part of the 20th century, and seems to have adopted many of its fascist ideas of ethnic cleansing, especially in Israel. In this holocaust memorial state and its surrounding areas (occupied Palestinian territories) you will find evidence of racism being practiced against the arabic speaking populations - even those who were born citizens of the state of Israel are regarded as 2nd class citizens. Segregation is the plan as is shown by the 'seperation barrier' (more of a segregation wall) designed to 'keep out suicide bombers' or more likely to keep muslims and jews seperated through apartheid of the former Palestinians by stealing their arab lands!

Zionism isn't a religion, it is the ideology that Jews should have a state where they can live.
There is no ethnic cleansing of any sort. More and more BS. No fascism. You're delusional and terribly misinformed.
So Much BS
I personally lived in Israel and went to school with several arabic-speaking muslim children. I had 2 good arab friends. Arabs even serve in the military. There are arab muslims in Parliament. I don't know what else you want or where you are making these false claims from.
wtf?

How is blaming the Palestinians for the situation in any way racist? Are you kidding me? Not only read about the situation, but look up the word racist.

There is NO WAY you'll connect the West Bank and Gaza (because then Israel would be split - duuhhh). That's what I mean by not understanding the situation. I didn't say you were an idiot.
There will be a protected road designed for safe interterritorial crossing, a plan that was in place to begin prior to the commencement of the second intifada.
What you have difficulty accepting is that most Palestinians want to 'drive the Jews into the ocean'. They want an extremist Shariah law enforced where they live. Most terrorists want all infidels dead and the world made entirely Islamic. Most Palestinians feel that Israelis stole their land and would not give up until they have it back. The perception of the people is what you don't realize. They don't WANT to live together, they want Israel, for them to live alone in.

I said blaming the Palestinians entirely (or something like that) can be racist. Of course the Palestinians are partly to blame for the situation, however your post put the entire blame on them. Of course, you could be ignorant, or perhaps you worded things incorrectly, but I've seen some people trying to blame the problem entirely on those "pesky Arabs", and your rhetoric sounded quite like it.

I know geography my friend, I realize that it would divide Israel, which is exactly why it would likely not happen. I was asking for your solution to it. This same thing happened with Pakistan and India, there was a western and eastern half, yet India would not give a chunk of land in its center (obviously it would divide India in half) to give make the two parts contiguous. This eventually lead to a war, and the creation of three countries where there should have only been one.

I will say this though, I wouldn't mind two states if there was easy travel between them (like EU) and if they had good relations. This however, would take quite some time, and too many people see two states as the quick solution.

And here is the problem, how are you going to prove that the majority of Palestinians want to drive Israel into the sea? How are you going prove any of those assertions?

I said blaming the Palestinians entirely (or something like that) can be racist. Of course the Palestinians are partly to blame for the situation, however your post put the entire blame on them. Of course, you could be ignorant, or perhaps you worded things incorrectly, but I've seen some people trying to blame the problem entirely on those "pesky Arabs", and your rhetoric sounded quite like it.

I know geography my friend, I realize that it would divide Israel, which is exactly why it would likely not happen. I was asking for your solution to it. This same thing happened with Pakistan and India, there was a western and eastern half, yet India would not give a chunk of land in its center (obviously it would divide India in half) to give make the two parts contiguous. This eventually lead to a war, and the creation of three countries where there should have only been one.

I will say this though, I wouldn't mind two states if there was easy travel between them (like EU) and if they had good relations. This however, would take quite some time, and too many people see two states as the quick solution.

And here is the problem, how are you going to prove that the majority of Palestinians want to drive Israel into the sea? How are you going prove any of those assertions?

Palestine already relies largely on Israel economically-speaking and did even more before the 2nd intifada. Israel supplies it with water, electricity, and many supplies. Before the war, a percentage of Palestinians worked in Israel daily. Until some retards decided this wasn't good enough for them. And now this.
These assertions are shown by the elected government and rallies and press and so on.

Palestine already relies largely on Israel economically-speaking and did even more before the 2nd intifada. Israel supplies it with water, electricity, and many supplies. Before the war, a percentage of Palestinians worked in Israel daily. Until some retards decided this wasn't good enough for them. And now this.
These assertions are shown by the elected government and rallies and press and so on.

Duh, because Palestine is two tiny chunks of land, surrounded by another nation, it's a bit harder to get resources any other way(and of course, Israel's not that big either).

Building walls, creating tons of checkpoints, and illegal settlements don't effect the Palestinian people? It's a message of "stop treating us so poorly", albeit worded much more strongly. Palestinian opinion wasn't quite like this prior to these new policies, and if they were removed, it would become much more favorable.

By the way, to have any chance of proving your assertions about the Palestinian people, you'd need to prove that

a) The majority of Palestinians voted.
b) The elections were totally fair.
c) Even if most voted, that those that did not would not have voted against Hamas.
d) A majority (at least 50.0000001% of the total population) must be in support of Hamas.

Duh, because Palestine is two tiny chunks of land, surrounded by another nation, it's a bit harder to get resources any other way(and of course, Israel's not that big either).

Building walls, creating tons of checkpoints, and illegal settlements don't effect the Palestinian people? It's a message of "stop treating us so poorly", albeit worded much more strongly. Palestinian opinion wasn't quite like this prior to these new policies, and if they were removed, it would become much more favorable.

This is where you are mistaken. Again. The suicide bombings are the cause, the reason, the initiative, the prior event, the leading up to, the motive for, the need for these things you describe.
That is with the exception of new settlements. Some of these encroach on lands that despite have no Palestinians living on, were given to them as their land. The majority of Israelis are trying very hard to stop these. But these are by no means reason for killing of innocent Israeli civilians. I don't care how strong of a message they want to convey, you don't do that.
Israel treated Palestinians in the very opposite of poorly. And for a while I think the statistic went all the way up to 30% of Palestinians daily cross the border to work in Israel and return. Then, the extremists came back and were like, hmm, it would be really nice if we start killing Israeli children.
These 'poor treatments' are what seemed at first to be the result of a few individuals in the Palestinian society which were mildly encouraged by the others, and later became evident as something that is necessary against a large portion of the Palestinians.

...


I have added some parts to my previous post, if you are to even begin to assert that the majority of Palestinians have such a mentality, you must prove a few things, as specified.

I have added some parts to my previous post, if you are to even begin to assert that the majority of Palestinians have such a mentality, you must prove a few things, as specified.

This isn't about proving, since such opinion polls are not taken, and also would not be accurate, as they would fear the Hamas. instead its about the general feel. I've talked to several people who lived both in Gaza and the West Bank and still have relatives living there. Also, as I've said, press, ralies, and the governments position reflect the situation as close to accurately as possible.

This isn't about proving, since such opinion polls are not taken, and also would not be accurate, as they would fear the Hamas. instead its about the general feel. I've talked to several people who lived both in Gaza and the West Bank and still have relatives living there. Also, as I've said, press, ralies, and the governments position reflect the situation as close to accurately as possible.

If you want to generalize a large group of people, you're going to need evidence my friend.

Good thing we're friends now, although I'm still a little shaken up by your ludicrous accusations of racism.

Good thing we're friends now, although I'm still a little shaken up by your ludicrous accusations of racism.

Well, if you're not accusing the Palestinians of being soley responsible for the problems of today, than I was simply judging too quickly.

Well, if you're not accusing the Palestinians of being soley responsible for the problems of today, than I was simply judging too quickly.

In the sense that a very small minority of Israeli settelers have given them an excuse. Not a reason, but an excuse.
But yet, blaming it on the Palestinians doesn't make someone 'racist'. One's political opinion is not the equivalent of saying that a certain 'race' is inferior.

In the sense that a very small minority of Israeli settelers have given them an excuse. Not a reason, but an excuse.
But yet, blaming it on the Palestinians doesn't make someone 'racist'. One's political opinion is not the equivalent of saying that a certain 'race' is inferior.

True, but it is very similar to the rhetoric of those that are racist against Arabs.

Well. It's gone off track, but at least it's not too flamy. I'm going to continue off track a bit.

To clarify. I did mean Jews, not Israel. While Israel are the opressors, not Jews, even Jews outside of Israel are tied to Israel by their religion, and importantly, other non-Jews perception of them and Israel. Who you are is tied up in how you see yourself, but also, as other's see you. So I think nearly every Jew living outside of Israel, has strong opinion and thoughts on Israel, and Israeli actions may affect their view of themself.

Also, I think Israel are oppressors. For arguments sake, lets say they need to do all they do to protect themselves (I disagree with that strongly, but that's another disucssion). Even though they need the checkpoints, they need to bomb terrorists strongholds that may mean innocent civilians occaisionally get killed, etc. Even though they have a reason, it doesn't change the fact they did, and are doing oppressive actions.

As I've said there are many Muslim Arabs living perfectly fine in Israel as equal Israeli citizens.

More shite I see. Well, if we have to go down the same old road......

According to the annual report of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), published on 8 December 2007, racism against Palestinian citizens of Israel has dramatically increased in the past year, including a 26 percent rise in anti-Arab incidents.
http://www.alternativenews.org/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1034&pop=1&page=0&Itemid=381


"For Israel's Arab Citizens, Isolation and Exclusion"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/19/AR2007121902681.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2007121902748


Every day the Knesset has the option of passing laws that will advance Israel as a democratic Jewish state or turn it into a racist Jewish state. There is a very thin line between the two. This week, the line was crossed. If the Knesset legal counselor did not consider the bill entitled "the Jewish National Fund Law" as sufficiently racist to keep it off the agenda, it is hard to imagine what legislation she will consider racist.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/884358.html

The new building that will soon house the Arab-Jewish bilingual school Hand in Hand sticks out against the rest of the houses in the Pat neighborhood in Jerusalem. The roomy halls and spacious lawns are not very characteristic of the nearby streets. Neither is the multicultural atmosphere which many of the religious Jewish neighbors don't care for.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=915328

And thats without touching on the Bedouin....

. Arabs even serve in the military. There are arab muslims in Parliament. I don't know what else you want or where you are making these false claims from.
wtf?

Only Bedouins and Druze serve in the military. Not that it makes much difference, particularily for the Bedouin, because they still get treated like shite out in the Negev. Villages are bulldozed, crops destroyed by aerial spraying and the people themselves frequently attacked by settlers.

Discrimination against Bedouin children colors every aspect of the Israeli education system. The classes they do have are often in poor condition, especially in the Negev. The educational system has given a low priority to teacher training for the Arab school system and has taken no provisions to encourage Bedouin teachers.

http://www.crin.org/resources/infoDetail.asp?ID=3665

The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) - the oldest human rights organisation in Israel whose mandate covers human rights violations committed by the State of Israel both within and outside Israel - denounced severe and long-standing discrimination against the indigenous Arab Bedouin population of the Negev with respect to land and housing rights aimed at enabling Jewish citizens to settle in the Negev,
http://www.fidh.org/spip.php?article4069

1.Israel is not deliberately oppressing the Palestinians but is acting to the utmost humane extent as possible to insure the safety of innocent civilians within it..

Which makes no sense as a statement, given the presence of the settlements.

Every time a suicide bomber hits, the Israeli says: 'If i were in his shoes, I would convince all of my fellow Palestinians to stop committing suicide attacks against innocent Israeli civilians so we can finally live in peace'.
..

Except for the ones that propose explusion of all Palestinians within Israel, or offer money for them to leave, or the ones that fund, enable and protect the building of the colonies within the occupied territories. And the ones in charge of rescinding visas belonging to residents of Arab East Jerusalem. Them too. O and the ones on the checkpoints, the ones running the torture program, the ones who stand by while the settlers go on a rampage.....




a. they have where to go (.5 million Palestinians fled to Jordan and other neighboring countries in 48)..

They were largely expelled or fled threats of Israeli violence.

Which makes no sense as a statement, given the presence of the settlements.

Except for the ones that propose explusion of all Palestinians within Israel, or offer money for them to leave, or the ones that fund, enable and protect the building of the colonies within the occupied territories. And the ones in charge of rescinding visas belonging to residents of Arab East Jerusalem. Them too. O and the ones on the checkpoints, the ones running the torture program, the ones who stand by while the settlers go on a rampage.....

They were largely expelled or fled threats of Israeli violence.
So what do you conclude, who is to blame, and what must be done?

So what do you conclude, who is to blame, and what must be done?

Everyone has to stop blaming. Next, everyone who has had their land stolen should have it given back. This will never happen though, as those who have lived there for the last 50 years, rightly think that considering the toil and effort they have spent improving the land, it's their land.

As that isn't a solution, a Palestinian states needs to be created, and it needs to be given some worthwhile land at least, not all the crap that no-one wants. Then the world community needs to assist the Israelis who are living on what is now Palestinian land, to resettle in an equivalent neighbourhood.

The world community also needs to assist the Palestinians with lots of aid, to actually make their land worthwhile, as it will have limited infrastructure. All this aid needs to be closely monitored so it doesn't line the pockets of the usual suspect, and the people miss out like usual.

One would hope that having a Palestinian state would reduce greatly the suicide attacks, and that in a few generations time, the parties could integrate. While that may seem a pipe dream, In 1939, who would think than in 2 generations, the French and Germans would both be on the same side advocating that the US shouldn't go to war?

Everyone has to stop blaming. Next, everyone who has had their land stolen should have it given back. This will never happen though, as those who have lived there for the last 50 years, rightly think that considering the toil and effort they have spent improving the land, it's their land.

As that isn't a solution, a Palestinian states needs to be created, and it needs to be given some worthwhile land at least, not all the crap that no-one wants. Then the world community needs to assist the Israelis who are living on what is now Palestinian land, to resettle in an equivalent neighbourhood.

The world community also needs to assist the Palestinians with lots of aid, to actually make their land worthwhile, as it will have limited infrastructure. All this aid needs to be closely monitored so it doesn't line the pockets of the usual suspect, and the people miss out like usual.

One would hope that having a Palestinian state would reduce greatly the suicide attacks, and that in a few generations time, the parties could integrate. While that may seem a pipe dream, In 1939, who would think than in 2 generations, the French and Germans would both be on the same side advocating that the US shouldn't go to war?So how would a Palestinian state look like in particular?

Oh god, it's been long that I've been gone.



Also, I think Israel are oppressors. For arguments sake, lets say they need to do all they do to protect themselves (I disagree with that strongly, but that's another disucssion). Even though they need the checkpoints, they need to bomb terrorists strongholds that may mean innocent civilians occaisionally get killed, etc. Even though they have a reason, it doesn't change the fact they did, and are doing oppressive actions.

Nope, the terrorists are the ones who indirectly kill their fellow Palestinian civilians by surrounding themselves with them, and building bunkers under kindergardens and so on. Killing terrorists is by no means oppression. Sorry.


http://www.alternativenews.org/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1034&pop=1&page=0&Itemid=381


"For Israel's Arab Citizens, Isolation and Exclusion"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/19/AR2007121902681.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2007121902748


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/884358.html


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=915328

And thats without touching on the Bedouin....

Alternative news? are you kidding me? A less valid source would be hard to find (even the Onion is more accurate than that)

Washington Post - Yes there are certain exceptions. For example, there is a religious city called Bnei-Barak, where land would most likely not be sold to non-orthodox Jews. This isn't racism.

From the Haaretz article, if you read it carefuly it says such acts had been put down by the Knesset. There are obviously SOME Israelis who think that all Palestine should be removed and so on...but the majority isn't like that, and it's not the way the country is run.

From the second article - further proof of equality. Let me tell you something. One of my best friends while being in Israel was an arabic muslim. His name is Omar. He went to school with me. He got to celebrate his holidays off from school. He had a special arabic class for him. He served in the army. He lived 3 miles away. He is better off financially right now than what many Jewish Israelis are.


Only Bedouins and Druze serve in the military. Not that it makes much difference, particularily for the Bedouin, because they still get treated like shite out in the Negev. Villages are bulldozed, crops destroyed by aerial spraying and the people themselves frequently attacked by settlers.



http://www.crin.org/resources/infoDetail.asp?ID=3665


http://www.fidh.org/spip.php?article4069

Bedouins are a different issue. This is what they do in case you are unaware: They travel around carrying their tents packed on their camels. And one day decide, hmm, this looks like a nice spot to settle. Before Israel launched satelites into space, a few years later they would claim: Oh, we've been here all along, this is our realestate. Israel then must respect their claims. But since the launching of this satellite, many Bedouins are being removed, to build roads, cities, etc. Other than that, most Bedouins don't go to a formal 'school' because they live a different way of life.

Which makes no sense as a statement, given the presence of the settlements.


Except for the ones that propose explusion of all Palestinians within Israel, or offer money for them to leave, or the ones that fund, enable and protect the building of the colonies within the occupied territories. And the ones in charge of rescinding visas belonging to residents of Arab East Jerusalem. Them too. O and the ones on the checkpoints, the ones running the torture program, the ones who stand by while the settlers go on a rampage.....




They were largely expelled or fled threats of Israeli violence.

The settlements are not 'oppressing' the Palestinians.

We'll go one by one:
'Except for the ones that propose explusion of all Palestinians within Israel', yes there are some right-wingers who propose these.
'or offer money for them to leave', yes that too.
'or the ones that fund, enable and protect the building of the colonies within the occupied territories.' Yes.
'And the ones in charge of rescinding visas belonging to residents of Arab East Jerusalem.' No that's the government.
'O and the ones on the checkpoints', nope those are soldiers.
'the ones running the torture program', nope, that's the Shabak
'the ones who stand by while the settlers go on a rampage' theres noone around other than the settlers, which by being there in the first place already makes them wakko.

Haha, no my friend. Palestinians in 48 completely supported the invasions and even were prepared to aid the attackers in instances. They were ready to go back to their old farms, etc. until they heard of Israel's victory. Also, many fled because of the war - which was caused by their fellow arab neighbors which they were allied with.

Everyone has to stop blaming. Next, everyone who has had their land stolen should have it given back. This will never happen though, as those who have lived there for the last 50 years, rightly think that considering the toil and effort they have spent improving the land, it's their land.

As that isn't a solution, a Palestinian states needs to be created, and it needs to be given some worthwhile land at least, not all the crap that no-one wants. Then the world community needs to assist the Israelis who are living on what is now Palestinian land, to resettle in an equivalent neighbourhood.

The world community also needs to assist the Palestinians with lots of aid, to actually make their land worthwhile, as it will have limited infrastructure. All this aid needs to be closely monitored so it doesn't line the pockets of the usual suspect, and the people miss out like usual.

One would hope that having a Palestinian state would reduce greatly the suicide attacks, and that in a few generations time, the parties could integrate. While that may seem a pipe dream, In 1939, who would think than in 2 generations, the French and Germans would both be on the same side advocating that the US shouldn't go to war?

'Stolen'. You're funny. More like given up by the British for them to have at the approval of the majority of the rest of the world (i.e. the UN)

Right, as has been done.

Right, as soon as they stop using all their funds for terrorism instead of improvement.

Palestinians have something very very close to their own state. hasn't changed a thing. Just another one of the excuses.

and building bunkers under kindergardens and so on.
.

An example of a Bunker under a kindergarden please.


Alternative news? are you kidding me? A less valid source would be hard to find (even the Onion is more accurate than that)
.

The article refers to the report of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel. Therefore if the article is indeed untrue it should be remarkably easy to show that thats the case....unless you're just poisoning the well to avoid dealing with the issues.


Washington Post - Yes there are certain exceptions. For example, there is a religious city called Bnei-Barak, where land would most likely not be sold to non-orthodox Jews. This isn't racism..

The article doesnt refer to a community of orthodox jews in its example. I might draw your attention to this paragraph, which refers to something well documented by various agencies, including the UN.

With most of Israel's land controlled by a government agency, Israeli Arabs have long had more trouble acquiring property than Jews, who outnumber them five to one in a population of about 6.5 million people

You seem to be cherry-picking your examples of "exceptions" to avoid the ones that prove the rule.


From the Haaretz article, if you read it carefuly it says such acts had been put down by the Knesset. There are obviously SOME Israelis who think that all Palestine should be removed and so on...but the majority isn't like that, and it's not the way the country is run.

Unfortunately it is run by a group of people who facilitate the settlements and allow institutional racism to flourish, so it seems.


From the second article - further proof of equality. .

You'll pardon me, but your rather rosy little anecdote (which has echoes of the kind of defence presented in relation to minorities in different countries) doesn't stand up to the vast amount of evidence presented by the UN, US State department, EU, and a number of Israeli Organisations.


Bedouins are a different issue. This is(.......) of life. .

Your anecdote v vast number of Organisations and NGO's again.....



The settlements are not 'oppressing' the Palestinians..

That statement has good comedic qualities. Would you like me to list attacks by settlers and how the land for said settlements was often obtained, or will you just stay shush on the subject in future?



Haha, no my (....)instances. ..

So what was Rabin writing about in his diaries when he spoke of the operation to expel (in one specic incident he was involved in) 50,000 Arabs?

1. The Jews are opporessing the Palestinians (even the most ardent Israeli supporting would have a hard time disagreeing with that)
I strongly disagree. Israel is not oppressing anyone. They're providing opportunities. It's the Palestinians that oppress themselves.

2. The Jews are in constant fear of dying through terrorism.
Absolutely not true. They are used to it by now.

I strongly disagree. Israel is not oppressing anyone. They're providing opportunities. It's the Palestinians that oppress themselves.


And what makes that funnier is that you're serious. Mind you, you are the one who trots out the same old lies every time, and once the clear and unmistakable refutation appears, heads for the hills to wait your turn once more....The last time it was the percentage of land under Jewish ownership in 1946/47, if I recall correctly...

An example of a Bunker under a kindergarden please.



The article refers to the report of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel. Therefore if the article is indeed untrue it should be remarkably easy to show that thats the case....unless you're just poisoning the well to avoid dealing with the issues.



The article doesnt refer to a community of orthodox jews in its example. I might draw your attention to this paragraph, which refers to something well documented by various agencies, including the UN.



You seem to be cherry-picking your examples of "exceptions" to avoid the ones that prove the rule.



Unfortunately it is run by a group of people who facilitate the settlements and allow institutional racism to flourish, so it seems.



You'll pardon me, but your rather rosy little anecdote (which has echoes of the kind of defence presented in relation to minorities in different countries) doesn't stand up to the vast amount of evidence presented by the UN, US State department, EU, and a number of Israeli Organisations.



Your anecdote v vast number of Organisations and NGO's again.....




That statement has good comedic qualities. Would you like me to list attacks by settlers and how the land for said settlements was often obtained, or will you just stay shush on the subject in future?




So what was Rabin writing about in his diaries when he spoke of the operation to expel (in one specic incident he was involved in) 50,000 Arabs?

You are arguing about facts here, where I, who happened to live there half my life, have a pretty good idea of what's going on, while you bring up sources such as www.alternativenews.org haha I loved that one. Check out this part:
http://www.alternativenews.org/f.a.q./about-the-aic/what-is-the-aic-20050821.html

"The most urgent regional task is to find a just solution to the century-old colonial conflict in Palestine and confront the ongoing Israeli occupation-regime within its international framework."
funny stuff.

P.S. what the hell are you talking about with Rabin? That wasn't 48, get your history right.

You are......

So is the report of the the Association for Civil Rights in Israel is a myth? Again, poisoning the well does not dismiss the contents, which, for reasons best known unto yourself, you refuse to address.

And no, your anecdotes do not count against independent and verified research by a large and diverse group of neutral organisations.


P.S. what the hell are you talking about with Rabin? That wasn't 48, get your history right.

I was referring to the expulsions. And yes, it was actually 1948. The 10th and 11th of July, Lydda and Ramla.

"Great Suffering was inflicted upon the men taking part in the eviction action. [They] included youth-movement graduates who had been inculcated with values such as international brotherhood and humaneness. The eviction action went beyond the concepts they were used to. There were some fellows who refused to take part. . . Prolonged propaganda activities were required after the action . . . to explain why we were obliged to undertake such a harsh and cruel action." to David Shipler of the New York Times, 1979

You're thinking of another series of expulsions (odd how you can get confused between something that wasn't supposed to happen) that occurred in 1967 in Bayt Nuba, Yalu and Imwas.

So is the report of the the Association for Civil Rights in Israel is a myth? Again, poisoning the well does not dismiss the contents, which, for reasons best known unto yourself, you refuse to address.

And no, your anecdotes do not count against independent and verified research by a large and diverse group of neutral organisations.



I was referring to the expulsions. And yes, it was actually 1948. The 10th and 11th of July, Lydda and Ramla.



You're thinking of another series of expulsions (odd how you can get confused between something that wasn't supposed to happen) that occurred in 1967 in Bayt Nuba, Yalu and Imwas.

haha you call that neutral? you need help

Tell me, what will you do with Jerusalem and other sites holy to both Judaism and Islam?

Give them to the Cubans: they're religiously neutral and they're used to tourism so they should be able to manage the numerous visitors and pilgrims.

*nods*

haha you call that neutral? you need help


Your comment doesn't make any sense. Are you going to address the issues or nay?

Your comment doesn't make any sense. Are you going to address the issues or nay?

By calling your source neutral, you've lost any integrity you might have had before. It's like me asking you to please respond to the issues presented in this article:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/32731

By calling your source neutral, you've lost any integrity you might have had before. It's like me asking you to please respond to the issues presented in this article:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/32731

Which are you calling non-neutral, the news website, or the source they got their information from (Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI))?

Which are you calling non-neutral, the news website, or the source they got their information from (Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI))?

www.alternativenews.org

That says in the page titled: 'About the AIC' the following:
"
Israel's mainstream politicians and opinion makers interpreted the new ideological trends in the West as the end of all peace perspectives in the region and began embracing a regime of separation between the Palestinians, both those in the Occupied Palestinian Territories as well as those who are citizens of Israel, and the Israeli Jews as a desired policy and a political plan. Accepting the ideological premises of the "clash of civilizations", the Israeli mainstream came to a conclusion that there is no need for peace as it is possible to also benefit greatly from a ‘tense security situation.’

However, the Israeli Jewish population does not profit from the separation regime in the making. In fact, as privatization policies are implemented, thus leading to the accumulation of tremendous capitals in the hands of large companies while the welfare state and its symbols are dismantled, a corrupted political system is emerging. As a consequence, social marginalization, poverty and unemployment are all growing.

The Israeli public shares with the Palestinians under occupation a desperation and lack of faith in the political system; no viable alternatives to permanent war and deepening poverty are in sight.

Finally, the AIC emphasizes that the end of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict demands the end of Israeli occupation and the recognition and implementation of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.
"

Calling this a neutral news and information organization is crazy. The topic Nodina was discussing is mentioned exactly in the above statement:
"embracing a regime of separation between the Palestinians, both those in the Occupied Palestinian Territories as well as those who are citizens of Israel".
What a coincidence that their "news" article demonstrates this "fact".

When you are so biased that you begin to argue about these kinds of 'facts' rather than the interpretation and views based upon things that are accepted, a discussion is not possible.

It's like let's discuss why you wet your bed at night.
Oh you don't wet your bed? but this organization called EWTB ("Everyone wets their beds") has clear evidence of certain sheets of yours having yellow stains.

Ok, you believe the news website is biased. How does this invalidate what the source they used says? Try reading it yourself: http://www.acri.org.il/pdf/State2007.pdf (page 15-6 has the quoted bit I think).

Although, I would say, I think the use of the term 'racism' is not really correct. I thought Jews and Arabs were both Semitic descendants?

Ok, you believe the news website is biased. How does this invalidate what the source they used says? Try reading it yourself: http://www.acri.org.il/pdf/State2007.pdf (page 15-6 has the quoted bit I think).

Although, I would say, I think the use of the term 'racism' is not really correct. I thought Jews and Arabs were both Semitic descendants?

That is a more credible source indeed, although of course it also presents just one side of it. It gives statistics that support its own side. It is expected that polls will indicate a rise in fear from 'arabs' among the general populace, as the recent conflict has increased. This doesn't indicate the treatment of arabs as second class citizens.

By calling your source neutral, you've lost any integrity you might have had before. It's like me asking you to please respond to the issues presented in this article:


I didn't claim that source was neutral. I said reports from neutral organisations. That should have been quite clear in the context.

You still haven't addressed the content of that particluar article either.

Calling this a neutral news and information organization is crazy.

I didn't. But you obviously need a red herring of some description.

That is a more credible source indeed, although of course it also presents just one side of it. It gives statistics that support its own side.

A source I told you to refer to earlier, seeing as the AlternativeNews merely referenced their report but you refused to do so until somebody else provided it.

what would that "side" be, as a matter of interest?

This doesn't indicate the treatment of arabs as second class citizens.


You don't refer to the laws that discriminate against Arabs that come just below that section, and the other issues, including the Bedouin. Cherry picking again?

That is a more credible source indeed, although of course it also presents just one side of it. It gives statistics that support its own side.

What 'side' is that exactly?

It is expected that polls will indicate a rise in fear from 'arabs' among the general populace, as the recent conflict has increased.

"87% of the public think that Jewish-Arab relations in Israel are not
good, and only 50% agree that Jews and Arabs should enjoy full equal rights.
55% of Israeli Jews surveyed support the idea that the government should
encourage Arab emigration and 78% are opposed to Arab political parties
(including Arab ministers) joining the government."

I find those kinds of numbers worrying, still. And may allow laws passed that would have been considered 'racist' in more peaceful times (or to outsiders).

This doesn't indicate the treatment of arabs as second class citizens.

I think the poster was referring to arabs of the occupied territories when he made that statement. Israeli arabs certainly have more equal rights, but there is still mistrust evidently between jews and arabs, so perhaps it is more of a ill-favoured minority.

Some of the posters objected to you giving anecdotes about people you know and their situations as personal observations often don't see the overall picture, people prefer evidence in terms of neutral reports.

I didn't claim that source was neutral. I said reports from neutral organisations. That should have been quite clear in the context.

You still haven't addressed the content of that particluar article either.



I didn't. But you obviously need a red herring of some description.


A source I told you to refer to earlier, seeing as the AlternativeNews merely referenced their report but you refused to do so until somebody else provided it.

what would that "side" be, as a matter of interest?



You don't refer to the laws that discriminate against Arabs that come just below that section, and the other issues, including the Bedouin. Cherry picking again?

What 'side' is that exactly?



"87% of the public think that Jewish-Arab relations in Israel are not
good, and only 50% agree that Jews and Arabs should enjoy full equal rights.
55% of Israeli Jews surveyed support the idea that the government should
encourage Arab emigration and 78% are opposed to Arab political parties
(including Arab ministers) joining the government."

I find those kinds of numbers worrying, still. And may allow laws passed that would have been considered 'racist' in more peaceful times (or to outsiders).



I think the poster was referring to arabs of the occupied territories when he made that statement. Israeli arabs certainly have more equal rights, but there is still mistrust evidently between jews and arabs, so perhaps it is more of a ill-favoured minority.

Some of the posters objected to you giving anecdotes about people you know and their situations as personal observations often don't see the overall picture, people prefer evidence in terms of neutral reports.

You both ask what side? it's obvious - the side that's trying to present Israel in the worst light possible and the Palestinian in the best possible, as if that would change the situation.

You both ask what side? it's obvious - the side that's trying to present Israel in the worst light possible and the Palestinian in the best possible, as if that would change the situation.

You would rather these violations are ignored?

Still, the report is designed to highlight problems and improvements in the country regarding human rights, the writers are, in the end, trying to improve the country by showing the government what's going wrong. If the same writers compared it to many of the countries surrounding Israel, it would pale in comparison; Israel has an excellent reputation in upholding Western standards of freedoms and so will always be judged with countries in Europe and the US. The report has no need to shower praise at the government's decent record of equal rights, it's there to criticise.

If you'd like another report to read, try AI's: http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/middle-east-and-north-africa/east-mediterranean/israeloccupied-territories

EDIT: Must sleep, it's quite late here.

I think the majority of people assumed that he meant Israeli where he put Jewish, or at least I did.*nods* and that's a problem. they shouldn't be so closely linked that people make that leap.

*nods* and that's a problem. they shouldn't be so closely linked that people make that leap.

If one looks at his post, it was clear he was talking about Israel.

haha you call that neutral? you need help

This would be a mild form of a "poisoning the well" fallacy. The information is information, no matter how neutral or biased the source. If you can disprove the data, you should do so - but merely claiming the site has a bias isn't proof of anything.

(Add to which, unless I'm mistaken - it is the 'large and diverse group' of organisations that is being claimed as neutral - not the medium of transmission - so your 'poisoning the well' fallacy is irrelevent, anyway).

Nope, the terrorists are the ones who indirectly kill their fellow Palestinian civilians by surrounding themselves with them, and building bunkers under kindergardens and so on. Killing terrorists is by no means oppression. Sorry.


That's not how it works, I'm afraid. Not to mention - it's a dangerous precedent.

If a criminal hides amongst law-abiding citizens, it is not reasonable force to kill all the civilians to apprehend the criminal. It is not reasonable force to fire on a group of civilians because you believe a terrorist is in there, somewhere.

No one says it's easy... but you don't get to claim that civilians are killing themselves, or militants are 'indirectly killing' their own side - not when the shots are being fired by an opposing force, knowing full well that some of their targets are civilians.


As to why it is a dangerous precedent? Well - any state or organisation that believes there is a threat in Israel, is given a green-light, by your logic, to kill indiscriminately in pursuit of that target.

Correct

Well. We are in Burn Baby Burn zone. On with the asbestos suit, and lets give up on my original post. It was a valiant try and had a bit of a run.
Nope, the terrorists are the ones who indirectly kill their fellow Palestinian civilians by surrounding themselves with them, and building bunkers under kindergardens and so on. Killing terrorists is by no means oppression. Sorry.
So that means when the Germans in WWII killed innocent civilians who they suspected were Resistance members they weren't oppressive. Cool. With a bit more of a logic leap, you have to deny the holocaust was an atrocity, or accept that the Israeli philosophy is not "Never Again", it is "Never Again to us". Which one is it?
Alternative news? are you kidding me? A less valid source would be hard to find (even the Onion is more accurate than that)
But yet you claimed credibilty as you have lived in Israel for half your life. Hypocrisy again. You can't claim one source as biased without accepting your position is biased.
From the Haaretz article, if you read it carefuly it says such acts had been put down by the Knesset. There are obviously SOME Israelis who think that all Palestine should be removed and so on...but the majority isn't like that, and it's not the way the country is run.
This goes back to my original post. To make you sleep better at night, you have used the usual human capacity for self delusion. The government is critical in continuing the oppression.
{Dodgy anecdote trimmed for brevity} Read a bit of John Pilger or Amira Haas for a few more reliable anecdotes.
'the ones running the torture program', nope, that's the Shabak
That sounds very Nuremburg defence. "We know that the people we took would be tortured but we didn't do it. We just followed orders to drop them off. "
'Stolen'. You're funny. More like given up by the British for them to have at the approval of the majority of the rest of the world (i.e. the UN)
Hmm. So the British who stole it, then gave their stolen lands to the Israelis. It was still stolen from the Palestinians. You also want to know why lots of people fled their land. It was because the Jews (not Israelis, as Israel hadn't been founded at that point) were ethnic cleansing. One of the 1st stages of genocide. Yes. I am not going to be silenced by the usual guilt trick of bringing up the Holocaust. Israel have behaved in a genocidal manner towards the Palestinians.
Palestinians have something very very close to their own state. hasn't changed a thing. Just another one of the excuses.
Here are a list of some things (not total by any means) that the Palestinian state doesn't have.
1. ability to access emergency services when needed. There are multiple reports of women and children dying in childbirth due to being turned back at checkpoints.
2. To not have your house bulldozed without notice.
3. To be able to travel whenever and wherever you want
4. To have innocent civilians die, because a state thinks a terrorist could be there.
I think you see the theme here.

Your capacity to delude yourself in to thinking that the Palestinians aren't oppressed is amazing. I guess you need to have something to help you sleep at night.

Yes. I am not going to be silenced by the usual guilt trick of bringing up the Holocaust.

Out of curiosity, have you ever encountered anyone who defends Israeli policy simply on the platform of the Holocaust? Ever? I hear this argument tossed around a lot but, other than as a defense of some kind of state for Jewish refuge, I've never encountered anyone who says that this or that Israeli policy is acceptable because of the Holocaust. Honestly, it's like some retard-switch-aroo argument when people bring it up in these debates, or an odd type of reverse-Godwining, if you will.

Also, I find it funny that you act indignant about this thread "degrading" into discussion about topics you mention in your own OP and then tell people that they cannot talk about them. Don't be asinine, if you mention it in the OP, it's pretty fair game for the rest of the thread.

You both ask what side? it's obvious - the side that's trying to present Israel in the worst light possible and the Palestinian in the best possible, as if that would change the situation.


Even thought its the Association for Civil Rights in Israel.....

If a Government passes a law that allows discrimination, and I highlight that law, thats not "trying to present" anything in the "worst light possible", thats pointing out an injustice.

You still haven't addressed the various laws etc referenced in the various articles I've posted either......You seem hell bent on dodging facts.

Out of curiosity, have you ever encountered anyone who defends Israeli policy simply on the platform of the Holocaust? Ever?

Yes. As many of the things Israel do have parallels to the Germans in WWII, I will bring up a mirror to the pro-Israel person. More than 1 person has said indignantly something on the line of "How can you bring up the Holocaust when talking about Israel?"

Also, I find it funny that you act indignant about this thread "degrading" into discussion about topics you mention in your own OP and then tell people that they cannot talk about them. Don't be asinine, if you mention it in the OP, it's pretty fair game for the rest of the thread.

Granted. When doing the OP, I forgot that some people are so blind that they honestly believe that Israel are not oppressing the Palestinians. It seems to me similar to David Irving's position.

Granted. When doing the OP, I forgot that some people are so blind that they honestly believe that Israel are not oppressing the Palestinians. It seems to me similar to David Irving's position.

I have to apologise for helping drag this one down into familiar territory, but I couldn't let him go with it.

That's not how it works, I'm afraid. Not to mention - it's a dangerous precedent.

If a criminal hides amongst law-abiding citizens, it is not reasonable force to kill all the civilians to apprehend the criminal. It is not reasonable force to fire on a group of civilians because you believe a terrorist is in there, somewhere.

No one says it's easy... but you don't get to claim that civilians are killing themselves, or militants are 'indirectly killing' their own side - not when the shots are being fired by an opposing force, knowing full well that some of their targets are civilians.


As to why it is a dangerous precedent? Well - any state or organisation that believes there is a threat in Israel, is given a green-light, by your logic, to kill indiscriminately in pursuit of that target.

Often times,these reports of 'civilian' deaths are in fact members of the Islamic Jihad terrorist group and affiliates. Terrorsits surround themselves with teens, who very often are involved too. When a calculation must be made where on one hand you have a terrorist who could carry out a 9/11 magnitude attack that you can kill, with the risk of killing say 1 or 2 people who most likely not only give him refuge but also might be involved, and this would save thousands of lives, hell I'd go with the terrorist any day. I don't know about you.

Well. We are in Burn Baby Burn zone. On with the asbestos suit, and lets give up on my original post. It was a valiant try and had a bit of a run.

So that means when the Germans in WWII killed innocent civilians who they suspected were Resistance members they weren't oppressive. Cool. With a bit more of a logic leap, you have to deny the holocaust was an atrocity, or accept that the Israeli philosophy is not "Never Again", it is "Never Again to us". Which one is it?

But yet you claimed credibilty as you have lived in Israel for half your life. Hypocrisy again. You can't claim one source as biased without accepting your position is biased.

This goes back to my original post. To make you sleep better at night, you have used the usual human capacity for self delusion. The government is critical in continuing the oppression.
Read a bit of John Pilger or Amira Haas for a few more reliable anecdotes.

That sounds very Nuremburg defence. "We know that the people we took would be tortured but we didn't do it. We just followed orders to drop them off. "

Hmm. So the British who stole it, then gave their stolen lands to the Israelis. It was still stolen from the Palestinians. You also want to know why lots of people fled their land. It was because the Jews (not Israelis, as Israel hadn't been founded at that point) were ethnic cleansing. One of the 1st stages of genocide. Yes. I am not going to be silenced by the usual guilt trick of bringing up the Holocaust. Israel have behaved in a genocidal manner towards the Palestinians.

Here are a list of some things (not total by any means) that the Palestinian state doesn't have.
1. ability to access emergency services when needed. There are multiple reports of women and children dying in childbirth due to being turned back at checkpoints.
2. To not have your house bulldozed without notice.
3. To be able to travel whenever and wherever you want
4. To have innocent civilians die, because a state thinks a terrorist could be there.
I think you see the theme here.

Your capacity to delude yourself in to thinking that the Palestinians aren't oppressed is amazing. I guess you need to have something to help you sleep at night.

Enough with this comparison to the Holocaust! Don't you bring up Nazi Germany in comparison to anything in this world, not just Israel as you shamelessly lower the severity of the acts that occured.

Nope, actually the British conquered it from the Turks.
You're retarded in your history. Palestinians fled during the 48 war of independence. Before that, there were some Jewish-Palestinian fighting but neither was the significantly stronger side, and definitely not ethnic cleansing. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: You have ABSOLUTELY no idea what the hell you are talking about.
1. They have their own hospitals
2. Nope, If you live in Gaza, the chances that your house will be bulldozed are about as high as someone who lives in NYC getting his house bulldozed.
3. Really? Because you can freely travel into North Korea? hmm, that's nice for you.
4. Already responded to above.
Even thought its the Association for Civil Rights in Israel.....

If a Government passes a law that allows discrimination, and I highlight that law, thats not "trying to present" anything in the "worst light possible", thats pointing out an injustice.

You still haven't addressed the various laws etc referenced in the various articles I've posted either......You seem hell bent on dodging facts.
Can you give me of a specific law that the government has passed that directly discriminates against arabs?
Yes. As many of the things Israel do have parallels to the Germans in WWII, I will bring up a mirror to the pro-Israel person. More than 1 person has said indignantly something on the line of "How can you bring up the Holocaust when talking about Israel?"



Granted. When doing the OP, I forgot that some people are so blind that they honestly believe that Israel are not oppressing the Palestinians. It seems to me similar to David Irving's position.
"How can you bring up the Holocaust when talking about Israel?" This is a twofold question
1. How dare you bring up the Holocaust?
2. (a minor one but more important to this discussion) ..In relation to israel?

'I forgot that some people are so blind that they honestly believe that Israel are no oppressing the Palesinians'
lol
You're a funny guy.

Another post, wherein Intelligenstan seeks to evade issues raised and facts mentioned......


Often times,(............)ut you..

Yet this ignores the basic illegality of the colonisation of the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem. Secondly, where were the 'terrorists' in these few incidents here?


Asma, 16, and her younger brother, Ahmad, were collecting laundry from the roof of their home in the south of the Gaza Strip in May last year when they were felled by an Israeli army sniper. Neither child was armed or threatening the soldier, who fired unseen through a hole punched in the wall of a neighbouring block of flats.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1516362,00.html

An Israeli army officer who repeatedly shot a 13-year-old Palestinian girl in Gaza dismissed a warning from another soldier that she was a child by saying he would have killed her even if she was three years old.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1358173,00.html


http://www.counterpunch.org/butterfly1123.html

And on and on and on......

In fact, the ones most likely to be surrounded by a group of scared Arab civillians are the IDF...a practice that was entirely overt and legal until 2002.


A Palestinian man injured in crossfire in the course of being used as a human shield by IDF soldiers, May 2007
http://www.btselem.org/english/Testimonies/20070515_Majd_Ghanem_Human_Shield_in_Jenin_MP.asp


An Israeli human rights group has accused Israel's army of using two young Palestinians as human shields during a recent raid in the West Bank.

The B'Tselem group said it had testimony from a 15-year-old boy, his 24-year-old cousin and also an 11-year-old girl.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6432133.stm


Palestinians fled during the 48 war of independence.

Yet I've already drawn to your attention an incident where they were deliberately expelled - an incident you havent referred back to. I found it rather dishonest on your part to deny expulsions took place, then accuse me of confusing it with expulsions that took place in 1967.


1. They have their own hospitals.

Which they are frequently denied access to by the IDF.

3 Jan 2008: ‘Azzun ‘Atmah gate still closed at night, despite army’s promise: Two women forced to give birth in a car

B'Tselem has twice contacted the military authorities and warned them of the danger inherent in closing the gate at night. The first warning came following the death of ‘Adel ‘Omer, a young man from the village who was seriously injured when a tractor overturned. Soldiers waited more than an hour and a half before opening the gate so he could be taken to hospital.
http://www.btselem.org/english/Separation_Barrier/20080103_Azzun_Atmah_Enclave.asp


More than 60 Palestinian women have given birth at Israeli checkpoints since 2000 and 36 of their babies have died as a result, says a UN report.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4274400.stm



2. Nope, If you live in Gaza, the chances that your house will be bulldozed are about as high as someone who lives in NYC getting his house bulldozed.
.

...no, though they are less than when the IDF withdrew. Before then, between 2001 and 2007 they managed to destroy approximately 2,300 either as punishment or as an arbitrary "security measure".


Can you give me of a specific law that the government has passed that directly discriminates against arabs?.

I presume you mean within Israel - Allowing the JNF to bar non-Jews from bidding for land. The Planning document for the Northern Areas of Israel' which has as a stated purpose to block "the territorial contiguity of Arab villages and towns". Besides which we have the huge disparity in everything from educational spending, to health.


You're a funny guy.

Is the International Committee for the Red Cross a comedic troupe?

The occupied Palestinian territories: Dignity Denied
Throughout the occupied Palestinian territories, in the Gaza Strip as well as the West Bank, Palestinians continuously face hardship in simply going about their lives; they are prevented from doing what makes up the daily fabric of most people's existence. An ICRC report.
http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/palestine-report-131207

I'm not denying the facts, one can't do that. No, ICRC is not comedic.
Does that mean Israel is deliberately oppressing the Palestinians? absolutely not.
You bring these examples of civilian deaths. Yes, there are civilian deaths. It's a part of army opperations which are meant for the prevention of much much more civilian deaths. Is one Israeli dead worse than one Palestinian dead? no, that's not what I'm saying. At a time of war, especially when initiated by the side you defend, it is expected that there will be civilian casualties. Is there a clear attempt to minimize this by Israel? Definitely YES. A strong yes. The less non-mililtant Palestinians dead the happier Israel is. Is there a clear attempt to minimize this by Palestine? absolutely NOT. A strong NO. The more non-militant Israelis dead the happier Palestine is. And that is the difference between the two sides.

I'm not denying the facts, one can't do that. No, ICRC is not comedic.
Does that mean Israel is deliberately oppressing the Palestinians? absolutely not.
You bring these examples of civilian deaths. Yes, there are civilian deaths. It's a part of army opperations which are meant for the prevention of much much more civilian deaths. Is one Israeli dead worse than one Palestinian dead? no, that's not what I'm saying. At a time of war, especially when initiated by the side you defend, it is expected that there will be civilian casualties. Is there a clear attempt to minimize this by Israel? Definitely YES. A strong yes. The less non-mililtant Palestinians dead the happier Israel is. Is there a clear attempt to minimize this by Palestine? absolutely NOT. A strong NO. The more non-militant Israelis dead the happier Palestine is. And that is the difference between the two sides.

Do you honestly believe everyone in Palestine wants to kill Israelis?

Do you honestly believe everyone in Palestine wants to kill Israelis?

no, absolutely not. I know for a fact that there are people who really do want peace.
But Hamas does. The Islamic Jihad does. Countless organizations do. Many individuals would willingly sacrifice their children to go blow themselves up to kill Israelis. So I would say a lot do. And the ones fighting the war with Israel definitely do. Plus they voted for Hamas, so I would think it's not far-fetched to say that the majority do.

Do you honestly believe everyone in Palestine wants to kill Israelis?
A strong majority, certainly.

A strong majority, certainly.And they have every fucking reason to.

And they have every fucking reason to.

no. they don't.

I'm not denying the facts, one can't do that. No, ICRC is not comedic.
Does that mean Israel is deliberately oppressing the Palestinians? absolutely not.
.

Not to mention the bit about using them as human sheilds, the beatings at checkpoints, the prevention of access to medical facilities, the turning of the blind eye to settler attacks, settler only areas, chanelling resources entirely to settlements, the land seizures, the house demolitions, the official and complete refusal to even give them the basic safeties of the Geneva convention, by order....

That there reads like oppression to me, oul son.

At a time of war, especially when initiated by the side you defend,.

hang on a tic...The Palestinians are not occupying Israel. The vast majority of these deaths occur outside Israels borders, in an area where Israel is building colonies on Palestinian land. They arent in a position to initiate fuck all, nor have they. When they start tossing Israelis out of the other side of Jeruslem and enforcing a form of martial law in tel aviv, then complain to me.

And arent they a bunch of badly armed yahoos with Aks vs a nuclear power?

And arent they a bunch of badly armed yahoos with Aks vs a nuclear power?
Yes, and I am entirely in favor of KEEPING them badly armed.

Not to mention the bit about using them as human sheilds, the beatings at checkpoints, the prevention of access to medical facilities, the turning of the blind eye to settler attacks, settler only areas, chanelling resources entirely to settlements, the land seizures, the house demolitions, the official and complete refusal to even give them the basic safeties of the Geneva convention, by order....

That there reads like oppression to me, oul son.


hang on a tic...The Palestinians are not occupying Israel. The vast majority of these deaths occur outside Israels borders, in an area where Israel is building colonies on Palestinian land. They arent in a position to initiate fuck all, nor have they. When they start tossing Israelis out of the other side of Jeruslem and enforcing a form of martial law in tel aviv, then complain to me.

And arent they a bunch of badly armed yahoos with Aks vs a nuclear power?

The majority of these deaths occur in Gaza, Israel is NOT building colonies there. You have your facts messed up, AGAIN.
They initiate by launching rockets and carrying out suicide attacks.

A strong majority, certainly.

I find that very unlikely. Most would want to be able to coexist with Israel through peaceful negotiations, not genocide.

I find that very unlikely. Most would want to be able to coexist with Israel through peaceful negotiations, not genocide.

I sure do hope so, but unfortunately the events that take place make it seem highly unlikely that this is true.

And they have every fucking reason to.

And you complain when I call you an antisemite.

And you complain when I call you an antisemite.

welcome IDF, you have been waited for. I don't know if antisemitic claims are necessary just quite yet, as their political opinions so far have not demonstrated such attitudes. (although I wouldn't be surprised to find out that those are in fact their motives for making the ludicrous claims they have made up to now).

no. they don't.of course they do.

Nodinia, your facts are really screwed up. Gaza is completely free of settlements. That is the spot where all the violence is ongoing. The occupation is not the cause of the violence as violence has been ongoing since long before the occupation and continues to be the fiercest in the one spot where there is no occupation. Israel is well within their right to go and re-occupy the Gaza Strip if Hamas does not clean up their act. Of course Israel does not have any desire to do so or else they would have by now.

The West Bank (where there are settlements) is very peaceful. I was in the West Bank quite a lot during the last two weeks when I was away in Israel. I felt very safe as I drove along the road stretching the entire West Bank parallel to the Jordan Valley. I felt no issues in regards to safety when I stopped at a gas station in the middle of the West Bank to take a piss and buy bottled water. The checkpoints were also minimal. I personally saw that the IDF soldiers do not stop most of the vehicles and do very minimal checks at both the southern and northern ends of the road through the West Bank. The checkpoints are like this most of the time. Exceptions being when they have intelligence information of a pending attack.

Now I am not saying the West Bank is a great place to live or that the settlements are right. I am however saying that the situation there is much rosier than you portray it. It is also much better than Gaza.

I should also add that I entered the West Bank at least 5 or 6 times and saw how many of the checkpoints are. I felt safe when I stopped with my group in the middle of the West Bank to pray the Minchah Service.

I don't know if antisemitic claims are necessary just quite yet, as their political opinions so far have not demonstrated such attitudes. (although I wouldn't be surprised to find out that those are in fact their motives for making the ludicrous claims they have made up to now).
And it begins. If we criticise Israeli actions it's because we are anti-semitic. :rolleyes:
Just as as aside, great work Nodinia. I don't have the time to get all those links together.

I find it interesting Intelligenstan that in your last post you said the Israelis weren't deliberately oppressing the Palestininans. That's an important shift. You have now at least admitting oppression is taking place.

Show me how the oppression isn't deliberate in the context of Nodinia's links.
Show me how the Israelis who just watch aren't complicit, just as the German citizens who just watched in WWII were.

welcome IDF, you have been waited for. I don't know if antisemitic claims are necessary just quite yet, as their political opinions so far have not demonstrated such attitudes. (although I wouldn't be surprised to find out that those are in fact their motives for making the ludicrous claims they have made up to now).

The claims are certainly necessary in UB's case.

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

The claims are certainly necessary in UB's case.

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

Oh, i see what you mean. Yes, UB, you are an antisemite.

And it begins. If we criticise Israeli actions it's because we are anti-semitic. :rolleyes:
Just as as aside, great work Nodinia. I don't have the time to get all those links together.

I find it interesting Intelligenstan that in your last post you said the Israelis weren't deliberately oppressing the Palestininans. That's an important shift. You have now at least admitting oppression is taking place.

Show me how the oppression isn't deliberate in the context of Nodinia's links.
Show me how the Israelis who just watch aren't complicit, just as the German citizens who just watched in WWII were.

'Oppression' is deliberate. I admit that innocent Palestinian civilians die at times. There are always cases of individual soldiers' mistakes, and so on...

Enough with the Holocaust Comparisons with you!!!

Nodinia, your facts are really screwed up. Gaza is completely free of settlements. That is the spot where all the violence is ongoing. The occupation is not the cause of the violence as violence has been ongoing since long before the occupation and continues to be the fiercest in the one spot where there is no occupation. Israel is well within their right to go and re-occupy the Gaza Strip if Hamas does not clean up their act. Of course Israel does not have any desire to do so or else they would have by now.

The West Bank (where there are settlements) is very peaceful. I was in the West Bank quite a lot during the last two weeks when I was away in Israel. I felt very safe as I drove along the road stretching the entire West Bank parallel to the Jordan Valley. I felt no issues in regards to safety when I stopped at a gas station in the middle of the West Bank to take a piss and buy bottled water. The checkpoints were also minimal. I personally saw that the IDF soldiers do not stop most of the vehicles and do very minimal checks at both the southern and northern ends of the road through the West Bank. The checkpoints are like this most of the time. Exceptions being when they have intelligence information of a pending attack.

Now I am not saying the West Bank is a great place to live or that the settlements are right. I am however saying that the situation there is much rosier than you portray it. It is also much better than Gaza.

I should also add that I entered the West Bank at least 5 or 6 times and saw how many of the checkpoints are. I felt safe when I stopped with my group in the middle of the West Bank to pray the Minchah Service.

Thank you.

of course they do.

Good arguing skills. haha. yes. no. yes. nice.

I admit that innocent Palestinian civilians die at times. There are always cases of individual soldiers' mistakes, and so on...

Individual soldiers' mistakes? The Israel army has a history of shelling residential areas to counter rocket attacks, problem is, there's do a lot more damage and kill far more people.

Israeli forces carried out frequent air and artillery bombardments against the Gaza Strip, often into densely populated refugee camps and residential areas. Some 650 Palestinians, half of them unarmed civilians and including some 120 children, were killed by Israeli forces. This toll was a threefold increase compared with 2005.

Killings of Israelis by Palestinian armed groups continued but decreased to half the previous year's figure and to the lowest level since the beginning of the intifada in 2000. In total, 21 Israeli civilians, including a child, and six soldiers were killed in Palestinian attacks in Israel and the Occupied Territories.

Eleven Israeli civilians were killed and 68 others were injured in a suicide bomb attack claimed by the armed wing of Islamic Jihad on 17 April in Tel Aviv's old bus station.

One of two suicide bombings, on 30 March, killed four Israeli civilians, one of them aged 16, near the entrance of the Israeli settlement of Kedumim, in the northern West Bank.

There was a significant increase in the launching of homemade "Qassam" rockets by Palestinian armed groups from the Gaza Strip into the south of Israel. In most cases these indiscriminate rockets caused no casualties, but two Israeli civilians, Fatima Slutzker and Yaakuv Yaakobov, were killed in separate rocket attacks on Sderot in November and several others were injured.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/middle-east-and-north-africa/east-mediterranean/israeloccupied-territories

Now, I'm not saying Israel shouldn't defend itself in some way, but I feel they have been regularly heavy-handed.

Clearly, the problems lie on both sides, Palestinians need to sort out their political parties and extremism, and Israel needs to support it by allowing freedom for the occupied territories. Both need to ensure their education systems properly teach mutual understanding and don't breed any more hatred.

EDIT: I'm off for the night, will read anything new tomorrow.

The majority of these deaths occur in Gaza, Israel is NOT building colonies there. You have your facts messed up, AGAIN.
They initiate by launching rockets and carrying out suicide attacks.

As the Palestinians are one people (a fractious lot, but one people nonetheless) why precisely would they lay off because they don't have the IDF directly occupying and their friends, relations and fellows do?


although I wouldn't be surprised to find out that those are in fact their motives for making the ludicrous claims they have made up to now.

I've backed up every one of my claims with reports from Israeli organisations, the UN, the red cross and various others. Are they all lying and/or incorrect?
Is B'tselem run by anti-semites?


The West Bank (where there are settlements) is(......)to pray the Minchah Service. .

I'm sure thats an honest observation. However, you seem to forget that you are 'on the side' of the occupiers - imagine if it was the Syrians occupying the West Bank and building Syrian colonies on top of a Jewish population - or indeed the Chinese in Tibet, with you as a Tibetan. Yours would be a different experience then. For instance, this is unlikely to happen to you at the hands of Israelis, and were you to be set upon by Arabs, the reaction would be much different.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=941536


There are always cases of individual soldiers' mistakes, and so on....

Is the order to not apply the Geneva convention a mistake by an individual soldier?

Is the legal use of Human shilelds by the IDF from 1967 (if not earlier) until 2002 an individual soldiers mistake?

Is the constant turning of a blind eye to settler attacks and violence an individual soldiers mistake?

How can the following be an individual soldiers mistake?

More than 60 Palestinian women have given birth at Israeli checkpoints since 2000 and 36 of their babies have died as a result, says a UN report.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4274400.stm

Is there no chain of command in the IDF? Is it in fact a loose club with nobody in charge, just "individuals" wandering about, armed to the teeth?

Individual soldiers' mistakes? The Israel army has a history of shelling residential areas to counter rocket attacks, problem is, there's do a lot more damage and kill far more people.





http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/middle-east-and-north-africa/east-mediterranean/israeloccupied-territories

Now, I'm not saying Israel shouldn't defend itself in some way, but I feel they have been regularly heavy-handed.

Clearly, the problems lie on both sides, Palestinians need to sort out their political parties and extremism, and Israel needs to support it by allowing freedom for the occupied territories. Both need to ensure their education systems properly teach mutual understanding and don't breed any more hatred.

EDIT: I'm off for the night, will read anything new tomorrow.

Israel DOES allow the Palestinians freedom. They had elections. Israel's education system doesn't breed any hatred at all (I would know because I went through it). On the other hand, in Palestine:
-Mickey Mouse says on TV that the Jew is the Devil.
-Summer camps for kids meant to increase hatred towards the Jews.
-Instances of kindergardeners being trained with machine guns.
-Little kids sent to throw rocks at tanks and soldiers.
-Surrounding of terrorists with children.
-and so on.

As the Palestinians are one people (a fractious lot, but one people nonetheless) why precisely would they lay off because they don't have the IDF directly occupying and their friends, relations and fellows do?



I've backed up every one of my claims with reports from Israeli organisations, the UN, the red cross and various others. Are they all lying and/or incorrect?
Is B'tselem run by anti-semites?



I'm sure thats an honest observation. However, you seem to forget that you are 'on the side' of the occupiers - imagine if it was the Syrians occupying the West Bank and building Syrian colonies on top of a Jewish population - or indeed the Chinese in Tibet, with you as a Tibetan. Yours would be a different experience then. For instance, this is unlikely to happen to you at the hands of Israelis, and were you to be set upon by Arabs, the reaction would be much different.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=941536



Is the order to not apply the Geneva convention a mistake by an individual soldier?

Is the legal use of Human shilelds by the IDF from 1967 (if not earlier) until 2002 an individual soldiers mistake?

Is the constant turning of a blind eye to settler attacks and violence an individual soldiers mistake?

How can the following be an individual soldiers mistake?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4274400.stm

Is there no chain of command in the IDF? Is it in fact a loose club with nobody in charge, just "individuals" wandering about, armed to the teeth?

yea ok, because the Hamas and Fatah have not been fighting at all, where the Hamas controls the Gaza strip and Fatah controls the West Bank. And that almost all attacks come from Hamas. And that the west bank doesn't send any rockets over at all. Right. you're a pretty funny guy.

Again - right, because Israel's government explicitly directs its generals to tell every one of their soldiers: "Do whatever you can to take away the Geneva convention rights from as many Palestinians as you can" ok there. A little mental there?

The IDF is Very highly organized and trained. But it still makes its mistakes.

Ok, here's what I just don't understand about this whole conflict:

Why doesn't Israel just offer citizenship to the Palestinians? Yes, yes, the extremists would be pissed, but I'm sure most Palestinians - like most Israelis - have had enough of the violence and would not particularly mind if the Occupied Territories were effectively absorbed into the State of Israel as long as they became Israeli citizens with full rights.

Why doesn't Israel just offer citizenship to the Palestinians?

The "demographic problem."

It will mean, very soon, that Israel will be majority Arab.

The "demographic problem."

It will mean, very soon, that Israel will be majority Arab.
Big deal. First of all, that problem could easily be lessened by giving the Palestinians a first-world lifestyle, which tends to result in people having fewer children. Second, Israel could counter it with a bunch of constitutional provisions to make sure that enormous supermajorities are required to erode its status as the Jewish State. Third, it could use a number of economic incentives to encourage Arab citizens to have fewer children while wrapping it all in humanitarian terms, such as "the government will give aid to all childless Palestinian families and guarantee them higher pensions since they won't have children to look after them when they grow old."

Ok, here's what I just don't understand about this whole conflict:

Why doesn't Israel just offer citizenship to the Palestinians? Yes, yes, the extremists would be pissed, but I'm sure most Palestinians - like most Israelis - have had enough of the violence and would not particularly mind if the Occupied Territories were effectively absorbed into the State of Israel as long as they became Israeli citizens with full rights.

This would be a relatively good idea, except for the fact that the second they get Israeli citizenship they will send suicide bombers to kill all the Jews.
Also, Palestine for a very long time was somewhat of a 'territory' of Israel's and they called for their own independence - meaning they don't want to be part of Israel.

Big deal. First of all, that problem could easily be lessened by giving the Palestinians a first-world lifestyle, which tends to result in people having fewer children. Second, Israel could counter it with a bunch of constitutional provisions to make sure that enormous supermajorities are required to erode its status as the Jewish State. Third, it could use a number of economic incentives to encourage Arab citizens to have fewer children while wrapping it all in humanitarian terms, such as "the government will give aid to all childless Palestinian families and guarantee them higher pensions since they won't have children to look after them when they grow old."

haha they won't stop having 8 kids per family so easily. Such constitutional provisions would be, well, unconstitutional.

This would be a relatively good idea, except for the fact that the second they get Israeli citizenship they will send suicide bombers to kill all the Jews.
Are all Palestinians suicide bombers or other kinds of anti-Israel fighters? Obviously not, otherwise they would have overwhelmed the IDF long ago through sheer numbers.

Most Palestinians, like most people, just want to live in peace.

Also, Palestine for a very long time was somewhat of a 'territory' of Israel's and they called for their own independence - meaning they don't want to be part of Israel.
1. They were never offered citizenship before.
2. What they really want is a better life for themselves and their children, and they mistakenly believe that an independent state is the way to get it. They could be persuaded otherwise once they see the benefits of Israeli citizenship.

haha they won't stop having 8 kids per family so easily.
Europeans in my grandparents' generation used to have 8 kids per family. Things have changed.

Such constitutional provisions would be, well, unconstitutional.
I thought Israel was already proclaimed a Jewish state in its constitution...?

Are all Palestinians suicide bombers or other kinds of anti-Israel fighters? Obviously not, otherwise they would have overwhelmed the IDF long ago through sheer numbers.

Most Palestinians, like most people, just want to live in peace.


1. They were never offered citizenship before.
2. What they really want is a better life for themselves and their children, and they mistakenly believe that an independent state is the way to get it. They could be persuaded otherwise once they see the benefits of Israeli citizenship.


Europeans in my grandparents' generation used to have 8 kids per family. Things have changed.


I thought Israel was already proclaimed a Jewish state in its constitution...?

you're right in many ways about most of what you say. BUT:
It is a fact that the majority voted for Hamas and Hamas advocates a more stricter Shariah Islamic law. Many of them WANT to live in this kind of society, just as much if not more than the economic factor. This can be demonstrated by the relative improvement in financial situation of many Palestinians prior to the commencement of the Second Intifada. Many of them wish to live in an Islamic state with Islamic traditional laws enforced upon all.
No, not all of them mean harm to Israelis, but certainly many of them hold a 'grudge' that they would take advantage of such a situation as soon as possible.

Enough with the Holocaust Comparisons with you!!!

If the jackboot fits....

So here's another. {Germany/ Israel}, through a well orchestrated propoganda campaign, convinces much of the populace that the {Jews/Palestinians} are dangerous to the continued safety and prosperity of there country. They do horrible things to the {Jews/Palestinians}.

There are some different reactions to this. The hard core believers think that whatever they do to the {Jews/Palestinians} is fine. A large part of the {German/Israeli} population look the other way, and delude themselves in to believing it is not as bad as it really is. A small pocket of people speak out about the horror that their country is doing and are vilified by the rest of the Germans/Israelis}.

This ties back to my original post about the Israeli soul and your annoyance at my holocaust comparisons shows this. If you truly believed what I am saying is absolute rubbish, it wouldn't bother you as much.

The problem is, you have convinced yourself that what the Israeli government and soldiers do to the Palestinians is fine. Once a comparison to Germany is made, you can't, with a clear conscience, disregard what I am saying outright, as deep down you know there is some truth. The comparison has some merit. That causes damage to your "soul".

I also mentioned propoganda. I'm sure someone is going to say there is no propoganda. Well... I know in my country, Australia (with the 2nd best free press money can buy), that Muslims are at worst, terrorist bombers, at best, criminals who haven't been found guilty yet, who would honour kill their daughter if she farted in public because of the shame it would bring the family.

That is obviously a mild exageration, but if my country has demonised Muslims that much (when there hasn't been a terrorist attack on Aussie soil), I'm sure Israel would be doing worse for the Palestinians.

you're right in many ways about most of what you say. BUT:
It is a fact that the majority voted for Hamas and Hamas advocates a more stricter Shariah Islamic law. Many of them WANT to live in this kind of society, just as much if not more than the economic factor. This can be demonstrated by the relative improvement in financial situation of many Palestinians prior to the commencement of the Second Intifada. Many of them wish to live in an Islamic state with Islamic traditional laws enforced upon all.
No, not all of them mean harm to Israelis, but certainly many of them hold a 'grudge' that they would take advantage of such a situation as soon as possible.

Did the majority vote though? And did the majority vote for Hamas? Were the elections fair? It's entirely possible for one group to win an election without an actual majority, especially if not everyone votes and/or if there is rigging involved.

I know in my country, Australia (with the 2nd best free press money can buy), that Muslims are at worst, terrorist bombers, at best, criminals who haven't been found guilty yet, who would honour kill their daughter if she farted in public because of the shame it would bring the family.
Actually...

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=19382
32. Greece
= Mauritius
34. Ghana
35. Australia
= Bulgaria
= France
= Mali
39. Panama

Big deal. First of all, that problem could easily be lessened by giving the Palestinians a first-world lifestyle, which tends to result in people having fewer children.

No, it couldn't.

Look, the numbers here are fairly close already. Even without Israel accepting back any Palestinian refugees--and with millions of Arab voters, that possibility is questionable--it'll happen. Demographic changes don't occur so quickly.

Second, Israel could counter it with a bunch of constitutional provisions to make sure that enormous supermajorities are required to erode its status as the Jewish State.

I'm sure the Palestinians would just love that. And anyway, constitutions are just pieces of paper--they work only when they are recognized as legitimate by the general public, and especially with such provisions that's not likely to be the case.

People don't like being second-class citizens.

I thought Israel was already proclaimed a Jewish state in its constitution...?

Israel has never ratified a constitution. You fail.

And you complain when I call you an antisemite.IDF calling people Anti-semites.. what else is new?

:D

Good arguing skills. haha. yes. no. yes. nice.Israel still occupies Palestine. That means that every Palestinian has the right to kill every Israeli that comes in sight. There is no excuse for a +60-year incursion/occupation of a territory and oppression of its inhabitants.
And as for the "holocaust comparisons": with enclosing the West Bank in a wall/fence Israel is building the largest concentration camp in human history. It seems they have picked up quite a few things when they were themselves in the camps back in Germany.
Judaism has always been ideological dirt and subsequently the Jewish state is dirt as well. That will never change and that is why it has to go for good.

The press one was a joke. The best free press money can buy. Our country doesn't censor the press, they do it well enough themselves.

Any comparison to the Holocaust is absurdly out of proportion. The total number of noncombatant Palestinians killed over the whole of the last 60 years is less than a single day's work at Auschwitz. Palestinians tend to have some brothers, sisters, parents, or cousins who are still alive, unlike Holocaust survivors. Cases that have been listed of innocent Palestinians shot for no particular reason, and I would not defend that, but you have to put up a similar list every hour, all day every day, for months on end to tell about the Holocaust. A pile the size of your house is not negligible, but it is not the same thing as Mount Everest, either.
The comparison is particularly obscene when made by defenders of organizations like Hamas, which are institutional continuations of the local branches of the Nazi movement. The Holocaust has not really ended, as long as this movement to kill random Jewish people just for being Jewish continues: if they no longer succeed in murdering as often as they used to, that is because they have been largely disarmed, which is a good thing.

I also mentioned propoganda. I'm sure someone is going to say there is no propoganda. Well... I know in my country, Australia (with the 2nd best free press money can buy), that Muslims are at worst, terrorist bombers, at best, criminals who haven't been found guilty yet, who would honour kill their daughter if she farted in public because of the shame it would bring the family.

That is obviously a mild exageration, but if my country has demonised Muslims that much (when there hasn't been a terrorist attack on Aussie soil), I'm sure Israel would be doing worse for the Palestinians.

Silly. Girls don't fart.

Enough with the Holocaust Comparisons with you!!!


Yeah! The people of Israel would never be party to anything comparing to the Holocaust.

What is a shibboleth, anyway?

Often times,these reports of 'civilian' deaths are in fact members of the Islamic Jihad terrorist group and affiliates.


Or not.

I'm not content with your assertion that it is so, and I'd want a justification better than 'often times...' for opening fire on a crowd.


Terrorsits surround themselves with teens, who very often are involved too.


I'm sure you realise that - from the Palestinian point of view - the oppressors surround themselves with wives, children, schools and playgrounds, etc... yes? A guerrila militant can't take on the army, but he can take on an individual soldier.. but those Israeli's just insist on hiding in amongst the rest of the population, don't they?

By your logic, it is the fault of Israel, that Palestinians might kill schoolchildren.


When a calculation must be made where on one hand you have a terrorist who could carry out a 9/11 magnitude attack...


Or not. Show me your evidence.


...that you can kill, with the risk of killing say 1 or 2 people


Or not. I don't see why I should assume that a maximum of two civilians are ever caught in the fire.


...who most likely not only give him refuge


So.. what? We can target them safely because they MIGHT give a militant refuge?


...but also might be involved,


Again... what? It's not a problem because they MIGHT be involved?

You're telling me there is NO discrimination? No due process? EVERYONE near a suspected militant is assumed to be compiclit. No trial - straight to sentence, everyone is guilty?


...and this would save thousands of lives,


Or not. SHow me your evidence. Show me how each body in the body count equates to a thousand saved lives.


...hell I'd go with the terrorist any day. I don't know about you.


Alleged terrorist. And assumed conspirators.

You're honestly willing to say you support the potential massacre of innocents, on the OFFCHANCE that someone there might have been about to kill someone?

Israel DOES allow the Palestinians freedom. They had elections. Israel's education system doesn't breed any hatred at all (I would know because I went through it). (.....)children.
-and so on..

Really?
PALESTINIAN SCHOOLBOOKS
In September 2000 Palestinian Authority and UNRWA schools introduced the new Palestinian school curriculum and a first set of textbooks (grades 1 and 6) published by the Palestinian Authority, that were to replace the previous textbooks. At the beginning of the 2001 academic year, books for grades 2 and 7 were introduced. This replacement process will be gradually implemented over the coming years.
Parallel to this process, allegations of anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish bias and incitement contained in Palestinian textbooks were made, directly or indirectly based on documentation prepared by the
CMIP (Centre for Monitoring the Impact on Peace). CMIP based those claims on specific quotations from these books inciting anti-Semitism and urging the destruction of Israel.
A number of EU donors support the Palestinian education sector and a few of them sponsored the preparation of the first Palestinian curriculum and the production of new textbooks.
Information gathered by the EU missions on the ground, as well as independent studies carried out by Israeli and Palestinian academics and educators that have examined the new textbooks, show
that:
1.- Quotations attributed by earlier CMIP reports to the Palestinian textbooks are not found in the new Palestinian Authority schoolbooks funded by some EU Member States; some were traced
to the old Egyptian and Jordanian text books that they are replacing, some to other books outside the school curriculum, and others not traced at all. While many of the quotations attributed to the new textbooks by the most recent CMIP report of November 2001 could be confirmed, these have been found to be often badly translated or quoted out of context, thus suggesting an anti-Jewish incitement that the books do not contain.
2.- New textbooks, though not perfect, are free of inciteful content and improve the previous textbooks, constituting a valuable contribution to the education of young Palestinians.
Palestinian Authority Ministry of Education has accepted the need for ongoing review, revision and improvement.
Therefore, allegations against the new textbooks funded by EU members have proven unfounded. (My bold)
In the line with the EU's political and financial commitment to help establish a sovereign, peaceful, democratic and viable Palestinian State, continued support to the Palestinian education sector is essential. EU missions on the ground will keep the issue under review and assist in the task of monitoring the content of Palestinian Authority textbooks as they are published. In the framework of the UNESCO Executive Board Resolution of June 2001, Israeli and PLO representatives agreed to undertake a joint review of Israeli and Palestinian textbooks.

General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union
PDF link (http://www.ec.europa.eu/external_relations/mepp/faq/heads_%20mission_schoolbooks.pdf)

And whats this?
In the article "The Arab Image in Hebrew School Textbooks" by professor Dan Bar-Tal of the Tel Aviv University makes a study of 124 textbooks used in Israeli schools and reports that "over the years, generations of Israeli Jews were taught a negative and often delegitimizing view of Arabs." The two main traits of Arabs in the textbooks are "primitiveness, inferiority in comparison to Jews" and "their violence, to characteristics like brutality, untrustworthiness, cruelty, fanaticism, treacherousness and aggressiveness.". In the 1980s and 1990s "Geography books for the elementary and junior high schools stereotype Arabs negatively, as primitive, dirty, agitated, aggressive, and hostile to Jews … history books in the elementary schools hardly mention Arabs … history textbooks of the high schools, the majority of which cover the Arab-Jewish conflict, stereotype the Arabs negatively. Arabs are presented as intransigent and uncompromising
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-arabism#Israel

Not to mention....

How each year scores of British teenagers go to the Middle East to learn about soldiering and defending Israel
In 2001 shocking reports surfaced from Gaza of summer schools being organised by Islamic Jihad, which were teaching Palestinian adolescents to become suicide bombers. The Israeli government denounced the camps as evidence that a new generation was being brought up to hate and to kill.

What went unreported was that at a purpose-built barracks in the Negev desert, every summer hundreds of Jewish teenagers from Europe, Mexico and America pay to spend nine weeks saluting, marching, firing guns and otherwise pretending to be soldiers.
http://www.newstatesman.com/200709030003

And I think we've covered who surrounds themselves with civillians a lot earlier. You didn't comment on the IDF policy there. Any reason?


yea ok, because .....funny guy..

Whats a Palestinian civil conflict got to do with justifying an occupation thats been going on since 1967?

Again - right, because Israel's government explicitly directs its generals to tell every one of their soldiers: "Do whatever you can to take away the Geneva convention rights from as many Palestinians as you can" ok there. A little mental there?


Well thats not the wording they used.....

ID:
type:
MILITARY ORDER:
Number: 144

Day Passed: 22

Month Passed: 10

Year Passed: 1967

Name:
ORDER CONCERNING SECURITY PROVISIONS:
amendment: Military Proclamation 3

Cancels: Military Order 27

Replaces:
Summary: This cancels article 35 of Military Proclamation 3, revoking the previous admission that Israel was bound, in its treatment of the Palestinian population of the West Bank, Gaza and Golan, by the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention. (My bold)The new article 35 reads: "if an accused person was sentenced to a term in prison, the amount of time already spent in prison should be deducted from the sentence." This also cancels Military Order 27, concerning the judicial administration.
http://www.israellawresourcecenter.org/cgi-bin/browse.py?sectionname=laws&action=view&item=101

And then theres this piece of trying to have ones cake and indeed eat it....

The present Conference of the 189 High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 has been called by the Swiss Government, the repository of the Geneva Conventions, and will take place on 5 December 2001. The Fourth Geneva Convention relates to the protection of the civilian population in time of war.

Israel -- which signed the conventions on 8 December 1949 and ratified them on 6 July 1951 -- has reportedly said that it would not attend the High Contracting Parties' meeting. Israel has also stated that it does not regard the Geneva Conventions as applying de jure to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, territories occupied in 1967. In a statement made before the Committee against Torture in November 2001 in Geneva, the Israeli delegation also argued that the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment did not apply to the Occupied Territories because they were governed by the Geneva Conventions.
http://www.amnesty.org/en/alfresco_asset/63f48345-a4ef-11dc-a92d-271514ed133d/mde151082001en.html

Any comparison to the Holocaust is absurdly out of proportion. The total number of noncombatant Palestinians killed over the whole of the last 60 years is less than a single day's work at Auschwitz.
Are you sure
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/deaths.html
That's 2000 dead including nearly 1000 children, since 2000. And that is conservative, and isn't including deaths through lack of access to medical care.

Look at the 30 Israeli soldier suicides in 2005 aswell.

Israel DOES allow the Palestinians freedom. They had elections. Israel's education system doesn't breed any hatred at all (I would know because I went through it). On the other hand, in Palestine:
-Mickey Mouse says on TV that the Jew is the Devil.
-Summer camps for kids meant to increase hatred towards the Jews.
-Instances of kindergardeners being trained with machine guns.
-Little kids sent to throw rocks at tanks and soldiers.
-Surrounding of terrorists with children.
-and so on.



You clearly just have a very biased opinion of Palestinians, as shown by the evidence presented by several people refuting your opinions, while you've supplied no evidence other than 'personal experience (in Israel)'.

you're right in many ways about most of what you say. BUT:
It is a fact that the majority voted for Hamas and Hamas advocates a more stricter Shariah Islamic law. Many of them WANT to live in this kind of society, just as much if not more than the economic factor. This can be demonstrated by the relative improvement in financial situation of many Palestinians prior to the commencement of the Second Intifada. Many of them wish to live in an Islamic state with Islamic traditional laws enforced upon all.
I am of the opinion that 99% of people can be persuaded to change their moral outlook and values if you give them enough monetary incentives to do so. 99% of people have a price - the only question is what is the price of most Palestinians, and whether Israel can afford to pay it.

Yes, a slight majority of Palestinians are currently supportive of an Islamic society, but that can be changed. First of all, I am not advocating giving all Palestinians Israeli citizenship at once. It must be done in stages, and at every stage only the most secular and pro-Israeli Palestinians should get citizenship. Once the other Palestinians see this, they will have a monetary incentive to become more secular and pro-Israeli themselves. In the end you will be left with a small hard core of Islamist Palestinians who will refuse citizenship, but they will be much easier to deal with, since they will no longer be able to hide among the general Palestinian population and they will receive little or no support from other Palestinians.

No, not all of them mean harm to Israelis, but certainly many of them hold a 'grudge' that they would take advantage of such a situation as soon as possible.
Like I said, Palestinians should go through a security check of their background as part of the process of applying for citizenship. At first, only the most secular and pro-Israeli should be given citizenship.

Look, the numbers here are fairly close already. Even without Israel accepting back any Palestinian refugees--and with millions of Arab voters, that possibility is questionable--it'll happen. Demographic changes don't occur so quickly.
Well, then they should encourage Palestinians to have fewer children using the incentives I described earlier, and they should be careful to take in Palestinian citizens gradually rather than all at once.

I'm sure the Palestinians would just love that. [a constitutionally-mandated Jewish state]
Most people can be persuaded to love anything as long as it is personally beneficial to them. Arab citizens of Israel are considerably better off than Arab citizens of any Arab state.

And anyway, constitutions are just pieces of paper--they work only when they are recognized as legitimate by the general public, and especially with such provisions that's not likely to be the case.
Constitutions are an effective way to prevent a majority opinion from having a chance to be passed into law. Generally I would consider that a bad thing, but in this case there is a strong argument for an exception to be made.

People don't like being second-class citizens.
Palestinians wouldn't be second-class citizens. They just wouldn't be able to repeal the Right of Return and other laws that apply to Jews.

Israel has never ratified a constitution. You fail.
I was under the impression that it did ratify a number of Basic Laws with constitutional force. In any case, there's no reason why it can't ratify a constitution in the future.

Hey, hey people, calm down. And I am in the side of Palestine here. The British are the one who stole right? Why don't they punish the British first? :D
OK it was a joke.
You can delusion all you want, but the zionism is really like nazism now, of course with different pure race (this time is Jews). Anyway what I think is that this Jews has absorb ideas from the Christian! And from Hitler and his batallion of inventor (in all aspect), of course.
The Neo-Holocaust! I will put this to my site!
Oh and I would say the Intelligenstan and IDF is like some last bastion of Zionist Jews trying to defend their belief from being mocked (hell, I will do the same in their position)...
Anyway good night, sleep well!
(Oh, and I will ally with the new Reich, bye!)

[sorry for the offtopic and untidy comments. sorry.)

IDF calling people Anti-semites.. what else is new?

:D
The truth fucking hurts.

Only Bedouins and Druze serve in the military.

Er, sorry, Nodinia, but no. Bedouins, Druze and Charkass are drafted, while Christian and Muslim Arab Israelis are not drafted, just as Haredi Jewish Israelis are not drafted under the Tal Law (I believe that the Haredi Jews are exempt from the draft if they study in a Yeshive). Lots of Arab Israelis volunteer (just as some Haredi Jews do).

I'm sorry, if someone already corrected this, I'm not through reading this thread yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tmutarakhan
Any comparison to the Holocaust is absurdly out of proportion. The total number of noncombatant Palestinians killed over the whole of the last 60 years is less than a single day's work at Auschwitz.

Are you sure
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/deaths.html
That's 2000 dead including nearly 1000 children, since 2000. And that is conservative, and isn't including deaths through lack of access to medical care.

Look at the 30 Israeli soldier suicides in 2005 aswell.
The 2000 dead includes those killed by blowing themselves, or trying to, or shooting at soldiers or civilians; the number of non-combatant Palestinian deaths during that period was, however, indisputably large, let us say a thousand at a minimum-- but that covers an "intifada" period of sustained heavy violence (at the choice of the Palestinian leadership). In earlier years there was not usually anything like the same level of deaths: the "first intifada" was also a quite deadly period, though not as deadly as the second. All in all, there have been "a couple" thousand noncombatant Palestinians killed during the occupation, and there were "several" thousand during the 1947-48 period, few in between (I am not going to even PRETEND to any precision; any figures you can find are sure to be distorted either upward or downward depending on the propagandistic motives of the sources, but the order of magnitude is clear).
Auschwitz killed 10,000 every single day, when it was operating at its peak.

Now, on topic: I believe the question was whether the Middle East Conflict is damaging to the respective communal souls of the parties involved (and furthermore to Jews all over the World). I can say that I am hugely annoyed by being held responsible for what happens in the Middle East, especially by Germans (who - I always get that feeling - are just trying to rationalize around their own past). I am Jewish, not Israeli, I vote in Germany and France, not Israel. I have no influence whatsoever in the Middle East. I have hardly any influence in my own home countries. I know that lots of Jews all over the world feel exactly the same.

So, even though I haven't even talked about the Middle East Conflict yet, I can tell you that uninformed people who bother me and other people like me about what some governments I have no control over at all in some other part of the world, where I've lived maybe 3 months in my entire life, do, are damaging my soul, my nerves and my belief in human intelligence.

Now, as for the conflict. Even by Hitler (a historic fact, and if I had a copy of Mein Kampf at hand, I could give you the exact quote, but then again, I am happy I don't have a copy and I'm not even sure if it is legal to quote Mein Kampf using a computer in Germany), Jews were conceived as morally superior. The entire conflict can only be considered damaging to the communal soul of Jews or Israeli Jews in particular, if one actually believes that kinda crap. Because then, people who once "looked up" to Jews are now overjoyed that a government made up of mainly Jewish Israelis makes mistakes too. It's human to be happy at such misfortune. (It's even human to call some of the stupidities committed "misfortune".) In that sense: I find it damaging to the soul to be over-estimated, because that creates a form of psychological pressure which can easily turn into stress and eventually, well, damage.
So, let me tell you: Jews are people like everybody else. When you cut us, we bleed. You know Shakespeare, right?
So, is it damaging to the Christian communal soul when the US invades sovereign countries and some of its soldiers commit atrocities? When Argentina and the UK fought the stupidest battle in human history over a few rocks, was that enough to damage the communal soul of Christians worldwide? Let's talk about some of the strange things the most recent Popes have been dishing out - like prohibiting the use of condoms or deciding that worship in churches should implement more Latin so worshippers understand even less of what happens. Would you consider pure - and in some cases evil - stupidity an attack on the Catholic Urgrund? Because I can see clear parallels here, and even though nothing of this falls anywhere close to where I think damage to something some might call a communal soul might start, perhaps in your mind, it does.
Still, I, being the Jew that I am, am more concerned about the physical world, and I hope that at some point in time we all will be.

I was under the impression that it did ratify a number of Basic Laws with constitutional force. In any case, there's no reason why it can't ratify a constitution in the future.

The Basic Laws exist and are enforced by the Supreme Court of Israel. That's how eg Palestinian landowners and farmers could challenge the route of the Security Wall.

Shas and other religious parties bein part of the government, it is highly unlikely that Israel will ever get a one-document-written-constitution. The religious are opposed to any law other than the Torah to be called the highest law of the land. That doesn't mean that the Israeli constitution is only contained in the Basic Laws. Like the UK, Israel has an unwritten constitution made up of laws, conventions and constitutional principles. That's not better or worse than a written constitution contained in one document (as eg the French Constitution of 1958) but simply different.

If the jackboot fits....

So here's another. {Germany/ Israel}, through a well orchestrated propoganda campaign, convinces much of the populace that the {Jews/Palestinians} are dangerous to the continued safety and prosperity of there country. They do horrible things to the {Jews/Palestinians}.

There are some different reactions to this. The hard core believers think that whatever they do to the {Jews/Palestinians} is fine. A large part of the {German/Israeli} population look the other way, and delude themselves in to believing it is not as bad as it really is. A small pocket of people speak out about the horror that their country is doing and are vilified by the rest of the Germans/Israelis}.

This ties back to my original post about the Israeli soul and your annoyance at my holocaust comparisons shows this. If you truly believed what I am saying is absolute rubbish, it wouldn't bother you as much.

The problem is, you have convinced yourself that what the Israeli government and soldiers do to the Palestinians is fine. Once a comparison to Germany is made, you can't, with a clear conscience, disregard what I am saying outright, as deep down you know there is some truth. The comparison has some merit. That causes damage to your "soul".

Except the Palestinians live in a seperate territory. It's a different country. It's not that Israel is killing Palestinians who are living among them. You don't know the facts.

I also mentioned propoganda. I'm sure someone is going to say there is no propoganda. Well... I know in my country, Australia (with the 2nd best free press money can buy), that Muslims are at worst, terrorist bombers, at best, criminals who haven't been found guilty yet, who would honour kill their daughter if she farted in public because of the shame it would bring the family.

That is obviously a mild exageration, but if my country has demonised Muslims that much (when there hasn't been a terrorist attack on Aussie soil), I'm sure Israel would be doing worse for the Palestinians.

There is much anti-israel propaganda in the media.

Israel still occupies Palestine. That means that every Palestinian has the right to kill every Israeli that comes in sight. There is no excuse for a +60-year incursion/occupation of a territory and oppression of its inhabitants.
And as for the "holocaust comparisons": with enclosing the West Bank in a wall/fence Israel is building the largest concentration camp in human history. It seems they have picked up quite a few things when they were themselves in the camps back in Germany.
Judaism has always been ideological dirt and subsequently the Jewish state is dirt as well. That will never change and that is why it has to go for good.

You are a walking piece of pro-censorship propaganda. Congrats.

Or not.

I'm not content with your assertion that it is so, and I'd want a justification better than 'often times...' for opening fire on a crowd.



I'm sure you realise that - from the Palestinian point of view - the oppressors surround themselves with wives, children, schools and playgrounds, etc... yes? A guerrila militant can't take on the army, but he can take on an individual soldier.. but those Israeli's just insist on hiding in amongst the rest of the population, don't they?

By your logic, it is the fault of Israel, that Palestinians might kill schoolchildren.



Or not. Show me your evidence.



Or not. I don't see why I should assume that a maximum of two civilians are ever caught in the fire.



So.. what? We can target them safely because they MIGHT give a militant refuge?



Again... what? It's not a problem because they MIGHT be involved?

You're telling me there is NO discrimination? No due process? EVERYONE near a suspected militant is assumed to be compiclit. No trial - straight to sentence, everyone is guilty?



Or not. SHow me your evidence. Show me how each body in the body count equates to a thousand saved lives.



Alleged terrorist. And assumed conspirators.

You're honestly willing to say you support the potential massacre of innocents, on the OFFCHANCE that someone there might have been about to kill someone?

Palestinians are not israeli citizens. Israel TARGETS military targets. Palestinians TARGET non-military targets. That's what it's about, no matter what you say. These are the facts.

Are you sure
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/deaths.html
That's 2000 dead including nearly 1000 children, since 2000. And that is conservative, and isn't including deaths through lack of access to medical care.

Look at the 30 Israeli soldier suicides in 2005 aswell.

Haha, you've resorted to the 30 Israeli soldiers that commited suicide (a number that has gone down over tha past 2 years) to make the claim the Israel is oppressing the Palestinians. Naice. (that means nice).

I am of the opinion that 99% of people can be persuaded to change their moral outlook and values if you give them enough monetary incentives to do so. 99% of people have a price - the only question is what is the price of most Palestinians, and whether Israel can afford to pay it.

Yes, a slight majority of Palestinians are currently supportive of an Islamic society, but that can be changed. First of all, I am not advocating giving all Palestinians Israeli citizenship at once. It must be done in stages, and at every stage only the most secular and pro-Israeli Palestinians should get citizenship. Once the other Palestinians see this, they will have a monetary incentive to become more secular and pro-Israeli themselves. In the end you will be left with a small hard core of Islamist Palestinians who will refuse citizenship, but they will be much easier to deal with, since they will no longer be able to hide among the general Palestinian population and they will receive little or no support from other Palestinians.


Like I said, Palestinians should go through a security check of their background as part of the process of applying for citizenship. At first, only the most secular and pro-Israeli should be given citizenship.


Well, then they should encourage Palestinians to have fewer children using the incentives I described earlier, and they should be careful to take in Palestinian citizens gradually rather than all at once.


Most people can be persuaded to love anything as long as it is personally beneficial to them. Arab citizens of Israel are considerably better off than Arab citizens of any Arab state.


Constitutions are an effective way to prevent a majority opinion from having a chance to be passed into law. Generally I would consider that a bad thing, but in this case there is a strong argument for an exception to be made.


Palestinians wouldn't be second-class citizens. They just wouldn't be able to repeal the Right of Return and other laws that apply to Jews.


I was under the impression that it did ratify a number of Basic Laws with constitutional force. In any case, there's no reason why it can't ratify a constitution in the future.

Perhaps. Still lots of problems involved though. (financial, practicality...)

Hey, hey people, calm down. And I am in the side of Palestine here. The British are the one who stole right? Why don't they punish the British first? :D
OK it was a joke.
You can delusion all you want, but the zionism is really like nazism now, of course with different pure race (this time is Jews). Anyway what I think is that this Jews has absorb ideas from the Christian! And from Hitler and his batallion of inventor (in all aspect), of course.
The Neo-Holocaust! I will put this to my site!
Oh and I would say the Intelligenstan and IDF is like some last bastion of Zionist Jews trying to defend their belief from being mocked (hell, I will do the same in their position)...
Anyway good night, sleep well!
(Oh, and I will ally with the new Reich, bye!)

[sorry for the offtopic and untidy comments. sorry.)

wow.

Dodging the issues raised again I see


Palestinians are not israeli citizens. Israel TARGETS military targets. Palestinians TARGET non-military targets. That's what it's about, no matter what you say. These are the facts..

I've listed and linked large numbers of facts, yet you have yet to respond directly to 99% of them, including clear indications of the IDF targeting civillians.


Haha, you've resorted to the 30 Israeli soldiers that commited suicide (a number that has gone down over tha past 2 years) to make the claim the Israel is oppressing the Palestinians. .

Or is he pointing out that when the chief cause of deaths amongst troops on one side in a 'war zone' is suicide, it doesnt say too much for the danger of the 'threat'........

The truth fucking hurts.you are hurting me so much, I think I am going to cry :D :D :p :D

Dodging the issues raised again I see



I've listed and linked large numbers of facts, yet you have yet to respond directly to 99% of them, including clear indications of the IDF targeting civillians.



Or is he pointing out that when the chief cause of deaths amongst troops on one side in a 'war zone' is suicide, it doesnt say too much for the danger of the 'threat'........

That's right, the danger of the threat is towards civilians. The Israeli army is very strong and very well trained and organized.

haha, nice source again: http://www.israellawresourcecenter.org/
nice and neutral.

You give many huge quotations in what you are trying to make seem a huge amount of information against Israel, many of which are from sources like the one above and the old www.alternativenews.org which by the way I just showed to a few friends. Quite a good laugh that provided - thank you for that.
If you want to logically discuss a specific issue that you wish to bring up without this mumbo-jumno of mixed up semi-truths combined with bullshit out of who knows where, bring an (by an I mean one at a time so we can actually reasonably discuss the issue instead of just throwing these mountains of countless arguments from the entire world against Israel - not the way to go about a discussion) issue from a source that is accepted to be unbiased by both sides - like the several haaretz articles you brought up - which I comend you for or cnn would do too. You know human rights organizations, even purely Israeli ones, put these articles in terms that apply to Israelis, not foreigners. You misinterpret them because you don't understand the context. And well, the instances where you have shown to have no idea what you're talking about. But aside from that, you ask me to respond - choose an issue (one at a time) you feel strongly about, quote the part that you want to discuss, provide a link, explain what the point you are trying to make is, and explain how this supports your point. Then we will discuss it. Not by throwing piles of info at one another as if a discussion amounts to who can find and throw info at the other side quicker. no, I will not participate in such a kind of discussion.

That's right, the danger of the threat is towards civilians. The Israeli army is very strong and very well trained and organized.

haha, nice source again: http://www.israellawresourcecenter.org/
nice and neutral..

What the fuck are you on? Crack? I've figured out by now that you are an intellectually dishonest person, but that rather takes the biscuit.

Does that order exist or not?

You give many huge quotations in what you are trying to make seem a huge amount of information against Israel, many of which are from sources like the one above and the old www.alternativenews.org which by the way I just showed to a few friends. Quite a good laugh that provided - thank you for that.
.

And now we have the fantasy chorus, mocking poor me, then back to the 'posioned well' again. Heres a few we can go to straight off -

Did you check the Assoctiation for civil rights in Israel to see if the report had been summarised correctly?

Are the matters referred to in it a matter of fact or not?

Have the UN mentioned the number of deaths due to delays at checkpoints?

Was it IDF policy to use 'human shields' until 2002?

Have settlers attacked Palestinians, their crops and water sources?

Can the JNF legally discriminate against Arabs?

Are there "settler only" roads and areas in the occupied territories?

Is there two systems of justice applied in the OT?

Is there statistical evidence of discrimination against Arab Israelis in funding?

Did the stories concerning text books emanate from one source?

Have they been disproven by the EU/UNRWA? Did you read the statement?

Is the Prof at Tel Aviv telling Fibs about Israeli text books? If so how and why?


Not by throwing piles of info at one another as if a discussion amounts to who can find and throw info at the other side quicker. no, I will not participate in such a kind of discussion..

"at each other"? I make a statement and back it by factual reference. You trot out some trite anecdote reminscent of some southerner yammering on about 'good coloureds' with no resemblance to the facts in the public domain whatsoever. My extracts and pastes have been kept to as reasonable a size as possible, which is rather more than can be said for your last paragraph. The truth is you've been exposed as not having a leg to stand on time and time again.

What the fuck are you on? Crack? I've figured out by now that you are an intellectually dishonest person, but that rather takes the biscuit.

Does that order exist or not?





O back to the posioned well again. Heres a few we can go to straight off -

Did you check the Assoctiation for civil rights in Israel to see if the report had been summarised correctly?

Are the matters referred to in it a matter of fact or not?

Have the UN mentioned the number of deaths due to delays at checkpoints?

Was it IDF policy to use 'human shields' until 2002?

Have settlers attacked Palestinians, their crops and water sources?

Can the JNF legally discriminate against Arabs?

Are there "settler only" roads and areas in the occupied territories?

Is there two systems of justice applied in the OT?

Is there statistical evidence of discrimination against Arab Israelis in funding?

Did the stories concerning text books emanate from one source?

Have they been disproven by the EU/UNRWA?

once again, instead of logically discussing each topic to a full extent, you throw all of these accusations as if they were true. Read the last post again, and actually discuss things using reason - as I've described. You seem to not even have one argument that you can make strongly enough to discuss to its full extent without finding flaws in it. As I have specifically requested, and you have failed to comply. I will, in principle, not answer a series of such questions with a yes or no answer. I repeat: Choose one question, provide a VALID source, quote (only) the part you wish to discuss, describe the point you're trying to make, and explain how your quote applies to your argument. This is basic discussion skills. Here I'll even make a template for you to help:

1. Point you're trying to make:

2. Valid Source:

3. Quote:

4. How this quote relates to your point:

Good luck. I know it's pretty hard, but try.

once (.....) but try.

Ahahaha, you're the one you decides what a valid source is? My arse.

I've made a number of points throughout the thread- every single one of which you've refused to answer.. The only thing you've taken is poisoning the well, which you've now adapted as a blanket strategy.

Start at the beginning - try answering even one.

Again - Does that order relating to the Geneva convention exist? Was it issued? Is it Israeli policy?

Did you check the Assoctiation for civil rights in Israel to see if the report had been summarised correctly?

Are the matters referred to in it a matter of fact or not?

Have the UN mentioned the number of deaths due to delays at checkpoints?

Was it IDF policy to use 'human shields' until 2002?

Have settlers attacked Palestinians, their crops and water sources?

Can the JNF legally discriminate against Arabs?

Are there "settler only" roads and areas in the occupied territories?

Is there two systems of justice applied in the OT?

Is there statistical evidence of discrimination against Arab Israelis in funding?

Did the stories concerning text books emanate from one source?

Have they been disproven by the EU/UNRWA? Did you read the statement?

Is the Prof at Tel Aviv telling Fibs about Israeli text books? If so how and why?

Ahahaha, you're the one you decides what a valid source is? My arse.

I've made a number of points throughout the thread- every single one of which you've refused to answer.. The only thing you've taken is poisoning the well, which you've now adapted as a blanket strategy.

Start at the beginning - try answering even one.

Again - Does that order relating to the Geneva convention exist? Was it issued? Is it Israeli policy?

Did you check the Assoctiation for civil rights in Israel to see if the report had been summarised correctly?

Are the matters referred to in it a matter of fact or not?

Have the UN mentioned the number of deaths due to delays at checkpoints?

Was it IDF policy to use 'human shields' until 2002?

Have settlers attacked Palestinians, their crops and water sources?

Can the JNF legally discriminate against Arabs?

Are there "settler only" roads and areas in the occupied territories?

Is there two systems of justice applied in the OT?

Is there statistical evidence of discrimination against Arab Israelis in funding?

Did the stories concerning text books emanate from one source?

Have they been disproven by the EU/UNRWA? Did you read the statement?

Is the Prof at Tel Aviv telling Fibs about Israeli text books? If so how and why?

wow. Try #3 haha this is a funny thread. I'll just copy paste my last post, but this is really the last time I'll do that. You gotta give three tries. To help, I'll first give you an example and maybe you'll learn that way.
1. You're questions are flawed in their premise.
2. check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_many_questions
3. "This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda...something is implied without being said explicitly, by phrasing it as a question. For example, the question "Does Mr. Jones have a brother in the army?" does not claim that he does, but implies that there must be at least some indication that he does, or the question would not need to be asked. The person asking the question is thus protected from accusations of making false claims"
4. This is equivalent to some of the statements you've made above. "Does Mr. Jones have a brother in the army?" sounds a lot to me like almost every single one of your questions above.


once again, instead of logically discussing each topic to a full extent, you throw all of these accusations as if they were true. Read the last post again, and actually discuss things using reason - as I've described. You seem to not even have one argument that you can make strongly enough to discuss to its full extent without finding flaws in it. As I have specifically requested, and you have failed to comply. I will, in principle, not answer a series of such questions with a yes or no answer. I repeat: Choose one question, provide a VALID source, quote (only) the part you wish to discuss, describe the point you're trying to make, and explain how your quote applies to your argument. This is basic discussion skills. Here I'll even make a template for you to help:

1. Point you're trying to make:

2. Valid Source:

3. Quote:

4. How this quote relates to your point:

Good luck. I know it's pretty hard, but try.

1. You're questions are flawed in their premise.
2. check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_many_questions
.

One at a time then....You stated -
Quote:
Originally Posted by Intellgenstan
Again - right, because Israel's government explicitly directs its generals to tell every one of their soldiers: "Do whatever you can to take away the Geneva convention rights from as many Palestinians as you can" ok there. A little mental there?



Well thats not the wording they used.....


Quote:
ID:
type:
MILITARY ORDER:
Number: 144

Day Passed: 22

Month Passed: 10

Year Passed: 1967

Name:
ORDER CONCERNING SECURITY PROVISIONS:
amendment: Military Proclamation 3

Cancels: Military Order 27

Replaces:
Summary: This cancels article 35 of Military Proclamation 3, revoking the previous admission that Israel was bound, in its treatment of the Palestinian population of the West Bank, Gaza and Golan, by the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention. (My bold)The new article 35 reads: "if an accused person was sentenced to a term in prison, the amount of time already spent in prison should be deducted from the sentence." This also cancels Military Order 27, concerning the judicial administration.
http://www.israellawresourcecenter.org/cgi-bin/browse.py?sectionname=laws&action=view&item=101

Comment?

Finally, you are ready to discuss things rationally. Very well. Let's begin.

ID:
type:
MILITARY PROCLAMATION:
Number: 3

Day Passed:
Month Passed:
Year Passed:
Name:
CONCERNING SECURITY PROVISIONS:
amendment:
Cancels:
Replaces:
Summary: Article 35 of this proclamation stipulates that "the military courts and their directors should adhere to the terms of the Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 concerning the protection of civilians during war and regarding all matters relating to judicial procedure. If there is a contradiction between this Order and the above-mentioned convention then the regulations of the convention will take precedent."

Very well. I see your argument now.

Although this does repeal the previous statement giving precedent to the Geneva Convention in regards to judicial procedure, it doesn't actually tell the army to break the rules of the conventions (as I've said: to requote me: (Sarcastically) Israel's government explicitly directs its generals to tell every one of their soldiers: "Do whatever you can to take away the Geneva convention rights from as many Palestinians as you can"). This is obviously not what is meant by such a repeal. I am sure and confident that other military orders in there provide that Generals take as many measures as possible to allow Palestinians to keep these rights and so on.
This also, refers only to the Judicial Procedure.
If you look through there, I'm sure you'll find many regulations of the judicial procedure that make it just about equal to the Convention, just not giving the Convention precedent over such regulations. I can see how they can make the case:
Section d of Article 3 of the 4th Geneva convention adresses such judicial matters: "the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples." (wiki)
That military courts sometimes are needed and these do not constitute: 'regularly constituted court'.
But I assure you, it is generally just about as fair as the convention put forth.

I repeat, this doesn't encourage the taking away of the Geneva Convention Rights.

By the way, the US doesn't apply some Geneva Convention rulings on terrorists either, because of the disagreement with the definition of prisoners of war and protected persons - Al-Quada terrorists are no different from Hamas terrorists.

P.S. this is also a very minimal issue because only very rarely has this been needed to be used if ever. I would be surprised to hear of an actual Palestinian who had to for some odd reason be tried in a military court to prison and didn't get a regular sentence.
What I'm saying is that this doesn't mean that Israel has not been abiding by the 4th Genevan convention, this is not proof or evidence of violations. Many other nations I'm sure do not have that included as one of their military orders but yet abide by them.

furthermore, I just read in a doubtfull source (but its on your side so I would imagine no opposition from you of me using this)
http://www.alhaq.org/etemplate.php?id=70

Initially, Israeli authorities had recognised the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the OPT. In this regard, Article 35 of the Proclamation No. 3, promulgated shortly after the 1967 June War stated that: “the military court…must apply the provisions of the Geneva Convention dated 12 August 1949 relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War with respect to judicial procedures. In case of conflict between this Order and the said Convention, the Convention shall prevail.” However, in October 1967, this military proclamation was amended by way of Military Order 144 in order to exclude the reference to the Convention‘s applicability. Since then, Israel claims that its presence in the OPT is as an administrator, thereby rendering the Israeli authorities completely unaccountable to the Fourth Geneva Convention, and declared that it will only abide by the “humanitarian provisions” of the Convention.

Israel endorses the official position against the de jure applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention. In this respect, it has argued that even though Israel signed and ratified the Convention, it was not bound by it, because it “generates new norms whose application in Israel demands an act of legislation.” Israel continues to choose “deference to the discretion of the military authorities whenever it invoked military considerations.”

A number of Israeli commentators argued that since Israeli military presence in OPT was progressively diminishing (at least insofar as Area A is concerned), and Palestinians were assuming broadened responsibilities and powers with respect to internal affairs, Israel can no longer be considered an Occupying Power with obligations towards the Palestinian Territories and its civilian population.

As Article 42 of the Hague Regulations stipulates, a “territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army,” and that the occupation extends “to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.”
...



What I take from this, is that Israel does not consider itself an occupier, and therefore doesn't have to abide by the rules imposed on 'occupiers' by the Geneva Convension.

Except the Palestinians live in a seperate territory. It's a different country. It's not that Israel is killing Palestinians who are living among them. You don't know the facts.
The only reason for this is that they have been moved from their home, and had it declared a seperate territory by the oppressors. By some perception Auschwitz could be deemed to be a different territory.


Palestinians are not israeli citizens. Israel TARGETS military targets. Palestinians TARGET non-military targets. That's what it's about, no matter what you say. These are the facts.
Glad you are still deluding yourself. Nodinia has given multiple examples of non-military targetting by the Israel government. You yourself earlier stated that if the terrorists have civilians around them, it is fine to take them all out.

Haha, you've resorted to the 30 Israeli soldiers that commited suicide (a number that has gone down over tha past 2 years) to make the claim the Israel is oppressing the Palestinians. Naice. (that means nice).
Glad you tell me what I was trying to do. I was just suggesting that if 30 soldiers committed suicide in just 1 year, then one has to question what is so terrible in their job?

Can you actually debate Nodinia instead of making claims he/she is wrong, or the sources are invalid. Can we only use Israeli goverment sources as they aren't biased? Maybe Fox News? It seems any source is biased unless it's pro-Israel.

Palestinians are not israeli citizens. Israel TARGETS military targets. Palestinians TARGET non-military targets. That's what it's about, no matter what you say. These are the facts.


Wow. Way to avoid responding to any of my post.

Israel targets military targets - but you just said that they'll fire into a crowd if they think a militant is there. You also invented a load of stuff about how they were all probably in on it, and would probably shelter the militant, and a load of other crap, but none of it changes the fact that you said Israeli military WILL open fire on a suspected militant, even in a crowd.

Add to which... a 'suspected militant' isn't intrinsically a 'military target' - at least, not until you provide PROOF that your 'suspected militant' IS a military target.


Palestinians target non-military tagets - actually, I've seen reports that suggest they target military targets too.. but the problem with THAT is, the Israeli military is...well, a military. One guy with a gun or bomb has a much better chance against a non-military target than he does against a tank, yes?


It's an asymmetric war. That's just the nature of the beast.

Really, who is worse? The person who targets non-military targets because he is a 'freedom fighter', or the person who targets non-military targets because he is indiscriminate, so long as he hits his first choice? And - does it matter? Are not both sides culpable?

once again, instead of logically discussing each topic to a full extent, you throw all of these accusations as if they were true. Read the last post again, and actually discuss things using reason - as I've described. You seem to not even have one argument that you can make strongly enough to discuss to its full extent without finding flaws in it. As I have specifically requested, and you have failed to comply. I will, in principle, not answer a series of such questions with a yes or no answer. I repeat: Choose one question, provide a VALID source, quote (only) the part you wish to discuss, describe the point you're trying to make, and explain how your quote applies to your argument. This is basic discussion skills. Here I'll even make a template for you to help:

1. Point you're trying to make:

2. Valid Source:

3. Quote:

4. How this quote relates to your point:

Good luck. I know it's pretty hard, but try.

Actually - if those are just questions... the other poster is under no burden to 'prove', source, or cite anything.

You appear to be requiring that the other poster fit some arbitrary agenda, but it needn't be that way - he or she is perfectly free to ask you questions, ask you to support your claims, and/or ask for sources for your data - without having to provide anything to you, but the request.

Very well. I see your argument now.

Although this does repeal the previous statement giving precedent to the Geneva Convention in regards to judicial procedure, it doesn't actually tell the army to break the rules of the conventions.

No, it says that they don't apply - a position which Israel has reiterated in subsequent years. If they don't apply, then breaking them is neither here nor there. However it has been known to fly in the face of this when convenient -

Israel -- which signed the conventions on 8 December 1949 and ratified them on 6 July 1951 -- has reportedly said that it would not attend the High Contracting Parties' meeting. Israel has also stated that it does not regard the Geneva Conventions as applying de jure to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, territories occupied in 1967. In a statement made before the Committee against Torture in November 2001 in Geneva, the Israeli delegation also argued that the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment did not apply to the Occupied Territories because they were governed by the Geneva Conventions.
Link (http://www.amnesty.org/en/alfresco_asset/63f48345-a4ef-11dc-a92d-271514ed133d/mde151082001en.html)

Bit of almost Cheney-esque reasoning there.



By the way, the US doesn't apply some Geneva Convention rulings on terrorists either, because of the disagreement with the definition of prisoners of war and protected persons - Al-Quada terrorists are no different from Hamas terrorists..

Disregarding the Geneva convention with regard to the occupied territories is rather different than dealing with 'terrorists', even were that particular view of dealing with terrorism seen as universally valid and legal. You aren't implying that all non-Israelis inhabiting the OT are on the level of Al Qaeda, I presume?


.S. this is also a very minimal issue because only very rarely has this been needed to be used if ever. I would be surprised to hear of an actual Palestinian who had to for some odd reason be tried in a military court to prison and didn't get a regular sentence...

I'm unsure what you're trying to say here, so I'll outline what happens. In the event a 'settler' or colonist in the OT commits a crime, they will be tried before a civillian court, with the normal protections and safeguards. Should a Palestinian commit a crime, they will be dealt with by a military court. This creates a two tier system of justice. As for "regular sentence" - at any given time they are 800-900 Palestinians detained without any form of trial.


A number of Israeli commentators argued that since Israeli military presence in OPT was progressively diminishing (at least insofar as Area A is concerned), and Palestinians were assuming broadened responsibilities and powers with respect to internal affairs, Israel can no longer be considered an Occupying Power with obligations towards the Palestinian Territories and its civilian population.

As Article 42 of the Hague Regulations stipulates, a “territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army,” and that the occupation extends “to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.”
..What I take from this, is that Israel does not consider itself an occupier, and therefore doesn't have to abide by the rules imposed on 'occupiers' by the Geneva Convension.
.

...which conveniently ignores the complete control of Gazan airspace and borders by Israel, as well as power and water supplies. Thus in theory its not present though in practice it controls it much as an open air prison.

It strikes me as odd that the withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 is seen as justifying a stance that began in 1967.

This also ignores the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem. I might point out that the fact that Israel does not declare itself an occupier does not make it any less one.

Well, now even zionist agree with me, wasn't him?
Anyway I think someone should do interview (independent) on both sides. Then we could see who is "eviler" (relative evil of course. No one can claim they have absolute...)

And both sides have military camp for childs. It fairs, so don't attack it...:D

The only reason for this is that they have been moved from their home, and had it declared a seperate territory by the oppressors. By some perception Auschwitz could be deemed to be a different territory.



Glad you are still deluding yourself. Nodinia has given multiple examples of non-military targetting by the Israel government. You yourself earlier stated that if the terrorists have civilians around them, it is fine to take them all out.


Glad you tell me what I was trying to do. I was just suggesting that if 30 soldiers committed suicide in just 1 year, then one has to question what is so terrible in their job?

Can you actually debate Nodinia instead of making claims he/she is wrong, or the sources are invalid. Can we only use Israeli goverment sources as they aren't biased? Maybe Fox News? It seems any source is biased unless it's pro-Israel.

No Auschwitz can MOST DEFINITELY NOT be considered a seperate territory, you are a fool.

Wow. Way to avoid responding to any of my post.

Israel targets military targets - but you just said that they'll fire into a crowd if they think a militant is there. You also invented a load of stuff about how they were all probably in on it, and would probably shelter the militant, and a load of other crap, but none of it changes the fact that you said Israeli military WILL open fire on a suspected militant, even in a crowd.

Add to which... a 'suspected militant' isn't intrinsically a 'military target' - at least, not until you provide PROOF that your 'suspected militant' IS a military target.


Palestinians target non-military tagets - actually, I've seen reports that suggest they target military targets too.. but the problem with THAT is, the Israeli military is...well, a military. One guy with a gun or bomb has a much better chance against a non-military target than he does against a tank, yes?


It's an asymmetric war. That's just the nature of the beast.

Really, who is worse? The person who targets non-military targets because he is a 'freedom fighter', or the person who targets non-military targets because he is indiscriminate, so long as he hits his first choice? And - does it matter? Are not both sides culpable?

That's no reason for them to kill innocent civilians, and children. That's the nature of the beast? tell that to the families of Americans killed in 9/11 we'll see what their response is.

No, it says that they don't apply - a position which Israel has reiterated in subsequent years. If they don't apply, then breaking them is neither here nor there. However it has been known to fly in the face of this when convenient -


Link (http://www.amnesty.org/en/alfresco_asset/63f48345-a4ef-11dc-a92d-271514ed133d/mde151082001en.html)

Bit of almost Cheney-esque reasoning there.




Disregarding the Geneva convention with regard to the occupied territories is rather different than dealing with 'terrorists', even were that particular view of dealing with terrorism seen as universally valid and legal. You aren't implying that all non-Israelis inhabiting the OT are on the level of Al Qaeda, I presume?



I'm unsure what you're trying to say here, so I'll outline what happens. In the event a 'settler' or colonist in the OT commits a crime, they will be tried before a civillian court, with the normal protections and safeguards. Should a Palestinian commit a crime, they will be dealt with by a military court. This creates a two tier system of justice. As for "regular sentence" - at any given time they are 800-900 Palestinians detained without any form of trial.



...which conveniently ignores the complete control of Gazan airspace and borders by Israel, as well as power and water supplies. Thus in theory its not present though in practice it controls it much as an open air prison.

It strikes me as odd that the withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 is seen as justifying a stance that began in 1967.

This also ignores the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem. I might point out that the fact that Israel does not declare itself an occupier does not make it any less one.

Neither Israel nor I consider it to be an occupier, despite the control of MOST of the power and water supplies, and the control of the borders WITH Israel.
The 2005 withdrawal was from a few settlements in the North of Gaza. Stop confusing your facts.

This 'two-tier' justice system is nothing like you describe it, because Palestinians have THEIR OWN JUSTICE SYSTEM. The only time military courts will be used are when there are attempted suicide attacks on Israelis and that is rarely used. I AM implying that every Al-Quada terrorist is the same as every Hamas TERRORIST.

That's no reason for them to kill innocent civilians, and children. That's the nature of the beast? tell that to the families of Americans killed in 9/11 we'll see what their response is..

But we aren't discussing 9/11.


Neither Israel nor I consider it to be an occupier,..

O - that makes all the difference then......Presumably the majority of the rest of the worlds legal opinion - such as it is - can then be discounted (apart from the US veto, which has much the same function - great to be a superpower ally).


This 'two-tier' justice system is nothing like you describe it, because Palestinians have THEIR OWN JUSTICE SYSTEM. The only time military courts will be used are when there are attempted suicide attacks on Israelis and that is rarely used..

emmm..no? Unless your 'rarely' means something other than what its usually taken to mean.....
More than 150,000 Palestinians have been prosecuted in these courts since 1990, and about half the 9,000 prisoners currently being held in Israel were sent to prison by the military courts, according to Yesh Din.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2008/01/06/4755554-ap.html

http://www.yesh-din.org/site/index.php?page=about.us&lang=en

A 99.7 conviction rate?

only 23 aqquitals out of 9,123 cases?????

Hamas is a legitimate Palestinian national resistance, the tactics they use are just a sign that times have changed, and are no worst than those used by the IDF itself. Israel isn't a legitimate state, it's a giant military barracks dropped down into the Middle East to serve as a proxy of US geostrategic imperialism, 'Zionism' is simply an ideology used as pawn by the US to justify their proxy status in the region.

No Auschwitz can MOST DEFINITELY NOT be considered a seperate territory, you are a fool.
As usual you miss the point, and attack the poster, not the point. The point I am making, is that it is irrelevant that you claim the Palestinian area is a different region.
That's no reason for them to kill innocent civilians, and children. That's the nature of the beast? tell that to the families of Americans killed in 9/11 we'll see what their response is.
Oh please. Don't bring USA in to it. The US is the only country to have been found guilty of supporting terrorism. Remember that Iran/Contra scandal. Remember those Contra rebels bombing schools on US advice, with US weapons and funded by illegal US dollars.
Does Operation Rolling Thunder and Cambodia and Laos ring a bell. A few civvies got killed then. The bombing of Cambodia also empowered Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge to take over. 3 million dead there if I remember correctly.
The US not only believe killing innocent civilians is alright, they are world leader. Here's a link if you need reminding.
[link=http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084]
Or does it only count when Westerners and Israelis die?
Your blinkers are so firmly fixed. You are obviously a believer in my country, right or wrong, and can't see your countries faults.

Neither Israel nor I consider it to be an occupier, despite the control of MOST of the power and water supplies, and the control of the borders WITH Israel.
What would constitute being an occupier? I know I'd be pissed if my landlord could turn of my power or water whenever he wanted, and told me when I could leave the house. I definately wouldn't consider it my home.

And of course you have taken the name of your bani, to a nation. Yea I know it your name, but, unlike you, we haven't had a country where it was made from it's people name (The majority is the upside-down of it...)

Hamas is a legitimate Palestinian national resistance, the tactics they use are just a sign that times have changed, and are no worst than those used by the IDF itself. Israel isn't a legitimate state, it's a giant military barracks dropped down into the Middle East to serve as a proxy of US geostrategic imperialism, 'Zionism' is simply an ideology used as pawn by the US to justify their proxy status in the region.

You again?

"Really, who is worse? The person who targets non-military targets because he is a 'freedom fighter', or the person who targets non-military targets because he is indiscriminate, so long as he hits his first choice? "
The first is profoundly worse. The Palestinian "freedom fighters" do not do anything whatsoever that would defend any Palestinian from harm or increase the freedom of any Palestinians, quite the opposite. They do evil to the other side without any possible justification in terms of accomplishing good for their own.

"Really, who is worse? The person who targets non-military targets because he is a 'freedom fighter', or the person who targets non-military targets because he is indiscriminate, so long as he hits his first choice? "
The first is profoundly worse. The Palestinian "freedom fighters" do not do anything whatsoever that would defend any Palestinian from harm or increase the freedom of any Palestinians, quite the opposite. They do evil to the other side without any possible justification in terms of accomplishing good for their own.

The person who's goal is to kill non-military targets. Yes.

The (,,,,) Yes.

Do I get a response to my last post....?

But we aren't discussing 9/11.

9/11 is the same as terrorism towards Israel.


O - that makes all the difference then......Presumably the majority of the rest of the worlds legal opinion - such as it is - can then be discounted (apart from the US veto, which has much the same function - great to be a superpower ally).


A lot of the world is anti-Israel. I wonder why then they would say that it is doing things that are illegal.


emmm..no? Unless your 'rarely' means something other than what its usually taken to mean.....


http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2008/01/06/4755554-ap.html

http://www.yesh-din.org/site/index.php?page=about.us&lang=en

A 99.7 conviction rate?

only 23 aqquitals out of 9,123 cases?????

1. From your quote, as you saw only half are from the military courts.
2. You must remember, these are only terrorists (or suspected ones - which would be kind of hard to be without actually being one, don't you think?) who are tried in these courts.
3. You forgot to show the other side, again, even though it was directly in your source, that:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2008/01/06/4755554-ap.html

"a military statement said, the report was filled with flaws, faulty research methods and mistaken analysis.
The army said its court system operated with full disclosure and stressed that defendants were given fair trials, hearings had simultaneous translations and defendants were provided with all the material against them in advance. "

9/11 is the same as terrorism towards Israel.
"

America is building colonies in Saudi Arabia?


A lot of the world is anti-Israel. I wonder why then they would say that it is doing things that are illegal."

The UN, the US, the EU?



1. From your quote, as you saw only half are from the military courts.."

150,000 have been through those courts since 1990.....Thats not "rarely". A few thousand in Jail mean "rarely" does not come into play. Theres no way these were all 'suicide bombers' as you implied. You were wrong, werent you?


2. You must remember, these are only terrorists (or suspected ones - which would be kind of hard to be without actually being one, don't you think?) who are tried in these courts..."

So, by your logic, if I charge you with being a rapist, then it would be hard for me to do so were you not one....Circular logic, that is.



3. You forgot to show the other side, again, even though it was directly in your source,

I forgot to show nothing. I don't paste full articles, generally speaking. The link is there so people can read the full thing.


"a military statement said, the report was filled with flaws, faulty research methods and mistaken analysis.

Yet other human rights organisations have also raised issue with these courts.

America is building colonies in Saudi Arabia?

Israel is not building colonies in the Gaza region. When will you understand? Both forms of terrorism are attacking the 'infidels'. Both forms have the goal of making the world an extremist-Islam dominated world governed by Shariah law.

The UN, the US, the EU?

The US is Israel's ally.


150,000 have been through those courts since 1990.....Thats not "rarely". A few thousand in Jail mean "rarely" does not come into play. Theres no way these were all 'suicide bombers' as you implied. You were wrong, werent you?

When I said rarely, I was reffering to the need to disregard the Geneva Convention. And I hold my stance: it has rarely if ever been necessary.

So, by your logic, if I charge you with being a rapist, then it would be hard for me to do so were you not one....Circular logic, that is.

No, if you charge me with being someone who tries to openly strap a bomb onto myself and run towards Israelis, it would be pretty hard for me to be just a random innocent guy feeling like going on a run.


I forgot to show nothing. I don't paste full articles, generally speaking. The link is there so people can read the full thing.

Ah, that's nice and convenient isn't it. Tip: Don't use a selection of a source that refutes your own point, it just makes it apparent that you're trying to not be open about all the facts except yours.


Yet other human rights organisations have also raised issue with these courts.
But yet this extra info you are able to present. nice.

I think my point has been well and truly vindicated. The only way a pro-Israeli person can live with themselves is self delusion. The amount of evasion, self delusion and mental gymnastics you apply is amazing.

If they are a suspected terrorist, well, they must be guilty. WTF. The innocent civilians are guilty as they hide terrorists. So every civilians hides terrorists... Of course. :rolleyes:

I ask a simple question, what would you do if you were in the same position as the Palestinians. Wait, at one point the Jews (At that point not Israelis as the country had not been declared) were. What did they do? They applied terrorist tactics to the ruling country, Britain until they got their way.

The Irgun were entirely counterproductive. Israel got its independence in spite of them. Most occupied countries have gained independence more quickly, because they never engaged in that sort of shit in the first place. If the Germans after World War II had started blowing up Russian schoolbuses, hijacking British planes, throwing old Frenchmen in wheelchairs off boats, training their kids to throw rocks at American soldiers, and insisting they would fight until the outcome of 1945 was reversed and they had Silesia, Pomerania, Prussia, and Alsace-Lorraine back, they would still be occupied territories to this day-- but, like almost all people, they did not behave like Palestinians.

No, if you charge me with being someone who tries to openly strap a bomb onto myself and run towards Israelis, it would be pretty hard for me to be just a random innocent guy feeling like going on a run.


I charge you with someone who tries to openly strap a bomb onto yourself and run towards Israelis. You are now a terrorist. Evidence? Trials? We don't need that according to you.

His point was that something is generally only charged with that because he is arrested with a bomb strapped to himself, or something equally unlikely to have an innocent explanation. Not all offenses have the same likelihood of false arrests: there are many false arrests for murder, because most murderers are not found standing over a body covered in blood; but there are few false arrests for shoplifting, since you generally only get arrested for shoplifting if some goods have unaccountably slipped into your coat pocket or suchlike.

I think my point has been well and truly vindicated. The only way a pro-Israeli person can live with themselves is self delusion. The amount of evasion, self delusion and mental gymnastics you apply is amazing.

If they are a suspected terrorist, well, they must be guilty. WTF. The innocent civilians are guilty as they hide terrorists. So every civilians hides terrorists... Of course. :rolleyes:

I ask a simple question, what would you do if you were in the same position as the Palestinians. Wait, at one point the Jews (At that point not Israelis as the country had not been declared) were. What did they do? They applied terrorist tactics to the ruling country, Britain until they got their way.

If I were in the position of the Palestinians, I would act strongly to stop terrorist attacks rocket attacks to return to the pre-2nd intifada situation where the economy was improving.

Israel is not building colonies in the Gaza region..

....and is instead concentrating around Arab East Jerusalem/the West Bank. You seem to think you can deal with those areas as if they were inhabitited by a totally seperate people.


The US is Israel's ally...

....which has nothing to do with anything, as the 9/11 attacks weren't carried out by Palestinians.



When I said rarely, I was reffering to the need to disregard the Geneva Convention. And I hold my stance: it has rarely if ever been necessary....

I'd call 40 years of official non-appliance a far from "rare" phenomena. I don't think any reasonable person can realistically say otherwise.


No, if you charge me with being someone who tries to openly strap a bomb onto myself and run towards Israelis,....

You did read the bit about 150,000 cases since 1990? Or have we turned to humour now.....

By the way, in case others might get the impression that being charged = guilty in an Israeli court....
The idea here—as articulated by Rav Kahana in a Talmudic statement (Sanhedrin 17a)—is that consideration of the possibility of the persons’ innocence, as represented by at least one of the discussants, is an integral part of the judicial procedure.
http://rhr.israel.net/jury-and-beit-din-devar-torah-for-shabbat-mishpatim


Ah, that's nice and convenient isn't it. Tip: Don't use a selection of a source that refutes your own point, ,....

The IDF saying it isn't so is not a refutation, its the accused saying 'not guilty'. Here we rely on other witnesses -

Amnesty
Trials of Palestinians before military courts often did not meet international fair trial standards, with allegations of torture and other ill-treatment of detainees inadequately investigated. Hundreds of Palestinians were held in administrative detention without charge or trial; more than 700 were being held at the end of the year. Family visits to some 10,000 Palestinian prisoners were severely restricted as many of their relatives were denied visiting permits.
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/middle-east-and-north-africa/east-mediterranean/israeloccupied-territories

And HRW - here we see the other element in the equation - systematic torture -
Israel's two main interrogation agencies in the occupied territories engage in a systematic pattern of ill-treatment and torture - according to internationally recognized definitions of the terms - when trying to extract from Palestinian security suspects confessions or information about third parties.
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1994/israel/




But yet this extra info you are able to present. nice.

No idea what you're on about there.....

If I were in the position of the Palestinians, I would act strongly to stop terrorist attacks rocket attacks to return to the pre-2nd intifada situation where the economy was improving.

It's kind of hard to stop terrorism when your political, economic and military assets are less valuable than shit because of blockades, sanctions and the neighbor that your populace considers an occupier constantly blowing the shit out of them in the name of anti-terrorism and self-defense with impugnity. Sort of undermines your authority and credibility with the folks, not to mention gives the terrorists more propaganda material. Not to mention the terrorists tend to have more firepower than the government.

Just like you, Israel knows it's put Abas in an untenable Catch-22 but expects him to put out first with stopping the rocket attacks nevertheless before even jokingly suggesting it will drop the checkpoints and release the stranglehold it has on the Palestinian Territories.

If I were in the position of the Palestinians, I would act strongly to stop terrorist attacks rocket attacks to return to the pre-2nd intifada situation where the economy was improving.
The problem is, you couldn't. Some ideological nut job, has blown you up because you were in the same neighbourhood as a suspected terrorist.

It's kind of hard to stop terrorism ....
No it isn't. Just don't do it. Most of the peoples on this planet would never have considered STARTING such behavior in the first place, let alone persisting in it after seeing the results for this long.

No it isn't. Just don't do it. Most of the peoples on this planet would never have considered STARTING such behavior in the first place, let alone persisting in it after seeing the results for this long.

Didn't you mention the Irgun there earlier....?

The leadership fought to put down the Irgun, sinking a ship which was smuggling weapons to them and so on. I am not saying that there are not some sick individuals in every ethnicity, but it is rare that an entire culture will become dedicated to such sickness: the Tamils come to mind; but the Irish, Basques, and Chechens all learned to stop their counterproductive behaviors.

Terrorism has been successful. You do realise the Irish got home rule. The Chechens may bubble up again, it's not over. The Contras terrorism caused enough damage to the Nicaraguan government, that the public voted out the government, knowing it would stop the terrorism.

In Ireland the terrorists were demanding that the British get out of the north and unify it with the Republic, and the terrorism has stopped because people realize that this is not ever going to happen. In Chechnya, the possibility that any nation in the world would support independence for them died completely at Beslan schoolhouse, and the Chechens understand that. I disagree with your analysis of Nicaragua, where the people voted against the Sandinistas because they were an oppressive gang of thieves (the slogan was: El Frente, Somoza! Son la misma chosa!)

The leadership fought to put down the Irgun, sinking a ship which was smuggling weapons to them and so on.

They did. They soon went back to working with them. And then there was the "stern gang" and the rest. Indeed some of the actions of the Hagganah could be deemed "terrorist" in nature.

As for the Irish, "terrorism" as such started in a bid for Irish independence - the first Republican bomb went off in Britain 1866, as far as I remember, the last in 1996/97. Theres no point in taking things up and then dropping them quickly, after all.

It's kind of hard to stop terrorism when your political, economic and military assets are less valuable than shit because of blockades, sanctions and the neighbor that your populace considers an occupier constantly blowing the shit out of them in the name of anti-terrorism and self-defense with impugnity. Sort of undermines your authority and credibility with the folks, not to mention gives the terrorists more propaganda material. Not to mention the terrorists tend to have more firepower than the government.

Just like you, Israel knows it's put Abas in an untenable Catch-22 but expects him to put out first with stopping the rocket attacks nevertheless before even jokingly suggesting it will drop the checkpoints and release the stranglehold it has on the Palestinian Territories.


Indeed, and all the while the concrete mixers mix and the diggers dig....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7172253.stm

I'm not really interested in arguing with you whether terrorism has "ever" worked (Algeria might be another example to bring up, although since there was grotesque terrorism in both directions, that would have ended up with "terrorism winning" no matter which way it went). My point is that Palestinians ought to have noticed that IN THEIR CASE it has been doing nothing except making their position worse and worse and worse. They ought to have noticed this a very long times ago. I think the problem is not any kind of congenital stupidity, but rather that the Palestinians, in a way, ENJOY making things worse, would rather whine about their terrible suffering than actually have it come to an end. If they were independent, they would have to take responsibility for their own conditions, and who wants that?

I'm not really interested in arguing with you whether terrorism has "ever" worked (.....)wants that?

I might point out the alternative to violence in their case has been submission. Thus you might say that their violence is as much frustration, a protest and a cry for help than a realistic means of ending the occupation. You would do well to remember that were it not for the US veto, sanctions could well have resolved this decades ago. By denying the Palestinians a peaceful means of combatting the occupation, the US thus bears a great deal of responsibility for the violence.

1st in my opinion if ALLAH gives some one a home land you dont practice the evils of war to maintain it, I think both peoples have suffered and will continue to suffer if THEY DONT RESOLVE THIS PROBLEM THEMSELVES!!!

No United States, No Europe, No Arab League, just them the people No Hamas, No Fatah, No Lakud, No Israeli Government, just the people.

Make Jeruselem a city of all faiths.

The only way for peace is not through a treaty or one great phrophet emrging from the skies....but if these people truly believe in ALLAH (GOD) then they will act accordingly they will agressively seek peace instead of Agressively seeking weapons and foreign funding.

how is it a Proud Muslim Depends on a Kuffar (Non Believer) for Peace?

how is it a Proud Jew can depend a Goim (Non Believer) For protection and peace?

when in fact history has proven these 2 knew how to coexist with eachother for nearly 1500 years.


so let them work through their own problems and may ALLAH guide them to a good and prosperous future where all this pain and sorrow will be a distant memory.

....and is instead concentrating around Arab East Jerusalem/the West Bank. You seem to think you can deal with those areas as if they were inhabitited by a totally seperate people.



....which has nothing to do with anything, as the 9/11 attacks weren't carried out by Palestinians.




I'd call 40 years of official non-appliance a far from "rare" phenomena. I don't think any reasonable person can realistically say otherwise.



You did read the bit about 150,000 cases since 1990? Or have we turned to humour now.....

By the way, in case others might get the impression that being charged = guilty in an Israeli court....

http://rhr.israel.net/jury-and-beit-din-devar-torah-for-shabbat-mishpatim



The IDF saying it isn't so is not a refutation, its the accused saying 'not guilty'. Here we rely on other witnesses -

Amnesty

http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/middle-east-and-north-africa/east-mediterranean/israeloccupied-territories

And HRW - here we see the other element in the equation - systematic torture -

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1994/israel/



No idea what you're on about there.....
West Bank and Jerusalem Palestinians support Fatah while Gaza supports Hamas. The two are rivals. \they fight each other. These aren't just political parties, they each have their own militia. The Fatah has recently carried out no attacks that I've heard of towards Israel, while all the attacks come from Hamas. Are you honestly trying to tell me that Hamas is trying to do Fatah's job for it?
9/11 = suicide attacks+rockets
When you get this into your head, you will perhaps lose a lot of your biases and false logic.
We can't argue about facts, only our interpretations of them.


It's kind of hard to stop terrorism when your political, economic and military assets are less valuable than shit because of blockades, sanctions and the neighbor that your populace considers an occupier constantly blowing the shit out of them in the name of anti-terrorism and self-defense with impugnity. Sort of undermines your authority and credibility with the folks, not to mention gives the terrorists more propaganda material. Not to mention the terrorists tend to have more firepower than the government.

Just like you, Israel knows it's put Abas in an untenable Catch-22 but expects him to put out first with stopping the rocket attacks nevertheless before even jokingly suggesting it will drop the checkpoints and release the stranglehold it has on the Palestinian Territories.

The problem is, you couldn't. Some ideological nut job, has blown you up because you were in the same neighbourhood as a suspected terrorist.

For both of you, again, (getting boring isn't it?), after I've said it several times. What you don't understand over and over again, is that the things Israel does are IN RESPONSE to the terrorism. You can't possibly comprehend such a strange notion huh? I'm honestly getting really bored here saying this over and over again.

West Bank (...)job for it?.

They are all Palestinians. While they are occupied there will be those who seek to carry out attacks.


9/11 = suicide attacks+rockets .

There were no rockets. However its a fallacious analogy, presumably designed to be given to a US audience to cue an emotional reaction. I suggest it be freed to join the rest of the herring shoal in the sea.


We can't argue about facts, only our interpretations of them..

Is that why you've not responded about the military courts? (does it also cover the human shields, settler only areas and the various other inequities I covered earlier?)


For both of you, again, (getting boring isn't it?), after I've said it several times. What you don't understand over and over again, is that the things Israel does are IN RESPONSE to the terrorism.

Like taking Arab land and building Apartment blocks on it outside its international borders. Hmmmmmm. Hard to see the logic there....

So the Israeli ministry of agriculture sparing poison on Bedouin crops is a response to "terrorist" vegetable growing?

Presumably turning the snipers lose on school girls was in response to 'militant' hopscotch and crayon use....(plus presumably you get bonus points in the mess for hitting them between the pig-tails.....)

They are all Palestinians. While they are occupied there will be those who seek to carry out attacks.



There were no rockets. However its a fallacious analogy, presumably designed to be given to a US audience to cue an emotional reaction. I suggest it be freed to join the rest of the herring shoal in the sea.



Is that why you've not responded about the military courts? (does it also cover the human shields, settler only areas and the various other inequities I covered earlier?)



Like taking Arab land and building Apartment blocks on it outside its international borders. Hmmmmmm. Hard to see the logic there....

So the Israeli ministry of agriculture sparing poison on Bedouin crops is a response to "terrorist" vegetable growing?

Presumably turning the snipers lose on school girls was in response to 'militant' hopscotch and crayon use....(plus presumably you get bonus points in the mess for hitting them between the pig-tails.....)

haha wow. It's starting to scare me that I've been carrying out a logical discussion with you all this time.

For both of you, again, (getting boring isn't it?),


Not boring. Boring isn't the right word. It's getting no more true with every repetition, but you don't seem to have a problem with that.


...after I've said it several times. What you don't understand over and over again, is that the things Israel does are IN RESPONSE to the terrorism.


Which is irrelevent.

You can't possibly comprehend such a strange notion huh? I'm honestly getting really bored here saying this over and over again.

Then stop saying it. It was irrelevent the first time, and it's getting no more relevent with repetition.

That's no reason for them to kill innocent civilians, and children. That's the nature of the beast? tell that to the families of Americans killed in 9/11 we'll see what their response is.


I don't care what the response is, it is irrelevent to this discussion, and appealing to emotion is a logical fallacy anyway.

Palestinians are killing civilians. Israel is killing civilians. Both sides are as bad as each other, on that front.

The difference, maybe, is that it is the governmental policy of Israel to do it.

"Really, who is worse? The person who targets non-military targets because he is a 'freedom fighter', or the person who targets non-military targets because he is indiscriminate, so long as he hits his first choice? "
The first is profoundly worse. The Palestinian "freedom fighters" do not do anything whatsoever that would defend any Palestinian from harm or increase the freedom of any Palestinians, quite the opposite. They do evil to the other side without any possible justification in terms of accomplishing good for their own.

Not at all.. they seek to redress the balance against what they perceive as an intolerable evil.

If they 'win', they get what they want. They get to accomplish winning against the military might of the evil empire, as they see it. That's plenty good justification... for them.

The person who's goal is to kill non-military targets. Yes.

That would be both sides.

haha wow. It's starting to scare me that I've been carrying out a logical discussion with you all this time.

And yet again, you don't answer the issues raised.

Violent resistance is the only way to dislodge the Zionist state from the region, the Palestinians must causes Terror to every Zionist.

haha wow. It's starting to scare me that I've been carrying out a logical discussion with you all this time.

You haven't been conducting a logical discussion. Anything that doesn't fit, you ignore.

The Israelis actions are response to the terrorism? How can it be a response when they they started it all by invading Palestine, and then kicking out, or oppressing, any non Jew.

Also, belittling Nodinia's sarcastic post about soldiers getting bonus points for getting between the pigtails doesn't refute the point. Nodinia has gone to sarcasm due to your continued lack of acceptance of reputable sources saying that Israel kill civilians, when there is no chance of them being involved in terrorist actions.

You are so used to most of the populace being fooled by the biased media repeating obviously distorted facts (such as pointing out how evil Saddam was without including the very important detail of the amount of western support he had received) that you think the same trick might work here.

Keep repeating yourself if it makes you feel better. Tell me rubbish 10 times, I wont suddenly believe it.

I don't care what the response is, it is irrelevent to this discussion, and appealing to emotion is a logical fallacy anyway.

Palestinians are killing civilians. Israel is killing civilians. Both sides are as bad as each other, on that front.

The difference, maybe, is that it is the governmental policy of Israel to do it.

woopsies. I think you made a tiny mistake there. (I'm pretty sure you meant it the other way around). Hey, it's ok, I wasn't expecting too much from what you've been saying before in regards to general knowledge of the topic. I'd take an emergency 5-minute study session on a topic before commenting on it, but that's just me.

You haven't been conducting a logical discussion. Anything that doesn't fit, you ignore.

The Israelis actions are response to the terrorism? How can it be a response when they they started it all by invading Palestine, and then kicking out, or oppressing, any non Jew.

Also, belittling Nodinia's sarcastic post about soldiers getting bonus points for getting between the pigtails doesn't refute the point. Nodinia has gone to sarcasm due to your continued lack of acceptance of reputable sources saying that Israel kill civilians, when there is no chance of them being involved in terrorist actions.

You are so used to most of the populace being fooled by the biased media repeating obviously distorted facts (such as pointing out how evil Saddam was without including the very important detail of the amount of western support he had received) that you think the same trick might work here.

Keep repeating yourself if it makes you feel better. Tell me rubbish 10 times, I wont suddenly believe it.

haha right, 'cause that's how it all started, I completely forgot. Thanks for reviving my memory.
Oh wait, actually no, sorry, nevermind, I'll take that back.

woopsies. (......)that's just me.

Do we get a comment on the outstanding issues anytime soon?

Violent resistance is the only way to dislodge the Zionist state from the region, the Palestinians must causes Terror to every Zionist.

Thank you for your very usefull contributive statements placed in the exact right timing, but yet completely unrelated. Funny.:)

And yet again, you don't answer the issues raised.

Buddy, we were going well there for a while and then we *o wait, rather, you,) resorted back to the old strategy of 'let's pour out accusations without backing' when you saw that the regular form of discourse wasn't working out in your favor. Not to mention the fact that you got a little ludicrous and unrealistic there with them.

Buddy, we were going well there for a while and then we *o wait, rather, you,) resorted back to the old strategy of 'let's pour out accusations without backing'

Yet when I was backing up each and every accusation with quotation and reference you stated - You give many huge quotations in what you are trying to make seem a huge amount of information against Israel, many of which are from sources like the one above and the old www.alternativenews.org which by the way I just showed to a few friends. Quite a good laugh that provided - thank you for that.
(Even though the report mentioned was from an Israeli civil rights group, which type of organisation you said you'd accept as a valid source later in the same paragraph). Thus when I keep it to one or two issues you dodge them, when I quote and submit facts you either (a) say its too much or (b) attempt to poison the well without even attempting to refute the facts.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13352865&postcount=149


Not to mention the fact that you got a little ludicrous and unrealistic there with them.

With the bonus for a hit between the pig-tails? Sarcasm.

I believe you were accusing Palestinians of putting bunkers under Kindergartens earlier, yet I asked you for an example and as ever you avoided the issue.

Do youy want me to provide reference and examples for the targeting of schoolchildren (and school girls in particular), and the paramilitary section of the ministry of agriculture in charge of destroying Bedouin crops?

I might point out the alternative to violence in their case has been submission.
Their alternative was, and still is, INDEPENDENCE.
Fishutopia:"The Israelis actions are response to the terrorism? How can it be a response when they they started it all by invading Palestine, and then kicking out, or oppressing, any non Jew."
The Jews started IMMIGRATING to Palestine, which was no more a crime than it is for a black person to buy a house in a white neighborhood. It was the official Palestinian leadership which started the violence, with the catchy slogan Itbach al-Yahud! "Exterminate the Jew!" (it was clarified in 1929 that this means killing all Jews, not just recent immigrants), and as I have often said, I cannot have any sympathy for the side which started the violence when they complain that the violence has been going badly for them.

Now in cases of asking whether violence is "justified" we rarely get a case like "lunatic shouting threats is holding a knife to the throat of a little girl; police sniper has a clean shot at his head", but I hope we could agree that a justification ought to take the form "this will prevent harm to others" or "this will limit the capacity of the other side to do harm to our side"; it gets murkier when in the course of doing that, harm is also done to bystanders (and I will agree that Israeli soldiers have often been dismayingly indifferent to that), but I see no justification, none at all, for someone saying "Look at the harm they have done! So I want to do harm back!" just to satisfy baser instincts of vengeance, doing evil for evil's own sake without any hope of doing any good even for one's own side.
Nodinia has argued that sometimes terrorism does do good for one's own side, by deterring or intimidating the other side. I question his interpretation of the examples he gives (I am sorry for misunderstanding that he was referring to 19th Fenian terrorism and the "home rule" issue; however, my impression is that these actions greatly delayed, rather than advancing, home rule), but this is somewhat beside the point. In this case it has been clear for decades that Palestinian actions do not even accomplish this much; bombing an Israeli disco or pizzeria does not diminish Israeli willingness to do harm to Palestinians (quite the opposite!) anymore than it diminishes Israeli capacity to do so. I cannot believe that the Palestinians are too stupid to understand this: that is why I said that I get the impression they actually want things to keep going badly for them, preferring to wallow in self-righteous martyrdom than to take responsibility for their own condition. If this were an individual rather than a whole nationality, I would say that psychotherapy was better than imprisonment, but I do not know how to administer a collective psychotherapy as a way of ending the collective imprisonment that has been going on. I cannot favor "collective release" either, unfortunately: granting full independence (including the right to purchase arms the same as any other nation) to a culture which is devoted to thoroughly pointless violence is unacceptable.
On another board, there was a discussion of what incident it was that made those of us who are anti-Palestinian determined not to support them regardless of what genuine grievances they have: one said it was the Munich Olympics; younger posters cited the old man in the wheelchair, or the disco bombing; for me it was the Bobby Kennedy murder. Those of you who are pro-Palestinian need to face up to the fact that Palestinian actions have been profoundly sick.

woopsies. I think you made a tiny mistake there. (I'm pretty sure you meant it the other way around). Hey, it's ok, I wasn't expecting too much from what you've been saying before in regards to general knowledge of the topic. I'd take an emergency 5-minute study session on a topic before commenting on it, but that's just me.

Or, alternatively, you could stop pretending to be omniscient, or like you are the only person that knows anything (which others in this thread have already shown is FAR from the truth) and actually address the material.

The 'legitimate government' of Palestine has no policy of attacking Israel... civilian or otherwise. There may be others within that society that intend harm, but that's a separate issue.

On the other hand, Israel DOES have a specific policy of firing on civilians. You can try to twist it how you like, but a 'suspected terrorist' is STILL a civilian. As are any of his 'suspected associates' that might be crowded around him.. or that might just be school children.

Do we get a comment on the outstanding issues anytime soon?

Based on responses so far?

No.

Or, alternatively, you could stop pretending to be omniscient, or like you are the only person that knows anything (which others in this thread have already shown is FAR from the truth) and actually address the material.

The 'legitimate government' of Palestine has no policy of attacking Israel... civilian or otherwise. There may be others within that society that intend harm, but that's a separate issue.

On the other hand, Israel DOES have a specific policy of firing on civilians. You can try to twist it how you like, but a 'suspected terrorist' is STILL a civilian. As are any of his 'suspected associates' that might be crowded around him.. or that might just be school children.

Sorry, I hate to be the guy that has to repeatedly point this out - but it seems like you've made another boo-boo. You see, there's a tiny insignificant fact you might have been unaware of but Hamas's running slogan was 'Death to Israel'.

Their alternative(....)sick.

Normally I wouldn't bother trying to get through such a block of text, however as you seem to at least be trying to make a point, I made an exception. No offence intended, but the vast majority of people find the lack of paragraphs off-putting, myself included.

Anyhoo - Your grasp of the history of the conflict is unfortunately patchy. For instance you seem to have no idea as to what Arab expectations were. For instance, in 1916 they were promised independence for fighting against the ottomans. Imagine then the reaction when they hear that these immigrants have been promised the same thing. Secondly, the violence started far earlier than 1929, initially over cultural misunderstandings, later due to the fear of betrayal over independence, resentment at unemployment etc. Its a long complex issue, out of which neither side emerges well.

You also have a great deal of moral judgement as regards Arab deeds. Are you aware of the king david hotel bombings, the bombs in Arab markets, the kidnapping and killing of hostages and the boobytrapping of their bodies, all by the "zionist" side? If one group is sick, then their opposites too have the same illness. Out of "terrorism" was the Israeli state founded. I don't find that morally repugnant or reprehensible. What I do find so is the moral high horse it and its defenders then mount as regards the Palestinian side.

As regards Palestinian violence, personally I would not sanction some of it. However while they are under occupation (and a particularily brutal sectarian/racist one at that) Israel is the offending party and thus has not a leg to stand on.

As a side note, your Irish history needs some work. I suggest you research the 1916 rising and its role in the resurgence of the independence movement and the rejection of the home rule option.

Sorry, I hate to be the guy that has to repeatedly point this out - but it seems like you've made another boo-boo. You see, there's a tiny insignificant fact you might have been unaware of but Hamas's running slogan was 'Death to Israel'.


....still evading?

....still evading?

I thought we were waiting on your sources.

I thought we were waiting on your sources.

From what I can see, Nodinia has been providing sources.

Where are yours?

From what I can see, Nodinia has been providing sources.

Where are yours?

From what I can see, you haven't posted any content related to this issue so far.

Why are you here?

From what I can see, you haven't posted any content related to this issue so far.

Why are you here?

Because I can Mr. 260 posts.

Because I can Mr. 260 posts.

haha you having a larger post count,:
1. Doesn't mean you are any more right than I am.
2. Doesn't mean you are a more experienced forum user than I am.
3. Doesn't mean you know more about this topic than I do.
4. Doesn't mean you debate logically better than I do.
5. Doesn't mean you are right in coming in, probably reading maybe a page or two of the thread, not playing any part in the discussion, and instead criticizing the side that is most likely against what you held as previous opinions, in its form of discussion.

haha you having a larger post count,:
1. Doesn't mean you are any more right than I am.
And vice versa.

2. Doesn't mean you are a more experienced forum user than I am.
Well coupled with my time here... it does actually.

3. Doesn't mean you know more about this topic than I do.
And vice versa.

4. Doesn't mean you debate logically better than I do.
And vice versa.

5. Doesn't mean you are right in coming in, probably reading maybe a page or two of the thread, not playing any part in the discussion, and instead criticizing the side that is most likely against what you held as previous opinions, in its form of discussion.
As assumption. You don't know my opinion on the subject. You don't know my post history.

All of which is irrelevant to my point:

Nodinia has provided numerous sources throughout the thread. You, the Onion.

And vice versa. True.


Well coupled with my time here... it does actually.

No, this by no means is the only forum I have taken part in, and therefore that's not a conjecture you can make based on the info.

And vice versa.

True

And vice versa.

Well, after your comment on item 2, that is doubtfull but I'll agree that it's very close to being true. Also, look below.

As assumption. You don't know my opinion on the subject. You don't know my post history.

Right, which is why I included the words 'most' and 'likely' coupled together.



All of which is irrelevant to my point:

Haha, so now you've realized that your previous post was irrelevant to your point. Further doubtfullness to item 4.

Nodinia has provided numerous sources throughout the thread. You, the Onion.

I, for one, love the Onion.
Secondly, Nodinia ended his thread in such a manner: "Do youy want me to provide reference and examples for the targeting of schoolchildren (and school girls in particular), and the paramilitary section of the ministry of agriculture in charge of destroying Bedouin crops?"
That made it seem to me like we are waiting for him to provide links to valid sources that prove that the Israeli army deliberately targets school children and destroys non-Jewish crops within Israel. Which I, am still waiting for.

You, on the other hand, come in, probably take a quick glance at several posts in the thread and make a comment on a post which you probably did not fully understand.
Or, of course, what I had said before in item 5 is true.

I thought we were waiting on your sources.

Sources for what exactly?
The Paramilitary section of the ministry of agriculture spraying bedouin crops?
These Bedouin lands are coveted by the Jewish National Fund (JNF) which has published plans to move large numbers of Jews to the Negev. To make way for new JNF communities, the “unrecognized” villages of A-Tir, Um Al-Hiran, and Twail Abu Jarwal were destroyed during 2007 in military-style operations involving large forces of police and soldiers, displacing hundreds of families. The Interior ministry has also sent airborne crop dusters to poison the Bedouin fields with broad-spectrum herbicides. The feared Green Patrol, a paramilitary unit of the Ministry of Agriculture, conducts these operations.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3490720,00.html

Targeting school girls with snipers?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1320735,00.html
And they aren't the only ones.....

You were meant to get back re military courts etc. Obviously that particular idea has backfired on you rather badly, so presumably now you're trying another diversionary tactic. What topic would you like to skirt around answering next?

Haha, so now you've realized that your previous post was irrelevant to your point. Further doubtfullness to item 4.
No. I addressed the points in your post, and then reverted to my original question which you avoided. So, I simply acknowledged the irrelevancy of your post in relation to my question (and seemingly Nodinia's).



That made it seem to me like we are waiting for him to provide links to valid sources that prove that the Israeli army deliberately targets school children and destroys non-Jewish crops within Israel. Which I, am still waiting for.
While a lot of others posters wait for sources or refutations for points you raised throughout the threas. Debating is a two-way street.
Edit: And seemingly Nodinia has come in to provide sources. S/he is one poster that normally does has sources to back up points of discussion.

You, on the other hand, come in, probably take a quick glance at several posts in the thread
How do you know I haven't been following this thread since it started? You don't, but you have succeeded in making yourself look silly by drawing attention to it.

and make a comment on a post which you probably did not fully understand.
Ibid.

As I've said before (remember?), Bedouins steal real-estate lands from the country and claim them to themselves. We've discussed that.
Again, you forget to mention the other side of your own source?
" The military says it has carefully targeted Hamas and Islamic Jihad fighters with missile strikes."
"The military said she had entered a forbidden zone in Rafah refugee camp, and that she dropped a bag that soldiers feared was a bomb."
It's sad that these things had to happen. But this poor girl should blame her friends who had entered the forbidden zone in Rafah and dropped bags that exploded seconds later and killed all the soldiers, so...yes a grave case of a civilian casualty, but a product of the war. Caused by her very friends - yes, children too are sent on these missions, it is a sad but true reality. If I were her parents I'd be acting strongly to stop Palestinians from sending young teens to carry out attacks, so that such cases of unnecessary civilian casualties of innocent children would be prevented.

No. I addressed the points in your post, and then reverted to my original question which you avoided. So, I simply acknowledged the irrelevancy of your post in relation to my question (and seemingly Nodinia's).



While a lot of others posters wait for sources or refutations for points you raised throughout the threas. Debating is a two-way street.
Edit: And seemingly Nodinia has come in to provide sources. S/he is one poster that normally does has sources to back up points of discussion.


How do you know I haven't been following this thread since it started? You don't, but you have succeeded in making yourself look silly by drawing attention to it.


Ibid.

I don't, that's why the 'probably' as it is an unverified assumption.

What's Ibid?

Intelligenstan, give me sources. You keep saying "we have discussed", "This happens", "The Israeli goverment doesn't do...", etc, with no sources. As you have also said what are acceptable sources, I will say that any Fox News source will be laughed at.

The evidence is overwhelming. Israel targets civilians. Israel also uses disinformation, to try to hide oppressive behaviour behind legitimate defence needs. A perfect example being Israeli accusations that terrorists have used red cross ambulances. They never have. Their is no evidence of it at all.

If you say the above paragraph is wrong, there's your 1st dose of homework. Find me a source that has reputable evidence that the terrorists in Palestine have used red cross ambulances.

Intelligenstan, give me sources. You keep saying "we have discussed", "This happens", "The Israeli goverment doesn't do...", etc, with no sources. As you have also said what are acceptable sources, I will say that any Fox News source will be laughed at.

The evidence is overwhelming. Israel targets civilians. Israel also uses disinformation, to try to hide oppressive behaviour behind legitimate defence needs. A perfect example being Israeli accusations that terrorists have used red cross ambulances. They never have. Their is no evidence of it at all.

If you say the above paragraph is wrong, there's your 1st dose of homework. Find me a source that has reputable evidence that the terrorists in Palestine have used red cross ambulances.

thanks for the homework assignment, you can find it yourself though, I am pretty sure I am no better at searching for information than you are.

As I've said before (remember?), Bedouins steal real-estate lands from the country and claim them to themselves. We've discussed that..

Which ignores the fact there were Bedouin in the Negev long before there was an Israel, the well known discrimination against them, the law which allows the JNF to refuse to sell them the land.....



Again, you forget to mention the other side of your own source?..

You'll find thats not the case.



"The military said she had entered a forbidden zone in Rafah refugee camp, and that she dropped a bag that soldiers feared was a bomb."
It's sad that these things had to happen. But this poor girl should blame her friends who had entered the forbidden zone in Rafah and dropped bags that exploded seconds later and killed all the soldiers, so...yes a grave case of a civilian casualty, but a product of the war. Caused by her very friends - yes, children too are sent on these missions, it is a sad but true reality. If I were her parents I'd be acting strongly to stop Palestinians from sending young teens to carry out attacks, so that such cases of unnecessary civilian casualties of innocent children would be prevented.

You see, this is the danger of reading what you want to read. The girl you refer to is the third mentioned in the article. The other two were targeted in their homes.

Iman al-Hams was rather an unusual case, in that her killing was so brutal it disgusted even some of the IDF who witnessed it. He was reported by some of his own troops.


"An Israeli army officer who repeatedly shot a 13-year-old Palestinian girl in Gaza dismissed a warning from another soldier that she was a child by saying he would have killed her even if she was three years old. "

"The official account claimed that Iman was shot as she walked towards an army post with her schoolbag because soldiers feared she was carrying a bomb.

But the tape recording of the radio conversation between soldiers at the scene reveals that, from the beginning, she was identified as a child and at no point was a bomb spoken about nor was she described as a threat. Iman was also at least 100 yards from any soldier."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1358173,00.html

I await your comments with interest.

Which ignores the fact there were Bedouin in the Negev long before there was an Israel, the well known discrimination against them, the law which allows the JNF to refuse to sell them the land.....


You see, this is the danger of reading what you want to read. The girl you refer to is the third mentioned in the article. The other two were targeted in their homes.

Iman al-Hams was rather an unusual case, in that her killing was so brutal it disgusted even some of the IDF who witnessed it. He was reported by some of his own troops.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1358173,00.html

I await your comments with interest.

Exactly! Even his own troops reported him. Of course there are cases of nutcases slipping through the ranks of the army. This happens in every military in the world. This just goes to show you even more, that not only is the IDF trying to be humane, but even the individual soldiers (with exceptions as we see) are.

Normally I wouldn't bother trying to get through such a block of text, however as you seem to at least be trying to make a point, I made an exception. No offence intended, but the vast majority of people find the lack of paragraphs off-putting, myself included.

Anyhoo - Your grasp of the history of the conflict is unfortunately patchy. For instance you seem to have no idea as to what Arab expectations were. For instance, in 1916 they were promised independence for fighting against the ottomans. Imagine then the reaction when they hear that these immigrants have been promised the same thing. Secondly, the violence started far earlier than 1929, initially over cultural misunderstandings, later due to the fear of betrayal over independence, resentment at unemployment etc. Its a long complex issue, out of which neither side emerges well.

You also have a great deal of moral judgement as regards Arab deeds. Are you aware of the king david hotel bombings, the bombs in Arab markets, the kidnapping and killing of hostages and the boobytrapping of their bodies, all by the "zionist" side? If one group is sick, then their opposites too have the same illness. Out of "terrorism" was the Israeli state founded. I don't find that morally repugnant or reprehensible. What I do find so is the moral high horse it and its defenders then mount as regards the Palestinian side.

As regards Palestinian violence, personally I would not sanction some of it. However while they are under occupation (and a particularily brutal sectarian/racist one at that) Israel is the offending party and thus has not a leg to stand on.

As a side note, your Irish history needs some work. I suggest you research the 1916 rising and its role in the resurgence of the independence movement and the rejection of the home rule option.
The lack of paragraphs I apologize for; I was having a great deal of difficulty formatting the post at all.

My knowledge of the history is not as patchy as you think. Yes, I know that the Arabs did not expect that non-Muslim immigrants would be allowed equal rights; I just do not believe that they had any moral right to respond with murderous violence; and yes, of course I know that they started murdering well before 1929 (what I said was that it was in that year that the murders were extended to all Jews, not just recent immigrants).

I most certainly do condemn the Irgun terrorism as well as the Palestinian terrorism. The claim grave-n-idle was making however was that the Jewish side started the violence, which is utterly false. I likewise dispute your claim that Israel was founded by the Irgun, who were a hindrance.

On Irish history, as I said I don't find this a very relevant tangent: the point at issue was whether the Fenian bombings from 1866 on (I defer to you on the date) helped to bring about Irish liberation, as you claim, or rather caused several decades of delay, as I would see it. In the Palestinian case, it has certainly caused delay: they could have been independent in the 1920's if they would have accepted a unitary state in which all religions had equality of citizenship rights, or in 1947 with more territory than the present West Bank and Gaza if they had not insisted on "pushing the Jews into the sea"; since 1967 there is one reason and one reason only that Israel has not been forced to give back occupied territories, and that is the position of the United States, which will not change until the Palestinians stop disgusting us.

Sorry, I hate to be the guy that has to repeatedly point this out - but it seems like you've made another boo-boo. You see, there's a tiny insignificant fact you might have been unaware of but Hamas's running slogan was 'Death to Israel'.

There is a question of the 'legitimacy' (I notice you continually ignore the parts of posts that you don't want to deal with) of the HAMAS government... Abbas is nominally representative.

Regardless of which, Palestine has no military, so can have no governmental military policy. Israel on the other hand, has uncontested government, AND a military...

As I've said before (remember?), Bedouins steal real-estate lands from the country and claim them to themselves. We've discussed that.


Unfortunately, 'we've discussed' is not a form of evidence of anything except whether or not 'we' have discussed it.

Where is your evidence.

The complete lack of any source material, the continuing plague of logical fallacies, and the refusal to engage on any actual points, is leading me to the strong suspicion that you are doing nothing but trolling.

I'd love to be proved wrong, let's see you address some of the outstanding issues, and actually present some evidence where it is being asked for?

thanks for the homework assignment, you can find it yourself though, I am pretty sure I am no better at searching for information than you are.

You made the claims.

If you can't present evidence when it is requested, your arguments are entirely unsupported when challenged, and your points automatically fail.

Exactly! Even his own troops reported him. Of course there are cases of nutcases slipping through the ranks of the army. This happens in every military in the world. This just goes to show you even more, that not only is the IDF trying to be humane, but even the individual soldiers (with exceptions as we see) are.

Yet the officer was never charged with either murder or manslaughter. He walked from the minor charges against him and was transferred to another unit, presumably as his relationship with some of his troops had broken down. He himself blamed his prosecution on the fact he was a Druze. No one was charged in relation to the two other killings, which are just a sample of the thousands who have been killed or maimed. Thus the exception is the prosecution and reporting, rather than the opposite.

All of this was plainly evident from the articles linked, yet you chose to present it in an entirely different and incorrect light. Why?


I note You still haven't gotten back on the issue of the military courts.

And sadly, this thread just goes to show that we can't have a discussion on Israeli-Palestinian dynamics without having it turn into a masturbation party over how Israel can do no wrong and even if they did it was the damn dirty Palestinians' fault anyways.

My knowledge of the history is not as patchy as you think. Yes, I know that the Arabs did not expect that non-Muslim immigrants would be allowed equal rights; .

What has that to do with the promise of independence ? Might we have a source~?


I just do not believe that they had any moral right to respond with murderous violence; and yes, of course I know that they started murdering well before 1929 (what I said was that it was in that year that the murders were extended to all Jews, not just recent immigrants)..

You'll find both sides responded 'with murderous violence'.


I likewise dispute your claim that Israel was founded by the Irgun, who were a hindrance...

It was the Irgun, Lehi and Hagganah who founded the Israeli state. Many former members of the Irgun served at cabinet level.


On Irish history, as (.....)see it. ...

I refer you again the role of the 1916 rising in the rejection of the 'Home Rule' option and the Sinn Fein elimination of Redmonds party in the 1918 election.


In the Palestinian case, it has certainly caused delay: they could have been independent in the 1920's if they would have accepted a unitary state in which all religions had equality of citizenship rights, .

Source?



or in 1947 with more territory than the present West Bank and Gaza if they had not insisted on "pushing the Jews into the sea";
.

Yet it was not the Palestinians who invaded but the neighbouring states.


since 1967 there is one reason and one reason only that Israel has not been forced to give back occupied territories, and that is the position of the United States, which will not change until the Palestinians stop disgusting us.

And so the rest of the planet must be disgusted by the US - whose many Governments disgust did not extend to Apartheid South Africa or Pol Pot, Saddam or Pinochet. One must say that they are at least consistent about the type they lie down with.

And sadly, this thread just goes to show that we can't have a discussion on Israeli-Palestinian dynamics without having it turn into a masturbation party over how Israel can do no wrong and even if they did it was the damn dirty Palestinians' fault anyways.

An amusing thought occurs as to whether those who argue for this position would still hold it if they were the ones being gunned down by the ones they support.

An amusing thought occurs as to whether those who argue for this position would still hold it if they were the ones being gunned down by the ones they support.

About as valid as those saying the opposite being gunned by the side they support...However as the odds of being shot by one side significantly outweigh the odds of being shot by the other, statistically Gauthier has little to worry about were your scenario to be attempted.

An amusing thought occurs as to whether those who argue for this position would still hold it if they were the ones being gunned down by the ones they support.
There are a few right minded people who do. I've already mentioned Amira Hass.

There is a question of the 'legitimacy' (I notice you continually ignore the parts of posts that you don't want to deal with) of the HAMAS government... Abbas is nominally representative.

Regardless of which, Palestine has no military, so can have no governmental military policy. Israel on the other hand, has uncontested government, AND a military...

Oops, you just can't stop making mistakes huh? Both Palestinian parties have militias.
I'm sure one of these days, you'll get a post right.

Yet the officer was never charged with either murder or manslaughter. He walked from the minor charges against him and was transferred to another unit, presumably as his relationship with some of his troops had broken down. He himself blamed his prosecution on the fact he was a Druze. No one was charged in relation to the two other killings, which are just a sample of the thousands who have been killed or maimed. Thus the exception is the prosecution and reporting, rather than the opposite.

All of this was plainly evident from the articles linked, yet you chose to present it in an entirely different and incorrect light. Why?


I note You still haven't gotten back on the issue of the military courts.

He was charged with minor charges, as he acted unethically. But yet, you must remember that he was given strict orders from the military explicitly commanding him to shoot anything that enters the forbidden zone, because of past experiences. Palestinians are well aware of Israel's policies. You might argue that a little girl was not, but yet her other little friends have already demonstrated that the fact that they are children doesn't stop them from committing such acts.
About military courts, I had responded to your claims when presented in a logical manner and backed by a valid source. What do you wish to further discuss about them?

He was charged with minor charges, as he acted unethically. But yet, you must remember that he was given strict orders from the military explicitly commanding him to shoot anything that enters the forbidden zone, because of past experiences.

Thats not what the military said as an excuse, however. Nor - rather obviously - is it what his own troops read their orders to mean.



Palestinians are well aware of Israel's policies. You might argue that a little girl was not, but yet her other little friends have already demonstrated that the fact that they are children doesn't stop them from committing such acts.


I'm afraid I'm unsure what you mean, as the radio transcript and testimony shows that she did not act in a manner similar to some previous attack - such a possibility is not in fact mentioned at any stage, quite the opposite.

Secondly, could we have examples of schoolgirls acting in the manner you imply?

Thirdly we have two other school girls shot in their homes. What "acts" were they committing, that drew the fire of a sniper?


About military courts, I had responded to your claims when presented in a logical manner and backed by a valid source. What do you wish to further discuss about them?

You didn't respond to the evidence of a systematic torture regime, the unusually high conviction rate, the fact that your use of "rare" is inappropriate...
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13358970&postcount=193

About as valid as those saying the opposite being gunned by the side they support...However as the odds of being shot by one side significantly outweigh the odds of being shot by the other, statistically Gauthier has little to worry about were your scenario to be attempted.

No, not Gauthier. I was talking about Intelligenstan with his unconditional support and excuses for Israel. On the converse, there'd be, oh, I dunno, AP with his support for Hezbollah.

I wonder how strongly they would champion their faction if it was being them being shot at under the conditions they so casually excuse.

No, not Gauthier. I was talking about Intelligenstan with his unconditional support and excuses for Israel. On the converse, there'd be, oh, I dunno, AP with his support for Hezbollah.

I wonder how strongly they would champion their faction if it was being them being shot at under the conditions they so casually excuse.

Sorry. However in that case it would probably go something like 'Its self inflicted suffe.....' as all that sniping at school girls makes for a good shot.

And sadly, this thread just goes to show that we can't have a discussion on Israeli-Palestinian dynamics without having it turn into a masturbation party over how Israel can do no wrong and even if they did it was the damn dirty Palestinians' fault anyways.

Or, the flipside, that Palestine is the innocent state backed up against the wall by the evil zionazis. There's plenty of masturbation on both sides of the issue and all these threads do is get a lot of intellectual jizz in the debaters' eyes. But, anyway, your statement was a bit biased and ignores an entire half of this thread.:rolleyes:

Or, the flipside, that Palestine is the innocent state backed up against the wall by the evil zionazis. There's plenty of masturbation on both sides of the issue and all these threads do is get a lot of intellectual jizz in the debaters' eyes. But, anyway, your statement was a bit biased and ignores an entire half of this thread.:rolleyes:

'zionazis'? Are you serious?

Thats not what the military said as an excuse, however. Nor - rather obviously - is it what his own troops read their orders to mean.




I'm afraid I'm unsure what you mean, as the radio transcript and testimony shows that she did not act in a manner similar to some previous attack - such a possibility is not in fact mentioned at any stage, quite the opposite.

Yes, but the forbidden zone is a forbidden zone nontheless.

Secondly, could we have examples of schoolgirls acting in the manner you imply?

Certainly:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/920548.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20041102/ai_n12564475
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/001848.php
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/03/24/young.detainees/index.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_suicide_bombers_in_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20040324/ai_n11447510

and so on and on.

Thirdly we have two other school girls shot in their homes. What "acts" were they committing, that drew the fire of a sniper?

Those are acts that I condemn as well.

You didn't respond to the evidence of a systematic torture regime, the unusually high conviction rate, the fact that your use of "rare" is inappropriate...

Systematic torture regime - no. Although I do admit that the Shabak uses methods that seem doubtfull, similarly to American waterboarding at Guantanamo.
High Conviction Rate - Yes, we've already discussed how hard it is to 'seem' like you're about to blow up the bomb strapped to your body without actually intending to.
The 'rare' was used for trials in which the Geneva Conventions were disregarded, and I believe I said: rarely, if ever.

'zionazis'? Are you serious?

Grasping at any straw now, are we?

I was an officer in the Israeli Infantry, I saw cruelty and I saw kindness.. Ive seen Israeli soldiers risking their lives to save Palestinian civilians, i saw Israel soldiers giving food to civilians, helping them reach a hospital faster, delievering first aid, and being good people in general.
I also saw Israeli soldiers abusing civilians in roadblocks, not letting sick people pass on roadblocks (might be justified, might not), beat up civilians, etc..
A soul is an individual thing, if there is a soul.. its not collective, its personal.
I dont share my soul with anyone else.

I was an officer in the Israeli Infantry, I saw cruelty and I saw kindness.. Ive seen Israeli soldiers risking their lives to save Palestinian civilians, i saw Israel soldiers giving food to civilians, helping them reach a hospital faster, delievering first aid, and being good people in general.
I also saw Israeli soldiers abusing civilians in roadblocks, not letting sick people pass on roadblocks (might be justified, might not), beat up civilians, etc..
A soul is an individual thing, if there is a soul.. its not collective, its personal.
I dont share my soul with anyone else.

To Nodinia, as you can see:
Those who abused Palestinian civilians are filth, and I have resentment to them just as much as anyone else. But this doesn't reflect the policy of the IDF as a whole, and certainly does not include a majority of individual soldiers. The acts of kindness are testimonies to that.

'zionazis'? Are you serious?

Sarcasm, my friend, sarcasm. My point was that some jackass coming in and saying these thread turn into Israel-supporters closing their eyes to truths is a bit dishonest as the people you are arguing against have shown the same flaw you've exhibited in this thread.

For the record, I have family from Israel and I visit them frequently and we always get into this kind of discussion. The idea that even Israelis, much less Jews (you know, three opinions two Jews and all that), are at some kind of cohesive agreement about the Israel-Palestine situation is stupid on a level that almost deserves violent retribution (i.e. you need to be smacked upside the head until some common sense can squeeze its way in between all that stupidity).

The only thing I admit to not getting about these debates is how attacking non-combatants is defended on both sides. There are some serious issues with the Israeli government, as it currently is, but that in no way justifies blowing up a shopping mall. Justifying it as a form of frustration is just silly (notice I use justify and not explain); I get frustrated reading dumb statements those kinds of dumb statements and it is doubtful that any factual data, reasoned argument or thorough explanation will ever sway such a devotees opinion on the matter if they're at that state, it doesn't mean it is now morally acceptable for me to kill the expresser (or, rather, random people associated with the expresser) of said nonsensical opinion.