NationStates Jolt Archive

US Gov: Egypt must stop starving Palestinians crossing wall to get food.

Jan 24, 2008 MEDELLIN, Colombia (Reuters) - Egypt must ensure the security of its border on the Gaza Strip where militants have blown a hole in the wall built by Israel, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday.

"I understand that it's a difficult situation for them. But it is an international border. It needs to be protected and I believe that Egypt understands the importance of doing that," Rice told reporters before arriving in Medellin on a trip to promote a free trade agreement with Colombia.

http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=18059


I dont see how they can stop starving people crossing the wall other than shooting/jailing them.

the US gives Millions to the corrupt Gov of Egypt, that is the reason Egypt may be willing to obey.


Hamas Beats Israel's Gaza Siege
Thu Jan 24, 12:25 PM ET

It took explosives to do what diplomacy couldn't: allow Palestinians to go on a shopping spree. The siege of Gaza, imposed by Israel and the international community after Hamas seized control of the Palestinian territory last July, ended abruptly before dawn on Wednesday when militants blew as many as 15 holes in the border wall separating the territory from Egypt. In the hours that followed, over 350,000 Palestinians swarmed across the frontier, nearly one fifth of Gaza's entire population.

Some Palestinians craved medicine and food - goats appeared to be a hot item - because Israel had cut off most supplies from entering Gaza as punishment for militants' firing rockets into southern Israel. Students and businessmen joined the throng heading for Egypt. There were scores of brides-to-be, stuck on the Egyptian side, who scurried across to be united with their future bridegrooms in Gaza. And some, like teacher Abu Bakr, stepped through a blast hole into Egypt simply "to enjoy the air of freedom."

The previous day, President Housni Mubarak faced the wrath of the Arab world when his riot police used clubs and water hoses to attack Palestinian women pleading for Egypt to open the Rafah crossing in Gaza. And despite pressure from Israel and the United States, Mubarak wasn't about to order his men to use force to restrain Palestinians rendered desperate by Israel's siege.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20080124/wl_time/hamasbeatsisraelsgazasiege
Mubarak is -so far- resisting the pressure from Israel and the United States. But for how long?

It's probably because they think that most of them are actually pretending to be starving to get across. Also it may set a very bad precedent making it very easier to leach the resources off Egypt.

It's probably because they think that most of them are actually pretending to be starving to get across. Also it may set a very bad precedent making it very easier to leach the resources off Egypt.
Ummm, they are under blockade and Gaza is entirely dependent, not exactly 'pretending', either way the US should keep out of other countries business.

Well OD this is taking conspiracy theory editorializing to a new height. :rolleyes:

Good. Less to worry about.

What's Condolleza Rice doing in Medellin Columbia?....

:eek:

*Insert Cocaine joke here*

US Gov: Egypt must shoot/arrest starving Palestinians crossing wall to get food.[/SIZE][/B]

Jan 24, 2008 MEDELLIN, Colombia (Reuters) - Egypt must ensure the security of its border on the Gaza Strip where militants have blown a hole in the wall built by Israel, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday.

"I understand that it's a difficult situation for them. But it is an international border. It needs to be protected and I believe that Egypt understands the importance of doing that," Rice told reporters before arriving in Medellin on a trip to promote a free trade agreement with Colombia.

http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=18059

Rice did not use the shoot/arrest, she used the word "enforce", but I dont see how they can stop starving people crossing the wall other than shooting/jailing them.

and she did not threaten to cut the Millions they give to Egypt, but that is the only reason Egypt keeps bending-over and swallowing.

Why didn't you quote the whole article? It seems like you cut it off in order to make the article more sinister.

Rice: Kill em! Kill em all!!!!

Seems to me a simple solution. Israel cuts off the power and fuel until the Katousha (sp?) rockets stop hitting Israeli soil. ONe that happens, fuel, power and goods for everyone.

Seems to me a simple solution. Israel cuts off the power and fuel until the Katousha (sp?) rockets stop hitting Israeli soil. ONe that happens, fuel, power and goods for everyone.

Huzzah for the collective punishment of thousands of people who are pretty much powerless to do anything about the rockets being fired! Yay for the continuation of targeted killings that also kill innocent bystanders! Yahoo for the suffering and death of the Palestinians!

See, it's not that simple. It hasn't worked thus far, and all it has done is cause the breach of the Egyptian border and with the possibly massive import of arms and rocket supplies that followed. So expect more attacks due to the embargo, and more hostility due to the increased suffering and hardships placed on the Palestinians.

Huzzah for the collective punishment of thousands of people who are pretty much powerless to do anything about the rockets being fired! Yay for the continuation of targeted killings that also kill innocent bystanders! Yahoo for the suffering and death of the Palestinians!

See, it's not that simple. It hasn't worked thus far, and all it has done is cause the breach of the Egyptian border and with the possibly massive import of arms and rocket supplies that followed. So expect more attacks due to the embargo, and more hostility due to the increased suffering and hardships placed on the Palestinians.

Powerless? They strongly support it! They even voted for it! Stop giving this innocent Palestinian bullshit. The vast majority of those bastards support the destruction of Israel.

US Gov: Egypt must shoot/arrest starving Palestinians crossing wall to get food.[/SIZE][/B]

Jan 24, 2008 MEDELLIN, Colombia (Reuters) - Egypt must ensure the security of its border on the Gaza Strip where militants have blown a hole in the wall built by Israel, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday.

"I understand that it's a difficult situation for them. But it is an international border. It needs to be protected and I believe that Egypt understands the importance of doing that," Rice told reporters before arriving in Medellin on a trip to promote a free trade agreement with Colombia.

http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=18059

Rice did not use the shoot/arrest, she used the word "enforce", but I dont see how they can stop starving people crossing the wall other than shooting/jailing them.

and she did not threaten to cut the Millions they give to Egypt, but that is the only reason Egypt keeps bending-over and swallowing.

Rice almost certainly said that not because she hates the Palestinians or anything, but because she realizes that if she supports what the Palestinians are doing, the Wall being built along the Mexican border will appear hypocritical and contradictory, and open the gate to international criticizing.

US Gov: Egypt must shoot/arrest starving Palestinians crossing wall to get food.[/SIZE][/B]

Jan 24, 2008 MEDELLIN, Colombia (Reuters) - Egypt must ensure the security of its border on the Gaza Strip where militants have blown a hole in the wall built by Israel, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday.

"I understand that it's a difficult situation for them. But it is an international border. It needs to be protected and I believe that Egypt understands the importance of doing that," Rice told reporters before arriving in Medellin on a trip to promote a free trade agreement with Colombia.

http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=18059

Rice did not use the shoot/arrest, she used the word "enforce", but I dont see how they can stop starving people crossing the wall other than shooting/jailing them.

and she did not threaten to cut the Millions they give to Egypt, but that is the only reason Egypt keeps bending-over and swallowing.

Now do we have a real source?

Powerless? They strongly support it! They even voted for it! Stop giving this innocent Palestinian bullshit. The vast majority of those bastards support the destruction of Israel.

I've actually asked people for proof on this several times, but I've never gotten it.

Can you prove that

a) Over half the total population (excluding children too young to vote) voted for Hamas?

b) If not everyone that should/could vote didn't, can you prove that those that didn't vote would not have voted for some other party?

c) The elections were fair?

If you can do that, I'll accept it, until then, it's a generalization.

I've actually asked people for proof on this several times, but I've never gotten it.

Can you prove that

a) Over half the total population (excluding children too young to vote) voted for Hamas?

b) If not everyone that should/could vote didn't, can you prove that those that didn't vote would not have voted for some other party?

c) The elections were fair?

If you can do that, I'll accept it, until then, it's a generalization.

Don't forget d) If they *did* vote for Hamas, did they do it because "they hate Jews," or because Hamas actually provided social infrastructure and services and promised to clean up Fatah corruption?

I support the destruction of the Zionist regime, but Hamas is going about it all wrong, my objection with them is tactical.

I've actually asked people for proof on this several times, but I've never gotten it.

Can you prove that

a) Over half the total population (excluding children too young to vote) voted for Hamas?

b) If not everyone that should/could vote didn't, can you prove that those that didn't vote would not have voted for some other party?

c) The elections were fair?

If you can do that, I'll accept it, until then, it's a generalization.

They sure aren't doing anything about the use of rockets. Surely if there were enough people standing against it, then there would be no basis for Hamas and Fatah, correct? They only exist as they do, because of the mass support for them, their tactics and their objectives.

Huzzah for the collective punishment of thousands of people who are pretty much powerless to do anything about the rockets being fired! Yay for the continuation of targeted killings that also kill innocent bystanders! Yahoo for the suffering and death of the Palestinians!

See, it's not that simple. It hasn't worked thus far, and all it has done is cause the breach of the Egyptian border and with the possibly massive import of arms and rocket supplies that followed. So expect more attacks due to the embargo, and more hostility due to the increased suffering and hardships placed on the Palestinians.

Can I ask just when this vast majority will finally rise up as one, root out that sect of their own population and impress upon them that everyone needs to eat, and have fuel, power and water? What, pray, is the solution?

They sure aren't doing anything about the use of rockets. Surely if there were enough people standing against it, then there would be no basis for Hamas and Fatah, correct? They only exist as they do, because of the mass support for them, their tactics and their objectives.

If the majority are peace loving, as I claim, then they clearly would not. They would be unarmed, whereas the militants would be, so they would have no choice. We can reach two totally different conclusions with the same evidence (being no evidence).

Ultimately, the only way you can prove such a claim is in the way I listed previously.

They sure aren't doing anything about the use of rockets. Surely if there were enough people standing against it, then there would be no basis for Hamas and Fatah, correct? They only exist as they do, because of the mass support for them, their tactics and their objectives.

Incredibly reactionary claims like this usually based on one of the following:
1) the Judeo-Christian-based belief that two "wrongs" do not make a "right."
2) naive belief in Zionist human rights.
Both have no place in reality. It is quite easy to "condemn" the actions of persecuted Palestinians against the Zionist imperialist machine, isn't it? While the Zionists use any violent and brutal method they want, they must endlessly seek the liberation of all Palestine, unless of course it hurts someone. Then of course, the resistance must be dropped immediately as "unjust." Ridiculous drivel.

Well OD this is taking conspiracy theory editorializing to a new height. :rolleyes:

Interesting word choice. I'd have gone with depth.

Why didn't you quote the whole article? I never do. I am on a diet.. I like my posts short an sweet. ;)

But the link is there (I have nothing to hide).
.
It seems like you cut it off in order to make the article more sinister.Its a conspiracy, I am telling you :D :D :p :D

It is quite easy to "condemn" the actions of persecuted Palestinians against the Zionist imperialist machine, isn't it?
Yes, it is. The Palestinian actions have never had any tendency to defend, liberate, or help any Palestinians in any way. They only seek to do hurt, without any justifying purpose.

I have to commend this border-breach as the first time that Hamas, or any of these groups, has blown something up, and actually helped some Palestinians in the process! Rice's statement is stupid (not surprisingly). There is no reason why Gaza should be dependent on Israel's charity for its supplies: Israel is, to say the least, not charitably inclined towards them. Egypt is going to have to take responsibility for Gaza, whether the Mubarak regime likes it or not; Gaza is not in any position to become "independent", because it is far from self-sufficient and Hamas is not capable of functioning as a government.

Can I ask just when this vast majority will finally rise up as one, root out that sect of their own population and impress upon them that everyone needs to eat, and have fuel, power and water? What, pray, is the solution?

If I had a solution I would have been on the first plane to the middle east, fighting to have it implemented. I don't. But I can tell you what won't work, and that's the status quo politics of increasing pressure on the civilian population and starving the civilians. That will only fuel the Hamas propaganda machine and paint Israel as the enemy.

And that's also one reason why the civilians won't stand up to Hamas. Because there isn't a good alternative - Israel has seen to that, by making themselves the oppressing occupier, ruthless killer, unsympathetic jailer and an untrustworthy partner.

Another reason is that they have seen what happened the last time someone stood up to Hamas - they were swept out of Gaza.

And you should also remember that those who fire the rockets might not even be affiliated with Hamas, but may be members of other sects and organizations.

A learned, leisurely discussion has been taking place in Israel in recent days: Starving the residents of Gaza - for and against... The real name of this intellectual discussion should of course have been "war crimes - for and against". For this is what we have here, and only this.

They sure aren't doing anything about the use of rockets. Surely if there were enough people standing against it, then there would be no basis for Hamas and Fatah, correct? They only exist as they do, because of the mass support for them, their tactics and their objectives.

Surely if there were enough people standing against the occupation, then there would be no basis for it, correct? The occupation only exist as it does because of the mass support for it, the tactics used and the objectives of Israel.

is it just me who thinks that the isrealis have turned gaza and palestine into a huge ghetto not to dissimiliar to those the nazis placed the jews in in the holocaust?

is it just me who thinks that the isrealis have turned gaza and palestine into a huge ghetto not to dissimiliar to those the nazis placed the jews in in the holocaust?

When you read the racialist and fascist tendencies of many Zionist writers, it's not difficult to see the link.

so is it possible to conclude that the israelis are commiting genocide? and that the americab are actively supporting it?
soz but i dont know all that much bout the situation but glad to tallk to people who do

so is it possible to conclude that the israelis are commiting genocide?

In the sense of deliberate elimination of an ethnic group. No.

Of course you could just be a puppet of AP, but I'm willing to extend you the benefit of a doubt.

In the sense of deliberate elimination of an ethnic group. No.
No I don't believe that, not that I don't believe the Israeli government (under more extreme circumstances) wouldn't do it, but that's simply an untenable international thing to do. I do however think they engage in a level of racial segregation and discrimination akin to Apartheid or segregation in the American south, but in this case claiming they are fighting 'terrorists' and the ongoing conflict is justification, just as Japanese were interned during WWII, that of course doesn't make it right. I would suggest Jimmy Carter's book on this subject, it would be very enlightening for you, also Archbishop Desmond Tutu and other well know people have written on the racialist approaches of Israel.

They sure aren't doing anything about the use of rockets. Surely if there were enough people standing against it, then there would be no basis for Hamas and Fatah, correct? They only exist as they do, because of the mass support for them, their tactics and their objectives.

A: What do you expect Joe Palistinian (or whatever the Palistinian version of the name Joe is) to do about the rocket attacks except get shot for complaining about them?

B: The more often Israel commits it's own atrocities the more Palistinians wind up supporting those Hamas fuckwads.

sorry im not very good with abbreviations
does AP mean associated press?

I support the destruction of the Zionist regime, but Hamas is going about it all wrong, my objection with them is tactical.

Iranian leader is that you? Or is it another incarnation of Andaras Prime?

When you read the racialist and fascist tendencies of many Zionist writers, it's not difficult to see the link.

Most of them were socialists :rolleyes:

sorry im not very good with abbreviations
does AP mean associated press?

If talking about a news source yes. If talking about a poster, it means Andaras Prime/EA/Andaras

does AP mean associated press?
Yes, it means The Associated Press, the news agency.




Oh and this is a bit triste, to be honest. I wish the US would stop this kiss-arse shit with Israel. But there we go.

I support the destruction of the Zionist regime, but Hamas is going about it all wrong, my objection with them is tactical.

how so on the tactical part? this is the local superpower, with hundreds of thousands of men, against what? a few thousand men with home made rockets and molotovs, though they should copy the jewish strategies against the roman empire

is it just me who thinks that the isrealis have turned gaza and palestine into a huge ghetto not to dissimiliar to those the nazis placed the jews in in the holocaust?

ironic no?

sorry im not very good with abbreviations
does AP mean associated press?

In the context asked, Andaras Prime. A poster on this forum with Stalinist tendencies.

how so on the tactical part? this is the local superpower, with hundreds of thousands of men, against what? a few thousand men with home made rockets and molotovs, though they should copy the jewish strategies against the roman empire
Err...

The Roman empire didn't have 155mm guns, nor automatic rifles. Or, extra especially, tanks.

The situations are kind of different.

Joe Palistinian (or whatever the Palistinian version of the name Joe is)
Yusuf.

Yusuf.

Thanks.

If I had a solution I would have been on the first plane to the middle east, fighting to have it implemented. I don't. But I can tell you what won't work, and that's the status quo politics of increasing pressure on the civilian population and starving the civilians. That will only fuel the Hamas propaganda machine and paint Israel as the enemy.

And that's also one reason why the civilians won't stand up to Hamas. Because there isn't a good alternative - Israel has seen to that, by making themselves the oppressing occupier, ruthless killer, unsympathetic jailer and an untrustworthy partner.

Another reason is that they have seen what happened the last time someone stood up to Hamas - they were swept out of Gaza.

And you should also remember that those who fire the rockets might not even be affiliated with Hamas, but may be members of other sects and organizations.

Agreed, especially with the last paragraph. However, I have a difficult time in reconciling what is surely abhorrent treatment of non-militant Palestinians and the portion of Arabic/Islamic world society that wants to see Palestine free and wishes to do so in what seems like randomly violent ways at best and in remake-the-world-in-the-image-of-(our branch of) Islam at worst.

The resources that Gaza apparently needs to survive are in Israeli territory under Israeli control. Were you in charge of Israel, would you give them up? Muddying this picture further is the fact that the last Israeli Leader who even flirted with benevolence toward Palestine was assassinated (Yitzhak Rabin, who officially recognized the PLO after it officially recognized Israel...*shakes head*...these are adults? "Oh, THERE you are!" :(), in a horrific mirroring of the last Arabic leader to make a deal with Israel (Anwar Sadat).

I see your point and reluctantly concede it. I have a hard time seeing how Israel restoring full flow of supplies is somehow going to stop the rain of inaccurate rockets onto Israeli neighborhoods, but you're right -- an eye for an eye has made the whole region blind.

The original problem started after the Golan Heights and other land was taken. Since then, Israel has been waiting for the Palistinians to call. Although they made a huge mistake in letting the settlers enter, they have simply been trying to get everything sorted out diplomatically, as opposed to the Arabs firing missiles over every day and not sorting out their own problems. If Hamas, elected solely because they were not corrupt (unlike Fatah), can't prove itself to be the decent government everyone wanted, I don't see why they should be allowed to place their own people at risk.

If Hamas, elected solely because they were not corrupt (unlike Fatah), can't prove itself to be the decent government everyone wanted, I don't see why they should be allowed to place their own people at risk.

Hamas not corrupt? *dies of laughter*

US Gov: Egypt must shoot/arrest starving Palestinians crossing wall to get food.


Rice did not use the shoot/arrest, she used the word "enforce", but I dont see how they can stop starving people crossing the wall other than shooting/jailing them.

So in other words, no official of the US said that Egyptians should shoot or arrest Palestinians crossing the border into Egypt. Right?

In other news, black is now white and up is down.

Well, they were'nt nearly as corrupt as Fatah. They might be evil terrorists, but they're not as corrupt, and that's what the voters wanted.

Egypt is going to have to take responsibility for Gaza, whether the Mubarak regime likes it or not; Gaza is not in any position to become "independent", because it is far from self-sufficient and Hamas is not capable of functioning as a government.

Perhaps they do not wish to be responsible. I don't recall any bordering nations welcoming Palestinian refugees in with open arms.

can you prove them corrupt? just asking for proof

The proof is all around but I guess people are blinded.

no but they had a good supply line, thousands of legionnares against lightly armed insurgents, similiar no?
Not really, seeing the Romans had much less interest in the area than the Israelis do.

Fatah took tax money and used it on themselves. On the other hand, they weren't terrorists.

Err...

The Roman empire didn't have 155mm guns, nor automatic rifles. Or, extra especially, tanks.

The situations are kind of different.

no but they had a good supply line, thousands of legionnares against lightly armed insurgents, similiar no?

"The majority can`t explain why they voted for Hamas," he said. "But if you sit with them they will say: `We hate Fatah. They did nothing for us. A few poor people suddenly became rich people. Hamas worked in another way. They worked with society. They worked with the poor.` "

http://www.pforp.net/village.hamas.hope.asp

Hamas not corrupt? *dies of laughter*

can you prove them corrupt? just asking for proof

Maybe USA should send a military mission there to enforce their position instead of trying to make Egypt responsible. I am sure nobody would have power to oppose it.

Maybe USA should send a military mission there to enforce their position instead of trying to make Egypt responsible. I am sure nobody would have power to oppose it.

I can only say :rolleyes:

Maybe USA should send a military mission there to enforce their position instead of trying to make Egypt responsible. I am sure nobody would have power to oppose it.Military firepower is not the Issue here
its 2fold, Its a Moral issue and a political issue
#The moral issue is about using clubs and guns on desperate/starving families trying to buy food and supplies.

#The Political issue is bending over to US/Israel.
by helping Israel detestable siege of Gaza. using famine as a collective punishment. (and so far Mubarak is still standing.. but for how long?)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080126/ts_afp/mideastconflictgazaegypt

Egypt says will keep border open and help Palestineans restock
Sat Jan 26, CAIRO (AFP) - Egypt said on Saturday it would continue to allow Gazans to cross the breached border and help them stock up on supplies on the fourth day of unfettered access, the official MENA news agency reported.

North Sinai Governor Ahmed Abdel-Hamid said that "Palestinians will continue to cross until they get all their needs of commodities and foodstuffs" in response to an Israeli lockdown on the impoverished territory of 1.5 million.

Egyptian security forces have been "instructed to facilitate the Palestinians' passage and guide them to the places where they could get their needs," Abdel-Hamid said.

He said he was coordinating with the Ministries of Social Solidarity and Industry "to secure large amounts of commodities and products to meet the needs of the Palestinians in the country" because many Egyptian shops were now out of stock.

Military firepower is not the Issue here -its a moral issue- the issue is using clubs and guns on desperate/starving families trying to buy food and supplies.

Which -- wait for it -- hasn't happened, has it?
The Egyptian police have NOT brutalized these people.
The US has NOT told them to brutalize these people.

Military firepower is not the Issue here -its a moral issue- the issue is using clubs and guns on desperate/starving families trying to buy food and supplies.

You think that ANYONE takes moral issues in consideration? Especially in Near East (Israel, Palestinian terrorists, Iran etc.).

Military firepower is not the Issue here
its 2fold, Its a Moral issue and a political issue
#The moral issue is about using clubs and guns on desperate/starving families trying to buy food and supplies.

#The Political issue is bending over to US/Israel.
by helping Israel detestable siege of Gaza. using famine as a collective punishment. (and so far Mubarak is still standing.. but for how long?)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080126/ts_afp/mideastconflictgazaegypt

And what does the actual leader of the nation have to say? I mean...the person quoted is only a governor. He is outranked.

Which -- wait for it -- hasn't happened, has it?
The Egyptian police have NOT brutalized these people.I dont think so.
.
The US has NOT told them to brutalize these people.#The Bush Gov is pressuring Egypt to take care of business.
#Bush Gov knows that you can stop desperate/starving families with words -clubs and Guns is the only way- ..
#Bush Gov want to help Israel's -starvation of Palestinians- Collective-punishment..
#Israel cant pressure Egypt to do this, the US can because of the Millions their give the corrupt Gov for their "collaboration" vis-a-vis Israel.

I dont think so.
.
#The Bush Gov is pressuring Egypt to take care of business.

Good. About time that Egypt does something about the border. Time to shut it.

#Bush Gov knows that you can stop desperate/starving families with words -clubs and Guns is the only way- ..

Is it?

#Bush Gov want to help Israel's -starvation of Palestinians- Collective-punishment..

Conspiracy Theory

#Israel cant pressure Egypt to do this,

Actually they can but it would mean wrecking a peace treaty to do it.

the US can because of the Millions their give the corrupt Gov for their "collaboration" vis-a-vis Israel

Egypt will get money from somewhere else.

Powerless? They strongly support it! They even voted for it! Stop giving this innocent Palestinian bullshit. The vast majority of those bastards support the destruction of Israel.


O the fiends!!!!!!!!

Btw, did you conduct the door to door poll yourself?

And what does the actual leader of the nation have to say? I mean...the person quoted is only a governor. He is outranked.as we speak, the Corrupted Dictator (the one you are calling leader) is strugling to choose between:

#1 keeping the Bush happy by using clubs/guns on the starving Palestinian families.

or

#2 Make Bush unhappy and risk losing a chunk of the US "collaboration" payments.

Not really, seeing the Romans had much less interest in the area than the Israelis do.

not really, since if Israel was rebellious, other areas would get ideas, *shrugs* also it gave them 40 talents a year that they were dependent on.

The proof is all around but I guess people are blinded.

blinded? i'm only asking for some proof, so any doubts would be silenced, instead of saying "oh there corrupt, anyone can see it"

... the US can (pressure Egypt to use clubs and Guns) because of the Millions their give Mubarack for his "collaboration" vis-a-vis Israel.Egypt will get money from somewhere else.somewhere else?

who?

Powerless? They strongly support it! They even voted for it! Stop giving this innocent Palestinian bullshit. The vast majority of those bastards support the destruction of Israel.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:, i really dont have to answer this, since this is sorta a flamebait

Which -- wait for it -- hasn't happened, has it?
The Egyptian police have NOT brutalized these people.
The US has NOT told them to brutalize these people.

Ok, not taking a side on this specific question here but . . .

How do you see them enforcing this if someone tries to cross? Do you think they will enforce it by siting them down and explaining to them "Hey you can't do that." or do you think that they will enforce it by violence or threat of violence?

Agreed, especially with the last paragraph. However, I have a difficult time in reconciling what is surely abhorrent treatment of non-militant Palestinians and the portion of Arabic/Islamic world society that wants to see Palestine free and wishes to do so in what seems like randomly violent ways at best and in remake-the-world-in-the-image-of-(our branch of) Islam at worst.

The resources that Gaza apparently needs to survive are in Israeli territory under Israeli control. Were you in charge of Israel, would you give them up? Muddying this picture further is the fact that the last Israeli Leader who even flirted with benevolence toward Palestine was assassinated (Yitzhak Rabin, who officially recognized the PLO after it officially recognized Israel...*shakes head*...these are adults? "Oh, THERE you are!" :(), in a horrific mirroring of the last Arabic leader to make a deal with Israel (Anwar Sadat).

I see your point and reluctantly concede it. I have a hard time seeing how Israel restoring full flow of supplies is somehow going to stop the rain of inaccurate rockets onto Israeli neighborhoods, but you're right -- an eye for an eye has made the whole region blind.
Yes. It's a bad, sad situation, and I hope for better times and better leadership on all sides. So far, my hopes have been in vain. :(

as we speak, the Corrupted Dictator (the one you are calling leader) is strugling to choose between:

#1 keeping the Bush happy by using clubs/guns on the starving Palestinian families.

or

#2 Make Bush unhappy and risk losing a chunk of the US "collaboration" payments.

So in other words, the orders stand to close the border. Thanks for playing.

Which -- wait for it -- hasn't happened, has it?
The Egyptian police have NOT brutalized these people.
The US has NOT told them to brutalize these people.

Rather, it's quite opposite. It's the Egyptian police whom have suffered damages - Unconfirmed reports quoting the Egyptian foreign minister said that at least 38 Egyptian security personnel has been injured in the last days of chaos. There are yet to be any credible reports of Palestinian casualties.

No one takes moral issues into consideration. If Egyptians feel like they could gain by stopping Palestians, they will do it without hestitation (by any means). Terrorists will do anything, Izrael will do anything and I am certain that USA already did something in their own interest.

not really, since if Israel was rebellious, other areas would get ideas, *shrugs* also it gave them 40 talents a year that they were dependent on.
OTOH it wasn't like most of the Roman population of the world, which had almost been exterminated 60-odd years previously, and was reliant on foreign aid and sheer military power to survive, and was under attack by hostile powers now and then lived there.

So in other words, the orders stand to close the border. Thanks for playing.I dont think so, the situation is fluid, I dont know what Mubarack will do next, probably Mubarack does NOT know what Mubarack will do next.. ;)

Egypt says will keep border open and help Gazans restock

Sat Jan 26, 6:09 AM ET

CAIRO (AFP) - Egypt said on Saturday it would continue to allow Gazans to cross the breached border and help them stock up on supplies on the fourth day of unfettered access, the official MENA news agency reported.

North Sinai Governor Ahmed Abdel-Hamid said that "Palestinians will continue to cross until they get all their needs of commodities and foodstuffs" in response to an Israeli lockdown on the impoverished territory of 1.5 million.

He said he was coordinating with the Ministries of Social Solidarity and Industry "to secure large amounts of commodities and products to meet the needs of the Palestinians in the country" because many Egyptian shops were now out of stock
...
The Palestinians and human rights groups such as Amnesty International say the blockade amounts to collective punishment.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080126/ts_afp/mideastconflictgazaegypt_080126110614;_ylt=AmfXLVK7HVHfWtJv1eEx22QUvioA

What do you all think the Jews SHOULD do about Palestinian rocket attacks on their civilians?

Cutting off power isn't the answer apparently, invasion isn't the answer apparently.

I assume you'll all suggest that Israel just give up land to the Palestinians, but thats really not a very good option.

The rest of you will make comments about the Zionist pigs. Also an invalid option.

Any way you cut it, the Palestinian terrorists will find new reasons to launch rockets against Israeli civilian populaces and Israel has a right to defend itself. Thats that.

I assume you'll all suggest that Israel just give up land to the Palestinians, but thats really not a very good option.why not?

Israel 'to resume Gaza supplies'

Israel says it will resume supplying fuel to Gaza, 10 days after it stopped shipments following continued rocket attacks by Palestinian militants.

The decision was announced at a Supreme Court hearing brought by human rights groups against the blockade.

BBC news. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7211966.stm)

What do you all think the Jews SHOULD do about Palestinian rocket attacks on their civilians?
I don't know... But how about diplomacy? Honouring their part of agreements? That could possibly be a start...


I assume you'll all suggest that Israel just give up land to the Palestinians, but thats really not a very good option.
Just the occupied land, and that's a good option.


Any way you cut it, the Palestinian terrorists will find new reasons to launch rockets against Israeli civilian populaces and Israel has a right to defend itself. Thats that.
Not in every way, and not at every cost. The act of defence needs to be proportional and effective. The blocade is neither.

Jews and Palestinians should all leave that land. They do not deserve it. Or they could just annihilate one side and victors would write history and say they were in right and everybody would be satisfied.

What do you all think the Jews SHOULD do about Palestinian rocket attacks on their civilians?

Cutting off power isn't the answer apparently, invasion isn't the answer apparently.

I assume you'll all suggest that Israel just give up land to the Palestinians, but thats really not a very good option.

The rest of you will make comments about the Zionist pigs. Also an invalid option.

Any way you cut it, the Palestinian terrorists will find new reasons to launch rockets against Israeli civilian populaces and Israel has a right to defend itself. Thats that.

At which point the Israeli terrorists will begin knocking down houses of people who's family members may have been involved and engaging in other actions that, like the rocket attacks they suffer, don't discriminate between civilian and enemy. I don't know what the answer is but two war crimes don't make a right.

Jews and Palestinians should all leave that land. They do not deserve it. works for me.
.
Or they could just annihilate one side and victors would write history and say they were in right and everybody would be satisfied.No, that was Hitler plan. I do not support Genocide.

I do not support genocide too. But it happened in the past, it happens in present and I do not have any reasons to believe it will not happen in the future,

There is a solution: 10 kilograms of Pu-239 over the Gaza Strip. In the end, only hippies will whine.I do not support genocide too. But it happened in the past, it happens in present and I do not have any reasons to believe it will not happen in the future,Hitler is very popular with you guys. I wont be supporting your plans.

US Gov: Egypt must shoot/arrest starving Palestinians crossing wall to get food.


Rice did not use the shoot/arrest, she used the word "enforce", but I dont see how they can stop starving people crossing the wall other than shooting/jailing them.

the US gives Millions to the corrupt Gov of Egypt, but that is the only reason Egypt was bending-over and swallowing.



Mubarak is -so far- resisting the pressure from Israel and the United States. But for how long?You can enforce with tear gas, sticks, and water cannons. No shooting necessary. Though considering Hamas attacked Egypt, it would hardly be unjustified.

Now, while I'm all for the Palestinians receiving the food they need, there's probably two main reasons for Hamas to pull off attacking a sovereign country: For one, it gives them brownie points with the suffering Palestinians, and secondly, they can bring in more rockets to ensure that they remain blockaded by the international community.

What do you all think the Jews SHOULD do about Palestinian rocket attacks on their civilians?

Cutting off power isn't the answer apparently, invasion isn't the answer apparently.

I assume you'll all suggest that Israel just give up land to the Palestinians, but thats really not a very good option.

The rest of you will make comments about the Zionist pigs. Also an invalid option.

Any way you cut it, the Palestinian terrorists will find new reasons to launch rockets against Israeli civilian populaces and Israel has a right to defend itself. Thats that.

There is a solution: 10 kilograms of Pu-239 over the Gaza Strip. In the end, only hippies will whine.

The Jews don't need terrorists to mess around with the Palestinians. If the Israelis decided to invade Palestine, no one in Palestine or any of it's neighboring countries could do anything about it.

So unless suddenly the US supported a conflict against the Israeli's, the Israeli's would /not/ have a problem with anyone in the mid east.

The other groups in the area, however, do of course deem it fit to launch ballistic weapons into totally non military Israeli areas, without even the slightest excuse for it. They don't even pretend they're looking for military targets. Reason being: They're not.

So you think Israel should just go ahead with appeasment tactics and give the Palestinians the Gaza strip? So what happens after they've given that up, and the terrorists organizations are still harrasing the Israeli populace?

Does Israel THEN invade and go on an anti-terrorist witch hunt?

Though considering Hamas attacked Egypt, it would hardly be unjustified.Yeah right.. :rolleyes:

I guess justifications for War or Violence can always be found.

The other groups in the area, however, do of course deem it fit to launch ballistic weapons into totally non military Israeli areas, without even the slightest excuse for it. They don't even pretend they're looking for military targets. Reason being: They're not.

So you think Israel should just go ahead with appeasment tactics and give the Palestinians the Gaza strip? So what happens after they've given that up, and the terrorists organizations are still harrasing the Israeli populace?

Does Israel THEN invade and go on an anti-terrorist witch hunt?... give the Palestinians the Gaza strip? ???
...

I am not saying they should give them back only a strip of land..

I am saying they should give them all their land back.. All of it.
.
So what happens after they've given that up.What usually happens when you sell your house in some bad neighborhood and move to a nicer neighborhood.

Israel is reborn and peace and prosperity for Israel... And probably for Palestine too.

Yep. Justifications for defense violence can pretty much always be found. It's funny how when someone attacks someone else, and they defend themselves, defensive violence is usually justified. Actually, somewhere around 100% of the time.

Yeah right.. :rolleyes:

I guess justifications for War or Violence can always be found.Hamas shot the dogs of the border guards. These guards in turn would have been well in their rights to shoot back. Violence was already well under way.

I'm sorry OceanDrive2. What all does "all of their land" entail?

Hitler is very popular with you guys. I wont be supporting your plans.

My PLAN ? People around here asked for possible suggestions for solutions or not? I do NOT support genocide BUT i do not care about moral issues either.
Idealistic people brought nothing to Near East. Izrael acted fast and realistically and seized land and holds it now. And UNO (and we here) can scream about it until all eternity and nothing would change.

I'm sorry OceanDrive2. What all does "all of their land" entail?They get all of their Land back.
all of it.
the whole enchilada.
todo.
tout.

Also, on the Egyptian border, the Egyptians have been attempting to peacefully contain the exodus of Palestinians. They have been driving them back with fences and water cannons, while the Palestinians throw rocks at Egyptian gaurds and break down the barricades.

Hamas has been bringing in heavy equipment to knock down the Egyptian barricades (bulldozers and crap). Now Palestinians boast that Hamas has beaten the Egyptian military, just because the Egyptians didn't open fire and gun down everyone attempting to cross the border (which they would be justified to do, but it would look bad in the worlds eyes).

This is the sort of sneaky underhanded crap that Hamas pulls.

What does "All of their land" entail? All of Israel, you mean?

What does "All of their land" entail? All of Israel, you mean?yes. Its the only way. Other than doing a genocide on all Arabs.

Also, on the Egyptian border, the Egyptians have been attempting to peacefully contain the exodus of Palestinians. They have been driving them back with fences and water cannons, while the Palestinians throw rocks at Egyptian gaurds and break down the barricades.

Hamas has been bringing in heavy equipment to knock down the Egyptian barricades (bulldozers and crap). Now Palestinians boast that Hamas has beaten the Egyptian military, just because the Egyptians didn't open fire and gun down everyone attempting to cross the border (which they would be justified to do, but it would look bad in the worlds eyes).

This is the sort of sneaky underhanded crap that Hamas pulls.

Ah yes, because you saw all this unfold with your own eyes...

Of course we believe you...

So tell me. After Israel has been moved off the land it was given by the British, where should they go?

So tell me. After Israel has been moved off the land it was given by the British, where should they go?Problem with that reasoning is that the British gave it to the Arabs as well.

So tell me. After Israel has been moved off the land it was given by the British, where should they go?Israel should be founded in North America on a small piece of land (the size of what they have now, something like Rhod Island)

It's okay though, because the British gave them a defined portion of land, and any land the Arabs have lost, they've lost in wars that /they/ personally started.

They will buy part of their eternal ally USA. I do not see any problem. They would have the land and USA money for their stagnant economy or staggering army expenses or whatever,

At which point the Israeli terrorists will begin knocking down houses of people who's family members may have been involved and engaging in other actions that, like the rocket attacks they suffer, don't discriminate between civilian and enemy. I don't know what the answer is but two war crimes don't make a right.

Yea, because the terrorists are on the Israeli side right? nice fact check.

yes. Its the only way. Other than doing a genocide on all Arabs.

Ok, so let me get this right. You say that anything other than the entirety of Israel being given to Palestinians would qualify as a genocide against the arabs of the world. Interesting point of view

Here's my thoughts OceanDrive. The Israeli's should challenge the hell out of anyone who screws with them, and end their lives. After thats all over, any more Arabs who want to screw with them can be subsequently ended. I s'pose pretty soon the Israeli's would own most of the mid east.

Or do you think terrorist groups should maybe...follow their own religion and at least attempt to be peaceful? Not that that'll happen...their religion isn't actually peaceful anyway.

I suppose if they're gonna fight over the land then we should just let them go at it. Guess who'll win?

They will buy part of their eternal ally USA. I do not see any problem. They would have the land and USA money for their stagnant economy or staggering army expenses or whatever,That is the beauty of this, All the billions currently needed for the military could be invested on schools and hospitals and industry, they would only need a National guard or something. And of course they could be members of NATO if they wish.

It's okay though, because the British gave them a defined portion of land, and any land the Arabs have lost, they've lost in wars that /they/ personally started.No, Germany technically started that war by invading Belgium, and the Turks lost the land, not the Arabs.

Israel should be founded in North America on a small piece of land (the size of what they have now, something like Rhod Island)

Why? Israelis were given a bunch of swampland and turned it into a prosperous republic in the middle of corrupt dictatorships. I don't see what the problem is.

Except that all the Arabs are too busy fighting with each other to ever /do/ that. If they don't have Jews to fight with, they'll regress to fighting amongst themselves, like always.

Maybe if all the ARABS were gone, the Jews would own all that land down there, and their already successful country would flourish even more.

Funny how those things can just be turned around?

Ok, so let me get this right. You say that anything other than the entirety of Israel being given to Palestinians would qualify as a genocide against the arabs of the world. No that not what I said.

for over 40 years: We have tried everything, they have tried everything, nothing works.

There are only 2 realistic ways left.. Give them their land back OR Genocide them all.

Not WW2...subsequent conflicts AFTER the Israeli's and Arabs were assigned land on British soil.

We would be better off if we starved all Muslims, not just the Palestinians.

Hail Israel! Hail Zionism! Hail Reagan!

Not WW2...subsequent conflicts AFTER the Israeli's and Arabs were assigned land on British soil.WWI, silly. That's when both sides were assigned soil.

And honestly, what Sel Appa said. The Jews survived a mass exodus to the land they currently live on, and turned it into a rather flourishing economy in a relatively short amount of time, even with the constant Arab harrasement. So who deserves to be kicked off the land? Not the Jews.

Why?for two reasons.

#1 Giving them their land back is the only solution (other than Genocide on all Arabs)

#2 Because its the right thing to do, creating Israel in the Arab Lands was a mistake.

Yea, because the terrorists are on the Israeli side right? nice fact check.

I was referring to the terrorists that are FROM Israel, the ones in the Israeli army. The ones who bulldoze peoples houses because a family member took part in an attack. The ones who open fire on a crowded street in an attempt to hit a suspected terrorist leader. Israel doesn't have a much better track record of differentiating between civilian and enemy than Palestine.

Edit: I'm not saying that every member of the Israeli army is a terrorist, only the ones that target civilians or ignore immanent threat to civilians caused by their own actions.

No that not what I said.

for over 40 years: We have tried everything, they have tried everything, nothing works.

There are only 2 realistic ways left.. Give them their land back OR Genocide them all.

How about having a committee of arabic volunteers from the entire Muslim world take an informative tour throughout Gaza and the West Bank in the aim to convince the Palestinian people that peace is their best option, and live side by side with Israel. Then their economy will prosper. Better than sending their kids off to blow themselves up. That's never been tried before.

I was referring to the terrorists that are FROM Israel, the ones in the Israeli army. The ones who bulldoze peoples houses because a family member took part in an attack. The ones who open fire on a crowded street in an attempt to hit a suspected terrorist leader. Israel doesn't have a much better track record of differentiating between civilian and enemy than Palestine.

Yes, in fact, it does. Much better.

I'm not checking my facts here, but I'm about 100% sure that the Israeli's were given a plot of land AFTER they were kicked out of Germany. Yes, they started to appear in the mid east around WW1, but were given land there specifically after WW2.

How about having a committee of arabic volunteers from the entire Muslim world take an informative tour throughout Gaza and the West Bank in the aim to convince the Palestinian people that peace is their best option, and live side by side with Israel. Then their economy will prosper. Better than sending their kids off to blow themselves up. That's never been tried before.how about having a .... NVM.

I am going AFK. work to do.
Ill be back in 8 hours.

I'm fairly sure semetic means "Jew Hater." That, I am not. I could be wrong though.

Here's my thoughts OceanDrive. The Israeli's should challenge the hell out of anyone who screws with them, and end their lives..that is what we have been trying for over 40 years.

It was a rebuttal to OceanDrive2's suggestion that if the Palestinians wiped out the Jews, that Palestine would be able to flourish. Maybe if you read posts you wouldn't be personally attacking my theology.

Here's my thoughts OceanDrive. The Israeli's should challenge the hell out of anyone who screws with them, and end their lives. After thats all over, any more Arabs who want to screw with them can be subsequently ended. I s'pose pretty soon the Israeli's would own most of the mid east.

Or do you think terrorist groups should maybe...follow their own religion and at least attempt to be peaceful? Not that that'll happen...their religion isn't actually peaceful anyway.

I suppose if they're gonna fight over the land then we should just let them go at it. Guess who'll win?

So you advocate the killing of all Arabs? Wow, your an anti-semite.

Then you make a pitiful attack on Islam, perhaps you'd like to prove it, anti-semitic bigot.

Advocating the killing of all opposition is a sign of an authoritarian. If such were to become official Israeli policy, I would then have no problems with anything the Palestinians did, to avoid such cruel oppression is always just.

how about having a .... NVM.

I am going AFK. work to do.
Ill be back in 8 hours.

hmm, interesting proposition.

Except that all the Arabs are too busy fighting with each other to ever /do/ that. If they don't have Jews to fight with, they'll regress to fighting amongst themselves, like always.

Maybe if all the ARABS were gone, the Jews would own all that land down there, and their already successful country would flourish even more.

Funny how those things can just be turned around?

More anti-semitism from you.

You are essentially saying that Arabs are backwards and violent people who are always looking for a fight. This is nothing more than a racist ideology lowering Arabs to a sub-human level.

You say that if the Arabs were gone, the country would be even better, showing even more how you despise Arabs.

Perhaps if you'd change your world view you could actually see things clearly.

It was a rebuttal to OceanDrive2's suggestion that if the Palestinians wiped out the Jews, that Palestine would be able to flourish. Maybe if you read posts you wouldn't be personally attacking my theology.your theology has been tried .. and is not working.

Dont try the "wiped out" lies on me, I have more teeth than AhmedJihad.

AFK now..

More anti-semitism from you.

You are essentially saying that Arabs are backwards and violent people who are always looking for a fight. This is nothing more than a racist ideology lowering Arabs to a sub-human level.

You say that if the Arabs were gone, the country would be even better, showing even more how you despise Arabs.

Perhaps if you'd change your world view you could actually see things clearly.

Last I checked, being labeled "anti-semitic" meant you hated Jews, not Arabs.

More anti-semitism...
A little unfair, Zayun.

Ignorance of etymology/anthropology doesn't equate to ant-semitism.

Not WW2...subsequent conflicts AFTER the Israeli's and Arabs were assigned land on British soil.

Perhaps in your opinion, the majority of the world doesn't actually give a shit who started any of the conflicts.

The true problem with your ideology however is that you assume that land won through war is justly taken. If we are to accept this, then it gives the Palestinians a reason to wage war, because they can win back what they formerly lost. This is the ideology that leads to constant warfare, or to genocide. If we are to change this ideology, and give land back to the Palestinians fairly, then there is actually a chance of things changing.

And honestly, what Sel Appa said. The Jews survived a mass exodus to the land they currently live on, and turned it into a rather flourishing economy in a relatively short amount of time, even with the constant Arab harrasement. So who deserves to be kicked off the land? Not the Jews.

Even if they did make the land "flourish", which is debateable, they made land flourish which was inhabited. Land that did not belong to them, land that belong to Palestinians. Forced removal of Palestinians has started much of the conflicts today.

So if I had to kick someone out, I would say Israelis. From a numerical point of view, there are less of them, therefore they are easier to remove.

I'm not checking my facts here, but I'm about 100% sure that the Israeli's were given a plot of land AFTER they were kicked out of Germany. Yes, they started to appear in the mid east around WW1, but were given land there specifically after WW2.

The immigration started after WWI. It kicked into greater numbers after WWII because there were many Jews with no place to go.

Personally though, I think at that point it would have been better to make a Jewish state out of part of Germany, rather than in a land so faraway. But of course, we live in a different world, and must deal with what we have.

So if I had to kick someone out, I would say Israelis. From a numerical point of view, there are less of them, therefore they are easier to remove.

last time i checked I'm pretty sure the ratio was about 6.5 : 1
Maybe each Palestinian has had 6 kids since the past concensus, but if that's not the case then I'm pretty sure you're wrong.

Last I checked, being labeled "anti-semitic" meant you hated Jews, not Arabs.

By definition, one who is anti-semitic is one who is against semites, and Arabs are semites.

I'm fairly sure semetic means "Jew Hater." That, I am not. I could be wrong though.

You clearly hate Arabs however, and as Arabs are semites, I can say that you are anti-semitic.

last time i checked I'm pretty sure the ratio was about 6.5 : 1
Maybe each Palestinian has had 6 kids since the past concensus, but if that's not the case then I'm pretty sure you're wrong.

I'm talking about overall. Perhaps within the state of Israel it is such, but overall there are more Palestinians than Israelis (which is why Israel does not want a one state solution).

A little unfair, Zayun.

Ignorance of etymology/anthropology doesn't equate to ant-semitism.

Hmm, I was quick to accuse you are right.

I guess I sort of thought it was the same poster as I was arguing with earlier (Wilsgarn), but I missed that it was not.

I dont think so.
.
#The Bush Gov is pressuring Egypt to take care of business.
#Bush Gov knows that you can stop desperate/starving families with words -clubs and Guns is the only way- ..
#Bush Gov want to help Israel's -starvation of Palestinians- Collective-punishment..
#Israel cant pressure Egypt to do this, the US can because of the Millions their give the corrupt Gov for their "collaboration" vis-a-vis Israel.

Do you just pull this stuff out of the ether, or what?
"You should protect your borders" - Wow. Lots of pressure there, and so unreasonable.

YOU are the one claiming that guns and clubs are the only way - so stop attributing it to Bush and company.

Bush has been trying to get Israel to recognize a Palestinian state.. so your statement about them wanting to starve Palestinians is rubbish.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46469-2004Nov12.html
http://www.mideastweb.org/bushspeech1.htm
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL0828300120080110?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0DE2D8133DF93AA35755C0A9649C8B63

Israel can absolutely ask the Egyptians to enforce their side of the border. And probably with as much success as when Ms. Rice suggested it -- which is to say, so far, none.

I'm sorry if this doesn't fit in with your perception of reality, but really, now.

Ok, not taking a side on this specific question here but . . .

How do you see them enforcing this if someone tries to cross? Do you think they will enforce it by siting them down and explaining to them "Hey you can't do that." or do you think that they will enforce it by violence or threat of violence?

How about, a fine?
How about, escorting them back over the border?
How about, detaining them and releasing them back to the Palestinian Authority's officials?

What makes violence the only reasonable and viable response -- unless those crossing are going to shoot or club those who are trying to prevent them?

Rather, it's quite opposite. It's the Egyptian police whom have suffered damages - Unconfirmed reports quoting the Egyptian foreign minister said that at least 38 Egyptian security personnel has been injured in the last days of chaos. There are yet to be any credible reports of Palestinian casualties.

Precisely.

No, Germany technically started that war by invading Belgium, and the Turks lost the land, not the Arabs.

But why confuse the issue with facts when rants yanked out of ass-space are so much more effective?

We would be better off if we starved all Muslims, not just the Palestinians.

Hail Israel! Hail Zionism! Hail Reagan!

Go back under your bridge.

I'm fairly sure semetic means "Jew Hater." That, I am not. I could be wrong though.

It's used that way, but Semitic people actually encompass a larger group, which also includes Arabs.

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

It's okay though, because the British gave them a defined portion of land, and any land the Arabs have lost, they've lost in wars that /they/ personally started.

So every Palestinian in 1948 and 1967 had a vote in starting those wars? And seeing as theres still a Germany, Japan etc, since when is being on the losing side the ticket to being made stateless? I mean, America didn't win in Vietnam and I don't think anyone packed their cases after that little debacle.....


Why? Israelis were given a bunch of swampland and turned it into a prosperous republic in the middle of corrupt dictatorships. I don't see what the problem is..

I have shown how that claim is wrong on numerous occassions, in response to your posts. You have refused to refute the data I posted, or respond in any way on each occassion. Therefore I have no other option than to conclude that you are either (a)trolling or (b)lying.


How about having a committee of arabic volunteers from the entire Muslim world take an informative tour throughout Gaza and the West Bank in the aim to convince the Palestinian people that peace is their best option,..

How about lifting the IDF veto on video footage filmed in the OT for Israeli consumption, so the Israeli public is under no illusions whats being done in their name.....

How about lifting the IDF veto on video footage filmed in the OT for Israeli consumption, so the Israeli public is under no illusions whats being done in their name.....

haha no, Israelis are well aware of the facts. The media in Israel is very liberal and as you've been so kind to bring up in the past, there are even organisations within Israel strongly speaking out and urging the most humane and civil treatment of Paliestinians as possible. Israel wants peace.

Then, just for perspective, there's the Hamas channel broadcasting.
Palestinian kids get fed Mickey Mouse on TV being killed by the evil Zionist Jew.


I have shown how that claim is wrong on numerous occassions
Although that perhaps might not be a reason as to why Israel is justified in its existence (although the part about being a prosperous republic in the middle of corrupt dictatorships is somewhat of a claim in this direction), I do believe it is a true statement that Sel Appa made. I'm curious as to your data that 'refutes' these facts.

I dont think so, the situation is fluid, I dont know what Mubarack will do next, probably Mubarack does NOT know what Mubarack will do next.. ;)

The governor is saying it and not the actual government. I'm not seeing any info other than that.

*dies of laughter*

yea that was a pretty funny one.

yes. Its the only way. Other than doing a genocide on all Arabs.

*dies of laughter*

I have shown how that claim is wrong on numerous occassions, in response to your posts. You have refused to refute the data I posted, or respond in any way on each occassion. Therefore I have no other option than to conclude that you are either (a)trolling or (b)lying.
WTF are you talking about man? Are you saying that Israel is not a prosperous republic? It's not surrounded by corrupt dictatorships?

THERE WAS NOTHING THERE EXCEPT A FEW JEWS, CHRISTIAN MISSIONS, AND NOMADS.

WTF are you talking about man? Are you saying that Israel is not a prosperous republic? It's not surrounded by corrupt dictatorships?

THERE WAS NOTHING THERE EXCEPT A FEW JEWS, CHRISTIAN MISSIONS, AND NOMADS.

and British outposts, small populations of other kinds of settlers, and some non-nomadic arabic settlers. But as for the other things you are correct.

Last I checked, being labeled "anti-semitic" meant you hated Jews, not Arabs.

Arabs are semitic.

Hail Israel!

Please tell me you're joking and can appreciate the irony of what you just wrote.

Tip: "Hail" is English for "Heil".

Even if they did make the land "flourish", which is debateable, they made land flourish which was inhabited. Land that did not belong to them, land that belong to Palestinians. Forced removal of Palestinians has started much of the conflicts today.
Not Flourish? If it did not flourish? Then, why does it exist. If there was such a wonderful "Palestinian" establishment, why is it not still there? It was British land. There's no such thing as Palestinians and it was originally the Jews land anyway. They were forced off by the Arabs, Persians, Greeks, Syrians, and Romans. The conflicts have been started by brainwashing of Arabs from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria who were told they were from the land of Israel and had owned that land and were forced off and that the Jews mere evil.

So if I had to kick someone out, I would say Israelis. From a numerical point of view, there are less of them, therefore they are easier to remove.
There are less "Palestinians" than Israelis.

The immigration started after WWI. It kicked into greater numbers after WWII because there were many Jews with no place to go.
Started in the 1880s.

Personally though, I think at that point it would have been better to make a Jewish state out of part of Germany, rather than in a land so faraway. But of course, we live in a different world, and must deal with what we have.
Why? That's illogical. The home of the Jews is Israel and it was a giant swamp so it's a perfect place.

By definition, one who is anti-semitic is one who is against semites, and Arabs are semites.

an·ti-Sem·i·tism /ˌæntiˈsɛmɪˌtɪzəm, ˌæntaɪ-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[an-tee-sem-i-tiz-uhm, an-tahy-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
discrimination against or prejudice or hostility toward Jews.

kthxbye

and British outposts, small populations of other kinds of settlers, and some non-nomadic arabic settlers. But as for the other things you are correct.

Yes, beyond that it was a swamp and a desert. Israel fought back the desert and turned it into Arable land.

WTF are you talking about man? Are you saying that Israel is not a prosperous republic? It's not surrounded by corrupt dictatorships?

THERE WAS NOTHING THERE EXCEPT A FEW JEWS, CHRISTIAN MISSIONS, AND NOMADS.

The Palestinians too, but I guess they don't count anymore.

##US Gov: Starving Palestinians must not be allowed to get across the wall


WTF?? It doesn't say anything like that in the article.

This is my opinon on this whole issue. While I don't agree with Israel's methods I do agree with their purpose. I ahve sene many epople complaining about treatment of palestininans but nothing about the israeli public. They are being attacked with world war 2 era rockets. They are unguided. This is an act of terrorism. israel has to protect it's people. It goes back to john locke's two treatises on government in which he brings in the social contartct formed between people and their government. The governemtn protects the people.

This is my opinon on this whole issue. While I don't agree with Israel's methods I do agree with their purpose. I ahve sene many epople complaining about treatment of palestininans but nothing about the israeli public. They are being attacked with world war 2 era rockets. They are unguided. This is an act of terrorism. israel has to protect it's people. It goes back to john locke's two treatises on government in which he brings in the social contartct formed between people and their government. The governemtn protects the people.

Though the question that is being asked is "why are the people there in the first place?" The treatment of Palestinians is absolutely disgusting, especially considering Israel thrust them off their land and herded them into refugee camps.

And seeing as theres still a Germany, Japan etc, since when is being on the losing side the ticket to being made stateless?
No, no, no, there isn't STILL a Germany and a Japan; there is AGAIN a Germany and a Japan. In 1945, most certainly they were stateless: the regime in Japan was quite bluntly called "Occupied Japan", and Germany was divided into multiple "occupation zones".
Now how come Germany and Japan got independence restored? Hint: Germans and Japanese never blew up schoolbuses or discos or shopping malls, didn't throw old men in wheelchairs off boats, didn't attack Olympic athletes, didn't hijack any planes, didn't even teach their kids to throw rocks at soldiers.

haha no, Israelis are well aware of the facts. The media in Israel is very liberal and as you've been so kind to bring up in the past, .

I have said that theres little restriction on the printed press, but that the IDF have and use frequently their veto over video footage, as they are aware of the emotive power of the image.

http://www.kokhavivpublications.com/2003/israel/03/0303191218.html

Surely you'd have copped on by now to the fact that I don't make statements I can't back up.....


Then, just for perspective, there's the Hamas channel broadcasting.
Palestinian kids get fed Mickey Mouse on TV being killed by the evil Zionist Jew..

Thats the famous video that was so kindly 'translated' by an organisation run by persons involved with Likud, and ex-and reserve IDF members? Yes, I'm quite familiar with it. Their interpretation in that and others is greatly disputed.


I do believe it is a true statement that Sel Appa made. I'm curious as to your data that 'refutes' these facts.

Theres a long list going back over a period, however - As regards the "swamp" The mandate was exporting agricultural produce in 1946. The majority of produce- some 76% - was from Arab owned land, produced by Arab farmers. Its all contained in the UN survey that was taken during the preparation for the proposal for the partition.

His other claim was that the areas were owned by absentee landlords (untrue, as shown by the same survey.).

He has also said that the majority of the land now constituting what is now Israel had been bought by the settlers (also untrue, as can be seen in the figures available in the same survey, which can be also found in the Jewish Virtual Library).

All of this can be found in various sources on the net, so when somebody doesnt come back at you, you have to wonder precisely what their agenda is.....


THERE WAS NOTHING THERE EXCEPT A FEW JEWS, CHRISTIAN MISSIONS, AND NOMADS..

Dear o dear......


[edit] Demographics, 1920
In 1920, the majority of the approximately 750,000 people in this multi-ethnic region were Arabic-speaking Muslims, including a Bedouin population (estimated at 103,331 at the time of the 1922 census[74] and concentrated in the Beersheba area and the region south and east of it), as well as Jews (who comprised some 11% of the total) and smaller groups of Druze, Syrians, Sudanese, Circassians, Egyptians, Greeks, and Hejazi Arabs.

In 1922, the British undertook the first census of the mandate. The population was 752,048, comprising 589,177 Muslims, 83,790 Jews, 71,464 Christians and 7,617 persons belonging to other groups. After a second census in 1931, the population had grown to 1,036,339 in total, comprising 761,922 Muslims, 175,138 Jews, 89,134 Christians and 10,145 people belonging to other groups. There were no further censuses but statistics were maintained by counting births, deaths and migration. Some components such as illegal immigration could only be estimated approximately. The White Paper of 1939, which placed immigration restrictions on Jews, stated that the Jewish population "has risen to some 450,000" and was "approaching a third of the entire population of the country". In 1945, a demographic study showed that the population had grown to 1,764,520, comprising 1,061,270 Muslims, 553,600 Jews, 135,550 Christians and 14,100 people of other groups.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1922_Text:_League_of_Nations_Palestine_Mandate#Demographics.2C_1920


It was British land. ..

And you've had this explained to you before as well. The British were running the mandate on behalf of the league of nations. Its in article 5 of the terms of the mandate that they prevent any Government trying to seize it before its granted independence.

There's no such thing as Palestinians ..

Yet they've been referring to themselves as such for nearly a century now, and seeking independence for at least as long....


Yes, beyond that it was a swamp and a desert. Israel fought back the desert and turned it into Arable land...

Dear o dear.....

No, no, no, there isn't STILL a Germany and a Japan; there is AGAIN a Germany and a Japan. In 1945, most certainly they were stateless: the regime in Japan was quite bluntly called "Occupied Japan", and Germany was divided into multiple "occupation zones".
Now how come Germany and Japan got independence restored? Hint: Germans and Japanese never blew up schoolbuses or discos or shopping malls, didn't throw old men in wheelchairs off boats, didn't attack Olympic athletes, didn't hijack any planes, didn't even teach their kids to throw rocks at soldiers.

They weren't actively colonized. That had a lot to with it.

Now how come Germany and Japan got independence restored?

Because America wasn't building civillian colonies and seeking to annex land. All of your list occurred after that fact occuring in the OT, which you seem to have omitted.

Not Flourish? If it did not flourish? Then, why does it exist. If there was such a wonderful "Palestinian" establishment, why is it not still there? It was British land. There's no such thing as Palestinians and it was originally the Jews land anyway. They were forced off by the Arabs, Persians, Greeks, Syrians, and Romans. The conflicts have been started by brainwashing of Arabs from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria who were told they were from the land of Israel and had owned that land and were forced off and that the Jews mere evil.


There are less "Palestinians" than Israelis.


Started in the 1880s.


Why? That's illogical. The home of the Jews is Israel and it was a giant swamp so it's a perfect place.





kthxbye

Palestinians and Jews both lived on the land previously. You cannot deny that today, many settlements are built on land previously occupied by Palestinians. It is irrelevant whether the land has "flourished", because ultimately the forced removal of Palestinians is causing conflicts today.

Untrue.

Germany had a very large Jewish population, and if anything, owed Jews something after the attempt at extermination we call the Holocaust. So it is perfectly logical. And tell me, how many Jews that live in Israel today actually had ancestors that lived there 2000 years ago? Very few.

:) I was hoping you would bring that up.

You cannot deny that Arabs are semites. To do so is akin to preparations of genocide, because one denies the humanity, and the history of Arabs. This is the same thing that Hitler's government did to Jews 60 some years ago, it stole their humanity, their history. It made citizens of Germany view them as less than human, and allowed for genocide to occur. Saying that Arabs are not semites is a milder form of this.

Ultimately, we, users of the English language, decide what words mean. They gain their meanings from how we use them. So, if I were to apply the word "anti-semite" to haters of any semitic group, I would, change its meaning in my mind. If a sufficient number of people werer to apply this term the way I do, it would become official in the English language. So, can you give me any reasons why the word anti-semite should not apply to those that hate Arabs other than that it is the status quo? Are their benefits in being exclusive, rather than inclusive? I shall answer, there are none. It is beneficial to be inclusive, because we recognize the history of the Arab peoples, as well as other semitic groups.

Ultimately, if other people recognize this new definition, this thread becomes a driving force behind positive change, which is atypical for an Israeli/Palestinian thread (as they usually have no real world benefit). Thus, this debate would not be a pointless clash as it is now, but a fight for real change, for positive change. And that is why anti-semite should be defined so.

I'm not checking my facts here, but I'm about 100% sure that the Israeli's were given a plot of land AFTER they were kicked out of Germany. Yes, they started to appear in the mid east around WW1, but were given land there specifically after WW2.

Fail

British Mandate (1920–1948)

Palestine and Transjordan were incorporated (under different legal and administrative arrangements) into the Mandate for Palestine issued by the League of Nations to Great Britain on 29 September 1923
Palestine and Transjordan were incorporated (under different legal and administrative arrangements) into the Mandate for Palestine issued by the League of Nations to Great Britain on 29 September 1923

The British Mandate enacted English, Hebrew and Arabic as its three official languages. The land designated by the mandate was called Palestine in English, Falastin (فلسطين) in Arabic, and in Hebrew Palestina or Eretz Yisrael ((פלשתינה (א"י).

In April 1920 the Allied Supreme Council (the USA, Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan) met at Sanremo and formal decisions were taken on the allocation of mandate territories. The United Kingdom accepted a mandate for Palestine, but the boundaries of the mandate and the conditions under which it was to be held were not decided. The Zionist Organization's representative at Sanremo, Chaim Weizmann, subsequently reported to his colleagues in London:

"There are still important details outstanding, such as the actual terms of the mandate and the question of the boundaries in Palestine. There is the delimitation of the boundary between French Syria and Palestine, which will constitute the northern frontier and the eastern line of demarcation, adjoining Arab Syria. The latter is not likely to be fixed until the Emir Feisal attends the Peace Conference, probably in Paris."[102]

In July 1920, the French drove Faisal bin Husayn from Damascus ending his already negligible control over the region of Transjordan, where local chiefs traditionally resisted any central authority. The sheikhs, who had earlier pledged their loyalty to the Sharif of Mecca, asked the British to undertake the region's administration. Herbert Samuel asked for the extension of the Palestine government's authority to Transjordan, but at meetings in Cairo and Jerusalem between Winston Churchill and Emir Abdullah in March 1921 it was agreed that Abdullah would administer the territory (initially for six months only) on behalf of the Palestine administration. In the summer of 1921 Transjordan was included within the Mandate, but excluded from the provisions for a Jewish National Home.[103] On 24 July, 1922 the League of Nations approved the terms of the British Mandate over Palestine and Transjordan. On 16 September the League formally approved a memorandum from Lord Balfour confirming the exemption of Transjordan from the clauses of the mandate concerning the creation of a Jewish national home and from the mandate's responsibility to facilitate Jewish immigration and land settlement.[104] With Transjordan coming under the administration of the British Mandate, the mandate's collective territory became constituted of 23% Palestine and 77% Transjordan. Transjordan was a very sparsely populated region (specially in comparison with Palestine proper) due to its relatively limited resources and largely desert environment.

The award of the mandates was delayed as a result of the United States' suspicions regarding Britain's colonial ambitions and similar reservations held by Italy about France's intentions. France in turn refused to reach a settlement over Palestine until its own mandate in Syria became final. According to Louis,

Together with the American protests against the issuance of mandates these triangular quarrels between the Italians, French, and British explain why the A mandates did not come into force until nearly four years after the signing of the Peace Treaty.... The British documents clearly reveal that Balfour's patient and skillful diplomacy contributed greatly to the final issuance of the A mandates for Syria and Palestine on September 29, 1923.[105]

Even before the Mandate came into legal effect in 1923 (text), British terminology sometimes used '"Palestine" for the part west of the Jordan River and "Trans-Jordan" (or Transjordania) for the part east of the Jordan River.[106][107]
A stamp from Palestine under the British Mandate
A stamp from Palestine under the British Mandate

In the years following World War II, Britain's control over Palestine became increasingly tenuous. This was caused by a combination of factors, including:

* Rapid deterioration due to the attacks by the Irgun and Lehi on British officials, armed forces, and strategic installations. This caused severe damage to British morale and prestige, as well as increasing opposition to the mandate in Britain itself, public opinion demanding to "bring the boys home".[108]
* World public opinion turned against Britain as a result of the British policy of preventing Holocaust survivors from reaching Palestine, sending them instead to Cyprus internment camps, or even back to Germany, as in the case of Exodus 1947.
* The costs of maintaining an army of over 100,000 men in Palestine weighed heavily on a British economy suffering from post-war depression, and was another cause for British public opinion to demand an end to the Mandate.
* US Congress was delaying a loan necessary to prevent British bankruptcy. The delays were in response to the British refusal to fulfill a promise given to Truman that 100,000 Holocaust survivors would be allowed to migrate to Palestine.

Finally in early 1947 the British Government announced their desire to terminate the Mandate, and passed the responsibility over Palestine to the United Nations.

I have said that theres little restriction on the printed press, but that the IDF have and use frequently their veto over video footage, as they are aware of the emotive power of the image.

http://www.kokhavivpublications.com/2003/israel/03/0303191218.html

Surely you'd have copped on by now to the fact that I don't make statements I can't back up.....


Issues of national security are viable reason for censorship of certain media in any country. There is, especially at times of war, highly classified information that would be damaging to release to the public and even potentially disastrous at times.
I repeat my statements, What you have shown does not demonstrate anything against what I had previously said that:
- The Israeli public is fully aware of the situation and what is being done.
- Israel favors peace. This is clear.
- My hypothesized solution still stands as you have not even cared to reply to it, and rather skillfully ignored it by employing a rhetorical tactic of manouvering your way around an accusation through another opposite (and false) one.


Thats the famous video that was so kindly 'translated' by an organisation run by persons involved with Likud, and ex-and reserve IDF members? Yes, I'm quite familiar with it. Their interpretation in that and others is greatly disputed.

hmm, disputed you say. Sorry, I haven't heard any disputes. All I've heard was:
www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/10/mideast.mouse/index.html
www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2075845,00.html
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZEGsnWZKh8
www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3396800,00.html
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,270457,00.html
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18580878/
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/11/whamas11
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6257594.stm
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/08/world/main2775292.shtml
en.wikinews.org/wiki/Children's_program_on_Palestinian_TV_propagates_Islamic_world_leadership

sorry, I didn't see the dispute in any of those. But please, take your pick. Sounds to me more like you're trying to evade the enormous obviousity that this fact presents. (Not to mention it is only one clear example out of he many, many more).




Theres a long list going back over a period, however - As regards the "swamp" The mandate was exporting agricultural produce in 1946. The majority of produce- some 76% - was from Arab owned land, produced by Arab farmers. Its all contained in the UN survey that was taken during the preparation for the proposal for the partition.

This doesn't refute the fact that Israel's economy is now prospering and that prior to that it was - well, not. Lots of swamps and desert was still a relatively accurate description, no matter what % of farming produce was from Arabic land.

His other claim was that the areas were owned by absentee landlords (untrue, as shown by the same survey.).

He has also said that the majority of the land now constituting what is now Israel had been bought by the settlers (also untrue, as can be seen in the figures available in the same survey, which can be also found in the Jewish Virtual Library).

All of this can be found in various sources on the net, so when somebody doesnt come back at you, you have to wonder precisely what their agenda is.....



Dear o dear......

.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1922_Text:_League_of_Nations_Palestine_Mandate#Demographics.2C_1920



And you've had this explained to you before as well. The British were running the mandate on behalf of the league of nations. Its in article 5 of the terms of the mandate that they prevent any Government trying to seize it before its granted independence.


Yet they've been referring to themselves as such for nearly a century now, and seeking independence for at least as long....



Dear o dear.....

The British owned (or held on to) the land. They gave it to Israel with the agreement of the UN. The UN is the entire body of nations in the world. This means that the majority of the world decided that it would be a good idea that Israel be created. This is where Israel's right to exist comes from.

They weren't actively colonized. That had a lot to with it.
That's not true either, in the case of Germany. About 1/3 of what is now "Poland" used to be Germany.
In 1949, there were more German refugees who'd been expelled from their homes than there were Palestinians. You don't hear of them much, because the Germans take care of their own; they all resettled a long time ago.

...
:) I was hoping you would bring that up.

You cannot deny that Arabs are semites. To do so is akin to preparations of genocide, because one denies the humanity, and the history of Arabs. This is the same thing that Hitler's government did to Jews 60 some years ago, it stole their humanity, their history. It made citizens of Germany view them as less than human, and allowed for genocide to occur. Saying that Arabs are not semites is a milder form of this.

Ultimately, we, users of the English language, decide what words mean. They gain their meanings from how we use them. So, if I were to apply the word "anti-semite" to haters of any semitic group, I would, change its meaning in my mind. If a sufficient number of people werer to apply this term the way I do, it would become official in the English language. So, can you give me any reasons why the word anti-semite should not apply to those that hate Arabs other than that it is the status quo? Are their benefits in being exclusive, rather than inclusive? I shall answer, there are none. It is beneficial to be inclusive, because we recognize the history of the Arab peoples, as well as other semitic groups.

Ultimately, if other people recognize this new definition, this thread becomes a driving force behind positive change, which is atypical for an Israeli/Palestinian thread (as they usually have no real world benefit). Thus, this debate would not be a pointless clash as it is now, but a fight for real change, for positive change. And that is why anti-semite should be defined so.

Oh, and Sel Appa, I honestly don't give a crap about the rest of the arguments, but I really want you to address the part above.

That's not true either, in the case of Germany. About 1/3 of what is now "Poland" used to be Germany.
In 1949, there were more German refugees who'd been expelled from their homes than there were Palestinians. You don't hear of them much, because the Germans take care of their own; they all resettled a long time ago.

You do realize that Prussia, Austria, and Russia literally wiped Poland off the map in the late 1700s right?

Poland was only being restored.

That's not true either, in the case of Germany. About 1/3 of what is now "Poland" used to be Germany.
In 1949, there were more German refugees who'd been expelled from their homes than there were Palestinians. You don't hear of them much, because the Germans take care of their own; they all resettled a long time ago.

That's because they more or less resettled on their own accord. They weren't forcibly removed, except in places like Danzig.

You do realize that Prussia, Austria, and Russia literally wiped Poland off the map in the late 1700s right?

Poland was only being restored.

The Poland of the late 1700's did not include Silesia, Prussia, or West Pomerania.

"That's because they more or less resettled on their own accord. They weren't forcibly removed"
Of their own accord millions of them fled from Russian machine guns aimed at them. There was considerably more force involved than in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

zayun2 does raise an interesting point about anti semitism. Technically speaking hitler was nopt anti semtice he was anti jew. other semetic groups wer enot looked upon favorably but hitler still negotiated with arabs

Issues of national security are viable reason for censorship of certain media in any country. There is, especially at times of war, highly classified information that would be damaging to release to the public and even potentially disastrous at times.
I repeat my statements, What you have shown does not demonstrate anything against what I had previously said that:
- The Israeli public is fully aware of the situation and what is being done.


So why do they have to do this kind of thing?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_letter


- Israel favors peace. This is clear.

I never said anything on the matter of what Israel as a whole favours in this thread.


- My hypothesized solution still stands (.....)

I don't recally you mentioning one in the post I was replying to, so I've really no idea what you're referring to there. I believe in a two state solution, personally.


hmm, disputed you say. Sorry, I haven't heard any disputes.

You didn't here that CNN's own Arabic department rejected the MEMRI translation?
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/brian_whitaker/2007/05/arabic_under_fire.html



This doesn't refute the fact that Israel's economy is now prospering and that prior to that it was - well, not. Lots of swamps and desert was still a relatively accurate description, no matter what % of farming produce was from Arabic land.

So the employment of the technology of the 1950's, 60's and 70's in the
1950's 1960's and 1970's justifies in hindsight the complete disparagement of the farmers there in the 1920's, 30's and 40's who did what they could with what they could at the time.......And justifies their expulsion, of course. Hmmmmm.....


The British owned (or held on to) the land. They gave it to Israel with the agreement of the UN. The UN is the entire body of nations in the world. This means that the majority of the world decided that it would be a good idea that Israel be created. .

Yet the area now defined as Israel is larger than that allocated in the partition plan and no, as stated earlier, the British did not "own" the land. The terms of the mandate are available on the net.


This is where Israel's right to exist comes from.

I haven't questioned Israels right to exist.

The Poland of the late 1700's did not include Silesia, Prussia, or West Pomerania.

"That's because they more or less resettled on their own accord. They weren't forcibly removed"
Of their own accord millions of them fled from Russian machine guns aimed at them. There was considerably more force involved than in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

And yet many Poles lived in all three of those areas, and those areas have been in the possession of Poland before.

zayun2 does raise an interesting point about anti semitism. Technically speaking hitler was nopt anti semtice he was anti jew. other semetic groups wer enot looked upon favorably but hitler still negotiated with arabs

He would still be an anti-semite, he hated Jews. Being ok with one semitic group does not neutralize hate against another.

yes. Its the only way. Other than doing a genocide on all Arabs.
No, it's not. Give back the occupied territories, no more needed.

Yea, because the terrorists are on the Israeli side right? nice fact check.
Some are. Take a look at the settlers, and indeed the unpunished acts of terrorism by the IDF and the Israeli government as well - including but not limited to torture, unlawfull killings, collateral damage and collective punishment.


haha no, Israelis are well aware of the facts. The media in Israel is very liberal and as you've been so kind to bring up in the past, there are even organisations within Israel strongly speaking out and urging the most humane and civil treatment of Paliestinians as possible. Israel wants peace.

Then, just for perspective, there's the Hamas channel broadcasting.
Palestinian kids get fed Mickey Mouse on TV being killed by the evil Zionist Jew.
Well done bringing up both of the extreme sides... Let me see if I can do the same.

Hum... There are even organisations within Palestine strongly speaking out and urging a peaceful solution, notably the current Palestinian National Authority headed by Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad. Palestinians want peace.

Then, just for perspective, there's the Israeli settlers advocating genocide and killing and harassing palestinians with impunity. Israeli kids get fed the message that Palestinians should be wiped out and that the land was given to the Jews by God.

See? It's not that hard to show the polarized parts. It's not particularly constructive either, for this is (should be) common knowledge.

Yes, beyond that it was a swamp and a desert. Israel fought back the desert and turned it into Arable land.
So? Disregarding the factual inaccuracies in your statement, it really isn't relevant. It's not something that the Palestinian people couldn't have done with the same resources. It's not a valid argument in favour of keeping the occupied territories occupied.


- Israel favors peace. This is clear.
Do they? Then why don't they live up to their agreements? You know, on their settlements and the occupation...

And yet many Poles lived in all three of those areas, and those areas have been in the possession of Poland before.
Yes, yes-- the Poles wanted to restore their historic homeland from a thousand years before, in lands that a few of them had remained in all that time; sound familiar?

He would still be an anti-semite, he hated Jews. Being ok with one semitic group does not neutralize hate against another.
The word "anti-Semite" was coined specifically to mean "Jew-hater". Lots of words can be misinterpreted based on their makeup.

The word "anti-Semite" was coined specifically to mean "Jew-hater". Lots of words can be misinterpreted based on their makeup.

I am not misinterpreting, I am demanding a new definition of the word (if you'd just read my arguments). You can read my earlier post, and see that there's really no reason for the term to be so exclusive.

Yes, yes-- the Poles wanted to restore their historic homeland from a thousand years before, in lands that a few of them had remained in all that time; sound familiar?

Not a few of them, a great number of them.

And they didn't have those lands over 2000 years ago, but rather a few hundred years ago,

So why do they have to do this kind of thing?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_letter

Well, if you read the article that directs to this one, namely:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Israel
"A reporter is expected to hand over his or her article to the Israeli Military Censor prior to publication."
Clearly, night letters do not comply with this regulation, do they? I hold my stance, aside from issues of national security, Israel's media is wide open.


I never said anything on the matter of what Israel as a whole favours in this thread.

no but I did. I said it favors peace. This has to do with my proposed solution, of convincing both sides that peace is the best solution. When I offered the idea of informing the Palestinian public and convincing them that peace is the best option, you in turn quoted me, and said that Israel's media must be freed. Therefore, you ignored it, but did quote what I had said.



I don't recally you mentioning one in the post I was replying to, so I've really no idea what you're referring to there. I believe in a two state solution, personally.

You had in fact, quoted my exact words. Look back if you need.

You didn't here that CNN's own Arabic department rejected the MEMRI translation?
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/brian_whitaker/2007/05/arabic_under_fire.html


Hmm, in this article I read debate about the translation of the girl's words. But it clearly mentions what I have stated, and continue to state:
"In the Hamas video clip issued by Memri, a Mickey Mouse lookalike asks a young girl what she will do "for the sake of al-Aqsa". Apparently trying to prompt an answer, the mouse makes a rifle-firing gesture and says "I'll shoot"."

Plus, this article later mentions itself the point I was making:
"Hamas's use of children's TV for propaganda purposes is clearly despicable, as the BBC, the Guardian and others have noted, without any need to exaggerate its content."



So the employment of the technology of the 1950's, 60's and 70's in the
1950's 1960's and 1970's justifies in hindsight the complete disparagement of the farmers there in the 1920's, 30's and 40's who did what they could with what they could at the time.......And justifies their expulsion, of course. Hmmmmm.....

Not of much importance to me personally, and don't see the point you're trying to make, but ok.


Yet the area now defined as Israel is larger than that allocated in the partition plan and no, as stated earlier, the British did not "own" the land. The terms of the mandate are available on the net.

Yes, when a country gets repeatedly attacked from a certain area outside of its borders, when it takes it over during wartime, it is more than justifiable to hold on to it until a peace treaty in which it is returned is attained. Thus the Golan. Thus the return of Sinai and regions to Jordan.
Plus the unilateral the withdrawal from Southern Lebanon and northern Gaza. (Both with disastrous results).


I haven't questioned Israels right to exist.

Ok, so would you mind, for my sake, and for the sake of clarity in the thread as to your opinions to please openly state:
"Israel is justified in and has a right to its existence"?

No, it's not. Give back the occupied territories, no more needed.

You mean well, for the most part, but are very naive to have an idealistic view that this would end violence against Israel. Palestinians have openly declared that they will not stop until they get ALL of Israel.

Some are. Take a look at the settlers, and indeed the unpunished acts of terrorism by the IDF and the Israeli government as well - including but not limited to torture, unlawfull killings, collateral damage and collective punishment.

1. None of these are terrorism.
2. These are being attempted to be minimized as much as possible.

Well done bringing up both of the extreme sides... Let me see if I can do the same.

Hum... There are even organisations within Palestine strongly speaking out and urging a peaceful solution, notably the current Palestinian National Authority headed by Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad. Palestinians want peace.

They voted in Hamas. Hamas doesn't want peace. That's the way it is. Look at Israel's government and media and almost every single Israeli you talk to.
Sorry.

Then, just for perspective, there's the Israeli settlers advocating genocide and killing and harassing palestinians with impunity.

yes, fucking crazy assholes. I don't know about killing but harrassing yes. This is strongly attempted to be minimized by the Israeli Government.

Israeli kids get fed the message that Palestinians should be wiped out and that the land was given to the Jews by God.

Nope, not at all. This, you're making up. It's a fun game yes, but when you grow up, you see, making up stories is not really something that is in common etiquette of conversation.

See? It's not that hard to show the polarized parts. It's not particularly constructive either, for this is (should be) common knowledge.

Nope it actually is.
It isn't, and should not be common knowledge, because it's not true. It might be 'true' to you within your imaginary realm inside of your head, but not in reality. Sorry.
The example I brought up of Mickey Mouse is only a representative sample of many, common, elements in the current state of their society. It is a commonplace reality.

Do they? Then why don't they live up to their agreements? You know, on their settlements and the occupation...
If you don't agree that Israel wants peace, I honestly don't know what to tell you.

Ok, so would you mind, for my sake, and for the sake of clarity in the thread as to your opinions to please openly state:
"Israel is justified in and has a right to its existence"?No I dont mind.
I support its existence, wherever the Creation of such a state does not create an endless conflict of back and foerh violence and hate.

I support the creation of such a state in NorthAmerica, Europe, Southamerica, etc etc etc

RAFAH, Egypt - A smattering of Hamas-affiliated security forces, many of them bearded and dressed in blue camouflage uniforms, fanned out on both sides of the breached Gaza-Egypt border Sunday to jointly police the crossing with Egyptian guards.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080127/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians

They voted in Hamas. Hamas doesn't want peace. That's the way it is. Look at Israel's government and media and almost every single Israeli you talk to.
Sorry.The People of US -apparently- voted for Bush,
here are some hilites of DearLeader:
Guantanamo?
Kidnappins?
Naked Pyramids?
Torture?
etc etc etc

If there is another 911 in the future, will you say we are deserving of collective punishement?

The People of US -apparently- voted for Bush,
here are some hilites of DearLeader:
Guantanamo?
Kidnappins?
Naked Pyramids?
Torture?
etc etc etc

If there is another 911 in the future, will you say we are deserving of collective punishement?
terrible comparison. A better comparison would be if the Republican party had its own militia and had a running slogan of 'death to Canada', and got elected.
No I dont mind.
I support its existence, wherever the Creation of such a state does not create an endless conflict of back and foerh violence and hate.

I support the creation of such a state in NorthAmerica, Europe, Southamerica, etc etc etc

What was done was done. You and I both know that it is unrealistic to transfer an entire country from one place to another. If you support its right to exist, then you should support its right to exist wherever the majority of the world decided it had a right to exist.

terrible comparison. A better comparison would be if the Republican party had its own militia and had a running slogan of 'death to Canada', and got elected.


What was done was done. You and I both know that it is unrealistic to transfer an entire country from one place to another. If you support its right to exist, then you should support its right to exist wherever the majority of the world decided it had a right to exist.

The majority of Europe.

The majority of Europe.

The UN?

The U.S. isn't starving and killing the Palestinians, Israel is. They should have exterminated those worthless bastards 4,000 years ago. The world would have been alot better off but Israel screwed up and now Israel is getting the hassles they deserve for not exterminating them in the beginning. Too bad.

The UN?

The UN didn't decide the placing of Israel.

The UN didn't decide the placing of Israel.
yea, it pretty much did. There were already many Jewish settlements in the region. Initially, other alternatives such as Uganda were considered but quickly rejected. The UN brought up the plans for the creation of the state of Israel in the land where it currently is.

You mean well, for the most part, but are very naive to have an idealistic view that this would end violence against Israel. Palestinians have openly declared that they will not stop until they get ALL of Israel.
Just like Israelis have openly declared that they will not stop until they get ALL of the palestinians. Woops, that should read "some Israelis" - just as your post should read "some Palestinians".


1. None of these are terrorism.
Sure they are. Just because they're done by a government doesn't mean it can't be defined as terrorism when they blow up a building and a family to get the neighbour. It's done again and again, and seems to be done to "send a message" to the civilians.

And random arrests and torture of civilians can also be terrorism. As can unlawful killings.


2. These are being attempted to be minimized as much as possible.
So it is claimed. I'm sorry, I don't take their word for it when I see the results.


They voted in Hamas. Hamas doesn't want peace. That's the way it is. Look at Israel's government and media and almost every single Israeli you talk to.
Sorry.
And Fatah - the party currently holding the Prime Minister and President of the PNA - are somehow overlooked in your analysis. Curious. Hamas got 44% of the votes, yet the rest are ignored completely. Very curious indeed.

yes, fucking crazy assholes. I don't know about killing but harrassing yes. This is strongly attempted to be minimized by the Israeli Government.
And insufficiently so, according to Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the US State Department.

Nope, not at all. This, you're making up. It's a fun game yes, but when you grow up, you see, making up stories is not really something that is in common etiquette of conversation.
Aaw, trying to debate like a grown-up, how cute! I don't know what they tell you in junior high these days sonny (See? It's fun, isn't it - but doesn't bring anything to the debate.) but no, I'm not making it up.

I'm still talking about the settlers, you see... Just to drive home the point that you can find extremists everywhere. Like this example where children were involved (http://www.palsolidarity.org/main/2007/05/05/stones-and-pipe/).

So wake up and smell the coffee. I don't have to make things up - reality is bad enough as it is.


Nope it actually is.
It isn't, and should not be common knowledge, because it's not true. It might be 'true' to you within your imaginary realm inside of your head, but not in reality. Sorry.
The example I brought up of Mickey Mouse is only a representative sample of many, common, elements in the current state of their society. It is a commonplace reality.
...

You really don't believe there are extremists within Israeli society? Even if you yourself acknowledged the "crazy assholes" among the settlers? My, and you claim that I'm not in touch with reality too... I'm impressed by your disconnect with the real world.

I mean things ranging from anti-Arab racism (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7136068.stm) to prisoner abuse and torture (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6630139.stm) to forced transfer (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6655239.stm) to more opression (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6390755.stm) to abuse and violence at checkpoints to settler attacks to unlawful killing to unproportional responses to killing the Israeli PM negotioating peace to...

I suspect you're being willfully obtuse if you don't see it. I hope you're not that ignorant of current affairs.


If you don't agree that Israel wants peace, I honestly don't know what to tell you.
I asked a question - the same I would ask the state of Israel. They have a long way to go to convince me through their actions...

yea, it pretty much did. There were already many Jewish settlements in the region. Initially, other alternatives such as Uganda were considered but quickly rejected. The UN brought up the plans for the creation of the state of Israel in the land where it currently is.

Well, it was more like, "Sure, it's not our land!".

Just like Israelis have openly declared that they will not stop until they get ALL of the palestinians. Woops, that should read "some Israelis" - just as your post should read "some Palestinians".

Except the some in the case of Israelis is a very tiny tiny minority. While the some in the case of Palestinians is the majority of voters.

Sure they are. Just because they're done by a government doesn't mean it can't be defined as terrorism when they blow up a building and a family to get the neighbour. It's done again and again, and seems to be done to "send a message" to the civilians.
And random arrests and torture of civilians can also be terrorism. As can unlawful killings.

terrorism is defined as the purposefull killing of innocent civilians. It is Hamas's declared policy to do so. The Israeli government does not only not come close to this, but also attempts to minimize civilian casualties as much as possible. The government of Israel does not perform terrorism. You're simply wrong.

So it is claimed. I'm sorry, I don't take their word for it when I see the results.

So it is claimed. Hamas makes the exact opposite claim. They aim to maximize innocent civilian casualties.

And Fatah - the party currently holding the Prime Minister and President of the PNA - are somehow overlooked in your analysis. Curious. Hamas got 44% of the votes, yet the rest are ignored completely. Very curious indeed.

There's nothing to ignore. I was just stating the fact that the party currently in power of the government outwardly pronounces that it doesn't want peace.

And insufficiently so, according to Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the US State Department.

At least they're trying. There's always gonna be unnecessary casualties in war. It's sad but true. I'm sad for every innocent Palestinian that doesn't deserve to die as much as you are.

Aaw, trying to debate like a grown-up, how cute! I don't know what they tell you in junior high these days sonny (See? It's fun, isn't it - but doesn't bring anything to the debate.) but no, I'm not making it up.

yea bud, you are. You see, as someone that personally went through the Israeli education system (and media and surrounding cultural forces) as a kid, you'd think I'd know.

I'm still talking about the settlers, you see... Just to drive home the point that you can find extremists everywhere. Like this example where children were involved (http://www.palsolidarity.org/main/2007/05/05/stones-and-pipe/).

yes these people are nuts, but the Israeli government tries to stop them. In contrast, the Palestinian government actually IS the ones doing these things.

So wake up and smell the coffee. I don't have to make things up - reality is bad enough as it is.

You really don't believe there are extremists within Israeli society? Even if you yourself acknowledged the "crazy assholes" among the settlers? My, and you claim that I'm not in touch with reality too... I'm impressed by your disconnect with the real world.


I mean things ranging from anti-Arab racism (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7136068.stm) to prisoner abuse and torture (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6630139.stm) to forced transfer (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6655239.stm) to more opression (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6390755.stm) to abuse and violence at checkpoints to settler attacks to unlawful killing to unproportional responses to killing the Israeli PM negotioating peace to...

I suspect you're being willfully obtuse if you don't see it. I hope you're not that ignorant of current affairs.

yes, reality is bad. But making things up like the whole part about Israeli children getting fed that all Palestinians should be killed is BS. Look above for response to your examples. Israel tries to minimize innocent civilian casualties as much as possible.

I asked a question - the same I would ask the state of Israel. They have a long way to go to convince me through their actions...

At least words (which in my opinion are absolutely true) are better than chanting 'death to Israel' upon winning the elections you know. Plus, what makes you think they don't want peace.
Hypothetically, lets go to the stretch to pretend that Israel actually doesn't want peace and they're just lying (because they actually don't care about their citizens getting shot rockets at and killed in suicide attacks), why don't they want peace?
(when you realize that you don't have an answer for this, you'll find out how ridiculous your 'question' is in the first place)

I am interested in seeing if this will strengthen the hands of the MB and be the start of their taking over of Egypt. This and the salafi takeover of Pakistan are potential revolutions that can happen and if it does, the game will change a lot.

How about, a fine?
How about, escorting them back over the border?
How about, detaining them and releasing them back to the Palestinian Authority's officials?


How are they to STOP them in order to issue a fine? How are they to escort someone who does not want to be going where they are being escorted to? How exactly do you detain someone without violence or at least the threat thereof?

Ok, so would you mind, for my sake, and for the sake of clarity in the thread as to your opinions to please openly state:
"Israel is justified in and has a right to its existence"?

I will openly state that Israel is justified in and has a right to its existence. However no nation has the right to commit war crimes, even to ensure their continued existence.

1. None of these are terrorism.
2. These are being attempted to be minimized as much as possible.


1: Yes. They are.
2: I notice you say "minimized", shouldn't they try to ELIMINATE the commission of war crimes?

You and I both know that it is unrealistic to transfer an entire country from one place to another.Answer this simple question:

Is it unrealistic to create a 2nd small Jewish state somewhere -peaceful- in the World?

terrorism is defined as the purposefull killing of innocent civilians.

terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence
against people or property to coerce or intimidate governments or
societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological
objectives. (JCS Pub 1-02)

Definition from http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/100-20/10020gl.htm

I will openly state that Israel is justified in and has a right to its existence. However no nation has the right to commit war crimes, even to ensure their continued existence.
Thank you. Now we can move forward.
I believe war crimes are when it is the intentioned policy of the commiting body. Israel does NOT do it.
1: Yes. They are.
2: I notice you say "minimized", shouldn't they try to ELIMINATE the commission of war crimes?
War crimes yes. In any war, the deaths of innocent civillians cannot be completely eliminated, as much as one would hope. It is sad that the war that was started by their fellow majority voters has led to the unecessary deaths of innocent Palestinians.
Answer this simple question:

Is it unrealistic to create a 2nd small Jewish state somewhere -peaceful- in the World?
No, absolutely not. Quite a good idea too, if say Israel runs out of land. But why would any Jew prefer to move there, while Israel still opens its arms to the influx of Jews from around the world with already a pre-established prosperous economy and infrastructure and so on, as well as an existing society of the largest collection of Jews in the world?

##US Gov: Starving Palestinians must not be allowed to get across the wall


WTF?? It doesn't say anything like that in the article.

Of course not. If you read the articles the original poster links, and the titles he puts to his threads, you will realize this is not an unusual occurrence.

Thank you. Now we can move forward.
I believe war crimes are when it is the intentioned policy of the commiting body. Israel does NOT do it.

Bullshit they don't.

War crimes yes. In any war, the deaths of innocent civillians cannot be completely eliminated, as much as one would hope. It is sad that the war that was started by their fellow majority voters has led to the unecessary deaths of innocent Palestinians.

Israel is known to commit torture. Torture is a war crime. Furthermore they seem to take little or no effort to avoid harm to civilians. You also have not addressed the knocking down of civilians houses due to a relatives involvement in an attack.

...
You cannot deny that Arabs are semites. To do so is akin to preparations of genocide, because one denies the humanity, and the history of Arabs. This is the same thing that Hitler's government did to Jews 60 some years ago, it stole their humanity, their history. It made citizens of Germany view them as less than human, and allowed for genocide to occur. Saying that Arabs are not semites is a milder form of this.

Ultimately, we, users of the English language, decide what words mean. They gain their meanings from how we use them. So, if I were to apply the word "anti-semite" to haters of any semitic group, I would, change its meaning in my mind. If a sufficient number of people werer to apply this term the way I do, it would become official in the English language. So, can you give me any reasons why the word anti-semite should not apply to those that hate Arabs other than that it is the status quo? Are their benefits in being exclusive, rather than inclusive? I shall answer, there are none. It is beneficial to be inclusive, because we recognize the history of the Arab peoples, as well as other semitic groups.

Ultimately, if other people recognize this new definition, this thread becomes a driving force behind positive change, which is atypical for an Israeli/Palestinian thread (as they usually have no real world benefit). Thus, this debate would not be a pointless clash as it is now, but a fight for real change, for positive change. And that is why anti-semite should be defined so.

Still waiting for Sel Appa's response.

Bullshit they don't.



Israel is known to commit torture. Torture is a war crime. Furthermore they seem to take little or no effort to avoid harm to civilians. You also have not addressed the knocking down of civilians houses due to a relatives involvement in an attack.

what you assess to be 'little' effort, based on some unknown standard and source of information, is way better than the large effort made by the Palestinian government to bring harm to civilians.
If the relatives are in their home, and they give them shelter, and possibly aid them in preparing the attack, yes their house is knocked down to kill a terrorist that would in all likelyhood continue to kill innocent civilians unless killed, when there is no better alternative.

If the relatives are in their home, and they give them shelter, and possibly aid them in preparing the attack, yes their house is knocked down to kill a terrorist that would in all likelyhood continue to kill innocent civilians unless killed, when there is no better alternative.
See, it’s this insistence that Israel can do no wrong (further exemplified by your reply to Gravlen’s very sensible post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13403836#post13403836) where he was basically saying that both sides have extremes, both sides have major problems), and the opposing side's insistence that Palestine can do no wrong, that continues the inane cycle of violence. Too often, Israelis are portrayed as the innocent party, set upon by the evil Palestinians, and vice versa.

Neither side recognises its wrongs or wants to give ground, and thus innocents, be they Israeli or Palestinian, are hurt and killed needlessly.

See, it’s this insistence that Israel can do no wrong (further exemplified by your reply to Gravlen’s very sensible post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13403836#post13403836) where he was basically saying that both sides have extremes, both sides have major problems), and the opposing side's insistence that Palestine can do no wrong, that continues the inane cycle of violence. Too often, Israelis are portrayed as the innocent party, set upon by the evil Palestinians, and vice versa.

Neither side recognises its wrongs or wants to give ground, and thus innocents, be they Israeli or Palestinian, are hurt and killed needlessly.

I don't know any Palestinians who's morals and ethical system correspond to most of that of the majority of the western world that insists that Palestine can do no wrong.
Of course there are individuals within Israel that are doing terrible things. What I'm saying is that Israel's government is in favor of minimizing civillian casualties on both sides as much as possible, and that the Palestinian government is clearly, outwardly, pronounced to be maximizing civillian casualties in the Israeli side as much as possible. Clear difference.

Of course not. If you read the articles the original poster links....fair enough..

(This is a soft request: whatever you decide is fine with me) I request a title change to:

##OP thinks The US Is pressuring Mubarak to help Israel Collective Punishment tactics.

Of course not. If you read the articles the original poster links, and the titles he puts to his threads, you will realize this is not an unusual occurrence.

He's funny. I likey the ocean drive. :D

He's funny. I likey the ocean drive. :Dyou like? good.

but wait until you meet my good friend Fass...
you are going to likey him even more. :D

but maybe I just likey drving by the ocean in Monterey.

I am not misinterpreting, I am demanding a new definition of the word (if you'd just read my arguments). You can read my earlier post, and see that there's really no reason for the term to be so exclusive.
You can speak a private language, but you won't be understood. The word is in wide circulation with an established meaning. If you want a word for people who hate both Jews and Arabs alike, you have to coin a new one.
And they didn't have those lands over 2000 years ago, but rather a few hundred years ago,
The lands the Poles recovered in the 1940's were the lands conquered by Emperor Otto in the "Drang nach Osten" campaigns of the 950's. It is not quite as long a gap as in the Jewish case, but of the same order of magnitude. Your belief that the late-medieval/early-modern Kingdom of Poland had ever held those lands is just mistaken.

but maybe I just likey drving by the ocean in Monterey.yes, yes .. I like that too

Well, if you read the article that directs to this one, namely:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Israel
"A reporter is expected to hand over his or her article to the Israeli Military Censor prior to publication."
Clearly, night letters do not comply with this regulation, do they? I hold my stance, aside from issues of national security, Israel's media is wide open."

As "issues of national security" cover the occupation, clearly it isn't.


no but I did. I said it favors peace. This has to do with my proposed solution, of convincing both sides that peace is the best solution. When I offered the idea of informing the Palestinian public and convincing them that peace is the best option, you in turn quoted me, and said that Israel's media must be freed. Therefore, you ignored it, but did quote what I had said."?

That was a solution? At what stage do the Israelis get informed about building settlements, settlers and checkpoints?


You had in fact, quoted my exact words. Look back if you need.


Hmm, in this article I read debate about the translation of the girl's words. But it clearly mentions what I have stated, and continue to state:
"In the Hamas video clip issued by Memri, a Mickey Mouse lookalike asks a young girl what she will do "for the sake of al-Aqsa". Apparently trying to prompt an answer, the mouse makes a rifle-firing gesture and says "I'll shoot"."."

And the girl says in reply that she'll draw a picture.......


Not of much importance to me personally, and don't see the point you're trying to make, but ok.

The point is that the Arabs made as much as could be made of the land with the resources and technology available to them. They were not sitting around counting grains of sand until the settlers arrived, as is implied by Sel Appa (who has again 'left the building').


Yes, when a country gets repeatedly attacked from a certain area outside of its borders, when it takes it over during wartime, it is more than justifiable to hold on to it until a peace treaty in which it is returned is attained. Thus the Golan. Thus the return of Sinai and regions to Jordan.
Plus the unilateral the withdrawal from Southern Lebanon and northern Gaza. (Both with disastrous results)..

...but at no stage is it justified in claiming that land for itself and placing its own civillians there in a colonial effort.


Ok, so would you mind, for my sake, and for the sake of clarity in the thread as to your opinions to please openly state:)..

I've already stated Israel had a right to exist elsewhere. If thats not good enough for you......


1. None of these are terrorism.
2. These are being attempted to be minimized as much as possible..

"Settler" violence is terroristic by definition, in that it seeks to drive out neighbouring Arab populations. Much of the IDF occupation is acheived by "terrorising" the populace into compliance. Thats how these things work.

And how can you minimise collective punishment?

They voted in Hamas. Hamas doesn't want peace.

There wasn't any mention of a de facto recognition of israel and a ceasefire then?


This is strongly attempted to be minimized by the Israeli Government.

No...nor is the expansion of "illegal" settlements.


Nope, not at all. This, you're making up. .

No, exaggerating slightly perhaps.

An ultra-Orthodox weekly, Sh'a Tova, reportedly carried a comic strip for children with negative depiction of Arabs, including the statement, "Yes, a good Arab is a dead Arab."
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refworld/rwmain?docid=437c9cec32


The Israeli government does not only not come close to this, but also attempts to minimize civilian casualties as much as possible. The government of Israel does not perform terrorism. You're simply wrong..

Like Operation "days of penitence", dozens of dead civillians....Hmmmm. I'd say they were just 'minimising civillians', much like they do Journalists and UN/NGO workers now and again - to 'send a message.

Why did they bulldoze the petting Zoo in Rafah, by the way? Or were they just 'minimising' that too.


You see, as someone that personally went through the Israeli education system (and media and surrounding cultural forces) as a kid, you'd think I'd know...

You didn't seem to know about the military courts, torture, the deaths at checkpoints......

yes these people are nuts, but the Israeli government tries to stop them. In
...

Did I not post a number of articles relating to settler violence by various NGO's and world bodies criticising the lack of prosecution of settlers?


believe war crimes are when it is the intentioned policy of the commiting body. Israel does NOT do it....

Collective punishment is a war crime. So is torture. So is annexation of land and the expulsion of its inhabitants.


Still waiting for Sel Appa's response.....

I wouldn't hold your breath. He usually refuses to acknowledge points made, never seems to back up his own, or engage in any sort of discussion. He will - at some stage- turn up again in another thread, say the same stuff thats been disproven before and again dissappear.

I see that the pro-Israel crowd love to avoid the fact that the people being targeted by Hamas rockets, ie the settlers, volunteered to live in the settlements. They had the opportunity to live in Israel proper, in safety, but they chose to live in the settlements, most have being forcibly removed by IDF forces kicking and screaming back a few years ago in the initial withdraw.

Because of this, people need to ask a question, why would these people willingly live in the settlements in danger?

The answer is simple, for most it's political, they believe in the whole 'Greater Israel' and 'God's Chosen Land' trash and actively colonize Palestinian land in a neoimperialist fashion. Until these nuts are dealt with by the Israeli govt, peace cannot happen, these settlers routinely attack, beat up Palestinians at the border, usually under the watch of IDF guards, and have been even known to attack foreign journalists reporting in the area, their was a case of a female reporter being mutilated by glass and spat on by a mob of settlers a while ago.

Until Israel faces up to it's own history of militia-ism, terroristic settlers etc, peace cannot move foward, ie until Israel deals with it's own terrorists in the settlements why should the Palestinian resistance lay down arms...?

I see that the pro-Israel crowd love to avoid the fact that the people being targeted by Hamas rockets, ie the settlers, volunteered to live in the settlements. They had the opportunity to live in Israel proper, in safety, but they chose to live in the settlements, most have being forcibly removed by IDF forces kicking and screaming back a few years ago in the initial withdraw.They're firing on the settlements in the West Bank? That's news. Any proof for your allegation?

This is from yesterday:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080127/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians

It looks like some Hamas people are assisting Egyptian security guards in getting a handle on the border.

Hint: Germans and Japanese never blew up schoolbuses or discos or shopping malls, didn't throw old men in wheelchairs off boats, didn't attack Olympic athletes, didn't hijack any planes, didn't even teach their kids to throw rocks at soldiers.

Well, no, Germans blew up cars and discos, hijacked planes, abducted bankers and taught their children to throw rocks at policemen. But otherwise you're right, I guess ;)

What I'm saying is that Israel's government is in favor of minimizing civillian casualties on both sides as much as possible, and that the Palestinian government is clearly, outwardly, pronounced to be maximizing civillian casualties in the Israeli side as much as possible. Clear difference.

Then why has Israel rejected Hamas offers of a ceasefire three times?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080128/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians;_ylt=Ahx2Fu28WnID15ctM1V6Fq9vaA8F

This quote is very telling:

"Since I opened this shop more than 20 years ago, I haven't seen such a chaotic situation, if this keeps up, the Egyptians in Rafah will be starving to death," said Mohammed Barahmah, 60, who owns one of the biggest grocery shops in downtown Rafah. "This is terrible, (Egyptian) Rafah will turn into Gaza, there will be nothing to buy and if there was it would be ten times the price."

Hopefully the situation gets under control soon or this could get even uglier.

As "issues of national security" cover the occupation, clearly it isn't.



That was a solution? At what stage do the Israelis get informed about building settlements, settlers and checkpoints?

The Israeli public is well aware of the settlers and the settlements and the majority is making strong efforts to stop them. The checkpoints are a great idea, put up at the approval of the majority, as they prevent terrorism. My point is that Israelis are not blinded by false media (no matter how eagerly you wish to pretend to present the viewpoint).

You had in fact, quoted my exact words. Look back if you need.



And the girl says in reply that she'll draw a picture.......

Yes, but that is of no relevance to my point, that Mickey Mouse had encouraged terrorism against Israel on Tv. You ignored this and responded, in order:
1. Israel does it too. which I refuted.
2. There is debate over the translation. which I refuted.
3. And now, yea but the reply was not terrorism related. Of no relevance.

The point is, Mickey Mouse was on TV and told kids to commit terrorism against Israel. That's the point.


The point is that the Arabs made as much as could be made of the land with the resources and technology available to them. They were not sitting around counting grains of sand until the settlers arrived, as is implied by Sel Appa (who has again 'left the building').

ok

...but at no stage is it justified in claiming that land for itself and placing its own civillians there in a colonial effort.

no

I've already stated Israel had a right to exist elsewhere. If thats not good enough for you......

very well.

"Settler" violence is terroristic by definition, in that it seeks to drive out neighbouring Arab populations. Much of the IDF occupation is acheived by "terrorising" the populace into compliance. Thats how these things work.

no.

And how can you minimise collective punishment?

you really ask this? aiming for military targets primarily, trying to avoid innocent civilian deaths, not nuking Gaza, instructing soldiers to be as respectfull as possible when dealing with the civilians, and so on.

There wasn't any mention of a de facto recognition of israel and a ceasefire then?

The 'ceasefire' sounds nice and rosy. But Israel wants a peace agreement when all terrorism stops and Hamas recognizes Israel. Until then, any ceasefire would be purely for the purpose of Hamas to rearm and get its act back together so it can multiply its attacks against Israel. This is obvious.

No...nor is the expansion of "illegal" settlements.

actually, yes..and yes.

No, exaggerating slightly perhaps.

http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refworld/rwmain?docid=437c9cec32

These are the same kind of people from the settlements. tiny tiny minority. Big big difference.


Like Operation "days of penitence", dozens of dead civillians....Hmmmm. I'd say they were just 'minimising civillians', much like they do Journalists and UN/NGO workers now and again - to 'send a message.

they were minimizing civillian casualties. Why is up to you to decide.

Why did they bulldoze the petting Zoo in Rafah, by the way? Or were they just 'minimising' that too.

I don't know quite frankly as I hadn't heard about that.


You didn't seem to know about the military courts, torture, the deaths at checkpoints......
In fact I knew about all of those (with the exception that in some cases, military courts can prosecute for offenses different from issues of terrorism...)

Did I not post a number of articles relating to settler violence by various NGO's and world bodies criticising the lack of prosecution of settlers?

well, it's trying its best.


I see that the pro-Israel crowd love to avoid the fact that the people being targeted by Hamas rockets, ie the settlers, volunteered to live in the settlements. They had the opportunity to live in Israel proper, in safety, but they chose to live in the settlements, most have being forcibly removed by IDF forces kicking and screaming back a few years ago in the initial withdraw.

Because of this, people need to ask a question, why would these people willingly live in the settlements in danger?

The answer is simple, for most it's political, they believe in the whole 'Greater Israel' and 'God's Chosen Land' trash and actively colonize Palestinian land in a neoimperialist fashion. Until these nuts are dealt with by the Israeli govt, peace cannot happen, these settlers routinely attack, beat up Palestinians at the border, usually under the watch of IDF guards, and have been even known to attack foreign journalists reporting in the area, their was a case of a female reporter being mutilated by glass and spat on by a mob of settlers a while ago.

Until Israel faces up to it's own history of militia-ism, terroristic settlers etc, peace cannot move foward, ie until Israel deals with it's own terrorists in the settlements why should the Palestinian resistance lay down arms...?
um, Sderot is an Israel proper city, as is Ashkelon.
Then why has Israel rejected Hamas offers of a ceasefire three times?
Look above for the response.

It's ironical how Egypt's bad handling of the issue when they had Gaza under their control decades earlier has come back to bite them now.

Like I mentioned in an earlier post, I think this will have repercussions in local Egyptian politics. I am guessing the MB's hand will be strengthened and if it is unchecked, we may see the conflicts deepening inside Egypt.

The Israeli public is well aware of the settlers and the settlements and the majority is making strong efforts to stop them..

But we've already had threads about the Israeli government approving settlement expansion and turning a blind eye to "illegal" expansion by the settlers themselves. Do I have to dig up all those Israeli government announcements again?


The checkpoints are a great idea, put up at the approval of the majority, as they prevent terrorism...

At the approval of the majority of the residents of the West Bank?


My point is that Israelis are not blinded by false media (no matter how eagerly you wish to pretend to present the viewpoint)....

Thats a complete distortion of what I said.

Yes, but that is of no relevance to my point, that Mickey Mouse had encouraged terrorism against Israel on Tv. You ignored this and responded, in order:
1. Israel does it too. which I refuted.)....

I showed an example, given by the UNHCR, of a childrens comic that stated "a good Arab is a dead Arab". You did not address that at all.


2. There is debate over the translation. which I refuted..)....

I showed that CNN's Arabic department disputed the translation. You did not in anyway refute that.


3. And now, yea but the reply was not terrorism related. Of no relevance.
..)....

The child suggested a non-violent course of action, as opposed to the suggestion of violence.


The point is, Mickey Mouse was on TV and told kids to commit terrorism against Israel. That's the point...)....

The point is that is not what happens at all.



no........

What would be the point of this action then?

Amnesty International has called on Israel to investigate the deliberate contamination of Palestinian farmland - allegedly by Jewish settlers.
The human rights group said that toxic chemicals had been spread on fields in the Hebron region of the West Bank.

Farm animals had died and farmers had been forced to quarantine their flocks, the organisation said.

It also demanded that Israel put an end to "increasingly frequent" attacks on Palestinians by West Bank settlers
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4482211.stm
and this......
Two US Christian volunteers were beaten and robbed by masked attackers they suspect were Jewish settlers while escorting Palestinian children to school.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3701036.stm

and this....
Israeli police suspect Jewish settlers of poisoning the only water source in a Palestinian village in the West Bank.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3891531.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3891531.stm)

and this....
Settlers attack Palestinians with stones, assault four human rights workers
http://www.palsolidarity.org/main/2007/05/05/stones-and-pipe/

and yes, theres far far more than that.

you really ask this? aiming for military targets primarily, trying to avoid innocent civilian deaths,

..yet the death toll undermines that claim, as does the cause of death in many cases.


instructing soldiers to be as respectfull as possible when dealing with the civilians, and so on.,

Like they were with this guy? (and tgis point ties in with what I said about settlers earlier...)
The restrictions placed on Issa Amro, B'Tselem’s fieldworker in Hebron, were cancelled yesterday [23 January]. On Saturday, soldiers assaulted and arrested Amro while he was filming settlers’ disturbances in the Wadi Hasin neighborhood, in the eastern part of Hebron.
http://www.btselem.org/english/Special/20080124_Restrictions_Placed_on_BTselem_field_researcher_Cancelled.asp



The 'ceasefire' sounds nice and rosy. But Israel wants a peace agreement when all terrorism stops and Hamas recognizes Israel. Until then, any ceasefire would be purely for the purpose of Hamas to rearm and get its act back together so it can multiply its attacks against Israel. This is obvious.
.,

Why is it "obvious"?


actually, yes..and yes..,

As I mentioned earlier, you did participate in a thread where I showed both approved and unapproved settlement building...are you suffering from a memory lapse?


These are the same kind of people from the settlements. tiny tiny minority. Big big difference...,

Settlement population is now into the hundreds of thousands.......


I don't know quite frankly as I hadn't heard about that....,

You have now. You might also explain why the use the checkpoints to block access to the fields at harvest and/or block access to markets with the produce.


well, it's trying its best.....,

But the point that those organisations make is that it isn't trying at all.

US Gov: Egypt must shoot/arrest starving Palestinians crossing wall to get food.


Maybe Condi thinks that lobbing missiles over a border = lobbing food over a border. :confused:

...and still someone wonders that many people in the world hate the US foreign policy.

But we've already had threads about the Israeli government approving settlement expansion and turning a blind eye to "illegal" expansion by the settlers themselves. Do I have to dig up all those Israeli government announcements again?

my point was that people are AWARE of what's going on and are not brainwashed by the incredibly biased media.


At the approval of the majority of the residents of the West Bank?

Um, IDF checkpoints are there to prevent terrorism that comes primarily from the West Bank, so what you say doesn't make much sense.


Thats a complete distortion of what I said.

It's not a quote of you, it's a point I was trying to make as a further follow up to what I had said before about the Palestinian media vs. Israeli one and why it would be of help to do what I suggested.


I showed an example, given by the UNHCR, of a childrens comic that stated "a good Arab is a dead Arab". You did not address that at all.

Yes, in fact I did. As I said, there are few extremists who think this way and say these things, but if you read from the article you presented, Sh'a Tova is "An ultra-Orthodox weekly". These cases are rare and extreme and unwelcomed by the very large majority of Israelis. Opposingly, the HAMAS run show presented what we had already discuss and you continue to avoid by the following quote:


I showed that CNN's Arabic department disputed the translation. You did not in anyway refute that.

This is funny. You continue to try. The disputed translation is as to the girl's words. It is 100% clear on all parts that in a Hamas run TV show for kids, Mickey Mouse asks "what are we going to do about Al-Aqsa" and then says "I'll shoot" That's the point. It doesn't matter what the girl replied. My point is that they are promoting terrorism to children. This is what is causing this conflict.


The child suggested a non-violent course of action, as opposed to the suggestion of violence.

Yes, but Mickey Mouse had suggested violence. That's my point.


The point is that is not what happens at all.

That's exactly the point, as much as you may wish for some reason that it isn't true. It is in your eyes better to close your eyes and look away than deal with the situation. This is what happened. It is sad, but true.

What would be the point of this action then?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4482211.stm
and this......

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3701036.stm

and this....


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3891531.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3891531.stm)

and this....

http://www.palsolidarity.org/main/2007/05/05/stones-and-pipe/

and yes, theres far far more than that.

As I have already said, settlers' actions are despicable and not endorsed by the majority of Israelis.

..yet the death toll undermines that claim, as does the cause of death in many cases.

That's for you to decide. We can't argue about the implication of the death count vs. Israeli claims of limmiting civilian casualties. All I have to say is that members of the Islamic Jihad are often 'mistaken' for civilian deaths as well as huge exagurations. Your view is your view. Israel outwardly claims to be attempting to avoid civilian casualties and Hamas is doing the exact opposite. If you wish to believe that Israel then goes and tells the soldiers to go around killing as many Palestinians as they can and you also believe that these soldiers have no morals whatsoever (even though they were not the ones brainwashed or drugged or presented their entire life with a false extremist interpretation from a religious perspective) then I guess that's for you to decide. All I say is that I disagree.


Like they were with this guy? (and tgis point ties in with what I said about settlers earlier...)

http://www.btselem.org/english/Special/20080124_Restrictions_Placed_on_BTselem_field_researcher_Cancelled.asp

yea ok. Because they were instructed to assault him you're absolutely right. It's quite surprising how someone with argumentation skills such as yourself can yet at the same time hold such funny beliefs.



Why is it "obvious"?

Because Israel has repeatedly said this and it's common sense looking back through history.


As I mentioned earlier, you did participate in a thread where I showed both approved and unapproved settlement building...are you suffering from a memory lapse?

nope I remember perfectly well that there were many unapproved settlement building and approved expansions of large cities already established as well as Eastern Jerusalem which is another matter.


Settlement population is now into the hundreds of thousands.......

That HIGHLY depends on what you call a 'settlement'.

You have now. You might also explain why the use the checkpoints to block access to the fields at harvest and/or block access to markets with the produce.

haven't heard of those either.


But the point that those organisations make is that it isn't trying at all.

Haha it's funny that you truly believe this. If you talk to ANY Israeli EVER you will know exactly about the way soldiers are carefully instructed as to how to deal with Palestinians. You clearly never have.

my point was that people are AWARE of what's going on and are not brainwashed by the incredibly biased media.
No.


Um, IDF checkpoints are there to prevent terrorism that comes primarily from the West Bank, so what you say doesn't make much sense.

No.
It's not a quote of you, it's a point I was trying to make as a further follow up to what I had said before about the Palestinian media vs. Israeli one and why it would be of help to do what I suggested.

No.
Yes, in fact I did. As I said, there are few extremists who think this way and say these things, but if you read from the article you presented, Sh'a Tova is "An ultra-Orthodox weekly". These cases are rare and extreme and unwelcomed by the very large majority of Israelis. Opposingly, the HAMAS run show presented what we had already discuss and you continue to avoid by the following quote:
No.

This is funny. You continue to try. The disputed translation is as to the girl's words. It is 100% clear on all parts that in a Hamas run TV show for kids, Mickey Mouse asks "what are we going to do about Al-Aqsa" and then says "I'll shoot" That's the point. It doesn't matter what the girl replied. My point is that they are promoting terrorism to children. This is what is causing this conflict.

No.
Yes, but Mickey Mouse had suggested violence. That's my point.
No.

That's exactly the point, as much as you may wish for some reason that it isn't true. It is in your eyes better to close your eyes and look away than deal with the situation. This is what happened. It is sad, but true.
No.
As I have already said, settlers' actions are despicable and not endorsed by the majority of Israelis.
No.
That's for you to decide. We can't argue about the implication of the death count vs. Israeli claims of limmiting civilian casualties. All I have to say is that members of the Islamic Jihad are often 'mistaken' for civilian deaths as well as huge exagurations. Your view is your view. Israel outwardly claims to be attempting to avoid civilian casualties and Hamas is doing the exact opposite. If you wish to believe that Israel then goes and tells the soldiers to go around killing as many Palestinians as they can and you also believe that these soldiers have no morals whatsoever (even though they were not the ones brainwashed or drugged or presented their entire life with a false extremist interpretation from a religious perspective) then I guess that's for you to decide. All I say is that I disagree.

No.
yea ok. Because they were instructed to assault him you're absolutely right. It's quite surprising how someone with argumentation skills such as yourself can yet at the same time hold such funny beliefs.
No.


Because Israel has repeatedly said this and it's common sense looking back through history.
No.

nope I remember perfectly well that there were many unapproved settlement building and approved expansions of large cities already established as well as Eastern Jerusalem which is another matter.
No.

That HIGHLY depends on what you call a 'settlement'.
No.
haven't heard of those either.
No.

No.
Haha it's funny that you truly believe this. If you talk to ANY Israeli EVER you will know exactly about the way soldiers are carefully instructed as to how to deal with Palestinians. You clearly never have.

No.

Except the some in the case of Israelis is a very tiny tiny minority. While the some in the case of Palestinians is the majority of voters.
Ah, so 44% of the electorate is the majority? Since you claim it's the majority of voters? And you're still ignoring thet 42% voted for Fatah? Interesting...

Especially since 62% of the voters voted for Mahmoud Abbas in 2005 - a man whom clearly has peace on his agenda. Wouldn't that mean that the majority actually don't want to get rid of all the Israelis, as you claim?

But wait, there's more! You apparently think that voting for Hamas means that you subscribe to every part of their political program, including their charter. It doesn't, just as voting for president Bush during the last US election didn't necessarily mean that you were pro-war in Iraq.

Furthermore, you blatantly ignore all the other reasons to vote for Hamas, like the social service programs, the neighbourhood initiatives, and the anti-corruption programs they were advertising as opposed to the very corrupt Fatah-party.

And to further show that a vote for Hamas not necessarily means a vote for eliminating all the Israelis, I'll quote the following:
SPIEGEL: Do you think compromises with Hamas are possible?

Ayalon: Hamas is not a monolithic organization. Within Hamas, there are a variety of opinions and ideologies. I think it is likely that the pragmatists within Hamas are interested in returning to last year's Mecca agreement with Fatah ...

SPIEGEL: ... which gives President Mahmoud Abbas the right to negotiate with Israel.

Ayalon: I believe Hamas leaders like Ismail Haniya in Gaza or Mousa Abu Marzook in Damascus are capable of such a step.
From Der Spiegel. (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,531152,00.html)

In short, you have yet to show that the majority of Palestinians won't stop before they've killed ALL the Israelis.


terrorism is defined as the purposefull killing of innocent civilians. It is Hamas's declared policy to do so. The Israeli government does not only not come close to this, but also attempts to minimize civilian casualties as much as possible. The government of Israel does not perform terrorism. You're simply wrong.

Heh, no. Sorry, but you fail. While there is disagreement as to the precise definition of the term "terrorism", your extremely narrow definition fails miserably. Not a single popular definition demands that it's the "killing" of innocent civilians. So the Israeli government does come close to it by its use of violence, and some argue with some strength that they've crossed the line - especially by the use of torture in Israeli prisons, but also the use of collective punishments (Which in itself is a war crime),

Learn more about the different definitions here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism)

Also, there would be no difference if Hamas claimed that they tried to minimize the casualties - you have to look at the acts and the results and the motive beneath it all before you can judge. Hence, I care little for what the Israeli government claims when evidence contradicts them.

So it is claimed. Hamas makes the exact opposite claim. They aim to maximize innocent civilian casualties.
Yes. Also, irrelevant. It does not give Israel any leeway in this matter.

There's nothing to ignore. I was just stating the fact that the party currently in power of the government outwardly pronounces that it doesn't want peace.
Technically, Fatah is in power of the Palestinian National Authority - and you ignore them and make sweeping claims about all of the Palestinians...

At least they're trying. There's always gonna be unnecessary casualties in war. It's sad but true. I'm sad for every innocent Palestinian that doesn't deserve to die as much as you are.
They are not trying hard enough. Their efforts are not befiting a modern democracy, and the lack of effort is counterproductive and harmful to Israel.

yea bud, you are. You see, as someone that personally went through the Israeli education system (and media and surrounding cultural forces) as a kid, you'd think I'd know.
You'd think so, sport. So tell me, which settlement did you go to school in? Because you do understand that I'm talking about the settlements and not all of Israel, aye?

yes these people are nuts, but the Israeli government tries to stop them. In contrast, the Palestinian government actually IS the ones doing these things.
They make a token effort to stop them, at best. There's too many instances of settlers harrassing and terrorising non-jews (not just Palestinians) with impunity. Nodinia has provided you with several examples, and there are several more.

And again you don't differentiate. What has Fatah done? (I know you're talking about Hamas)


yes, reality is bad. But making things up like the whole part about Israeli children getting fed that all Palestinians should be killed is BS.
It's true. I wish I could find the documentaries I've seen on youtube or elsewhere, but they are scary. I'll keep looking for them. (Again I will repeat that I'm talking about the settlers, not the "mainstream" schools inside of Israel.

Israel tries to minimize innocent civilian casualties as much as possible.
They try somewhat sometimes. Other times, it's evident that they don't try at all.

Allow me to quote former IDF soldier Yehuda Shaul of “Breaking the Silence”:
Yehuda Shaul's professional infantry training was as a grenade machinegun operator. During the second intifada, his first assignment in Hebron was to stand post at a school over looking a Palestinian neighborhood called Abu Seniehi.

Every night at approximately 6pm, Shaul says, Palestinian militants would shoot at the settlements in Hebron, and the IDF would return the fire.

Shaul's platoon sergeant informed him that every night they would hear gunfire and that he had to react and return the fire. It is important to note that a grenade machinegun is not an accurate weapon and that the targets that are firing at from within a dense urban area are almost impossible to spot.

When Shaul realized what he was going to have to do he became very nervous. He worried for hours about what would happen when 6pm rolled around. "At 6pm the shooting starts and you get your orders over the radio. You approach the machinegun. You still know that something is wrong, that something is not right. You don't believe that you're going to shoot the neighborhood ... for what are we here?

"So you pull the trigger you spray the area you pray that the less amount has been fired and then there is four or five seconds of tense quiet. You pray you haven't hit innocent people. But the next day you're less tense, the third day, and then after a week it becomes the most exciting moment of the day.

"After awhile you see that the Palestinians are not getting the message. They are continuing to shoot. So, maybe we shoot at 5:30pm to deter them. Then over a little bit more time we go out on patrols and we see a car and we decided to explode it to send out a message.
link (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=11342)
With a grenade machinegun that fires grenades with a kill-radius of 8 metres he fired rather blindly into the night. Yeah, sounds like he was ordered to minimize damages...

And Avichai Sharon of the same organization:
“Who is the enemy?” asks Avichai Sharon. “I never saw the enemy. I saw society. I was three years fighting society in Palestinian cities.”

“Ninety-eight percent of the army’s energy is aimed against society. It’s even said among the higher ranks, ‘We will burn into the consciousness of Palestinian society that it’s not worthwhile to fight the IDF.’”
For example, when Noam Chayut’s unit spotted a package that might be booby-trapped, his orders were to find a passing Palestinian to investigate.

“I, the brave soldier, would send a woman who could have been my mother.”

“We were afraid to lose the life of a soldier, so we would send civilians to check suspicious bags that might explode,” says Chayut. “And then you come back home and hear the stories about the most moral army in the world.”

Sharon Feingold responds that an unconventional war demands unconventional tactics – many of them unpleasant – and it is the Palestinians who have chosen this unconventional war.
link (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/11/listening_post/main708205.shtml)

There are countless stories and examples.

At least words (which in my opinion are absolutely true) are better than chanting 'death to Israel' upon winning the elections you know. Plus, what makes you think they don't want peace.
Their failure to live up to their side of agreements would be one of the reasons for my question. Their settlements and outposts that aren't removed (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jD4YSkDPlclqd9dHvg2f0Ij18zEgD8U5AH800) but expanded.

Hypothetically, lets go to the stretch to pretend that Israel actually doesn't want peace and they're just lying (because they actually don't care about their citizens getting shot rockets at and killed in suicide attacks), why don't they want peace?
(when you realize that you don't have an answer for this, you'll find out how ridiculous your 'question' is in the first place)
The problem is, I do have potential answers for it, thus, apparently making the question not ridiculus at all.

- They want the land and for the idea of "greater Israel" to come true.
- They want living space, hence the settlements.
- They want the resources, water and other things.
- They want the land to be a buffer zone against potential enemy countries.
- They want their neighbours to know that they're still a forcce to be reckoned with.

All hypothetically, of course.
what you assess to be 'little' effort, based on some unknown standard and source of information, is way better than the large effort made by the Palestinian government to bring harm to civilians.
If the relatives are in their home, and they give them shelter, and possibly aid them in preparing the attack, yes their house is knocked down to kill a terrorist that would in all likelyhood continue to kill innocent civilians unless killed, when there is no better alternative.
They used to bulldoze homes after an attack had taken place, and the attacker was dead. Collective punishment that lasted quite a while before it was deemed illegal in Israel.
No, exaggerating slightly perhaps.

http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refworld/rwmain?docid=437c9cec32
I'm sad to say that it's not an exaggeration. :(

The Israeli public is well aware of the settlers and the settlements and the majority is making strong efforts to stop them.
Hardly strong, or something would be done... It hardly ever is, as I've shown by several links in this thread.

The checkpoints are a great idea, put up at the approval of the majority, as they prevent terrorism.
Do they? On the West Bank? Where they hinder the Palestinian freedom of movement to an exceptional degree, sometimes making it impossible to move between Palestinian towns?

These are the same kind of people from the settlements. tiny tiny minority. Big big difference.
An ever-growing minority, and still Israelis...

Ah, so 44% of the electorate is the majority? Since you claim it's the majority of voters? And you're still ignoring thet 42% voted for Fatah? Interesting...

Especially since 62% of the voters voted for Mahmoud Abbas in 2005 - a man whom clearly has peace on his agenda. Wouldn't that mean that the majority actually don't want to get rid of all the Israelis, as you claim?

But wait, there's more! You apparently think that voting for Hamas means that you subscribe to every part of their political program, including their charter. It doesn't, just as voting for president Bush during the last US election didn't necessarily mean that you were pro-war in Iraq.

Furthermore, you blatantly ignore all the other reasons to vote for Hamas, like the social service programs, the neighbourhood initiatives, and the anti-corruption programs they were advertising as opposed to the very corrupt Fatah-party.

And to further show that a vote for Hamas not necessarily means a vote for eliminating all the Israelis, I'll quote the following:

From Der Spiegel. (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,531152,00.html)

In short, you have yet to show that the majority of Palestinians won't stop before they've killed ALL the Israelis.



Heh, no. Sorry, but you fail. While there is disagreement as to the precise definition of the term "terrorism", your extremely narrow definition fails miserably. Not a single popular definition demands that it's the "killing" of innocent civilians. So the Israeli government does come close to it by its use of violence, and some argue with some strength that they've crossed the line - especially by the use of torture in Israeli prisons, but also the use of collective punishments (Which in itself is a war crime),

Learn more about the different definitions here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism)

Also, there would be no difference if Hamas claimed that they tried to minimize the casualties - you have to look at the acts and the results and the motive beneath it all before you can judge. Hence, I care little for what the Israeli government claims when evidence contradicts them.


Yes. Also, irrelevant. It does not give Israel any leeway in this matter.


Technically, Fatah is in power of the Palestinian National Authority - and you ignore them and make sweeping claims about all of the Palestinians...


They are not trying hard enough. Their efforts are not befiting a modern democracy, and the lack of effort is counterproductive and harmful to Israel.


You'd think so, sport. So tell me, which settlement did you go to school in? Because you do understand that I'm talking about the settlements and not all of Israel, aye?


They make a token effort to stop them, at best. There's too many instances of settlers harrassing and terrorising non-jews (not just Palestinians) with impunity. Nodinia has provided you with several examples, and there are several more.

And again you don't differentiate. What has Fatah done? (I know you're talking about Hamas)


It's true. I wish I could find the documentaries I've seen on youtube or elsewhere, but they are scary. I'll keep looking for them. (Again I will repeat that I'm talking about the settlers, not the "mainstream" schools inside of Israel.


They try somewhat sometimes. Other times, it's evident that they don't try at all.

Allow me to quote former IDF soldier Yehuda Shaul of “Breaking the Silence”:

link (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=11342)
With a grenade machinegun that fires grenades with a kill-radius of 8 metres he fired rather blindly into the night. Yeah, sounds like he was ordered to minimize damages...

And Avichai Sharon of the same organization:


link (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/11/listening_post/main708205.shtml)

There are countless stories and examples.


Their failure to live up to their side of agreements would be one of the reasons for my question. Their settlements and outposts that aren't removed (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jD4YSkDPlclqd9dHvg2f0Ij18zEgD8U5AH800) but expanded.


The problem is, I do have potential answers for it, thus, apparently making the question not ridiculus at all.

- They want the land and for the idea of "greater Israel" to come true.
- They want living space, hence the settlements.
- They want the resources, water and other things.
- They want the land to be a buffer zone against potential enemy countries.
- They want their neighbours to know that they're still a forcce to be reckoned with.

All hypothetically, of course.

They used to bulldoze homes after an attack had taken place, and the attacker was dead. Collective punishment that lasted quite a while before it was deemed illegal in Israel.

I'm sad to say that it's not an exaggeration. :(


Hardly strong, or something would be done... It hardly ever is, as I've shown by several links in this thread.


Do they? On the West Bank? Where they hinder the Palestinian freedom of movement to an exceptional degree, sometimes making it impossible to move between Palestinian towns?


An ever-growing minority, and still Israelis...

QFT.

You can speak a private language, but you won't be understood. The word is in wide circulation with an established meaning. If you want a word for people who hate both Jews and Arabs alike, you have to coin a new one.

The lands the Poles recovered in the 1940's were the lands conquered by Emperor Otto in the "Drang nach Osten" campaigns of the 950's. It is not quite as long a gap as in the Jewish case, but of the same order of magnitude. Your belief that the late-medieval/early-modern Kingdom of Poland had ever held those lands is just mistaken.

That's foolish, I'm requesting that me apply a new meaning to a word. Rather than blabber on with our POV, never convincing anyone of anything, we can accomplish positive change by changing the meaning of a word. This is a real world benefit of debate and it should be pursued.

You are yet to point out a loss by changing the meaning of the word, while I have pointed out the numerous benefits.

As for Poland, when was the land lost (you say when it was conquered)? And ultimately, the land was essentially taken to punish Germany, which I do not necessarily agree with. It is such an attitude which creates wars.

my point was that people are AWARE of what's going on and are not brainwashed by the incredibly biased media..

Whats that got to do with settlements?


Um, IDF checkpoints are there to prevent terrorism that comes primarily from the West Bank, so what you say doesn't make much sense...

Au contraire, as you said a majority approved. A majority of the illegally occupying country approving checkpoints which further the illegal occupation in no way justifies their presence. Stop 'terrorism' at the 1967 borders, thats fair enough.

Yes, in fact I did. As I said, there are few extremists who think this way and say these things, but if you read from the article you presented, Sh'a Tova is "An ultra-Orthodox weekly". These cases are rare
and extreme and unwelcomed by the very large majority of Israelis.

...though not Beit Jerusalem fans. Or those who wrote these

Israeli school textbooks as well as children’s storybooks, according to recent academic studies and surveys, portray Palestinians and Arabs as “murderers,” “rioters,” “suspicious,” and generally backward and unproductive. Direct delegitimization and negative stereotyping of Palestinians and Arabs are the rule rather than the exception in Israeli schoolbooks.

Professor Daniel Bar-Tal of Tel Aviv University studied 124 elementary, middle- and high school textbooks on grammar and Hebrew literature, history, geography and citizenship. Bar-Tal concluded that Israeli textbooks present the view that Jews are involved in a justified, even humanitarian, war against an Arab enemy that refuses to accept and acknowledge the existence and rights of Jews in Israel.
http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0999/9909019.html


It doesn't matter what the girl replied. My point is that they are promoting terrorism to children. This is what is causing this conflict.

So its nothing to do with Israel then, or their attitudes as evidenced by settlers, school books and the continuing expansion program outside their international borders?


As I have already said, settlers' actions are despicable and not endorsed by the majority of Israelis..

Yet the national army of Israel, and Israels various security services have let them strive for four decades now...We aren't talking about last weekend after a bankholiday weekend booze up got out of hand....




If you wish to believe that Israel then goes and tells the soldiers to go around killing as many Palestinians as they can and you also believe that these soldiers have no morals whatsoever (even though they were not the ones brainwashed or drugged or presented their entire life with a false extremist interpretation from a religious perspective) then I guess that's for you to decide. All I say is that I disagree...


You seem to think that the IDF is a sea of moderation. Yet there are actions which occur, from which no prosecutions generally arise, which do not indicate any such thing. Theres only so many that can be killed by rifle fire and it be claimed as an "accident" or a case of mistaken identity.


yea ok. Because they were instructed to assault him you're absolutely right. It's quite surprising how someone with argumentation skills such as yourself can yet at the same time hold such funny beliefs.

Well, thats what they did. They're notorious for doing that kind of thing. And they aren't stopped from doing it. One can only conclude that its both condoned and approved. And again, these incidents are not one-offs or freak events, but a long and sad series that indicate a propensity for violence that is often supposed to be the preserve of the fanatic Islamist.


Because Israel has repeatedly said this and it's common sense looking back through history..

Israel saying something does not make it true, as has been demonstrated about any state put under the spotlight. Secondly, the former CIC of the IRA in Derry is now Deputy Minister in NI.


nope I remember perfectly well that there were many unapproved settlement building and approved expansions of large cities already established as well as Eastern Jerusalem which is another matter...

Then stop denying its happening and as was said before, don't say East Jerusalem is a seperate entity. It isn't, and is the most contentious of them all, as you should be aware.


That HIGHLY depends on what you call a 'settlement'....

My patience with that kind of petty legalism is short. If its a bunch of Israeli civillians living in the OT, its safe to say its a settlement.


haven't heard of those either.....

Then go look it up. Take it as an opportunity to prove me wrong.



Haha it's funny that you truly believe this. If you talk to ANY Israeli EVER you will know exactly about the way soldiers are carefully instructed as to how to deal with Palestinians. You clearly never have.

Over the years, I've normally come to associate false humour with the religous right....However, I digress. Heres what a few members of the IDF have said on the subject....

No one can criticize Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza like the soldiers sent to occupy.

A year ago, three young men, all former soldiers in the Israeli Defense Force, founded “Breaking the Silence” to do just that. It is a forum for former combat veterans – most of them in their 20’s and early 30’s - to talk about the way a brutal occupation made them brutes.

“It’s hard for me to pinpoint the worst thing I did”, says Avichai Charon. “It’s not the extreme cases. It’s the trivial day to day.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/11/listening_post/main708205.shtml

My god, what did we do?
By Dalia Karpel

One night, Tamar Yarom was awakened by one of the soldiers in her unit. He said he wanted to show her something in the basement of the abandoned building where they were staying. "Before we opened the door, I heard this awful noise from a generator and there was a strong smell of diesel fuel. I saw a middle-aged Palestinian detainee lying with his head on the generator. His ear was pressed against the generator that was vibrating, and the guy's head was vibrating with it. His face was completely messed up. It amazed me that through all the blood and horror, you could still see the guy's expression and that's what stayed with me for years after - the look on his face."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=922009

Oh Gravlen Gravlen Gravlen. (Wow these posts are getting pretty long. I'll do you two one at a time). Hopefully try to keep it shorter just for the sake of facilitated argument? I will.

Ah, so 44% of the electorate is the majority? Since you claim it's the majority of voters? And you're still ignoring thet 42% voted for Fatah? Interesting...

Especially since 62% of the voters voted for Mahmoud Abbas in 2005 - a man whom clearly has peace on his agenda. Wouldn't that mean that the majority actually don't want to get rid of all the Israelis, as you claim?

But wait, there's more! You apparently think that voting for Hamas means that you subscribe to every part of their political program, including their charter. It doesn't, just as voting for president Bush during the last US election didn't necessarily mean that you were pro-war in Iraq.

Furthermore, you blatantly ignore all the other reasons to vote for Hamas, like the social service programs, the neighbourhood initiatives, and the anti-corruption programs they were advertising as opposed to the very corrupt Fatah-party.

And to further show that a vote for Hamas not necessarily means a vote for eliminating all the Israelis, I'll quote the following:

From Der Spiegel. (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,531152,00.html)

In short, you have yet to show that the majority of Palestinians won't stop before they've killed ALL the Israelis.



Heh, no. Sorry, but you fail. While there is disagreement as to the precise definition of the term "terrorism", your extremely narrow definition fails miserably. Not a single popular definition demands that it's the "killing" of innocent civilians. So the Israeli government does come close to it by its use of violence, and some argue with some strength that they've crossed the line - especially by the use of torture in Israeli prisons, but also the use of collective punishments (Which in itself is a war crime),

Learn more about the different definitions here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism)

ok w/e.

Also, there would be no difference if Hamas claimed that they tried to minimize the casualties - you have to look at the acts and the results and the motive beneath it all before you can judge. Hence, I care little for what the Israeli government claims when evidence contradicts them.

HUGE difference. It's not that Hamas doesn't claim this. It's that it claims that it wants to kill as many innocent civilians as possible through rockets and suicide attacks. If that's not terrorism, I don't know what is.

Yes. Also, irrelevant. It does not give Israel any leeway in this matter.


Technically, Fatah is in power of the Palestinian National Authority - and you ignore them and make sweeping claims about all of the Palestinians...


They are not trying hard enough. Their efforts are not befiting a modern democracy, and the lack of effort is counterproductive and harmful to Israel.

That's for you to decide. The number of news articles showing specific cases each side presents doesn't change matters.

You'd think so, sport. So tell me, which settlement did you go to school in? Because you do understand that I'm talking about the settlements and not all of Israel, aye?

The settlements are not the ones getting attacked.

They make a token effort to stop them, at best. There's too many instances of settlers harrassing and terrorising non-jews (not just Palestinians) with impunity. Nodinia has provided you with several examples, and there are several more.

Even if you're right, at least they make an effort.

And again you don't differentiate. What has Fatah done? (I know you're talking about Hamas)

Fatah carries out its own nice little share of suicide attack attempts don't you worry. Although much less than Hamas, and not openly as an organization. For now they are mostly trying to work together with Israel to stop Hamas.

It's true. I wish I could find the documentaries I've seen on youtube or elsewhere, but they are scary. I'll keep looking for them. (Again I will repeat that I'm talking about the settlers, not the "mainstream" schools inside of Israel.

These settlers are crazy.

They try somewhat sometimes. Other times, it's evident that they don't try at all.

Again, at least they try. (going along with your hypothesized statement)

Allow me to quote former IDF soldier Yehuda Shaul of “Breaking the Silence”:

link (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=11342)

With a grenade machinegun that fires grenades with a kill-radius of 8 metres he fired rather blindly into the night. Yeah, sounds like he was ordered to minimize damages...

And Avichai Sharon of the same organization:


link (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/11/listening_post/main708205.shtml)

There are countless stories and examples.


Their failure to live up to their side of agreements would be one of the reasons for my question. Their settlements and outposts that aren't removed (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jD4YSkDPlclqd9dHvg2f0Ij18zEgD8U5AH800) but expanded.

AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE is my point. nice excerpts but they don't do the job.

The problem is, I do have potential answers for it, thus, apparently making the question not ridiculus at all.
- They want the land and for the idea of "greater Israel" to come true.

Yea ok. Because they really care about that idea? why?

- They want living space, hence the settlements.

Oh, 'cause the settlements aren't independently built against the law and Israel doesn't have tons of empty space in the Negev desert. Funny, I didn't think about that, thanks for bringing it up.

- They want the resources, water and other things.

Yea cuz Gaza and the West Bank have tons of water and resources.



- They want the land to be a buffer zone against potential enemy countries.

Like.....Jordan? Look up peace treaty.

- They want their neighbours to know that they're still a forcce to be reckoned with.

yea cuz they haven't had enough wars to show this (including a recent one in Lebanon).


All hypothetically, of course.

Good cuz they all demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the subject.

They used to bulldoze homes after an attack had taken place, and the attacker was dead. Collective punishment that lasted quite a while before it was deemed illegal in Israel.

I love how you accuse Israel of the side commiting collective punishment when you yourself admitted how specifically you were only reffering to the settlers and yet Sderot and Ashkelon and cities around Israel getting attacked.

I'm sad to say that it's not an exaggeration. :(


Hardly strong, or something would be done... It hardly ever is, as I've shown by several links in this thread.

Ok so here's your error. I see it clearly now. You judge the situation by the number of articles you see about events that make it to the news and therefore decide your 'hardly ever'. It's a common fallacy and it's Ok, it can happen. But try not to do it again ok? It's funny because it takes only one pointer to show you how wrong you are when making these inferences:
Do you really think that cases in which Israel did everything it could to protect innocent Palestinian civillians (like almost every single case out there) would be highlighted in the news. Like a headline: "IDF carries out operation, makes efforts to protect civilians." Yea, right.

Do they? On the West Bank? Where they hinder the Palestinian freedom of movement to an exceptional degree, sometimes making it impossible to move between Palestinian towns?

yup.

An ever-growing minority, and still Israelis...
because you have data supporting the rise in percentage of Israeli population that is in the settlements. Interesting.

Whats that got to do with settlements?


It has nothing to do with the settlements, it has to do with my previous points. As to the causes and possible solutions.


Au contraire, as you said a majority approved. A majority of the illegally occupying country approving checkpoints which further the illegal occupation in no way justifies their presence. Stop 'terrorism' at the 1967 borders, thats fair enough.

when Israel is constantly getting attacked, I leave to it to do whatever it can to prevent the deaths of its innocent civilians as long as it is not killing innocent civilians on the other side.

...though not Beit Jerusalem fans. Or those who wrote these

http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0999/9909019.html

nope. (It's Beitar by the way).

So its nothing to do with Israel then, or their attitudes as evidenced by settlers, school books and the continuing expansion program outside their international borders?

I just want to get this straight.
You're really telling me that you think that the settlers represent the attitude of Israelis even though they're a tiny minority?
The school books are just fine.
Expansion program - you mean like the withdrawal from northern Gaza? Oh wait no that can't be called expansion. Let's see, um the withdrawal from Southern Lebanon? no, not either. Giving back Sinai to Egypt? pretty close but no. Expanding existing cities? no. Building new settlements outside the borders? YES, but they don't do it, individuals do, and they do so unlawfully.


Yet the national army of Israel, and Israels various security services have let them strive for four decades now...We aren't talking about last weekend after a bankholiday weekend booze up got out of hand....

the IDF is obliged to protect Israeli citizens no matter what. It's up to the judicial branch of the government to act to stop these individuals.




You seem to think that the IDF is a sea of moderation. Yet there are actions which occur, from which no prosecutions generally arise, which do not indicate any such thing. Theres only so many that can be killed by rifle fire and it be claimed as an "accident" or a case of mistaken identity.

It's not, it's returning fire from where it comes from. You seem to forget that every night Palestinians shoot over at Israelis.


Well, thats what they did. They're notorious for doing that kind of thing. And they aren't stopped from doing it. One can only conclude that its both condoned and approved. And again, these incidents are not one-offs or freak events, but a long and sad series that indicate a propensity for violence that is often supposed to be the preserve of the fanatic Islamist.

yea ok. Again, to make sure I'm understanding you:
You are saying that Israel approves and condones the intentional killing of innocent Palestinian civillians?


Israel saying something does not make it true, as has been demonstrated about any state put under the spotlight. Secondly, the former CIC of the IRA in Derry is now Deputy Minister in NI.



Then stop denying its happening and as was said before, don't say East Jerusalem is a seperate entity. It isn't, and is the most contentious of them all, as you should be aware.



My patience with that kind of petty legalism is short. If its a bunch of Israeli civillians living in the OT, its safe to say its a settlement.

...
ok


Then go look it up. Take it as an opportunity to prove me wrong.

haha funny you.
A few short points as this is getting long:
1. No I'm not gonna look it up out of principle. You brought it up, you have the duty to provide a source if I demand it (which as you'll see in the next point..)
2. I don't care much about either of the cases you mentioned but if you find them important feel free to show why.
3. It's funny that you actually said that. Can I quote you again: "Take it as an opportunity to prove me wrong." Firstly, how would you expect me to do that? Say I search for the info but don't find it, does that prove you wrong? haha nice.
4. I have no desire to prove you wrong. I have no desire for you to be wrong. I want you to be right. I want to stop argue about facts and start arguing about our interpretations of them and the way they shape our point of view. And stop making generalizations based on the level of scarcity that news articles can be found. I really hope that you eventually come to share my point of view, that we will be in agreement.



Over the years, I've normally come to associate false humour with the religous right....However, I digress. Heres what a few members of the IDF have said on the subject....



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/11/listening_post/main708205.shtml


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=922009

Yes, and what part of either of those excerpts goes to show that Israeli soldiers are instructed to try to kill innocent Palestinian civillians. Sorry, it's just not too clear to me.

I have come to a few conclusions from debating with the two of you. Your point of view is mostly added to by the liberal media of Israel mostly and surrounding organizations which speak in terms that are relative to the situation and in prior assumptions that Israel is much like a normal Western country (correct ones). You misinterpret these (have either of you actually BEEN to Israel? not that it makes me more right just wondering) to try to make them mean other things. You make generalizations based on the frequency that you read events in headlines because you lack the appropriate background to understand the issue properly. That's what I think.

That's foolish, I'm requesting that me apply a new meaning to a word.
There are hundreds of millions of English-speakers already. You cannot single-handedly redefine a word already in circulation.
Rather than blabber on with our POV, never convincing anyone of anything, we can accomplish positive change by changing the meaning of a word. This is a real world benefit of debate and it should be pursued.
There is no positive benefit whatsoever. We would still need a word for people who specifically hate Jews (which far more common than people who hate Jews+Arabs together). Instead of creating a void that would need to be filled by a new coinage, you could just leave things as they are: in fact, you don't really have a choice about that, because of the hundreds of millions of English-speakers, very few are paying any attention to this board, and none of them are going to change their usage.
As for Poland, when was the land lost (you say when it was conquered)?
I am not sure what you mean. Pomerania and Silesia were conquered by the Germans in the 950's. It is difficult to tell to what extent the Polish peasantry was slaughtered and replaced by German newcomers: I would bet that largely, it was just the barons and petty landlords who were killed or evicted, and the new lords exploited the same farmers as before, some of them eventually "changing" into Germans by learning the language and intermarrying with German newcomers. However, medieval war was hard on the civilians, to say the least, and exporting excess German peasant children (by putting them in the army and letting them grab lands to farm, in vassalage to the lords who commanded the army of course) was explicitly a war aim.
And ultimately, the land was essentially taken to punish Germany, which I do not necessarily agree with. It is such an attitude which creates wars.
Not in this case. As with the majority of other nations in the history of the world who have lost territory, the refugees settled elsewhere, and that's that.
A Jewish editorialist once wrote a column, "Reading about the Palestinians does sometimes make me wonder how *I* would feel if my grandfather had been kicked out of the home where our family had lived for centuries, and he never got to go back, and I still can't. And then I remember: my grandfather *was* kicked out of the home where our family had lived for centuries, and was lucky at that since no-one else in the family survived at all; and you know what? I don't WANT the farm in Bialystok back!"

.. and none of them are going to change their usage.I have changed my usage to the proper form defined by the true meaning.

Jew = Religion.
Semite = Race.

Jews may want to claim exclusivity for the word "Semite", They can claim that all day, all nite, I am still going to call it what it is.

I have changed my usage to the proper form defined by the true meaning.

Jew = Religion.
Semite = Race.

Jews may want to claim exclusivity for the word "Semite", They can claim that all day, all nite, I am still going to call it what it is.

And you're going to remain entirely incorrect on this matter.

Wikipedian sentiments. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism)
Dictionary.com sentiments. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anti-semitism)
My university's diversity folks sentiments. (http://www.osu.edu/diversity/dictionary.html)


Three people key in developing the term:
Moritz Steinschneider, the man who coined the term. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moritz_Steinschneider)
Ernest Renan, the author whom Steinschneider was responding to. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Renan)
Heinrich von Treitschke, a Prussian author who regularly used the term semite to denote Jews. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_von_Treitschke)

Of course not. If you read the articles the original poster links, and the titles he puts to his threads, you will realize this is not an unusual occurrence.

Isn't that trolling on the OP's part?

There are hundreds of millions of English-speakers already. You cannot single-handedly redefine a word already in circulation.

There is no positive benefit whatsoever. We would still need a word for people who specifically hate Jews (which far more common than people who hate Jews+Arabs together). Instead of creating a void that would need to be filled by a new coinage, you could just leave things as they are: in fact, you don't really have a choice about that, because of the hundreds of millions of English-speakers, very few are paying any attention to this board, and none of them are going to change their usage.

I am not sure what you mean. Pomerania and Silesia were conquered by the Germans in the 950's. It is difficult to tell to what extent the Polish peasantry was slaughtered and replaced by German newcomers: I would bet that largely, it was just the barons and petty landlords who were killed or evicted, and the new lords exploited the same farmers as before, some of them eventually "changing" into Germans by learning the language and intermarrying with German newcomers. However, medieval war was hard on the civilians, to say the least, and exporting excess German peasant children (by putting them in the army and letting them grab lands to farm, in vassalage to the lords who commanded the army of course) was explicitly a war aim.

Not in this case. As with the majority of other nations in the history of the world who have lost territory, the refugees settled elsewhere, and that's that.
A Jewish editorialist once wrote a column, "Reading about the Palestinians does sometimes make me wonder how *I* would feel if my grandfather had been kicked out of the home where our family had lived for centuries, and he never got to go back, and I still can't. And then I remember: my grandfather *was* kicked out of the home where our family had lived for centuries, and was lucky at that since no-one else in the family survived at all; and you know what? I don't WANT the farm in Bialystok back!"

Ultimately, I don't really care much about the last two paragraphs. Let's be honest, we won't be changing anyone's mind.

However, I say this sincerely, that changing the definition of a word can have a great positive value. I am suggesting that the word anti-semite be applied to those that hate any particular semitic group, whether it be Arabs or Jews. I, cannot singlehandedly change the meaning of the word, but by getting the message out, we can change its definition. If you, for instance, begin to use it, and so do the other readers, then we have created a positive change. And if we reason with people in real life, and convince them of this, then we spread the word. And if this cycle continues, we can change the meaning of a word. But you have to decide whether you are part of the problem, or its solution.

Anti-semitic could thus be applied to someone who hates any semitic group, and we could be even more specific. This word would cover all semitic groups, acknowleding their history and heritage. A user could also specify a group in particular, thus giving greater clarity. By giving it a more appropriate meaning, we recognize other semitic groups, and place no loss on Jews, because the word still applies to those who are racist against them.

So again, this debate can be positive, it can be a factor for change, unlike the typical Israel/Palestine thread. By changing the meaning of this word in our personal usage, we change how other people use it, and thus, benefit the world.

I have changed my usage to the proper form defined by the true meaning.

Jew = Religion.
Semite = Race.

Jews may want to claim exclusivity for the word "Semite", They can claim that all day, all nite, I am still going to call it what it is.

Well, there are "ethnic Jews", who are "semites". What I am opposing is the assumption that Jews are the only semites, and that our usage of language should be changed to recognize this, to recognize people.

Well, there are "ethnic Jews", who are "semites". What I am opposing is the assumption that Jews are the only semites, and that our usage of language should be changed to recognize this, to recognize people.

Actually, "semite" refers to linkage to, unsurprisingly, the semitic language groups. So, yes, Arabs are Semites. Jews, being part of a culture that is distinctly linked to the Hebrew language, are also Semites. However, languages that are similar (Persian or Turkish, due to Arabicization, for example), and the cultures to which they are linked, obviously aren't semitic in category. But, regardless, OceanDrive, you are still incorrect in labeling "Semite" as a race, it's a language group. Then again, the relativity of the term race means that I may very well be correct in saying my ass is a different race than my nipple because race has no basis other than the sociological.

Anyway, just wanted to point that out. Back to your pointless and inane bickering! ;)

And you're going to remain...my post is standing.

Jew = Religion.
Semite = Race.

Jews may want to claim exclusivity for the word "Semite", They can claim that all day, all nite, I am still going to call it what it is.

Well, there are "ethnic Jews", who are "semites". What I am opposing is the assumption that Jews are the only semites, and that our usage of language should be changed to recognize this, to recognize people.I recognize it.

Isn't that trolling on the OP's part?I am sure it is not..

but just to address any extreme sensibilities, I have requested a Title change.

I can be a kind sensible player sometimes :D

Anti-semitic could thus be applied to someone who hates any semitic group
It COULD be, but it isn't. "Anti-American" could be applied to someone who is opposed to Mexico, or Venezuela, or any other country in the American continents, but it isn't: it means opposition to the United States, and that word-usage is not going to change.
People who hate Arabs are called "anti-Arab"; I have also seen "Islamophobe" for those who hate (and/or fear) Muslims whether Arabic-speaking or otherwise.

It COULD be, but it isn't. "Anti-American" could be applied to someone who is opposed to Mexico, or Venezuela, or any other country in the American continents, but it isn't: it means opposition to the United States, and that word-usage is not going to change."Anti-American" is an expression used almost exclusively inside the US, and its an expression often used by the US media..

For example in the other 32 American countries the usual expression is Anti-Imperialista. (Anti-imperialist)(except in Canada where the US culture is omnipresent)

Spanish speakers can define Spanish words however they like. English words are defined by the usages of English speakers. Go to the "Anti-American" thread and you will find that English speakers from outside the US also take it for granted, without even thinking about it, that the US is the referent.

my post is standing.

Jew = Religion.
Semite = Race.

Jews may want to claim exclusivity for the word "Semite", They can claim that all day, all nite, I am still going to call it what it is.

We should also rename pineapples and peanuts. *nods*

Spanish speakers can define Spanish words however they like. English words are defined by the usages of English speakers. Go to the "Anti-American" thread and you will find that English speakers from outside the US also take it for granted, without even thinking about it, that the US is the referent.they assume thats what you mean to say, they understand what you mean.

but it is an expression used mostly inside the US. and somewhat exported by US movies/TV.

Since people who hate Arabs and people who hate Jews are largely non-overlapping sets, having one word to cover both is more like making a name that means "pineapple *or* peanut".

Since people who hate Arabs and people who hate Jews are largely non-overlapping sets, having one word to cover both is more like ...:rolleyes: they dont have to be overlapping. The word dont have to be exclusive

the key word is not "and"
the key word is "or"

giving the exclusivity to the Jews, is negating the true meaning of the word "Semite".

the key word is "or"
As in a word for "pineapple *or* peanut"? How useful would a word like "oraphant" be? That means "a citrus fruit, or elephant". Or "anti-ay": that's someone who hates people from Paraguay, or from Uruguay, or from Norway, or from Bombay.

As in a word ..as in "Semite" includes both groups.

giving the exclusivity to either of those groups is negating the true meaning of the word.

It also includes about half the people in Ethiopia. It is a linguistic term, referring to grammatical structures (the widespread use of internal vowel alternations for inflectional forms) and a large core vocabulary that is shared by Arabic, Hebrew, Amharic, etc. The peoples who speak these languages need not have any particularly great degree of common ancestry (obviously the Amharic-speakers are more related to their Ethiopian neighbors than to Lebanese, or to Israelis whose grandparents lived in Poland).
It is useful to have one word to cover that group of languages, but people with bigotries are not basing them on a hatred of grammatical structures, and this is why haters of Jews and haters of Arabs and haters of the Amhara do not have anything more in common than they do with haters of Australian aborigines. It is not useful to have a word that covers a random assortment of cases with no particular common feature.

It is not useful to have a word that covers a random assortment of cases..It covers Semites.

Semites = Arabs, Hebrews, Akkadians, Phoenicians. (and other semi-extinct groups of that particular region)

Its specific, its not random.

when Israel is constantly getting attacked, I leave to it to do whatever it can to prevent the deaths of its innocent civilians as long as it is not killing innocent civilians on the other side..

..but it is killing civillians on the 'other side' and in large numbers too. Secondly as a great dea of violence is caused by the occupation, doesn't it strike you as a tad odd that an oft touted excuse for the occupation is the violence?

I just want to get this straight.
You're really telling me that you think that the settlers represent the attitude of Israelis even though they're a tiny minority?

Of all Israelis? No.

Expansion program - you mean like the withdrawal from northern Gaza? Oh wait no that can't be called expansion. Let's see, um the withdrawal from Southern Lebanon? no, not either. Giving back Sinai to Egypt? pretty close but no. Expanding existing cities? no. Building new settlements outside the borders? YES, but they don't do it, individuals do, and they do so unlawfully.


Again you repeat the myth. Settlements would not be able to expand without tacit approval. There are the checkpoints to pass through, after all. Caravans and supplies are not that easy to smuggle. Troops could remove the offending outposts, yet they do not.



the IDF is obliged to protect Israeli citizens no matter what. It's up to the judicial branch of the government to act to stop these individuals.

The IDF is obliged to protect all under its occupation, according to the Geneva convention, which applies whether Israel thinks it should or not.


[QUOTE=Intelligenstan]
It's not, it's returning fire from where it comes from. You seem to forget that every night Palestinians shoot over at Israelis.

No "returning fire" here.....
British UN project manager shot by an Israeli sniper was unlawfully killed, a UK inquest has concluded.
Iain Hook, 54, of Felixstowe, Suffolk, was in a UN compound in Jenin when he was shot in November 2002.

On Friday, jurors unanimously agreed Mr Hook, who was born in Essex, had been the victim of a "deliberate" killing.

Coroner Dr Peter Dean said he was so concerned by the case and the fact 13 UN workers have died in Jenin, he will write to Prime Minister Tony Blair.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/suffolk/4534620.stm
13 UN workers...and all by the IDF.....Hmmmmm

No "returning fire" here.....and it was caught on camera....
British cameraman shot dead in the Gaza Strip by an Israeli soldier was murdered, an inquest jury has decided.
James Miller, 34, from Devon, was shot by a soldier from the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) while making a film in a Palestinian refugee camp in 2003.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/devon/4883442.stm

No "returning fire" regarding Brian Avery who had a good part of his face shot off......
"We were afraid that there were children in the area, and thought that it would be a good idea to go down and keep them away from there," testified Carlson later. "Brian was wearing a vest with the word `Doctor' written in phosphorescent colors in English and Hebrew, front and back."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=553986

So I went to where the children were gathered, and the tanks were firing on them erratically. I walked down the road between the children and the tanks until I was fifty meters from the tank, where I tried to dialogue with the soldiers. I implored them not to shoot live ammunition at unarmed children. At that point, they stopped their shooting. A few moments later, an APC drove up to the tank [an armed personnel carrier, like a tank with all the armour except a cannon]. I could see their faces very clearly and I imagine they could see mine also. I had seen both of these tanks earlier in the day. A soldier raised his upper body and his gun out of the hatch of the second vehicle and began shooting. At first he shot into the air, and most of the children dispersed, running into an alley on the left side of the street. About three small children remained, however, and I tried physically to get them to the alley, dragging and pushing them. I looked back over my shoulder and could see the soldier in the APC pointing his gun at me from about one hundred meters. Near the entrance to the alley, I was shot in the thigh
http://www.counterpunch.org/butterfly1123.html

Bit odd that all those people have been shot by the proffessional and trained Army, and not the "terrorists" isn't it?



yea ok. Again, to make sure I'm understanding you:
You are saying that Israel approves and condones the intentional killing of innocent Palestinian civillians?

'Elements within' yes, most certainly. They also occassionally the UN, NGO workers and reporters. They particularily don't like the UN.


haha funny you.
A few short points as this (....) agreement.

No idea what you're trying to get at there.


Yes, and what part of either of those excerpts goes to show that Israeli soldiers are instructed to try to kill innocent Palestinian civillians. Sorry, it's just not too clear to me.

Its evidence that the picture you try to paint is far far from the truth. Furthermore, when taken in context with the killings, it shows the occupation in its true light. You give quite the opposite impression of the attitude of troops - one which doesn't fit with the facts on the ground. This one does.



prior assumptions that Israel is much like a normal Western country (correct ones). .

My arse it is.


. You make generalizations based on the frequency that you read events in headlines .

I'm sorry but if Israel has setllements in the West Bank, it has settlements in the West Bank. If it has a propensity to kill NGO's and UN people, those deaths speak for themselves. If anything, the ordinary daily brutalities of the occupation (harrassment, beatings, intimidation) do not make the headlines.


because you lack the appropriate background to understand the issue properly. That's what I think.

Things I know about others background on this board can be best demonstrated by whats contained between the following brackets ( ). I suggest that your knowledge might be described similarily. Unless talking about some very specific and technical subjects, where one party is clearly demonstrating an inability to understand the processes involved (mathematics, bio-chemistry for example) then invoking expertise or the lack thereof is essentially an appeal to authority with no validity whatsoever.

That's for you to decide. The number of news articles showing specific cases each side presents doesn't change matters..

The number of specific cases does, however.



Oh, 'cause the settlements aren't independently built against the law and Israel doesn't have tons of empty space in the Negev desert. Funny, I didn't think about that, thanks for bringing it up...

So its ok to trump about checkpoints keeping terrorists out, but the same checkpoints don't keep settlers from doing some settling?

I'm getting a bit tired of your pretence that these don't have Government backing, btw......
There are around 140 Jewish settlements built on land occupied by Israel after the 1967 war.

International law deems these constructions illegal; Israel insists it has a right to build them.

In February, the Israeli government approved a $22m budget for creating and maintaining settlements on occupied land.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3686999.stm

As in a word for "pineapple *or* peanut"? How useful would a word like "oraphant" be? That means "a citrus fruit, or elephant". Or "anti-ay": that's someone who hates people from Paraguay, or from Uruguay, or from Norway, or from Bombay.Good thing that it's called Mumbai then, huh?

my post is standing.

Jew = Religion.
Semite = Race.

Jews may want to claim exclusivity for the word "Semite", They can claim that all day, all nite, I am still going to call it what it is.

And you're going to remain entirely incorrect, because common and colloquial usage is acceptable. Now, we know that your comprehension and use of English is somewhere between Dubya and awful, but this concept should be pretty straightforward.

As it stands, the term anti-semitic refers exclusively to Jews, and I have provided sufficient evidence that this is the case.

as in "Semite" includes both groups.

giving the exclusivity to either of those groups is negating the true meaning of the word.

No, no it does not.

Let's try the most obvious term: American. American is a term that has long been used to denote people from the United States, but it is theoretically applicable to people from all over North and South America. Regardless, it is appropriate to use it to refer to a person from the United States, and to refer to the United States as the country of America. Exclusivity is given to one of these groups in common usage, and that common usage is not incorrect.



I mean, come on, there isn't even a wikipedia subheading expressing your opinion. You are damn near alone in this one.

my post is standing.

Jew = Religion.
Semite = Race.

Actually semite is a language group and not a race. Your post fails.