NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

No amount of facts will sway him Andaluciae. You know this :D

True.

In this case OD's just being an excessive contrarian, for what purpose, I really cannot say. Other than, perhaps, to remove the sting from the term antisemitic.

We all know he does not like them so yea...he'll do what he can to take the sting out of the term.

No amount of facts will sway him Andaluciae. You know this :D

True.

In this case OD's just being an excessive contrarian, for what purpose, I really cannot say. Other than, perhaps, to remove the sting from the term antisemitic.

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.Depends entirely on where you're from, though I'll admit I use the term Americanos to refer to people from the Americas.

Actually semite is a language group and not a race. Your post fails.Depends on your definition of Race.

My point is

all Jews are NOT Semites Because Jews = Religion.
all Arabs are Semites.

-since I can only log a few minutes a day- If you want to keep endlessly arguing against this fact, go argue with these people.. have fun ;)
http://www.funtrivia.com/askft/Question28411.html

You are damn near alone in this one.I am still going to say Semites = Arabs, Hebrews, Akkadians, Phoenicians. (and other semi-extinct groups of that particular region)
I am still not going to give exclusive use of the word to the Jews or the Arabs.

Joining the mistaken larger group only because there is many of them is not for me.. I am not a brainless follower.
.
American is theoretically applicable to people from all over North and South America. theoretically NOT.

American = people from America (Not exclusively to the US)
.
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 am not going to give you the exclusivity.. no matter how often you ask for it.

get over it.

I am still going to say Semite = Semites = Arabs, Hebrews, Akkadians, Phoenicians. (and other semi-extinct groups of that particular region)
I am still not going to give exclusive use of the word to the Jews or the Arabs. Joining the larger group and being wrong is not for me.. I am not a brainless follower.

There are third-rate people who are only happy when thinking with the majority, second rate people who are only happy when they are thinking against the majority, and first rate people are only happy when they think for themselves. You classify easily into the second group, because of how aggressively contrarian you are.

When such an overwhelming majority of people, both in common and academic realms, use a term for a specific purpose, then it's pretty clear what the meaning of that term is. Common use is an acceptable definition of a word. You clearly do not have the credentials to challenge that use.

Furthermore, Semitic is a term that refers to specific language groups, rather than to ethnicities. Schloezer proposed that the term be used to refer to languages that are related to Hebrew, and the derivation of that term is that these languages are those of the people who are descended from Shem.

theoretically NOT.

American = people from America (Not exclusively people from the US)

Actually, yes, it can be used to specifically refer to a citizen of the United States. Exclusivity is afforded.

I am not going to give you the exclusivity.. no matter how often you ask for it.

get over it.

It is not yours to give.

... specifically refer to a citizen of the United States. Exclusivity is afforded.I am still not going to give you the exclusivity.

I am not ready to exclude the other 30+ Countries of America

You clearly do not have the credentials to challenge that use.Well, Corneliu is a Historian.

Why dont you ask him to support your quest for exclusivity.. ans see if that makes me give you that.
Good luck :p

Lets see if we can agree to some rules-of-Engagement for the use of the expression Anti-Semite at NSG.

rules based on honor.. not official rules (of Course)
_________________________________________________
#1 Any player may use the expression Anti-Semite to designate People who hates/discriminates against the Jews. (exclusively if that is the intended meaning)
This is based on the common use of the word Semite.

#2 Any Arab player (or anyone defending their rights) may sometimes use the expression Anti-Semite to designate People who hates/discriminates against the Arabs., if he can prove (with quotes,links) such a discrimination is there.
This is based on the definition of the word Semite.
_________________________________________________

-- yes the wording appears to be unfair, but life is unfair anyways.

theoretically NOT.

American = people from America (Not exclusively to the US)


Only if you are ignorant. American=United States (of America).
North American OR South American refers to members of those continents, respectively.

I am still not going to give you the exclusivity.

I am not ready to exclude the other 30+ Countries of America

Countries where?

There are 50 states in America.

There are 30+ countries in the North and South American continents.

It covers Semites.

Semites = Arabs, Hebrews, Akkadians, Phoenicians. (and other semi-extinct groups of that particular region)

Its specific, its not random.
I wasn't talking about the word "Semitic", which is useful in talking about languages of a particular type, less so in lumping together the peoples who speak them (you keep leaving out the Ethiopians, are you prejudiced against them?) since any common ancestry is distant and much-diluted, less significance than genetic ties to the nearest neighbors of whatever language.

I was talking about the word "anti-Semite", which as you and zayun would redefine it, would combine a hodgepodge of people with no particular common trait except being anti-somebody. It is not useful to combine into one category people whose prejudices are directed against a list of peoples united only by irrelevant grammatical traits of their language.

It wouldn't really matter if it would be a useful redefinition or not, since changes in meaning, among the huge number of speakers, cannot be commanded by an act of will, anyway. If you use the word in a way which others do not, you will simply be misunderstood, that's all.

For the record, Dictionary.com defines "anti-semitic" as "discriminatory or prejudiced against Jews." Not Arabs. Jews.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=anti-semite&x=0&y=0

Good thing that it's called Mumbai then, huh?

By some people. Most notably, of course, by people who live there, and in the rest of India. But I'm not going to start calling China "Chung-guo" or calling Germany "Deutschland" (and of course I would never use "Myanmar" for Burma, that would be like recognizing the junta).

Well, Corneliu is a Historian.

Why dont you ask him to support your quest for exclusivity.. ans see if that makes me give you that.
Good luck :p

Actually, given that language is a collective creation (as opposed to an individual creation), how it is used in both common and academic terminology is what gives it exclusivity. So, neither you nor Corneliu can issue exclusivity.

I am still not going to give you the exclusivity.

I am not ready to exclude the other 30+ Countries of America

Given that the continents of the western hemisphere are not a singular entity...

ok w/e.
Quite. That is the most correct and eloquent response imaginable to failure. Well done.

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.
Again, it doesn't matter what they say, if their actions contradict their statements. Hamas lives up to their claims - Israel does not.

But please, do explain how it would be a huge difference in your mind if Hamas claimed that they were trying to minimize civilian casualties. Would it make them less of a terrorist organization if they apologised after blowing up a buss carrying civilians?

That's for you to decide. The number of news articles showing specific cases each side presents doesn't change matters.
Actually, it does, as the accumulation of evidence paints a different picture than what the official story is presented as. So yes - I can safely say that they're not trying hard enough.

The settlements are not the ones getting attacked.
I'll take your non sequitur response to mean that you concede the point.

Even if you're right, at least they make an effort.
A token effort - and inexcusable passivity.


These settlers are crazy.
Isn't that an excuse you could use on Hamas too, thus exempting them of the responsibility of their actions in the same way as you seem to be doing towards the settlers?

AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE is my point.
And your point fail, because of the evidence to the contrary. The tales of the former soldiers are quite convincing - and you have yet to present anything to refute them.


nice excerpts but they don't do the job.
Why? Because you refuse to believe it, regardless of any evidence presented?

Yea ok. Because they really care about that idea? why?
You'll have to ask the nationalists that.

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.
You're welcome - as it's evident that you don't know about the government-sanctioned building of settlemets I feel like I've done a public service.

And why they're building in the occupied territory instead of the desert I'm guessing is a question of resources again.

Yea cuz Gaza and the West Bank have tons of water and resources.
Enough to sustain the current population, no?

Like.....Jordan? Look up peace treaty.
Look up the word "potential".

yea cuz they haven't had enough wars to show this (including a recent one in Lebanon).
...which, in many ways, was a humiliating failure for Israel.

Good cuz they all demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the subject.
On the contrary - your responses haven't refuted a single one of my suggestions, so my question still stands without being ridiculus.

Do Israel really want peace? If so, why don't they live up to their obligations? Why are their responses so unproportional? Why do they allow one civilian palestinian to die for every terrorist they target? Etc.

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.
You make no sense, but I suspect your reading comprehension fails you yet again. Try reading back, and see how some parts of my post are about settlers, and some are about the Israeli government. Any and all references to "collective punishment" will be in connection to the actions of the Israeli government. Transgressions the settlers will be refered to as criminal acts.

Then try again.
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?
:rolleyes:*sigh*

Here's your error: It's not the size that matters...

It's not about quantity, it's about quality. The Iranian Anti-Jew Daily newspaper could write page after page accusing Israel of human rights violations and genocide and I wouldn't care. They would have zero credibility and wouldn't be worth my time.

However, when former soldiers tell me of their experiences I findd that to be convincing. When credible news organisations report on transgressions and violations, I listen - because a modern democracy that lives by the rule of law is supposed to not violate human rights. When credible non-governmental human rights organisations including but not limited to Amnesty International, B'Tselem, Human Rights Watch and Freedom House offer reports documenting abuses and transgressions, and even the US State Department Human Rights Report - notorious for going easy on their important allies - is critical in their annual reports, I see a mounting pile of convincing evidence, evidence that outweighs the word of the Israeli government.

So no, it's not simply the fact that it's well-reported, it's the quality of evidence that lead me to be critical of the Israeli government and the IDF.

That said, you're obivously in a state of selective blindness. You refuse to see that there are elements within the government and the military who can be called extreme and don't desire a peaceful resolve to the conflict. You take the word of the Israeli government unquestiongly, and you act as if the government and the military can do no wrong. You have presented a level of ignorance of the situation on the ground that is quite surprising, especially since you claim to have gone to school there.

I would advise you to ask more critical questions and dare to critizise the government and the military, because turning a blind eye to the continuing series of abuses and crimes are not helpful to either branch. Both should be held to a high standard, the standard we've come to expect from democratic governments.


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.
Thing is, there's so many cases, so many reports, so much evidence to the abuses and crimes. And if the majority of the work of the IDF is happy fluffy stories like you seem to think, that still doesn't explain how they manage to have a kill ratio where 50% is unarmed civilians. To quote Amnesty International Annual Report 2007:
[in 2006] Some 650 Palestinians, half of them unarmed civilians and including some 120 children, were killed by Israeli forces.
That's quite a lot of "accidents" - and if that's as good as it gets... Well, I guess you still see no reason to be critical, do you...

because you have data supporting the rise in percentage of Israeli population that is in the settlements. Interesting.
Yes, it's not difficult to find:

Total settlement population in the Occupied Territories:
1972 - 10,608
1983 - 106,595
1993 - 281,800
2004 - 441,165
2006 - 470,562

Figures from Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlements#Population) - but follow the links to find the source of the figures.

Again your ignorance on this topic surprises me, as if this was a state secret or somehow difficult to find.

Lets see if we can agree to some rules-of-Engagement for the use of the expression Anti-Semite at NSG.

rules based on honor.. not official rules (of Course)
_________________________________________________
#1 Any player may use the expression Anti-Semite to designate People who hates/discriminates against the Jews. (exclusively if that is the intended meaning)
This is based on the common use of the word Semite.

#2 Any Arab player (or anyone defending their rights) may sometimes use the expression Anti-Semite to designate People who hates/discriminates against the Arabs., if he can prove (with quotes,links) such a discrimination is there.
This is based on the definition of the word Semite.
_________________________________________________

-- yes the wording appears to be unfair, but life is unfair anyways.

To quote wikipedia on the matter of using your second definition:

The argument runs that since the Semitic language family includes Arabic, Hebrew and Aramaic languages and the historical term "Semite" refers to all those who consider themselves descendants of the Biblical Shem, "anti-Semitism" should be likewise exclusive. However, this usage is not generally accepted.

..the matter of using your second definition:my ROE propositions #1 and #2 go together,

If you try to pick #1 and exclude #2.. it is not acceptable for me.

Countries where? In America.
.
There are 50 states in America.:rolleyes: yeah, and Paris is the capital of France.
.

There are 30+ countries in the North and South American continents.and the US is one of them.The US is a Country in North America.

If a veteran like Andalucie was not able to do it, what makes you think I am going to give you the exclusivity for the word "America".

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.
It's not about instructions - though the part about being ordered to fire grenades blindly into the night in an urban area could fall under that part - but it's about an environment that doesn't view Palestinians as human beings and that they don't get punished for any abuse, fostering a climate of impunity.

To give an example where settlers are concerned:
Attacks by Israeli settlers

Israeli settlers in the West Bank repeatedly attacked Palestinians and their property, as well as international peace activists and human rights defenders who sought to document their attacks on Palestinians. Some of the attacks occurred during the olive harvest season, in October and November, when Palestinian farmers attempted to go to their fields close to Israeli settlements and which Israeli settlers sought to prevent them accessing. In June the Israeli Supreme Court issued a ruling instructing the army and police to protect Palestinian farmers seeking to work their land from attacks by settlers. The incidence of such attacks decreased, but several more were carried out, some in the presence of Israeli security forces who failed to intervene.

• On 18 November, Tove Johansson, a 19-year-old Swedish human rights defender, was assaulted by Israeli settlers as she accompanied Palestinian school children through an Israeli army checkpoint near the Tel Rumeida Israeli settlement in the West Bank city of Hebron. She was struck with a broken bottle and sustained facial injuries. Israeli soldiers at a nearby checkpoint took no action to stop the attack or apprehend the perpetrators.

Which leads to this conclusion:
Impunity and the administration of justice

In December the Supreme Court rejected a discriminatory law enacted the previous year that denies Palestinian victims compensation for abuses suffered at the hands of Israeli forces. However, impunity remained widespread for Israeli soldiers and settlers responsible for unlawful killings, ill-treatment and other abuses of human rights of Palestinians and attacks against their property. Investigations and prosecutions relating to such abuses were rare and usually only occurred when the abuses were exposed by human rights organizations and the media. By contrast, the Israeli authorities took a range of measures against Palestinians suspected of direct or indirect involvement in attacks against Israelis, including measures such as assassinations, physical abuse and collective punishment that violate international law. Palestinians convicted of involvement in attacks against Israelis were usually sentenced to life imprisonment by Israeli military courts, whereas in the exceptional cases in which Israelis were convicted of killing or abusing Palestinians, Israeli courts imposed lenient sentences.

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.
And you are, again, wrong.

.
.
and the US is one of them.The US is a Country in North America.

:eek::eek:

my ROE propositions #1 and #2 go together,

If you try to pick #1 and exclude #2.. it is not acceptable for me.

And your second use is not acceptable to the vast majority of society, both in common and academic usages. You do not have the authority to overrule the common and academic use of the term.

and the US is one of them.The US is a Country in North America.

If a veteran like Andalucie was not able to do it, what makes you think I am going to give you the exclusivity for the word "America".

You might want to remember that you are not the authority over exclusivity of definitions, if this were French that would fall to the 40 Immortals, but given that this is English, definitional exclusivity is defined by common and academic use.

if this were French that would fall to the 40 Immortals... the 40 immortals ???

I dont see why should I give them (whatever they are) exclusivity on the words Semite or America.

I dont recognize the definitions by the 40 immortals (whatever that is)

The Académie française (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad%C3%A9mie_fran%C3%A7aise)

If you were French, you'd be required to.

Excessive contrarianism, I daresay.

If you were French, you'd be required to.il sont fous ces romains !

et puis quand je suis a rome je ne fais pas comme les autres, pas d'exclusivité pour les mots Semite ou Amerique.

the 40 immortals ???

I dont see why should I give them (whatever they are) exclusivity on the words Semite or America.

The reason I used the 40 immortals is to show how languages created definitions and concepts of appropriate usage. English, unlike French, makes use of a naturally formed common and academic consensus to give words definitions. Not the fiat of some piddly-winky guy on an internet forum who can't even use proper capitalization.

..guy on an internet forum who can't even use proper capitalization.y tampoco uso tildes.
so-sue-me© :p

il sont fous les romains,

et puis quand je suis a rome je ne fais pas comme tout le monde, pas d'exclusivité pour les mots Semite ou Amerique.

What an excessively contrarian attitude.

so-sue-me© :p

Ah, the forum equivalent of "Whateva', whateva', I do what I want." (http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/9348/whateveryb5.png)

Certainly the mature and adult way to deal with the world. :rolleyes:

Depends on your definition of Race.

My point is

all Jews are NOT Semites Because Jews = Religion.
all Arabs are Semites.

:headbang:

You are so ignorant it is not even funny anymore.

Actually, given that language is a collective creation (as opposed to an individual creation), how it is used in both common and academic terminology is what gives it exclusivity. So, neither you nor Corneliu can issue exclusivity.

I was issuing nothing in reality

I was issuing nothing in reality

That's right.

You are just using the term in conjunction with regular common and academic usage. Something that has, apparently, blown straight over OD's head.

..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?

A VERY good point that you bring up. Absolutely not. As you said it is purely an excuse to attack Israel in addition to the claims that they want 'their' land back, that Jews have horns and are the devils, and that God demands that they kill the infidels. None of which are justified. Most of the violence, as I have already said, comes from Gaza. They are not affected by settlements. They don't fire rockets at settlements, they fire at Israel proper. They carry out attacks in Israel proper cities. You think it's because of their brotherly love to the Fatah-supporting majority of the West Bank residents whose leaders they have recently had plans to assassinate? Think again. it's only an excuse. They used to use the argument that Israel is splitting Gaza into north and South and that the land of Northern Gaza should be in Palestinian hands. Guess what happened when Israel withdrawed completely from Gaza, allowed free travel, and demolished and evacuated its northern Gazan Israeli settlements to transfer hundreds to other locations against their will? Oh I remember: Hamas took over, had a party, got drunk, recovered from the hang over, set up their nice little rocket launchers and fired further into Israel. Nice.


Of all Israelis? No.

Not of all, of the majority?

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.

no, now I see your misconception. This is how new settlements are being attempted to be put up and constantly stopped by the IDF: A very small number (Usually up to 5, and at times even 1) of people pack huge backpacks, and hiddenly, away from the army's eyes, sneaks its way on secret paths into different locations (because as you know there is no fence and in place there is they still easily get through), set up a small temporary settlement. Then some friends join them. Then some families. Soon they connect their water and electricity supply and build some houses. Then they request the IDF to protect them, which it cannot refuse to do. And there you have it, a settlement. Now for you to understand, it is not the army's job to remove these people, it's up to the judicial branch and the legal system and the courts and the government. And indeed, many of these have been bulldozed. Some illegal settlements are still there. I want them removed as much as you do but these guys are stubborn.





The IDF is obliged to protect all under its occupation, according to the Geneva convention, which applies whether Israel thinks it should or not.

No "returning fire" here.....


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/suffolk/4534620.stm
13 UN workers...and all by the IDF.....Hmmmmm

There is another side to every story. "the Israeli authorities claimed the sniper had mistaken Mr Hook's mobile phone for a pistol." You think he was ordered by the IDF to shoot British humanitarian relief workers? Good thinking.

No "returning fire" here.....and it was caught on camera....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/devon/4883442.stm

"An Israeli investigation in April 2005 cleared a soldier of misusing firearms"

No "returning fire" regarding Brian Avery who had a good part of his face shot off......

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=553986


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

"The original Israel Defense Forces investigation, carried out immediately after the incident by Colonel Dan Hefetz, commander of the Menashe Brigade, concluded with the following surprising IDF statement, which was delivered to the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv: "Mr. Ivory's injury is an unfortunate incident. ISM activists knowingly endanger themselves by operating during curfew in combat situations, seeking clashes and frictions with IDF soldiers. No findings indicate that Mr. Avery was injured by IDF fire in any of the above-mentioned events." "

""The purpose of ISM's activity is to enter an area where the IDF is operating and to create provocations," claims the head of Israel's National Security Council, Major General (ret.) Giora Eiland, former head of the IDF Planning and Policy Directorate, and the IDF representative vis-a-vis the United States on the matter of Avery. "This organization is falsely called a `peace organization,' and is an anti-Israeli organization whose goal is to involve the IDF in provocations, and in this way to harm Israel's status."
"
"No evidence was found that indicates that Mr. Avery was injured by IDF fire in one of the shooting incidents that took place that day in Jenin." "
"he will soon file a suit for damages against the state, through his attorney, Shlomo Lecker. Avery hopes to receive a large amount of financial compensation, several million dollars, which will cover the expenses of his treatments in the United States. "
The quotes say it all (and they're all from your articles)
I don't know about the credibility of your third example.



Bit odd that all those people have been shot by the proffessional and trained Army, and not the "terrorists" isn't it?

nope, doesn't seem odd to me at all. See this is further strengthening my point. Your "all those" comes from the number articles you read supporting one point of view.


'Elements within' yes, most certainly. They also occassionally the UN, NGO workers and reporters. They particularily don't like the UN.

I was asking about the Israeli government?


No idea what you're trying to get at there.

Trying to get at that this is not some sort of battle. You're just trying to present Israel in the worst light possible. I'm not trying to humiliate you or make you be wrong. I want you to change your point of view to agree with mine. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like this is happening anytime soon, and I have a hunch that it's not because of my poor convincing ability.



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.

The troops are specifically and carefully instructed to avoid harm to innocnet Palestinians as much as possible. Whether you believe this or not is your own choice.



My arse it is.

That's for you to decide.


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.

Right. (sarcastically)


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.
It's not expertise that I claim and as I implicitly said that this gives no more validity to my statements only presents my view of your attitudes. It's that I think the appropriate background information is necessary for you to underatnd it better. If this topic is of true importance to you, I strongly urge you to go visit Israel. It will change your perspective.

The number of specific cases does, however.

You have counted the number of cases where the IDF was 'nice' to Palestinians vs. the number of cases where the IDF was 'mean' to Palestinians in checkpoints, missions, operations, and so on. Interesting. You must be some kind of field reporter involved in a huge operation involving countless reporters in every instance the IDF comes in contact with Palestinian civilians. Damn I wish I was part of it too.



So its ok to trump about checkpoints keeping terrorists out, but the same checkpoints don't keep settlers from doing some settling?

Illegal settlers are not simply let through checkpoints. As with Palestinians, they are inquired as to their purpose of getting through and so on.


I'm getting a bit tired of your pretence that these don't have Government backing, btw......


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3686999.stm

From your very article to quote and highlight if I may:
"
Israel's Housing Ministry BROKE THE LAW to spend nearly $6.5m on illegal settlements in three years, says an annual report by the state auditor.

land whose ownership was IN DISPUTE.

The report said money was sent without approval by the cabinet or defence ministry - a LEGAL REQUIREMENT.

Israeli army was "investing resources to TRACK DOWN AND DEMOLISH illegal construction".

According to the Justice Ministry, the Housing Ministry could face a criminal investigation into its allocation of funds.
"

Funny that you forgot to mention these things. Tell me if after reading these from your very article you still believe that it is not illegal to construct settlements outside of Israel's border according to government policy.

Quite. That is the most correct and eloquent response imaginable to failure. Well done.

haha, no my friend, that meant that those things are of no importance to my argument. it means you were pointlessly ranting about things that are not relevant. Which kind of means - you were the one who failed. Sorry. It must have been fun for you there for a moment to feel like you had me though.

Again, it doesn't matter what they say, if their actions contradict their statements. Hamas lives up to their claims - Israel does not.

hahahahaha you really gave me a good chuckle with this one (really, not sarcastic) you give more credit for Hamas for not lying than to Israel. You're really a funny guy. You should consider a comedy stand-up show for Israelis, that really brought a good laugh.

But please, do explain how it would be a huge difference in your mind if Hamas claimed that they were trying to minimize civilian casualties. Would it make them less of a terrorist organization if they apologised after blowing up a buss carrying civilians?

It would make a HUGE difference. It would not make them less of a terrorist organization if they apologized after blowing up a buss carrying civillians, BUT: it would be appropriate if they said it was unintentional.
Does Israel blow up busses carrying civillians?
-Note: the reason Hamas has so many volunteers, many of them young people, is precisely because they outwardly aim to seek revenge against the Israelis by killing them and their children. It would make a HUGE difference HUUUUUUGE to the situation, if Hamas declared it aimed to minimize civilian casualties and was aiming at purely military ones that commit actions against them.

Actually, it does, as the accumulation of evidence paints a different picture than what the official story is presented as. So yes - I can safely say that they're not trying hard enough.

What you define as 'hard enough' often times, and many times, stands in the way of the killing of many many many terrorists. That's your own definition. And you don't have all the evidence, you have the selective pieces of it that you read.

I'll take your non sequitur response to mean that you concede the point.

no, not at all. If only about the settlements you were talking about, why is the rest of Israel being attacked?

A token effort - and inexcusable passivity.

nope, some effort is better than none, even if this effort is small in your opinion. (which in reality it is not - not even close).

Isn't that an excuse you could use on Hamas too, thus exempting them of the responsibility of their actions in the same way as you seem to be doing towards the settlers?

I was not at all exempting their responsibility for their actions. I share the same feelings towards them as you do.

And your point fail, because of the evidence to the contrary. The tales of the former soldiers are quite convincing - and you have yet to present anything to refute them.

they don't need refuting because they don't present anything that is in contrary to my views except some of their own opinions and perceptions of things. Neither did you take them in the right way as I said but that is of no issue to this.


Why? Because you refuse to believe it, regardless of any evidence presented?

No, because they simply do not show evidence against any of what I had said. you see, you might have skipped this lesson (of which took a while to show to Nodinia himself), it's great to throw excerpts and quotes, but when they don't refute what I had previously said in any way, and you don't connect them to the points you're trying to make, there is nothing for me to respond to.

You'll have to ask the nationalists that.

Put yourself in their minds for a second. Honestly, if you were a nationalist, why would you want this?

You're welcome - as it's evident that you don't know about the government-sanctioned building of settlemets I feel like I've done a public service.

It's fun feeling like you've done a public service I concede that. I think you forgot about all the land on which Israel can expand to but doesn't because THERE ISN'T A POPULATION TO LAND RATIO PROBLEM yet or anytime in the future. It would be safe to say that Israel still has a few centuries at the least before it runs out of land. It's ok man, not everyone who wishes to discuss the issue knows about all the facts. I don't hold you accountable, I only responded to your offer as to an answer to your hypothesized question. It's ok to say 'Oh'. Sometimes. (as I did in a different thread when Nodinia pointed out that there were certain cases in which IDF military courts dealt with cases not necessarily relating to security issues - I wasn't aware of that before and was not of extreme importance to my case) Similarly, here I don't think it would cost you much to say, oh yeah, you're right, Israel has much land to expand to and doesn't need neither Gaza nor the West Bank. Also, I don't see how it would harm the case you're trying to make, except for refute this one possible (false) answer to the question.

And why they're building in the occupied territory instead of the desert I'm guessing is a question of resources again.

no, the West Bank is not ecceptionally richer in resources than other areas in Israel (except for the factor that it is perhaps closer to water sources than the Negev) but there is also much room not in the desert, with terrain very similar to the West Bank, upon which there are yet no cities.

Enough to sustain the current population, no?

Um Gaza and the West Bank get most if not almost all of their water, power, supplies, and so on, from Israel and foreign aid. So, no not really. Israel's economy is not at such a dire position that it needs to start adding tiny little bits of territory to gain natural resources no.

Look up the word "potential".

War with Jordan is VERY 'potential'. Jordan's army sucks. It knows that it doesn't stand a chance. And has no intention to.

...which, in many ways, was a humiliating failure for Israel.

That's a different conversation.

On the contrary - your responses haven't refuted a single one of my suggestions, so my question still stands without being ridiculus.

In fact, all of them were turned down, so I'm still waiting on either a claim of rediculosity of your question or an alternative answer you haven't thought of before.

Do Israel really want peace? If so, why don't they live up to their obligations? Why are their responses so unproportional? Why do they allow one civilian palestinian to die for every terrorist they target? Etc.

YES. By all means Israel wants peace more than anything. Obligations? There is no peace treaty with Palestine that sets these. I don't know what you're trying to say. Unproportionality is up to you to decide, again. 'Allowing' someone to die, as we said is an almost unavoidable result of war (initiated by the side on which the civilian deaths you were talking about are on)

You make no sense, but I suspect your reading comprehension fails you yet again. Try reading back, and see how some parts of my post are about settlers, and some are about the Israeli government. Any and all references to "collective punishment" will be in connection to the actions of the Israeli government. Transgressions the settlers will be refered to as criminal acts.

Man, I gotta go work on my comprehension. Sorry if my stupidity and lack of language ability have offended you. So say, how good is your reading comprehension in your third language? Please distinguish from now on between settlers and the Israeli government and people as a whole, and also think about who is getting attacked by the Palestinians. haha no my friend, you will not dictate when the term 'collective punishment' will be used. And I will use it now to proclaim that terrorism (for whatever reason) is attacking in a collective manner. Yes transgressions of the settlers are criminal. They deserve some form of fine or imprisonment.

Then try again.

Try what again?

:rolleyes:*sigh*


Here's your error: It's not the size that matters...

It's not about quantity, it's about quality. The Iranian Anti-Jew Daily newspaper could write page after page accusing Israel of human rights violations and genocide and I wouldn't care. They would have zero credibility and wouldn't be worth my time.

I'm happy we agree that some Iranian newspapers are anti-Jewish. This is definitely true. And one of the causes for portrayal of Israel in the worst light possible as you and Nodinia are trying to do.

However, when former soldiers tell me of their experiences I findd that to be convincing. When credible news organisations report on transgressions and violations, I listen - because a modern democracy that lives by the rule of law is supposed to not violate human rights. When credible non-governmental human rights organisations including but not limited to Amnesty International, B'Tselem, Human Rights Watch and Freedom House offer reports documenting abuses and transgressions, and even the US State Department Human Rights Report - notorious for going easy on their important allies - is critical in their annual reports, I see a mounting pile of convincing evidence, evidence that outweighs the word of the Israeli government.


So no, it's not simply the fact that it's well-reported, it's the quality of evidence that lead me to be critical of the Israeli government and the IDF.

Well, you have most definitely not seen all of the evidence, and definitely not even a small portion of it. To me it seems like you've been mostly exposed to articles covering the misdemeanors of certain Israeli soldiers because those are the ones most commonly reported.

That said, you're obivously in a state of selective blindness. You refuse to see that there are elements within the government and the military who can be called extreme and don't desire a peaceful resolve to the conflict. You take the word of the Israeli government unquestiongly, and you act as if the government and the military can do no wrong. You have presented a level of ignorance of the situation on the ground that is quite surprising, especially since you claim to have gone to school there.

There are definitely elements within the government and the military who can and should be called extreme (Although not to the same state or even close to Hamas). "and don't desire a peaceful resolve to the conflict" Um, I'm highly doubtfull that such elements exist in the government and in the higher military, but maybe there are one or two rare cases. After all, it IS a democracy. Israel does do wrong at times. Mistakes in foreign policy are constantly being made. For example, the conceding of northern Gaza unilaterally might have been a mistake. We are now shown (regarding this thread) that perhaps the withdrawal of the IDF from the Egypt-Gaza border was a mistake. There are individual soldiers who pass the screening but are mentally instable or racist assholes that want to kill Palestinians. But in general, it's intentions are good ones.
(haha you question that I went to school there?)

I would advise you to ask more critical questions and dare to critizise the government and the military, because turning a blind eye to the continuing series of abuses and crimes are not helpful to either branch. Both should be held to a high standard, the standard we've come to expect from democratic governments.

First of all, thank you I must admit it is important to criticize and question ones government (the military is directed by it so generally I think complaints should go to the government). I have many criticisms of the government, particularly on certain religious influences within it. (For example, religious Israelis can be exempted from military service for 'Bible study'). But I do stand by the Israeli government when it comes to most policy decisions because of how I assess each one individually and agree with it most of the time.
Also, I'm happy that you expect of Israel to live up to the same standard as other democracies (as many people don't) because it should be treated like a Western nation.

Thing is, there's so many cases, so many reports, so much evidence to the abuses and crimes. And if the majority of the work of the IDF is happy fluffy stories like you seem to think, that still doesn't explain how they manage to have a kill ratio where 50% is unarmed civilians. To quote Amnesty International Annual Report 2007:

As I've said before - exagurations and claims that Islamic Jihadists are in fact civilians. Yes, there are civilian casualties, and yes this is a result of war.

That's quite a lot of "accidents" - and if that's as good as it gets... Well, I guess you still see no reason to be critical, do you...

haha half of them unarmed? what about the other half?

Yes, it's not difficult to find:

Total settlement population in the Occupied Territories:
1972 - 10,608
1983 - 106,595
1993 - 281,800
2004 - 441,165
2006 - 470,562

Figures from Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlements#Population) - but follow the links to find the source of the figures.

Again your ignorance on this topic surprises me, as if this was a state secret or somehow difficult to find.

My ignorance? you're funny. If you knew the first thing about this topic, you will remember that the Golan Heights are in dispute with Syria, not with Palestinians. Also that includes East Jerusalem. Both of these I do not consider to be what you call 'illegal settlements'. The numbers I'm seeing are:
(from your source) :
------------ 72 83 93 04 06
West Bank 1,182 22,800 111,600 234,487 282,400
Gaza 700 1 900 4,800 7,826 0

and these include the legal settlements in the West Bank region that both Palestine and Israel claims are their land (like well-established cities).
Also the interesting facts below it might seem to come in handy here:
"Palestinians argue that the policy of settlements constitutes an effort to pre-empt or even sabotage a peace treaty that includes Palestinian sovereignty, and claim that the settlements are built on land that belongs to Palestinians.[13][14]"
That's the reason they are used as an excuse, not because they directly harm the Palestinians except in cases of settlers harrassing Palestinians.
"
The Israel Foreign Ministry asserts that some settlements are legitimate, as they took shape when there was no operative diplomatic arrangement, and thus they did not violate any agreement.[15][16][17] Based on this, they assert the following specific reasons for accepting settlements as legitimate.

Prior to the eruption of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the late eighties, even until the signing of the Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty in 1994, Israeli governments on the left and right argued that the settlements were of strategic and tactical importance. The location of the settlements was primarily chosen based on the threat of an attack by the bordering hostile countries of Jordan, Syria, and Egypt and possible routes of advance into Israeli population areas. These settlements would contribute to the peace and security of the state of Israel. Other supporters of the settlements also cite these reasons.[18][19][20][21][22][23]
"

Can we please keep these posts much MUCH shorter for convenience sake. Let's just argue issues one at a time. (with hopefully a limit on the number of sources about different events that relate to your point to also one a time - unless they all cover the same exact material). (And stop just throwing arguments over as if that will help you by giving a feeling of 'overwhelming' the other side with accusations - it doesn't make you more right). It would not take away from the strength of your view if you present them one at a time - if your true purpose is to discuss these rationally and not to just show that you're right only because you have just so much 'evidence'.

A VERY good point that you bring up. Absolutely not. As you said it is purely an excuse to attack Israel in addition to the claims.

Thats not what I said, nor what I implied. Do not distort what I say in such a manner.


that they want 'their' land back, that Jews have horns and are the devils, and that God demands that they kill the infidels. None of which are justified.
.

So its time to trot out the stereotypes......


Most of the violence, as I have already said, comes from Gaza. They are not affected by settlements. .

But the rest of their people are.


They don't fire rockets at settlements, they fire at Israel proper. They carry out attacks in Israel proper cities. You think it's because of their brotherly love to the Fatah-supporting majority of the West Bank residents whose leaders they have recently had plans to assassinate?.

For this to be true, one would have to presume that Hamas have no feeling towards their fellows, and were incapable of distinguishing the ordinary man in the street from the leadership of Fatah, neither of which is that likely. You are placing presumption on top of presumption. Were I to suggest that everyone of Jewish faith who donates to Israeli based charities was a card carrying Likud member who was 100% behind the occupation, I'd imagine I'd be given short shrift.....



Think again. it's only an excuse. They used to use the argument that Israel is splitting Gaza into north and South and that the land of Northern Gaza should be in Palestinian hands. Guess what happened when Israel withdrawed completely from Gaza, allowed free travel,?.

Firstly the withdrawal from Gaza was because it was taking 30,000 troops to guard 8,000 settlers, and it was felt that the resources would be better used in the West Bank/Arab East Jerusalem. It would also take the wind out of Arafats sails.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3720176.stm

Secondly, Israel maintains air and border control over Gaza, so 'Free travel' isn't quite that free. Thirdly, as Israel should have withdrawn 40 years previously, doing so for purely strategic reasons after so much life has been lost is hardly something to crow about.

no, now I see (.......)e stubborn.

I can only conclude that you are taking the piss, very young, or very naive. I have no way of knowing which, or considering a possible alternative explanation. Either way, heres something which can be known, because its in the public domain.....

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

The political process between Israel and the Palestinians did not impede settlement activities, which continued under the Labor government of Yitzhak Rabin (1992-1996) and all subsequent governments. These governments built thousands of new housing units, claiming that this was necessary to meet the "natural growth” of the existing population. As a result, between 1993 and 2000 the number of settlers on the West Bank (excluding East Jerusalem) increased by almost 100 percent.

The Israeli governments have implemented a consistent and systematic policy intended to encourage Jewish citizens to migrate to the West Bank. One of the tools used to this end is to grant financial benefits and incentives to citizens - both directly and through the Jewish local authorities. The purpose of this support is to raise the standard of living of these citizens and to encourage migration to the West Bank.
http://www.btselem.org/English/Publications/Summaries/200205_Land_Grab.asp

Please explain to me how/why the Israeli Government offers incentives to move to the West Bank if it does not approve of, and seeks to stop, the settlements.

Please explain why it builds illegal settlements and/or expands them, if it wishes to prevent them.

There is another side to every story. ........
The quotes say it all (and they're all from your articles)

Yes, the IDF deny it, so the IDF must be right and coroners inquests be damned.

The fact that a proffessional army constantly mistakes white Europeans for Arab 'Gunmen' while their militant opposite numbers rarely if ever do so doesn't strike you as odd? And nearly always the UN and NGO people, rarely journalists, and usually with single shots? Hmmmmmm


I don't know about the credibility of your third example.)

That was the 6 foot red-haired Irish woman who was shot in broad day light, trying to get them to not fire on school children......Presumably Gaza is full of 6 foot red-haired Irish women. What sayeth thee?


nope, doesn't seem odd to me at all. See this is further strengthening my point. Your "all those" comes from the number articles you read supporting one point of view..)

So If present one article that lists all the deaths rather than go into detail thats a stronger case or weaker?

Does my presenting individual cases for examples make those involved any less dead or the overall total any less damning?


I was asking about the Israeli government?..

A majority within it certainly. There are usually moderate elements in there, but as its a cabinet system, they must usually be in a minority - certainly under anything where Sharon held sway.


You're just trying to present Israel in the worst light possible.
.

I'm just pointing out the facts. A state - ostensibly a democracy - is occupying and colonising land outside its borders. I don't find it acceptable whether the state involved is Indonesia or Israel, or who those on the receiving end are.


I'm not trying to humiliate you or make you be wrong..

O feel free.


The troops are specifically and carefully instructed to avoid harm to innocnet Palestinians as much as possible. Whether you believe this or not is your own choice. ..

Yet my observations are of the results. They paint an entirely different picture.

I strongly urge you to go visit Israel. It will change your perspective...

It would be inappropriate for me to visit the state while its occupying the West Bank/Arab East Jerusalem. I have contemplated visting there in order to go to the West Bank, however.


You have (....)of it too....

We arent talking about some civil police force here, but an occupying Army there against the wishes of the populace. By their presence alone, they offend.


Illegal settlers are not simply let through checkpoints. As with Palestinians, they are inquired as to their purpose of getting through and so on.....

All settlements are illegal under international law. As far as I'm aware, even the US considers them so. There are settlements of which the Israeli Government does not approve, but using them as an example of Israeli policy overall is rather disengenous on your part.


Funny that you forgot to mention these things. Tell me if after reading these from your very article you still believe that it is not illegal to construct settlements outside of Israel's border according to government policy.

If I wanted to "forget to mention" them, I wouldnt have linked the article. That 6.5 million was illegal. However

The report said money was sent without approval by the cabinet or defence ministry - a legal requirement.
followed later in the article by
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
so in essence the problem wasn't that money was being sent, but that it was sent without proper and due approval, as other monies have been allocated according to procedure.

I also draw your attention to the tax breaks and goverment policy referred to earlier in the B'tselem article.

haha, no my friend,......
hahahahaha you really gave me a good chuckle with this one (really, not . You're really a funny guy. ....that really brought a good laugh.

So the fake humour is still with us.....


Does Israel blow up busses carrying civillians?.

Do vans and ambulances count?

you have the selective pieces of it that you read.?.

'total dead' being one of the things that I always find the most illuminating.


no, not at all. If only about the settlements you were talking about, why is the rest of Israel being attacked?.?.

Primarily because Israel is still in the West Bank/Arab East Jerusalem. Also because the overgrown fireworks they use can't reach them from Gaza.



No, because they simply do not show evidence against any of what I had said. you see, you might have skipped this lesson (of which took a while to show to Nodinia himself), it's great to throw excerpts and quotes, but when they don't refute what I had previously said in any way, and you don't connect them to the points you're trying to make, there is nothing for me to respond to.

Entirely untrue. For example, you have so far refused to acknowledge direct Israeli government funding for settlements. You also tend to focus on the specific to avoid the overall picture, and cherry pick from articles to distort the obvious. The case of 22 million for settlements as mentioned in my last post, for instance.

Thats not what I said, nor what I implied. Do not distort what I say in such a manner.

not distorting. Just saying that you yourself said 'excuse' and that's all it is.


So its time to trot out the stereotypes......

What has that got anything to do with government policy. Any nation has people who have stereotypes against other people. I wouldn't find it surprising that some individuals within Israel feel some level of this towards the people who attacked them repeatedly since the creation of their country. I have an off topic question (as with all your anti-Israel feelings), do you support all of the wars on Israel by its neighbors?


But the rest of their people are.

So the rest of their people can take care of themselves. They don't feel any obligation to do their 'revenging' for them. You are really simply wrong it's just a matter of excuse. I think we both know that Hamas does what it does and says that it does what it does both because it wants to destroy Israel. This is clearly the case.


For this to be true, one would have to presume that Hamas have no feeling towards their fellows, and were incapable of distinguishing the ordinary man in the street from the leadership of Fatah, neither of which is that likely. You are placing presumption on top of presumption. Were I to suggest that everyone of Jewish faith who donates to Israeli based charities was a card carrying Likud member who was 100% behind the occupation, I'd imagine I'd be given short shrift.....

Hamas has planned assassination attempts at Fatah members. It's not a brotherly love there.



Firstly the withdrawal from Gaza was because it was taking 30,000 troops to guard 8,000 settlers, and it was felt that the resources would be better used in the West Bank/Arab East Jerusalem. It would also take the wind out of Arafats sails.

Ok, so it was completely not a step forward by Israel. You're right. Man I don't know why but for some reason it's really hard for me to put my mind in your train of thought.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3720176.stm

I love how all of your excerpts are ones where I have to go and show to you how its an opinion not fact and it's just quoting someone who said this. I'll stop, you're really wasting my time.

Secondly, Israel maintains air and border control over Gaza, so 'Free travel' isn't quite that free. Thirdly, as Israel should have withdrawn 40 years previously, doing so for purely strategic reasons after so much life has been lost is hardly something to crow about.

Ah, ok so from what you're saying, they are no better off than when the IDF was in central Gaza? and, so better never than sometime? I love your logical train of thought. It is SO biased you can't even concede certain diplomatic steps forward towards peace by Israel. Man, oh man, you're in trouble. I wonder how you think about subjects different from this one. Hopefully not nearly in the same manner.

I can only conclude that you are taking the piss, very young, or very naive. I have no way of knowing which, or considering a possible alternative explanation. Either way, heres something which can be known, because its in the public domain.....


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3686999.stm

What they call occupied land incudes East Jerusalem and existing large cities as I have already said. I guarantee that all if not almost all of that went there.



http://www.btselem.org/English/Publications/Summaries/200205_Land_Grab.asp


Please explain to me how/why the Israeli Government offers incentives to move to the West Bank if it does not approve of, and seeks to stop, the settlements
Please explain why it builds illegal settlements and/or expands them, if it wishes to prevent them.

It gives incentives to move to the cities, which are not deemed 'illegal' as for now. It does not build illegal settlements as I've said before.


Yes, the IDF deny it, so the IDF must be right and coroners inquests be damned.

The fact that a proffessional army constantly mistakes white Europeans for Arab 'Gunmen' while their militant opposite numbers rarely if ever do so doesn't strike you as odd? And nearly always the UN and NGO people, rarely journalists, and usually with single shots? Hmmmmmm



That was the 6 foot red-haired Irish woman who was shot in broad day light, trying to get them to not fire on school children......Presumably Gaza is full of 6 foot red-haired Irish women. What sayeth thee?

That's all for your biased mind to decide.


So If present one article that lists all the deaths rather than go into detail thats a stronger case or weaker?

Does my presenting individual cases for examples make those involved any less dead or the overall total any less damning?

No, you must look at it from a whole perspective



A majority within it certainly. There are usually moderate elements in there, but as its a cabinet system, they must usually be in a minority - certainly under anything where Sharon held sway.


This precisely shows that you don't know a thing about what you're talking about. The above statement has shown the presumption that you make that perhaps leads you to make the rest of your accusations against Israel. You are COMPLETELY wrong. This shows you have no clue about the Israeli point of view.

I'm just pointing out the facts. A state - ostensibly a democracy - is occupying and colonising land outside its borders. I don't find it acceptable whether the state involved is Indonesia or Israel, or who those on the receiving end are.

yea right. To me it seems like you just have a grudge against Israel for some reason. Can I ask you another off topic question, if you don't mind answering it: Are you a Muslim/Arab?


O feel free.

It's ok, it's really not in my desire. My goal is not to present your viewpoint in the worst possible light, it's to get agreement. This isn't a battle.


Yet my observations are of the results. They paint an entirely different picture.

Those are up to interpretation.

It would be inappropriate for me to visit the state while its occupying the West Bank/Arab East Jerusalem. I have contemplated visting there in order to go to the West Bank, however.

'inappropriate'. Tell me, why do you feel this way.


We arent talking about some civil police force here, but an occupying Army there against the wishes of the populace. By their presence alone, they offend.

yea, ok. poor Gazans, offended by their brothers in blood (of which they killed tens if not hundredds in recent riots) having to deal with checkpoints when going to Jerusalem because of the countless suicide bombers getting through in the past.


All settlements are illegal under international law. As far as I'm aware, even the US considers them so. There are settlements of which the Israeli Government does not approve, but using them as an example of Israeli policy overall is rather disengenous on your part.

Then, if trying to be consistent with your point of view, WHY does Israel pretend to call only some settlements illegal? or is that doublethink again?


If I wanted to "forget to mention" them, I wouldnt have linked the article. That 6.5 million was illegal. However


followed later in the article by

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3686999.stm
so in essence the problem wasn't that money was being sent, but that it was sent without proper and due approval, as other monies have been allocated according to procedure.

I also draw your attention to the tax breaks and goverment policy referred to earlier in the B'tselem article.

So the fake humour is still with us.....



Do vans and ambulances count?


'total dead' being one of the things that I always find the most illuminating.



Primarily because Israel is still in the West Bank/Arab East Jerusalem. Also because the overgrown fireworks they use can't reach them from Gaza.




Entirely untrue. For example, you have so far refused to acknowledge direct Israeli government funding for settlements. You also tend to focus on the specific to avoid the overall picture, and cherry pick from articles to distort the obvious. The case of 22 million for settlements as mentioned in my last post, for instance.

all which I already responded to above.

not distorting. Just saying that you yourself said 'excuse' and that's all it is..

The occupation is excused as a response to violence, but the occupation itself causes violence. Its fairly clear what I'm getting at.


What has that got anything to do with government policy. Any nation has people who have stereotypes against other people. ..

I'm sure they have. However in this case we are discussing what you yourself typed, not anyone else.


do you support all of the wars on Israel by its neighbors?..

No, though I fail to see what that has to do with anything.


So the rest of their people can take care of themselves...

A good thing that the rest of the world didn't take that attitude with regard to a number of countries. I find it remarkable you advocate the abandonment of compassion on behalf of a population, to suit the purposes of a state.


You are really simply wrong it's just a matter of excuse....

If the idea of the war on Iraq was enough to bring millions onto the streets (in 2002/2003) why then would the colonisation of ones own not be enough to make some one take up arms?


Hamas has planned assassination attempts at Fatah members. It's not a brotherly love there.....

A distinction I already made and acknowledged.


Ok, so it was completely not a step forward by Israel. You're right. Man I don't know why but for some reason it's really hard for me to put my mind in your train of thought......

It was a switching of resources for political and military strategic gain.

I love how all of your excerpts are ones where I have to go and show to you how its an opinion not fact

Yet after this withdrawal, the announcements of settlement expansion in the West Bank began.


It is SO biased you can't even concede certain diplomatic steps forward towards peace by Israel.

Unilateral withdrawal was not accomplished by diplomacy, as I would have thought obvious. And as stated earlier, withdrawal of troops from one area to concentrate on another is hardly "steps forwards towards peace". If anything, its consolidation.


What they call occupied land incudes East Jerusalem and existing large cities as I have already said. I guarantee that all if not almost all of that went there..

No, what is occupied land. "existing large cities" are I presume your euphimism for settlements. Trying to change the goal posts by defining your own terms counts for naught I'm afraid. If they are outside the 1967 borders, they are settlements - colonies, and as such are considered illegal. Whether they were founded in 1967 or 1997 is irrelevant. You are being disengenous again.


It gives incentives to move to the cities, which are not deemed 'illegal' as for now. It does not build illegal settlements as I've said before...

Outside Israels 1967 borders=illegal settlement. I find it a remarkably easy concept to get.


That's all for your biased mind to decide. ...

Again, "bias" has nothing to do with it. There are a list of casualties that one would expect to be the victims of a badly trained irregular group, but instead fall at the hands of a fulltime and proffessional army. Its hardly 'bias' to ascribe sinister motive to such a toll.


No, you must look at it from a whole perspective...

I'd suggest that you would best served by taking your own advice.


This precisely shows that you don't know a thing about what you're talking about. The above statement has shown the presumption that you make that perhaps leads you to make the rest of your accusations against Israel. You are COMPLETELY wrong. This shows you have no clue about the Israeli point of view....

Again, I can only go on the results. The Israeli Government elect is in charge of the IDF and the various agencies of the state. The overall pattern therefore must be the result of policy. Certainly a great deal of it - settlements for instance - identifiably and clearly is.

yea right. To me it seems like you just have a grudge against Israel for some reason. Can I ask you another off topic question, if you don't mind answering it: Are you a Muslim/Arab?....

Though tempted to tell you to fuck off, I'll indulge you by saying that I am not an Arab. As for religon, I am an athiest.


Those are up to interpretation.

Unless one interprets building as demolishing and dead as alive, you'd have your work cut out for you there.....


'inappropriate'. Tell me, why do you feel this way..

Because it would be supporting an oppressive state. One might as well support Mugabes Zimbabwe, or the old Apartheid South Africa.


yea, ok. poor Gazans, offended by their brothers in blood (of which they killed tens if not hundredds in recent riots) having to deal with checkpoints when going to Jerusalem because of the countless suicide bombers getting through in the past...

Checkpoints, beatings, settlers, land confiscations, killings......


Then, if trying to be consistent with your point of view, WHY does Israel pretend to call only some settlements illegal? ...

Presumably to keep the Americans happy, as well as allowing supporters to spin the idea that an action against "illegal" settlements represents overall policy. However, strictly speaking, any settlement/town/city/group of caravans/trailers etc outside Israels borders populated by Israeli citizens is illegal, whatever Israel may choose to define it as.

Can we please shorten the posts? Its getting annoying!

Can we please shorten the posts? Its getting annoying!

I might post a similar and simultaneous plea for the lengthening of the attention span....

I might post a similar and simultaneous plea for the lengthening of the attention span....

Oh I have a great attention span. It's just getting annoying.

Oh I have a great attention span. It's just getting annoying.

The alternative is breaking the whole into a series of short posts, which would lack cohesion, particularily if we get hit by the 'time warp' effect. As a result, I see no reason to change. Paragraphs are used properly by all concerned, as are quotes. There are no massive blocks of text....However, feel free to not read them in future.

The occupation is excused as a response to violence, but the occupation itself causes violence. Its fairly clear what I'm getting at.

No, this is a common mistake. Noone uses the violence to justify the building of illegal settlements. Also, it is clear that the checkpoints and curfues and so on were the RESULT of the violence as they came afterwards. See the violence was the first cause. Not the other way around. You do remember the beginning of the second intifada right?


I'm sure they have. However in this case we are discussing what you yourself typed, not anyone else.

You brought up the stereotypes. I replied that any nation has individuals that hold some.

No, though I fail to see what that has to do with anything.

Nothing, I said it was off topic. Just wondering if you're anti-israel as a whole.


A good thing that the rest of the world didn't take that attitude with regard to a number of countries. I find it remarkable you advocate the abandonment of compassion on behalf of a population, to suit the purposes of a state.

What you don't realize is that many West Bankers feel no brotherhood with Hamas. Hamas can pretend to feel brotherhood to them, but in reality we both know it's just an excuse. Can I ask you another question? Do you honestly believe that if all settlements were removed, East Jerusalem returned in its entirety, and the existing cities that the Palestinians claim as their territory also given to them, all the checkpoints removed, the walls torn down, the complete independence in every sense of the word given to Gaza and the West Bank and the reinstatement of all the supplies and so on, Hamas will really sign a peace treaty and stop attacking Israel?
(hint: if your answer is a deluded yes, go check what Hamas has been saying. Such as "we won't stop until we get all of israel back" and stuff like that). When you answer no, you will agree with me about the excuse. (Hopefully).



If the idea of the war on Iraq was enough to bring millions onto the streets (in 2002/2003) why then would the colonisation of ones own not be enough to make some one take up arms?

GREAT point. Same idea. Anti-America not pro-Iraq.


A distinction I already made and acknowledged.




It was a switching of resources for political and military strategic gain.

Yet after this withdrawal, the announcements of settlement expansion in the West Bank began.

Unilateral withdrawal was not accomplished by diplomacy, as I would have thought obvious. And as stated earlier, withdrawal of troops from one area to concentrate on another is hardly "steps forwards towards peace". If anything, its consolidation.

Do you really not agree that it would help the peace process to withdraw from Northern Gaza? (Or would it have been better to stay there?) Your logic is flawed.


No, what is occupied land. "existing large cities" are I presume your euphimism for settlements. Trying to change the goal posts by defining your own terms counts for naught I'm afraid. If they are outside the 1967 borders, they are settlements - colonies, and as such are considered illegal. Whether they were founded in 1967 or 1997 is irrelevant. You are being disengenous again.

Outside Israels 1967 borders=illegal settlement. I find it a remarkably easy concept to get.

Major cities could be removed when and only when a peace settlement is negotiated. There would be no point in demolishing an entire city for no purpose. It would cost millions and do nothing for diplomacy (as I've already established above about the 'excuse'). As Gravlen's wiki link explained, the only way these major cities affect Palestinians is in that they feel that Israel is leaving them there to prevent peace. West Bankers aren't running out of land. These cities' settlers aren't the ones harassing Palestinians. They are not in the way between them and their holy sites in Jerusalem. They are only an excuse that they use.
About East Jerusalem - it's another matter, that we can discuss if you wish.


Again, "bias" has nothing to do with it. There are a list of casualties that one would expect to be the victims of a badly trained irregular group, but instead fall at the hands of a fulltime and proffessional army. Its hardly 'bias' to ascribe sinister motive to such a toll.


I'd suggest that you would best served by taking your own advice.

Thank you. I've been trying to do so. I've talked to Palestinian individuals who had lived there and have relatives there, I have followed Arabic media to understand their perspective or the way they present it, I have lived in Israel for long and go back every year. I speak to many soldiers, and people with close ties to government officials. Finally, I've been following news very closely, not in a selective basis.


Again, I can only go on the results. The Israeli Government elect is in charge of the IDF and the various agencies of the state. The overall pattern therefore must be the result of policy. Certainly a great deal of it - settlements for instance - identifiably and clearly is.

Though tempted to tell you to fuck off, I'll indulge you by saying that I am not an Arab. As for religon, I am an athiest.

Really, I did not mean for you to take offence at the question, and said that only if you did not mind answering it. It's at least good to find out that you don't have a religious claim to Israel for Muslims as many I have talked to do.


Unless one interprets building as demolishing and dead as alive, you'd have your work cut out for you there.....

Because it would be supporting an oppressive state. One might as well support Mugabes Zimbabwe, or the old Apartheid South Africa.

Please do not compare Israel to apartheid South Africa, we all know there is a HUGE difference and that this is a war of two seperate people and nations, not intermingled ones. It is the result of terrorism on the side of the ones that you call 'oppressed'. Please let us not get into this.


Checkpoints, beatings, settlers, land confiscations, killings......




Presumably to keep the Americans happy, as well as allowing supporters to spin the idea that an action against "illegal" settlements represents overall policy. However, strictly speaking, any settlement/town/city/group of caravans/trailers etc outside Israels borders populated by Israeli citizens is illegal, whatever Israel may choose to define it as.

So can I ask you a series of questions now:
1. Is Israel's government LYING to its population about settlement policy?
2. Is the Israeli populace LYING as a whole about settlement policy?
3. Is Israel and its populace LYING about the instruction of soldiers to harm as many Palestinians as possible and intentionally kill UN and relief workers?
4. Do you view Israel and/or its government as simply trying to annihilate the Palestinian people?
5. Do you really believe that Israel just wants to expand its settlements more than it wants peace?

No, this is a common mistake. Noone uses the violence to justify the building of illegal settlements. ?

"Security" was used as an excuse to build the original settlements, was it not?



Also, it is clear that the checkpoints and curfues and so on were the RESULT of the violence as they came afterwards.?

The acts of resistance to the occupation by the population of the Area.

What you (....), Hamas will really sign a peace treaty and stop attacking Israel?

Yes. Having something to lose tends to quell the urge for martyrdom. There'll always be a few diehards on the fringes, but thats to be expected.


Do you really not agree that it would help the peace process to withdraw from Northern Gaza? (Or would it have been better to stay there?) Your logic is flawed.?

As it was done? No.


Major cities could be removed when and only when a peace settlement is negotiated. There would be no point in demolishing an entire city for no purpose. It would cost millions and do nothing for diplomacy

While demolishiing them in the absence of an agreement may be "pointless", expanding them surely only shows hostile intent.

I'll address the rest of your points later.

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?

Understand I am not justifying it, but I do not really see any large to-do; Israel or the Palestinians would do the same thing if they were in Egypt's shoes.

Isn't that trolling on the OP's part?

You've read OD's posts before right?

The occupation is excused as a response to violence, but the occupation itself causes violence.
No, the violence came first. That's a very basic point here.

The Palestinians are only starving because Hamas takes their food. They only have fuel shortages because Hamas takes their fuel to use in their cars. Hamas were the ones who cut the power the other day, to make it look like Israel did (they cut the power to the hospital, but of course kept power to their rocket making facilities)

And If the palestinians are so desperate, and there is such a horrible humanitarian crisis, than why do I see so many people coming back with brand new motorcycles and cartons of cigarettes? Yeah, those are so necessary, the palestinians couldn't live with the cruel zionist invaders keeping them from their cigs and bikes.

Lets not forget the recent discovery that tens of thousands of egyptian currency used by "poor, starving palestinians" have been counterfeited by Hamas, so they are just screwing egyptian small business by emptying their stores of products and paying for it in fake cash.

Any humanitarian crisis is an illusion of Hamas. Israel has not once stopped medicine or food from being delivered in. Anyone who needs serious medical treatment not available in Gaza is airlifted to tel aviv. This is despite the fact that Israel discovered several of the AID trucks from the EU (you know, those aid trucks that Israel "isn't letting in") on route to Gaza from the west bank filled with weapons and explosives.

And yes, the palestinians voted Hamas into power themselves. That's what happens if you give these people democracy. They vote a group into power that fires hundreds of missiles into Israel every week (into Israels pre-1967, as well). And then Israel isn't allowed to respond? They cannot defend themselves? All they do is attack known or suspected terrorists and people engaged in violence (yes, innocents get killed sometimes, but often times they place themselves in that situation by rushing to act as willing human shields for Hamas, despite the fact that Israel drops flyers warning civs of an airstrike. And lets not forget that there are women and children palestinians who pick up guns and bombs as well. Every woman or kid killed is not necessarily innocent). Palestinian terrorists use mosques schools and hospitals as safe houses and weapons dumps: that is against the geneva code. They use civilians as human shields; that is against the Geneva convention. They dress themselves in IDF uniforms, as women and civilians; again, against the geneva convention. And lets not forget all the instances of stoning 5 year olds to death, shooting pregnant jews through the stomach, and sniping people working on their garden or driving to the store.

Then there is pallywood, where photographers take staged pictures, such as fake funerals so it looks like innocent people are dying, the spurious claim that Israel purposely killed Muhammed Al-Dura (if they killed him at all), and the Tuvia Grossman affair.

Lets not forget the Lynching in Ramallah either.

But wait... Israel pulled out of Gaza! Shouldn't that make the violence stop? No, because Hamas and their friends won't stop until Israel and all of the Jews who live there are destroyed.

Israel was never the aggressor in the first place. When britian controlled Israel, it was part of a larger area that also included jordan. Jordan, the west bank, gaza, and most of the negev desert were given to the arabs, along with east jerusalem. This wasn't enought, because the surrounding arabs IMMEDIATELY ATTACKED ISRAEL! It was not the other way around. The arab governments were also the ones who told the palestinians to leave (the "exodus"), it wasn't "hostile zionist armies" as the pali's like to claim.

But no, the pooooor innocent palestinians are so hard done by, and its aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaall the fault of the VAST ZIONIST CONSPIRACY


Sources:

http://thisongoingwar.blogspot.com/2007/11/1-nov-07-firing-13-rockets-today-thugs.html
Firing rockets at Israel from the cover of a schoolyard

http://www.masada2000.org/
History of the area

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58717
al-Dura

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/26/africa/ME-GEN-Israel-Palestinians.php
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/927476.html
http://www.pmw.org.il/tv%20part11.html
http://pmw.org.il/bulletins_oct2007.htm#b171007
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/usnews/060216a.aspx
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/10/iranian-regime-celebrates-jerusalem.html
The last thing Hamas and the pali's want is peace

http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2007/11/excerpt_of_the_day_israel_deci.php
http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Security/?id=1.0.1626210789
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1198517225718&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Israel concessions and restraint

http://www.masada2000.org/ramallah.html
The lynching in Ramallah

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1195546795874&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Persecution of Christians by Palistinian muslims

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/12/03/africa/ME-GEN-Israel-Settler-Shooting.php#end_main
Palestinians targeting innocent Israeli's

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=23405&only
Using Civs as human shields

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59374
Where the aid money goes

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28266_Video-_Hamas_MP_Says_Jews_Are_Creating_Artificial_Earthquakes&only
Complete Foolishness

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2007/10/palarab-welfare-state.html
The Palistinian welfare state

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/019292.php
Incentive to become a martyr

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-wonaza0722,0,4564783.story
Killing Children

http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/israeldiary/Victim_of_the_Media_War.asp
The case of Tuvia Grossman

Finally, I've been following news very closely, not in a selective basis.

Yet you seem helllbent on denieing the obvious, particularily in regard to expansion.



Really, I did not mean for you to take offence at the question, and said that only if you did not mind answering it. It's at least good to find out that you don't have a religious claim to Israel for Muslims as many I have talked to do.
.

I fail to see how that could even arise, as I haven't mentioned religon in relation to any claim. Nor are religous claims to the territory on the muslim side alone.


Please do not compare Israel to apartheid South Africa, we all know there is a HUGE difference and that this is a war of two seperate people and nations, not intermingled ones..

There are two distinct sets of law for the two populations in the OT, thus Israel runs it as a semi-apartheid province. When Israeli settlers have to go before the same military courts as the Palestinians, or the Palestinians the same civil courts as the settlers, the comparison will be far less valid.

It is the result of terrorism on the side of the ones that you call 'oppressed'. ..

As they are the ones being colonised and doing the bulk of the dying, I think "oppressed" a valid way of describing their condition.


So can I ask you a series of questions now:


1. Is Israel's government LYING to its population about settlement policy?
2. Is the Israeli populace LYING as a whole about settlement policy?
..

A strange pair of questions. As I've posted statements from Israelis that match my own assesment of the situation, I might ask you the same.


3. Is Israel and its populace LYING about the instruction of soldiers to harm as many Palestinians as possible and intentionally kill UN and relief workers?
..

Likewise.....In addition the populace in general do not instruct the military. They elect the Government that do. Your question is simplified in order to be loaded, I think.

4. Do you view Israel and/or its government as simply trying to annihilate the Palestinian people?..

No.


5. Do you really believe that Israel just wants to expand its settlements more than it wants peace?

I think the question is again loaded, as Israel can have both, it being the master of the situation. It just has to finalise its borders unilaterally and secure them. The Palestinians pose less threat than drunken drivers do. Even in the OT.

The Palestinians (...)rossman

Bridge, Troll. No pwers here.

It's starting to seem like you're getting really desperate with your arguments here. Your points are weaker and weaker and easily refutable. But I'll play along, as long as I'm not bored.
"Security" was used as an excuse to build the original settlements, was it not?

Not security from Palestinian suicide attacks or rockets no.

The acts of resistance to the occupation by the population of the Area.

haha. Again, so easily refutable. 1. Legitimate 'resistance? So you support terrorism?
2. No, as what you call 'occupation' did not affect them directly.

Yes. Having something to lose tends to quell the urge for martyrdom. There'll always be a few diehards on the fringes, but thats to be expected.

because....now they don't have anything to lose? and when the settlements are gone they'll have more to lose? what are you talking about? At least some of your previous arguments made sense within your realm of mistaken perceptions but now you're just resorting to shitty ones.


As it was done? No.

So you're saying it would have been better to stay there? or leave? (for peace purposes)

While demolishiing them in the absence of an agreement may be "pointless", expanding them surely only shows hostile intent.

It does not affect the Palestinians directly in any way.

No, the violence came first. That's a very basic point here.
Yes, you are right. It is clear. Nodinia is just trying to deny the obvious.

Good Stuff
nice post. Good response.
Yet you seem helllbent on denieing the obvious, particularily in regard to expansion.

Well, enlighten me.

I fail to see how that could even arise, as I haven't mentioned religon in relation to any claim. Nor are religous claims to the territory on the muslim side alone.

No I know, nothing meant there. Just wondering if some of the bias may have a source. It is still somewhat of a mystery to me how one would assume the position you currently hold.


There are two distinct sets of law for the two populations in the OT, thus Israel runs it as a semi-apartheid province. When Israeli settlers have to go before the same military courts as the Palestinians, or the Palestinians the same civil courts as the settlers, the comparison will be far less valid.

We have already discussed this. DO NOT compare to apartheid Africa. It is nothing like apartheid. This is clear to all sides. You can stop now. What is this like the last-resort card you pull out?

As they are the ones being colonised and doing the bulk of the dying, I think "oppressed" a valid way of describing their condition.

Um, no. Their condition is caused form within. You want to call it self-opression, maybe.


A strange pair of questions. As I've posted statements from Israelis that match my own assesment of the situation, I might ask you the same.

Please answer. I take it its a yes to one of them? As for me: definitely NO. Israel's gov is a democracy run by the people. The population is highly aware with the free media and involvement in their government. Everyone serves in the army, so they are well-aware of what goes on militarily. Whether the entire Israeli population is lying as a whole is possible I guess. 7 million people, plus all their supporters involved i one big lie. Maybe. To me it sounds more like a conspiracy theory there?


Likewise.....In addition the populace in general do not instruct the military. They elect the Government that do. Your question is simplified in order to be loaded, I think.

NO, I said that because the general populace SERVES in the military (remember? mandatory universal draft? because of the constant attacks on Israel by surrounding forces since its creation?), so they would know what they're instructed. Again, please answer, don't evade.

No.

So what do you think IS their goal? Do you think they just put up the checkpoints to piss off the West Bankers?


I think the question is again loaded, as Israel can have both, it being the master of the situation. It just has to finalise its borders unilaterally and secure them. The Palestinians pose less threat than drunken drivers do. Even in the OT.
Are you kidding me? Have you forgotten about all the suicide attacks? And rocket launches? How can those be stopped by securing its borders?
Bridge, Troll. No pwers here.

not at all. He is correct. Just because you don't feel like responding you call it a troll. You know, you overuse that so often it makes you look bad.

(P.S. Remember a few threads ago when you asked me for a source but we never got it for some reason about the kindergarden. Well, thank you to Cletustan for bringing it up:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3466387,00.html
you decide.)

In conclusion, we have come to the final stages of this discussion, you are evading, accusing of trolling, presenting shallow arguments, and resorting to last-resort 'trump' cards such as the apartheid accusation. If this doesn't come back to an actual normal discussion pretty soon, I think I'll take off.

haha, no my friend, that meant that those things are of no importance to my argument. it means you were pointlessly ranting about things that are not relevant. Which kind of means - you were the one who failed. Sorry. It must have been fun for you there for a moment to feel like you had me though.
Yeah, whatever helps you sleep at night...

You claim that the majority of Palestinians support the destruction of Israel based on the fact that 44% voted for Hamas. I pointed out that 42% voted for Fatah, which means that the majority of voters didn't vote for them, and that a majority voted for Abu Mazen. And you claim it's not relevant.

You claim that Israel can't be accused of terrorism because of the definition of "terrorism" - I showed you that you just made up your own definition, and that you were wrong. And you claim it's not relevant.

Yeah, "ok w/e" indeed. Yet again you fail, and fail hard.

hahahahaha you really gave me a good chuckle with this one (really, not sarcastic) you give more credit for Hamas for not lying than to Israel. You're really a funny guy. You should consider a comedy stand-up show for Israelis, that really brought a good laugh.
...

Again, you fail to grasp the point entirely. I don't feel the need to explain it to you ad nauseam. Go back, read it again, and try again. Do it slower this time.

It would make a HUGE difference. It would not make them less of a terrorist organization if they apologized after blowing up a buss carrying civillians, BUT: it would be appropriate if they said it was unintentional.
There! See? That bolded part? That's the point that just flew above your head.

Thus it wouldn't make a huge difference, would it? It their actions would speak louder than words, would they not?


Does Israel blow up busses carrying civillians?
No. Do Palestine bomb civilian targets using F-16? No. Irrelevant question? Yes.

-Note: the reason Hamas has so many volunteers, many of them young people, is precisely because they outwardly aim to seek revenge against the Israelis by killing them and their children. It would make a HUGE difference HUUUUUUGE to the situation, if Hamas declared it aimed to minimize civilian casualties and was aiming at purely military ones that commit actions against them.
Not if they continued to target civilians. Again: Actions speak louder than words.

What you define as 'hard enough' often times, and many times, stands in the way of the killing of many many many terrorists. That's your own definition. And you don't have all the evidence, you have the selective pieces of it that you read.
What you're saying here basically boils down to: "I don't care about the evidence, no matter what it is. Not that I have anything to counter the evidence, I just - don't - care - about - evidence. Just take my word for it, OK?"

And no, I won't just take your word for it. I have provided quite a few links and evidence - prove that they tried hard enough. Several NGO's would be interested in your answer, since the Israeli government themselves have failed to adequately provide an explanation for how they manage to kill one civilian for every armed militant and terrorist they kill when they take all precautions.

no, not at all. If only about the settlements you were talking about, why is the rest of Israel being attacked?
*Sigh*

Reading comprehension is your friend, and context is the nice neighbour bringing tea over... Let me refresh your memory:
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.
Yep. Your response is still an irrelevant non sequitur.

nope, some effort is better than none, even if this effort is small in your opinion. (which in reality it is not - not even close).
Inexcusable passivity is just that - inexcusable. Some effort do not exempt them from their obligations. And the numbers strongly indicate that the small effort isn't good enough.


they don't need refuting because they don't present anything that is in contrary to my views except some of their own opinions and perceptions of things. Neither did you take them in the right way as I said but that is of no issue to this.
I see. They don't support your views so you disregard them. Nice. Ignoring evidence is a creative way to go, I guess...

No, because they simply do not show evidence against any of what I had said. you see, you might have skipped this lesson (of which took a while to show to Nodinia himself), it's great to throw excerpts and quotes, but when they don't refute what I had previously said in any way, and you don't connect them to the points you're trying to make, there is nothing for me to respond to.
Yet again, reading comprehension and context is your friend.

Let me repeat myself:
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.”
Being ordered to use a civilian as a human shield is - apart from being against both international law and Israeli law - tries to minimize innocent civilian casualties as much as possible how?

Now that you may see the connection - feel free to go back and try again.

Put yourself in their minds for a second. Honestly, if you were a nationalist, why would you want this?
You wish me to speculate? Why does any nationalist seek Lebensraum? I'll rather ask you to read up on the philosophies and politics of Rehavam Zeevi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehavam_Zeevi). I'll even quote some wiki for you:
Ze'evi publicly advocated the population transfer by agreement of 3.3 million Palestinians from the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza to Arab nations. According to Ze'evi, this could be accomplished by making the lives of Palestinians so miserable they would relocate, by use of military force during wartime, or through an agreement with Arab nations. Ze'evi first called for the expulsion speaking to the Moshe Dayan Political and Social Forum in Tel Aviv in July 1987, stating then it would be a voluntary transfer and that it was the only way to make peace with the Arabs. After the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990, Ze'evi advocated the expulsion of Palestinians to the east side of the Jordan River, where they could serve as a human shield should the Iraqi Army seek to attack Israel.

In a radio interview in July, 2001, Ze'evi claimed that 180,000 Palestinians worked and lived illegally in Israel, then referred to them as "a cancer" and said that "We should get rid of the ones who are not Israeli citizens the same way you get rid of lice"
...making their lives so miserable that they would relocate voluntarily...
He also wanted Israel to lay claim to the country Jordan because it historically belonged to the Tribes of Israel - Gad, Reuven, and Menashe, and believed visitors to Israel must speak Hebrew.
And he was a minister when he was assassinated in 2001.

It's fun feeling like you've done a public service I concede that. I think you forgot about all the land on which Israel can expand to but doesn't because THERE ISN'T A POPULATION TO LAND RATIO PROBLEM yet or anytime in the future. It would be safe to say that Israel still has a few centuries at the least before it runs out of land.
Has that ever stopped any expansionist regime in history?

It's ok man, not everyone who wishes to discuss the issue knows about all the facts. I don't hold you accountable, I only responded to your offer as to an answer to your hypothesized question. It's ok to say 'Oh'. Sometimes. (as I did in a different thread when Nodinia pointed out that there were certain cases in which IDF military courts dealt with cases not necessarily relating to security issues - I wasn't aware of that before and was not of extreme importance to my case) Similarly, here I don't think it would cost you much to say, oh yeah, you're right, Israel has much land to expand to and doesn't need neither Gaza nor the West Bank. Also, I don't see how it would harm the case you're trying to make, except for refute this one possible (false) answer to the question.
*Sigh*

I tend to admit when I'm wrong. The problem is, I'm not. Israel doesn't need Gaza or the West Bank. That doesn't mean that there aren't people who don't want the land.

no, the West Bank is not ecceptionally richer in resources than other areas in Israel (except for the factor that it is perhaps closer to water sources than the Negev) but there is also much room not in the desert, with terrain very similar to the West Bank, upon which there are yet no cities.

Um Gaza and the West Bank get most if not almost all of their water, power, supplies, and so on, from Israel and foreign aid. So, no not really. Israel's economy is not at such a dire position that it needs to start adding tiny little bits of territory to gain natural resources no.
Of course...

Oh wait!
The Mountain Aquifer, from which Israel draws over a third of its fresh water resources, has 83% of its recharge area located in the West Bank.
Wiki link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories)

Atlas also points out the consequences of Israel's allowing the Mountain aquifer to fall into Arab hands:

[Given what has happened to the Coastal aquifer] "the importance of the Mountain Aquifer has increased. As Israel's State Comptroller's Annual Report already reported by the early 1990's:

"The Mountain Aquifer, extending eastward of the Coastal Aquifer, from the slopes of Mt. Carmel to Beersheba, and from the crests of mountain ridges in Judea and Samaria to the coastal plain, serves as the principle reservoir of drinking water to the Dan region, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Beersheba. Today, it is the most important long term source in the [National] Water System."

"Now comes the political problem. This 'most important long-term source' physically straddles the pre-1967 cease fire lines, alias 'the Green Line', into Judea and Samaria. The Principle of Connecting Vessels tells us that any activity affecting the water on one side will affect that on the other side as well. So if pumping operations, or uncontrolled flow of sewage or industrial waste, etc., occur on the western slopes of Judea and Samaria, it would cause serious, and most probably irreversible, damage to the key source of drinking water for Israel's major urban centers and environs.

"The political and strategic significance for Israel is clear. Withdrawing from Judea and Samaria - i.e., the Mountain Aquifer - or from the Golan Heights would create a situation in which the fate of Israel's water supply would be determined by Mr. Arafat's Palestinian Authority and the Syrians, respectively. [underscoring added]

"Can Israel really afford to trust her most valuable and irreplaceable national resource in the hands of those who have had a long history of trying to destroy the Jewish State? In the case of the Syrians, this includes diverting and/or poisoning Israel's water supply."
http://www.nyjtimes.com/cover/05-06-05/WhatRetreatMeansForIsraeliWater.htm
http://www.grid.unep.ch/product/map/images/palestine_aquiferb.jpg


War with Jordan is VERY 'potential'. Jordan's army sucks. It knows that it doesn't stand a chance. And has no intention to.
Would everybody take that chance? "Ghandi" above didn't think it was a bad idea, though he wanted it as a buffer against a possible Iraqi invasion.

That's a different conversation.
Indeed. But my point still stands.

In fact, all of them were turned down, so I'm still waiting on either a claim of rediculosity of your question or an alternative answer you haven't thought of before.
As you can see, you're wrong. Again.

YES. By all means Israel wants peace more than anything. Obligations? There is no peace treaty with Palestine that sets these. I don't know what you're trying to say.
The Road Map for peace that Israel has agreed with demands a full freeze of settlements and dismantling of unauthorized settlement outposts. Israel is in total noncompliance.

Unproportionality is up to you to decide, again. 'Allowing' someone to die, as we said is an almost unavoidable result of war (initiated by the side on which the civilian deaths you were talking about are on)
Some deaths are unavoidable. I do not believe that a 50/50 ratio is, however.

Man, I gotta go work on my comprehension. Sorry if my stupidity and lack of language ability have offended you. So say, how good is your reading comprehension in your third language? Quite good, actually.

Please distinguish from now on between settlers and the Israeli government and people as a whole, and also think about who is getting attacked by the Palestinians.
Your grasp (or lack thereof) of the english language may leave you to a disadvantage, since it clearly follows from the context of my statements what I meant.

haha no my friend, you will not dictate when the term 'collective punishment' will be used. And I will use it now to proclaim that terrorism (for whatever reason) is attacking in a collective manner. Yes transgressions of the settlers are criminal. They deserve some form of fine or imprisonment.
No matter what you seem to believe, it won't help your argument to simply make up definitions.

Regardless, the end result are the same: Neither the collective punisment or the terrorising of Palestinians by either settlers or official government agents is acceptable.

I'm happy we agree that some Iranian newspapers are anti-Jewish. This is definitely true. And one of the causes for portrayal of Israel in the worst light possible as you and Nodinia are trying to do.
*sigh*

Look back in the thread. See my original posts which you contested. I do not try to portray Israel in the worst possible light. My point is that Israel do make mistake, employ the wrong policy, and allow crimes to happen - something which they need to be brought to answer for, as in any modern democracy.


Well, you have most definitely not seen all of the evidence, and definitely not even a small portion of it. To me it seems like you've been mostly exposed to articles covering the misdemeanors of certain Israeli soldiers because those are the ones most commonly reported.

Nice. You choose to disregard the body of evidence presented, and discount the news stories as somehow being creative figments of a "liberal media". Your defence of the Israeli government is ignorant at best and grossly dishonest at worst, and you have taken upon yourself the role of the apologist and present a defense that seems akin to claiming that we shouldn't punish the serial killer N.N. "because think of all the people he didn't kill".

It's not about "misdemeanors" - it's about gross violations of basic human rights.

There are definitely elements within the government and the military who can and should be called extreme
Thank you! Finally!


As I've said before - exagurations and claims that Islamic Jihadists are in fact civilians. Yes, there are civilian casualties, and yes this is a result of war.

haha half of them unarmed? what about the other half?
There you go again... The key is that half of the people killed are unarmed civilians!


My ignorance? you're funny. If you knew the first thing about this topic, you will remember that the Golan Heights are in dispute with Syria, not with Palestinians. Also that includes East Jerusalem. Both of these I do not consider to be what you call 'illegal settlements'. The numbers I'm seeing are:
(from your source) *snip*
Yet it does show an increase, as I said, as you doubted. So yet again, you fail.

No, the violence came first. That's a very basic point here.The shameful eviction of the Palestinian people came first

Can we please keep these posts much MUCH shorter for convenience sake. Let's just argue issues one at a time. (with hopefully a limit on the number of sources about different events that relate to your point to also one a time - unless they all cover the same exact material). (And stop just throwing arguments over as if that will help you by giving a feeling of 'overwhelming' the other side with accusations - it doesn't make you more right). It would not take away from the strength of your view if you present them one at a time - if your true purpose is to discuss these rationally and not to just show that you're right only because you have just so much 'evidence'.
I see no point in shortening the posts. However, I see no point in continuing this either. It is a waste of time to go back and forth with you when you lack the will or ability to read and understand my posts.

Furthermore, you want those who don't agree with you to change their minds and agree with you, even though you offer nothing except the word of the government of Israel that they're doing the best they can. When mountains of documents - third-party documents, mind you - document the dishonesty of the Israeli government, the lack of credibility sinks them as their own actions betray them. You place more weight on the word of the parties involved than the actions. To repeat myself, it doesn't matter if Hamas say they don't whish to kill innocent civilians when they blow up the bus - they still kill innocent civilians through a premeditated act of terrorism. And the same goes for Israel. Their words do not carry the weight of their actions, actions which time and time again is proven to run contrary to their assurances.

But I digress. The point is that you continue to say that you don't care about the evidence. I have shown you several cases and multiple reports, highlighting the failure of the Israeli governments in these cases. The government fails to protect civilians, as is their obligation. The military fails in that respect as well, and also (more or less silently) condones abuses and mistreatment. That has been documentet through further evidence - including the testimonials of former soldiers. You seem to hold the idea that the transgressions are simply the work of a few bad apples and refuse to even entertain the notion that the whole basket may have been corrupted.

Instead, you choose to ignore all of the evidence and brush it aside with the weak claim that "they're doing their best" - doing a serious disservice to Israeli humanity and honour, and disrespecting the Israeli human rights activists if not the entire Israeli people as well as the Palestinian victims.

So in short - if you don't bring something to the table, we're done here.

Not security from Palestinian suicide attacks or rockets no..

Exactly. And thats where the violence comes from now. And whats it caused by? The occupation.

haha. Again, so easily refutable. 1. Legitimate 'resistance? So you support terrorism?..

"terrorism" is a label applied to one side by the other disparagingly in a number of conflicts. I support certain liberation struggles.


2. No, as what you call 'occupation' did not affect them directly.

Please explain how its possible to be occupied militarily and not affected directly. Kindly remember that you refrenced at least one expulsion that occurred in 1967 in a previous discussion with me.


because....now (...........)shitty ones..

The settlements withdrawn, control over their own borders and a state.



So you're saying it would have been better to stay there? or leave? (for peace purposes)..

A negotiated withdrawal would have been the better option.


It does not affect the Palestinians directly in any way.)..

Yet you've already acknowledged the activities of the settlers. More settlers will undoubtedly lead to more of this at the very least.....
http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/peace.asp?pi=61&fld=538&docid=2630

DO NOT compare to apartheid Africa. It is nothing like apartheid.

There are seperate and unequal sets of laws and treatments for two populations in the same area by the same authority. If you know of a more valid comparison, please supply it.


Well, enlighten me..

The Israeli government encourages settlement growth. Tax breaks and building work.


It is still somewhat of a mystery to me how one would assume the position you currently hold...

The same reason one might have supported the East Timorese in their desire to oust the Indonesians.


Um, no. Their condition is caused form within. You want to call it self-opression, maybe....

Unless they have an inner IDF member and an Inner settler who hop out and night and beat and shoot them (not to mentionm seize land and build on it) no.


. Everyone serves in the army, so they are well-aware of what goes on militarily.....

Well, not everyone. However you seem to dismiss those who served in the Army who give stories of brutality. What of those who refuse to serve in the OT? You want to put the question in such a way as to say "Israels population is...." when in fact its far more complex. Again, are those I and others have quoted lying?


So what do you think IS their goal? Do you think they just put up the checkpoints to piss off the West Bankers?.....

Some of them undoubtedly yes. To make life as harsh as possible, so that they'll leave. Its a form of slow drip ethnic cleansing.

Throughout the occupied Palestinian territories, in the Gaza Strip as well as in the West Bank, Palestinians continuously face hardship in simply going about their lives; they are prevented from doing what makes up the daily fabric of most people's existence. The Palestinian territories face a deep human crisis, where millions of people are denied their human dignity. Not once in a while, but every day
http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/palestine-report-131207

To use your own tactic - are the International committe for the red cross lying?

He is correct. Just because you don't feel like responding you call it a troll

No, I don't feel like responding to a troll, theres rather a difference. However if you support Kahanism as he appears to, I'm sure you'd disagree.

Were I you, I'd stop trying to appeal to the gallery.


Are you kidding me? Have you forgotten about all the suicide attacks? And rocket launches? How can those be stopped by securing its borders?

Because most of the violence and killing occurs in the OT.

Yeah, whatever helps you sleep at night...

You claim that the majority of Palestinians support the destruction of Israel based on the fact that 44% voted for Hamas. I pointed out that 42% voted for Fatah, which means that the majority of voters didn't vote for them, and that a majority voted for Abu Mazen. And you claim it's not relevant.

You claim that Israel can't be accused of terrorism because of the definition of "terrorism" - I showed you that you just made up your own definition, and that you were wrong. And you claim it's not relevant.

Yeah, "ok w/e" indeed. Yet again you fail, and fail hard.

haha ok woah there bro. calm. I don't care about either of those.

...

Again, you fail to grasp the point entirely. I don't feel the need to explain it to you ad nauseam. Go back, read it again, and try again. Do it slower this time.


There! See? That bolded part? That's the point that just flew above your head.

Thus it wouldn't make a huge difference, would it? It their actions would speak louder than words, would they not?

No, actually as I said, it would make a HUGE difference.

No. Do Palestine bomb civilian targets using F-16? No. Irrelevant question? Yes.

Um, that was relelvant, because clearly Israel does not target civillians, and Hamas does. That's the way it is. Nothing that you say is going to change the actual situation. sorry.

Not if they continued to target civilians. Again: Actions speak louder than words.

Actually, yea as I showed, it would.

What you're saying here basically boils down to: "I don't care about the evidence, no matter what it is. Not that I have anything to counter the evidence, I just - don't - care - about - evidence. Just take my word for it, OK?"


And no, I won't just take your word for it. I have provided quite a few links and evidence - prove that they tried hard enough. Several NGO's would be interested in your answer, since the Israeli government themselves have failed to adequately provide an explanation for how they manage to kill one civilian for every armed militant and terrorist they kill when they take all precautions.


*Sigh*

Reading comprehension is your friend, and context is the nice neighbour bringing tea over... Let me refresh your memory:

Yep. Your response is still an irrelevant non sequitur.

...ramble on. trying to keep this short and I'm really bored of a lot of this. If you need, look up my responses to Nodinia.

Inexcusable passivity is just that - inexcusable. Some effort do not exempt them from their obligations. And the numbers strongly indicate that the small effort isn't good enough.

again, that's for you to decide.

I see. They don't support your views so you disregard them. Nice. Ignoring evidence is a creative way to go, I guess...


Yet again, reading comprehension and context is your friend.

Let me repeat myself:

Being ordered to use a civilian as a human shield is - apart from being against both international law and Israeli law - tries to minimize innocent civilian casualties as much as possible how?

Now that you may see the connection - feel free to go back and try again.


You wish me to speculate? Why does any nationalist seek Lebensraum? I'll rather ask you to read up on the philosophies and politics of Rehavam Zeevi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehavam_Zeevi). I'll even quote some wiki for you:

...making their lives so miserable that they would relocate voluntarily...

And he was a minister when he was assassinated in 2001.


Has that ever stopped any expansionist regime in history?


*Sigh*

I tend to admit when I'm wrong. The problem is, I'm not. Israel doesn't need Gaza or the West Bank. That doesn't mean that there aren't people who don't want the land.


Of course...

Oh wait!

Wiki link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories)


http://www.nyjtimes.com/cover/05-06-05/WhatRetreatMeansForIsraeliWater.htm
http://www.grid.unep.ch/product/map/images/palestine_aquiferb.jpg



Would everybody take that chance? "Ghandi" above didn't think it was a bad idea, though he wanted it as a buffer against a possible Iraqi invasion.


Indeed. But my point still stands.


As you can see, you're wrong. Again.


The Road Map for peace that Israel has agreed with demands a full freeze of settlements and dismantling of unauthorized settlement outposts. Israel is in total noncompliance.


Some deaths are unavoidable. I do not believe that a 50/50 ratio is, however.

Quite good, actually.


Your grasp (or lack thereof) of the english language may leave you to a disadvantage, since it clearly follows from the context of my statements what I meant.


No matter what you seem to believe, it won't help your argument to simply make up definitions.

Regardless, the end result are the same: Neither the collective punisment or the terrorising of Palestinians by either settlers or official government agents is acceptable.


*sigh*

Look back in the thread. See my original posts which you contested. I do not try to portray Israel in the worst possible light. My point is that Israel do make mistake, employ the wrong policy, and allow crimes to happen - something which they need to be brought to answer for, as in any modern democracy.



Nice. You choose to disregard the body of evidence presented, and discount the news stories as somehow being creative figments of a "liberal media". Your defence of the Israeli government is ignorant at best and grossly dishonest at worst, and you have taken upon yourself the role of the apologist and present a defense that seems akin to claiming that we shouldn't punish the serial killer N.N. "because think of all the people he didn't kill".

It's not about "misdemeanors" - it's about gross violations of basic human rights.


Thank you! Finally!


There you go again... The key is that half of the people killed are unarmed civilians!


Yet it does show an increase, as I said, as you doubted. So yet again, you fail.

blabla...answered to Nodinia and getting unnecessarily long. Kind of boring too. 'Expansionist regime' did give me a chuckle though

The shameful eviction of the Palestinian people came first

thank you for your occassional contributary statements. They are of great addition to the conversation.

blabla...answered to Nodinia and getting unnecessarily long. Kind of boring too.

Next time, try doing some research first, and please try to do some debating too. You've answered nothing, and you've provided nothing.

You have failed completely, and we are indeed done here.

Exactly. And thats where the violence comes from now. And whats it caused by? The occupation.

most of the violence comes from Gaza. We've established this countless times, and I'm bored. It's hard, but you did it.

"terrorism" is a label applied to one side by the other disparagingly in a number of conflicts. I support certain liberation struggles.

You support the idea that intentionally killing innocent civillians is at times justified?


Please explain how its possible to be occupied militarily and not affected directly. Kindly remember that you refrenced at least one expulsion that occurred in 1967 in a previous discussion with me.

the cities that are in the disputed West Bank don't come in contact with the Palestinians. Not affected directly.


The settlements withdrawn, control over their own borders and a state.

You are delusional as this is obviously not true. They say so themselves. So you being their spokesman (falsely so) is not right.



A negotiated withdrawal would have been the better option.

Still evading as you haven't answered the question. Boring?


Yet you've already acknowledged the activities of the settlers. More settlers will undoubtedly lead to more of this at the very least.....
http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/peace.asp?pi=61&fld=538&docid=2630

The residents of the cities don't cause this. More of them won't cause more of this.


apartheid

no. No comment anymore on this subject by me.


The Israeli government encourages settlement growth. Tax breaks and building work.

allready discussed. boring. anything new?


The same reason one might have supported the East Timorese in their desire to oust the Indonesians.

yea, right.


Unless they have an inner IDF member and an Inner settler who hop out and night and beat and shoot them (not to mentionm seize land and build on it) no.

haha yes actually. Look at the comments by your 'troller'.


Well, not everyone. However you seem to dismiss those who served in the Army who give stories of brutality. What of those who refuse to serve in the OT? You want to put the question in such a way as to say "Israels population is...." when in fact its far more complex. Again, are those I and others have quoted lying?

no those are personal accounts. In no case do they go against my statement of the military's policy being to avoid harm to civillians as much as possible. Yes there are cases (for the millionth time). This doesn't change the general policy of the military.


Some of them undoubtedly yes. To make life as harsh as possible, so that they'll leave. Its a form of slow drip ethnic cleansing.

nice. so they are not at all there to prevent suicide attacks?

http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/palestine-report-131207

To use your own tactic - are the International committe for the red cross lying?

oh no, this is very true. I recognize their hardships and am very sad that this is necessary to stop them from commiting terrorism. I hope this ends as soon as possible. If they would just stop committing suicide attacks.


No, I don't feel like responding to a troll, theres rather a difference. However if you support Kahanism as he appears to, I'm sure you'd disagree.

He was correct in his statements. It's not a troll. You overuse that to a degree of ridiculosity. More boredom.



Because most of the violence and killing occurs in the OT.

No, as we've already said, the violence comes primarily from Gaza. You are simply wrong. Sorry.

Next time, try doing some research first, and please try to do some debating too. You've answered nothing, and you've provided nothing.

You have failed completely, and we are indeed done here.

Good, 'cause I was getting really bored of repeating myself. I can take 3 times. But that's my limit.

People who try and say most palestinians don't want to destroy Israel:

Explain the text books that are taught all throughout the palestinian schools that call for the death of Jews and the destruction of Israel, they strap bombs on their children and parade them around for cameras, they send them to kill Israeli's or kill themselves, and then cheer the death of innocent westerners. They danced and celebrated when the twin towers came down (which was done by the George Bush and the Jewish lobby, of course). No, they aren't a violent people.

Face it. Palestinians have been massacring Jews since the 1920's, back before there was even such thing as the palestinians, and they were called Arabs, like they are. As soon as Israel became a nation, it was attacked by the Arab states, who received 80% of the British mandate of palestine, including east Jerusalem. The only reason they haven't attacked recently is because they got their asses thoroughly handed to them by a greatly outnumbered Jewish force on 3 separate occasions.


Here's a little tidbit about the claims of Israel killing "thousands of palestinian children" and the like:

According to the CIA Factbook, there are 1,482,405 people in Gaza. The mortality rate is 3.74 deaths/1,000 population and the birth rate is 38.9 births/1,000.

This means that this year one can expect some 5500 Gazans to die, and over 57,000 to be born.

The upshot is that even if 50,000 additional Gazans died this year—ten times their normal rate—their population would still be higher next year.

To kill that many Arabs, Israel would have to adopt the methods of Syria or Saddam's Iraq or Jordan or Iran or Egypt (with that nice chemical weapon touch in Yemen) or....

Nope, when it comes to killing Arabs, Israel is out of its league.
taken from: http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2008/01/real-slow-ethnic-cleansing.html
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gz.html

http://www.snappedshot.com/uploads/Intifada2008/capt.sge.bhq12.230108210907.photo04.photo.default-512x343.jpg
Yes, the poor, poverty stricken Palestinians

Yes, the poor, poverty stricken Palestinians

After all, their violence is because they are being 'oppressed'.

No, I don't feel like responding to a troll, theres rather a difference. However if you support Kahanism as he appears to, I'm sure you'd disagree.

Were I you, I'd stop trying to appeal to the gallery.

I'm a troll, am I Nodinia? If I'm a troll than what I said should be easily refuted, right? It should be useless and false. So you could easily prove me wrong. So why don't you? Why don't you stop hiding and calling me a troll and actually engage me? I do not support Kahanism at all, and Kahane, Lehi, Irgun, all those groups were just as bad as Hamas and Hezbollah. The thing is, they aren't around anymore. Lehi and Irgun were disbanded long ago, and I'm fairly certain Kahanism is outlawed in Israel as a terrorist organization and has very little followers. Israeli's aren't going around with the intent of causing harm to innocents; palestinians are.

But you won't reply to this, because I'm just a troll

The shameful eviction of the Palestinian people came first

This is incorrect. The violence started when the Jews were entering as purchasers, not conquerors. The escalation to aiming at killing all Jews in the area, not just recent immigrants, also came before any Palestinians had been "evicted".

Nodinia: "Kindly remember that you refrenced at least one expulsion that occurred in 1967 in a previous discussion with me."
There were daily rocket attacks in early 1967, fired from the Golan Heights (by the Syrian-backed "Saiqa" faction, a rival to Fatah until Damascus pulled the plug on them). That is the cause for the Golan Heights' occupation.

"half of the people killed are unarmed civilians"
Israel often shoots militants in their cars. Not everyone who is unarmed (at the moment) is necessarily a "civilian".

I'm a troll, am I Nodinia? If I'm a troll than what I said should be easily refuted, right? It should be useless and false. So you could easily prove me wrong. So why don't you? Why don't you stop hiding and calling me a troll and actually engage me? I do not support Kahanism at all, and Kahane, Lehi, Irgun, all those groups were just as bad as Hamas and Hezbollah. The thing is, they aren't around anymore. Lehi and Irgun were disbanded long ago, and I'm fairly certain Kahanism is outlawed in Israel as a terrorist organization and has very little followers. Israeli's aren't going around with the intent of causing harm to innocents; palestinians are.

But you won't reply to this, because I'm just a troll

don't take it personally. Funnily, he has accused me of trolling several times as well. It's just his way of saying, I can't reply to this.

I figured. Either he's composing a very long reply or he's dipped the scene for now

This is incorrect. The violence started when the Jews were entering as purchasers, not conquerors. The escalation to aiming at killing all Jews in the area, not just recent immigrants, also came before any Palestinians had been "evicted".

Nodinia: "Kindly remember that you refrenced at least one expulsion that occurred in 1967 in a previous discussion with me."
There were daily rocket attacks in early 1967, fired from the Golan Heights (by the Syrian-backed "Saiqa" faction, a rival to Fatah until Damascus pulled the plug on them). That is the cause for the Golan Heights' occupation.

"half of the people killed are unarmed civilians"
Israel often shoots militants in their cars. Not everyone who is unarmed (at the moment) is necessarily a "civilian".

Good points.

(P.S. Although I have some objection to you using the term 'occupation' for the Golan, as there is no peace yet with Syria.)

You could have provided facts to back up your claims. That would probably help matters.

Was there anything out of what I said that you either don't believe or don't agree with that you would like to raise, of which you cannot find a really handy or common source for?

(As you may notice, most of my responses for the excerpts they had provided came from their OWN source. Other than that, I tend to discuss facts that are common knowledge rather than specific individual cases as those usually don't prove the point.)

Good, 'cause I was getting really bored of repeating myself. I can take 3 times. But that's my limit.

You could have provided facts to back up your claims. That would probably help matters.

So in other words, you don't have any sources to back up your claims. You are bascially just going "nuh-uh" over and over. You've been repeatedly asked for proof and provided none.

Um, no, I basically know what I'm talking about but if you feel like something I said is untrue, I would willingly do the simple job of going to http://www.google.com and typing in the exact words and readily finding a source supporting what I say. With regards to the facts.

Was there anything out of what I said that you either don't believe or don't agree with that you would like to raise, of which you cannot find a really handy or common source for?

(As you may notice, most of my responses for the excerpts they had provided came from their OWN source. Other than that, I tend to discuss facts that are common knowledge rather than specific individual cases as those usually don't prove the point.)

So in other words, you don't have any sources to back up your claims. You are bascially just going "nuh-uh" over and over. You've been repeatedly asked for proof and provided none.

I'll take that as a no?

If people are too lazy to look up what they don't believe and verify it, than fuck them, let them remain stupid and uninformed

If people are too lazy to look up what they don't believe and verify it, than fuck them, let them remain stupid and uninformed

I don't mind supplying quotes for things that I bring up when they're not common knowledge (not something I usually bring up) or things that they vehemently disagree with and would prove them wrong by supplying a source. But normally what I say does not require a source because I refer to common knowledge and use the sources the others provide to refute their points.

If people are too lazy to look up what they don't believe and verify it, than fuck them, let them remain stupid and uninformed

Perhaps you are unfamiliar to debates.

People come with an opinion and/or argument, and they will generally back it up with sources. If they do, and you don't, then it's already a loss.

In any serious debate you have to source your claims .

This is incorrect. The violence started when the Jews were entering as purchasers....you can repeat "this is incorrect" all day and nite.. its not going to change the fact that The Palestinians started to resist the evictions when the intentions of the Zionists became apparent.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar to debates.

People come with an opinion and/or argument, and they will generally back it up with sources. If they do, and you don't, then it's already a loss.

In any serious debate you have to source your claims .

If he is saying things that are common knowledge, what's the need in sourcing?

you can repeat "this is incorrect" all day and nite.. its not going to change the fact that The Palestinians started to resist the evictions when the intentions of the Zionists became apparent.

haha. so wrong it's not even funny.

If he is saying things that are common knowledge, what's the need in sourcing?

But who decides what is common knowledge?

If someone were to come here and say "Joos r evil!!1", not only would you (and I) want him/her to back up such an outrageous claim, but you (and I) would likely be disgusted/repulsed.

In the same manner, if someone were to go "Muslims are evil, and they oppress women and want to kill all non-Muslims" he/she might say that that's common knowlegde, and I would ask them for proof and also be disgusted.

(Do note that the two examples above are not very rational, and very difficult to prove)

Ultimately, when two sides do not agree, they provide proof to convince watchers, and occasionally their opponent. This is what creates clash, and what creates the changing of opinions (rare as it is).

But who decides what is common knowledge?

If someone were to come here and say "Joos r evil!!1", not only would you (and I) want him/her to back up such an outrageous claim, but you (and I) would likely be disgusted/repulsed.

In the same manner, if someone were to go "Muslims are evil, and they oppress women and want to kill all non-Muslims" he/she might say that that's common knowlegde, and I would ask them for proof and also be disgusted.

(Do note that the two examples above are not very rational, and very difficult to prove)

Ultimately, when two sides do not agree, they provide proof to convince watchers, and occasionally their opponent. This is what creates clash, and what creates the changing of opinions (rare as it is).

what then, out of any of the facts I presented, is something that you so direly need a source for?

what then, out of any of the facts I presented, is something that you so direly need a source for?

Not I, I restrain myself from such pointless debates.

I was simply pointing out the merits of sourcing to that other poster.

Not I, I restrain myself from such pointless debates.

I was simply pointing out the merits of sourcing to that other poster.

Oh. If I may, can I ask you why do you feel that they are pointless?

Very simple.

Oceandrive has not changed his/her opinion at all.

Nodinia (I think is the other poster) has not changed his/her opinion at all.

You have not changed your opinion, as far as I know.

Tmutrakhan (don't remember how to spell it) likely has not changed his/her opinion at all.

I have not changed my opinion on any matters because of this thread.

Overall, from what I've seen, discussions about Israel/Palestine go nowhere, unless there is someone who has been biased to a completely irrational degree yet is capable of thinking rationally, and they are brought closer to the center. Other than that, these arguments rarely produce more than a slight shift in anyone's opinions, and thus, I avoid them.

So its like most discussions on NSG... surprise, surprise

Oh. If I may, can I ask you why do you feel that they are pointless?

Very simple.

Oceandrive has not changed his/her opinion at all.

Nodinia (I think is the other poster) has not changed his/her opinion at all.

You have not changed your opinion, as far as I know.

Tmutrakhan (don't remember how to spell it) likely has not changed his/her opinion at all.

I have not changed my opinion on any matters because of this thread.

Overall, from what I've seen, discussions about Israel/Palestine go nowhere, unless there is someone who has been biased to a completely irrational degree yet is capable of thinking rationally, and they are brought closer to the center. Other than that, these arguments rarely produce more than a slight shift in anyone's opinions, and thus, I avoid them.

So its like most discussions on NSG... surprise, surprise

Hardly, I often change my opinion when I engage in discussions about things I know little about. But there are several types of threads on NSG which I would classify in this sort of group (of being pointless).

Hardly, I often change my opinion when I engage in discussions about things I know little about. But there are several types of threads on NSG which I would classify in this sort of group (of being pointless).

I think the point is not to change one's opinion, but each side to attempt to show that there are no rational arguments against his side. I think we have for the most part achieved this in this thread, and I feel rather satisfied from it. It is in fact contributive (to me at least) to hear (some ridiculous, some not as much) arguments against my opinion, because by refuting them it further strengthens it.

I think the point is not to change one's opinion, but each side to attempt to show that there are no rational arguments against his side. I think we have for the most part achieved this in this thread, and I feel rather satisfied from it. It is in fact contributive (to me at least) to hear (some ridiculous, some not as much) arguments against my opinion, because by refuting them it further strengthens it.

Perhaps you gain something from it, but I have no vested interest in such a debate. If I really had the reigns of power and could dictate policy, I know what I would do, though feel free to try to convince me otherwise.

Perhaps you gain something from it, but I have no vested interest in such a debate. If I really had the reigns of power and could dictate policy, I know what I would do, though feel free to try to convince me otherwise.

I would first like to hear the general outline of what you would do

http://www.snappedshot.com/uploads/Intifada2008/capt.sge.bhq12.230108210907.photo04.photo.default-512x343.jpg
Yes, the poor, poverty stricken Palestinians

Because headless, faceless people holding what appears to be money of an unknown denomination and worth in an unspecified location are clearly Palestinians and representative of the entire population when you say so.

I would first like to hear the general outline of what you would do

I would remove all settlements from the Occupied Territories. Assuming I have control of other lands, I would also allow Palestinians to move into them. If they (Palestinians) could prove they had land taken from them illegally, they would be given it back. Israelis displaced by this would be allowed to resettle somewhere else in what is currently Israel, or other lands I would possess. As for land legally belonging to Israelis, they would be allowed to keep it (hopefully almost all of it, but one cannot say without all the files at their hands). Jerusalem would be a free city. Walls and unnecessary checkpoints would be removed. Those that attempt to create division or cause war would be stopped, and excessive attempts would be punished with death. All would be guaranteed equal rights.

There are going to be some obvious mistakes I will quickly be able to fix with my plan once it receives some criticism, and of course it can be changed. Essentially though, it is a forced peace.

I would remove all settlements from the Occupied Territories. Assuming I have control of other lands, I would also allow Palestinians to move into them. If they (Palestinians) could prove they had land taken from them illegally, they would be given it back. Israelis displaced by this would be allowed to resettle somewhere else in what is currently Israel, or other lands I would possess. As for land legally belonging to Israelis, they would be allowed to keep it (hopefully almost all of it, but one cannot say without all the files at their hands). Jerusalem would be a free city. Walls and unnecessary checkpoints would be removed. Those that attempt to create division or cause war would be stopped, and excessive attempts would be punished with death. All would be guaranteed equal rights.

There are going to be some obvious mistakes I will quickly be able to fix with my plan once it receives some criticism, and of course it can be changed. Essentially though, it is a forced peace.Jerusalem a free city meaning? UN supervision?

I would remove all settlements from the Occupied Territories. Assuming I have control of other lands, I would also allow Palestinians to move into them. If they (Palestinians) could prove they had land taken from them illegally, they would be given it back. Israelis displaced by this would be allowed to resettle somewhere else in what is currently Israel, or other lands I would possess. As for land legally belonging to Israelis, they would be allowed to keep it (hopefully almost all of it, but one cannot say without all the files at their hands). Jerusalem would be a free city. Walls and unnecessary checkpoints would be removed. Those that attempt to create division or cause war would be stopped, and excessive attempts would be punished with death. All would be guaranteed equal rights.

There are going to be some obvious mistakes I will quickly be able to fix with my plan once it receives some criticism, and of course it can be changed. Essentially though, it is a forced peace.
I like peace, so it is generally a good idea. With the removals of Walls and checkpoints, how are you going to stop suicide attacks? (I mean threatening them with death doesn't do much hahaa).

I like peace, so it is generally a good idea. With the removals of Walls and checkpoints, how are you going to stop suicide attacks? (I mean threatening them with death doesn't do much hahaa).

Well, there are several factors causing these suicide attacks, and I would do my best to address all of them.

a) Settlements - I would remove them.

b) Wall & Checkpoints - I would remove them.

c) Land taken illegally - Given back.

d) No place to go - This is a problem currently caused partially by Israel, but also by Arab countries. Many are unwilling to take in refugees, and by opening new places for them to go, there would be much less unrest, and they would no longer be going as refugees.

e) Education - Extremists would not be in control of education, I would be, and thus, no more children would be brainwashed, on either side.

If necessary, groups known to be against the peace, and thus, against my state, would be banned from meeting, and those in contact with them would be suspect.

Ultimately, by removing walls and settlements, by giving better education, and the opportunity to go somewhere where they are needed, Palestinians will be much better off. Suicide attacks would decrease dramatically, and with new education they would certainly cease in the near future.

Well, there are several factors causing these suicide attacks, and I would do my best to address all of them.

a) Settlements - I would remove them.

b) Wall & Checkpoints - I would remove them.

c) Land taken illegally - Given back.

d) No place to go - This is a problem currently caused partially by Israel, but also by Arab countries. Many are unwilling to take in refugees, and by opening new places for them to go, there would be much less unrest, and they would no longer be going as refugees.

e) Education - Extremists would not be in control of education, I would be, and thus, no more children would be brainwashed, on either side.

If necessary, groups known to be against the peace, and thus, against my state, would be banned from meeting, and those in contact with them would be suspect.

Ultimately, by removing walls and settlements, by giving better education, and the opportunity to go somewhere where they are needed, Palestinians will be much better off. Suicide attacks would decrease dramatically, and with new education they would certainly cease in the near future.

E sounds really good. I think that's the one that would truly make a difference. We generally agree, as I have said a very similar thing with regards to a possible solution.

Jerusalem a free city meaning? UN supervision?

Hardly, if I had the reigns, I'm not giving anyone else my power.

By free city, it would be totally open to all peoples. I suppose under my government, almost all cities would be classified as such, however, what I truly mean is that I would not allow any one religion to dominate the city.

E sounds really good. I think that's the one that would truly make a difference. We generally agree, as I have said a very similar thing with regards to a possible solution.

Hmm...

But it is not profitable for those in control on either side.

Palestinians would never allow themselves to be dominated by Israel (as in Israel enforcing such a peace), and Israel will never be dominated by Palestinians. Thus, we require someone else to end the conflict.

Hmm...

But it is not profitable for those in control on either side.

Palestinians would never allow themselves to be dominated by Israel (as in Israel enforcing such a peace), and Israel will never be dominated by Palestinians. Thus, we require someone else to end the conflict.

which is exactly why I proposed (earlier in this very thread) that a volunteer Arabic educational committee assume responsibility to educate the Palestinians.

Palestinians would never allow themselves to be dominated by Israel (as in Israel enforcing such a peace), and Israel will never be dominated by Palestinians. Thus, we require someone else to end the conflict.someone like ...?

which is exactly why I proposed (earlier in this very thread) that a volunteer Arabic educational committee assume responsibility to educate the Palestinians.

That may solve one aspect of education, but unless they come equipped with tanks and jet fighters, no way will they be able to work out a decent curriculum against all the hardliners.

Zayun2's proposal is good, but requires someone with enough military might to dictate policy on both sides of the fence yet remain independent enough not to be pushed around by the vested interests of other foreign superpowers.

Zayun's plans all sound very laudable, but depend on a general willingness on both sides to live in peace. It is all well and good to say that extremist groups will be "banned from meeting" and not allowed to operate, and so on, but how do you make that real, without police surveillance everywhere? Secret services who buy large numbers of informants make for a very paranoid atmosphere in the society, without being 100% effective in suppressing such groups.
Rather, it is necessary for the people at large in the society to give no support to the extremists. Just the other day, Abbas (supposedly the peaceful-minded one of the contenders for Palestinian leadership) proclaimed three days of mourning for George Habash, who committed more acts to make the name "Palestinian" an object of contempt and disgust than any single person-- and I doubt it was because Abbas himself felt all teary-eyed to hear that Habash was dead; rather, because Palestinian society honors its serial killers. The US didn't have days of mourning for Jeffrey Dahmer, and I can't imagine the UK mourning the Yorkshire Ripper when he passes; what is wrong with the Palestinians? This won't change in an instant.
Yes, by all means re-educate the children. But what do we do about those who are already adults? Wait for them all to die? In the meantime, should there be a wall between the societies? That would contradict the aim of re-education, since meeting actual humans from the other side is the best way to learn that they are really people like yourself.

The US didn't have days of mourning for Jeffrey Dahmer, and I can't imagine the UK mourning the Yorkshire Ripper when he passes; what is wrong with the Palestinians?


Your examples don't work. Both killed locals. George Habash killed what the Palestinians deem "other people" and "enemies". You need someone local who went abroad and killed a lot of civilians of a nation aligned against theirs on his/her own motive.

Your examples don't work. Both killed locals. George Habash killed what the Palestinians deem "other people" and "enemies". You need someone local who went abroad and killed a lot of civilians of a nation aligned against theirs on his/her own motive.

Good point, but outside of Palestine how many such examples can you find???

.. the Yorkshire Ripper...one that comes to mind is the bloody butcher Ariel Sharon

Good point, but outside of Palestine how many such examples can you find???

Not very many. Primarily because outside of the middle east, we don't see very many locally based terror groups who strike at nations outside of their home nation, although this may be ignorance on my side.

People who try and say most palestinians don't want to destroy Israel:

Explain the text books that are taught all throughout the palestinian schools that call for the death of Jews and the destruction of Israel,

Ok.

From the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union

In September 2000 Palestinian Authority and UNRWA schools introduced the new Palestinian school curriculum and a first set of textbooks (grades 1 and 6) published by the Palestinian Authority, that were to replace the previous textbooks. At the beginning of the 2001 academic year, books for grades 2 and 7 were introduced. This replacement process will be gradually implemented over the coming years. Parallel to this process, allegations of anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish bias and incitement contained in Palestinian textbooks were made, directly or indirectly based on documentation prepared by the CMIP (Centre for Monitoring the Impact on Peace). CMIP based those claims on specific quotations from these books inciting anti-Semitism and urging the destruction of Israel.........

Therefore, allegations against the new textbooks funded by EU members have proven unfounded.
http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/mepp/faq/heads_%20mission_schoolbooks.pdf


I do not support Kahanism at all,

Will you then edit your original post and remove the link to Masada 2000?

Um, that was relelvant, because clearly Israel does not target civillians

Then why does Israeli rifle fire keep picking them out with single shots, as in the various incidents that have been provided as examples?

blabla...answered to Nodinia and getting unnecessarily long. Kind of boring too. 'Expansionist regime' did give me a chuckle though

Again, mock humour, which is seemingly interchangable with attempted refutation by anecdote in your repetoire.

most of the violence comes from Gaza. We've established this countless times, and I'm bored. It's hard, but you did it.

The physical origin is not in question, the motivation is what I'm addressing.

the cities that are in the disputed West Bank don't come in contact with the Palestinians.

The settlers often do, however. In addition Palestinians are often blocked from going to lands they have near the settlements for "security" reasons. Even were the Army to permit them through, it often happens that the settlers then drive them off while the army stand by. Secondly, 40% of Settlements are built on what is clear and outright Palestinian land

A new study conducted by left-wing group Peace Now has found that approximately 40 percent of settlements, including long-standing communities, are built on private Palestinian land and not on state-owned land.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/790748.html


Still evading as you haven't answered the question. Boring?.

Well, getting presented with the same 'False Dilemma' is, to be honest, but I am trying to give an opinion regardless of your tactic.

The residents of the cities don't cause this. More of them won't cause more of this.

You already acknowledged the actions of settlers. Are you saying they are less likely to be violent if theres more of them?

no. No comment anymore on this subject by me

As you will.

allready discussed. boring. anything new?

Well, I've given facts, figures, names, dates, places. You've said "No, thats not true". If that qualifies as discussion, then yes, we already have discussed it.

nice. so they are not at all there to prevent suicide attacks?

Well the first suicide attack was in 1979/1980 and they've been there since 1967. Trying to justify them in hindsight doesnt really fly.

I hope this ends as soon as possible. If they would just stop committing suicide attacks.

Again, these predate suicide attacks, as does the building of settlements.

As you may notice, most of my responses for the excerpts they had provided came from their OWN source.

You cherry pick, the article referring to Government funding of settlements being a prime example.

So in other words, you don't have any sources to back up your claims. You are bascially just going "nuh-uh" over and over. You've been repeatedly asked for proof and provided none.

That, and anecdotes.

Good point, but outside of Palestine how many such examples can you find???
.

Michael Collins and any of the Irish republicans really, the whole Easter Rising as well. Begin would also be described as a "terrorist". Nelson Mandela was for decades.

Its really a matter of opinion, and you getting all emotional about it is rather inappropriate. Imagine if you will, what many Latin Americans thought when Ronald Reagan had a ship named after him. Or the Iranians, when the Captain and officer of the ship that shot down IR655 were given the Legion of Merit.

Jerusalem a free city meaning? UN supervision?

That's what the original UN resolution called for.

That's what the original UN resolution ....speaking about the UN.. are they still waiting for Bush to agree to the proposed resolution condemning Israel's Siege of Gaza?

speaking about the UN.. are they still waiting for Bush to agree to the proposed resolution condemning Israel's Siege of Gaza?

How the hell should I know?

Then why does Israeli rifle fire keep picking them out with single shots, as in the various incidents that have been provided as examples?

Again, already established: accidents, individual soldiers' actions, and so on. What alternative do you offer? That the general policy of the army is to instruct its soldiers to do these things on purpose?


The settlers often do, however. In addition Palestinians are often blocked from going to lands they have near the settlements for "security" reasons. Even were the Army to permit them through, it often happens that the settlers then drive them off while the army stand by. Secondly, 40% of Settlements are built on what is clear and outright Palestinian land


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/790748.html

There must be made a clear difference between the illegal settlements privately put up against the law, and cities that are currently on disputed land. These are where the 22 million go, these are the ones expanded by the gov. The residents in these cities don't come in contact with Palestinians and do not harass or affect them in any way.
What then about the other 60%?

Well, getting presented with the same 'False Dilemma' is, to be honest, but I am trying to give an opinion regardless of your tactic.

STILL haven't answered. wow. For the third and last time:
1. Is Israel's government LYING to its population about settlement policy?
2. Is the Israeli populace LYING as a whole about settlement policy?
3. Is Israel and its populace LYING about the instruction of soldiers to harm as many Palestinians as possible and intentionally kill UN and relief workers?
Those are pretty simple straightforward questions. To me it seems like you're just evading.


You already acknowledged the actions of settlers. Are you saying they are less likely to be violent if theres more of them?

They are not more likely to be violent if the cities described above are expanded. Simply no.

As you will.

yes.

Well, I've given facts, figures, names, dates, places. You've said "No, thats not true". If that qualifies as discussion, then yes, we already have discussed it.


Well the first suicide attack was in 1979/1980 and they've been there since 1967. Trying to justify them in hindsight doesnt really fly.

haha, are you honestly trying to tell me that you believe checkpoints don't help prevent terrorism?

Again, these predate suicide attacks, as does the building of settlements.

Um, most of the checkpoints were set up after suicide attacks began, and as a direct result of them.

How the hell should I know?if you dont, you dont.

BTW every question I post at NSG (or any public Forum).. is an open question for the forum, its not exclusively targeted to the quoted poster.

They - semites - should just f*ing forget about ethnic and religious differences and goddamn co-exist peacefully as a single nation.

The best solution would be if they turned into one single Buddha fearing nation. :p

They - semites - should just f*ing forget about ethnic and religious differences and goddamn co-exist peacefully as a single nation.

The best solution would be if they turned into one single Buddha fearing nation. :pworks for me.

Again, already established: accidents, individual soldiers' actions, and so on. What alternative do you offer? That the general policy of the army is to instruct its soldiers to do these things on purpose?.

Occassionally yes. Theres far too few prosecutions and far too many deaths.


There must be made a clear difference between the illegal settlements privately put up against the law, and cities that are currently on disputed land.

There is no "dispute". All land outside the 1967 Borders is not Israels, all settlements on in are illegal.


1. Is Israel's government LYING to its population about settlement policy?


What are they saying precisely?

2. Is the Israeli populace LYING as a whole about settlement policy?


A great deal of what I say is information based on Israeli groups. I therefore have to ask how I'm supposed to accuse the whole population of lying.


3. Is Israel and its populace LYING about the instruction of soldiers to harm as many Palestinians as possible and intentionally kill UN and relief workers?

And again, a great many Israelis believe as I do.

I might ask why you're tryinf to portray the Israeli population as some form of hive-mind.



They are not more likely to be violent if the cities described above are expanded. Simply no.

You've no evidence to show that an increased population of settlers is more "touchy feely" than a smaller one then...

yes.

haha, are you honestly trying to tell me that you believe checkpoints don't help prevent terrorism?.

They may prevent various acts of resistance but thats by no means their sole function.


Um, most of the checkpoints were set up after suicide attacks began, and as a direct result of them.

Do you have any data to back this assertion?

That, and anecdotes.
I forgot about that. It's funny s/he talks about getting this info from people's own sources, yet using this lovely invention seems to be too much to ask for.

Occassionally yes. Theres far too few prosecutions and far too many deaths.

That's your opinion.


There is no "dispute". All land outside the 1967 Borders is not Israels, all settlements on in are illegal.

What are they saying precisely?

They are saying that they are trying to stop new illegal settlements from forming.

A great deal of what I say is information based on Israeli groups. I therefore have to ask how I'm supposed to accuse the whole population of lying.

Well, either the government is lying to them and they don't know, or they do know, and it's one big conspiracy of all the Israelis who say these things.

And again, a great many Israelis believe as I do.

I might ask why you're tryinf to portray the Israeli population as some form of hive-mind.

You still haven't answered the question: Is the Israeli government (or all the soldiers that were instructed to so) telling soldiers to kill as many innocent Palestinians as possible. I presented the Israeli population as a whole because of mandatory universal draft that makes almost every Israeli citizen a former soldier. So they would know.



They may prevent various acts of resistance but thats by no means their sole function.


So how do you explain that more were put up when suicide attacks increased? Just as an 'excuse' to suppress the Palestinians? Wouldn't they have already put up countless ones before if their true aim was to suppress them?



Do you have any data to back this assertion?

"According to the Applied Research Institute Jerusalem (ARIJ), the Israeli military established 121 flying checkpoints in the West Bank and East Jerusalem between October 2006 until April 2007."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Defense_Forces_checkpoint


"the army has periodically eased travel restrictions, for example during the three-month ceasefire by Palestinian militants in summer 2003."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/w_bank_checkpoints/html/default.stm

"IDF: Removal of Checkpoints Led to More Shooting Attacks"

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/125052


Good enough or you want more?

.That's your opinion

No, thats a fact.

.
They are saying that they are trying to stop new illegal settlements from forming.?

A section of their own populace disagrees with them, as do I.

.
You still haven't answered the question: Is the Israeli government (or all the soldiers that were instructed to so) telling soldiers to kill as many innocent Palestinians as possible. .?

No. On occassion I believe they are given instructions to 'send a message' however.

.
So how do you explain that more were put up when suicide attacks increased? Just as an 'excuse' to suppress the Palestinians? Wouldn't they have already put up countless ones before if their true aim was to suppress them?.?

The fact that more appeared due to a specific threat in now way means that they don't serve a dual purpose.

[QUOTE=Intelligenstan;13413336].
"IDF: Removal of Checkpoints Led to More Shooting Attacks"
[QUOTE]

The IDF saying something does not make it nessecarily true.

Because headless, faceless people holding what appears to be money of an unknown denomination and worth in an unspecified location are clearly Palestinians and representative of the entire population when you say so.

It was sent across the wires as part of a report into the palestinian border crossing, and yes, they are palestinians. And the money pictured is Israeli Shekels and Egyptian (whatever egyptian money is called).


Then why does Israeli rifle fire keep picking them out with single shots, as in the various incidents that have been provided as examples?

As someone who seems to like sources, do you have any proof that those killed are always civilians? Remember, the "freedom fighters" dress as civilians, even as women. Not to mention the fact that women and children participate in violence. If you claim they are all civilians, then proove it.


Again, these predate suicide attacks, as does the building of settlements.

It may predate suicides, but it does not predate attacks on Jewish citizens based solely on the fact that they are Jews. Nor do the settlements predate the first Arab invasions of Israel

Will you then edit your original post and remove the link to Masada 2000?

I will not edit them out. The Masada links are about the Ramallah lynching and the history of the levant, and although they use biased and inflammatory terminology, the information is still solid, and you can find corrobarating accounts at other, unbiased websites. I was unaware that the sites were Kahanist, they were just the most readily available links.

http://ec.europa.eu/external_relatio...choolbooks.pdf
The EU are the ones whose aid trucks were found with explosives in them, and their response to the issue was "NO COMMENT". I don't place much trust in them.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/patext1.html
Some basic information, sources included (sources being the textbooks themselves)

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:puJeIm0Mk0kJ:www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL32886.pdf+anti-israeli+textbooks&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=ca&client=firefox-a
Exhaustive report into the anti-semitic and anti-israeli sentiments in Pali textbooks

And lets not forget the constant racism and hatred espoused in the local media
http://www.pmw.org.il/

Its really a matter of opinion, and you getting all emotional about it is rather inappropriate. Imagine if you will, what many Latin Americans thought when Ronald Reagan had a ship named after him. Or the Iranians, when the Captain and officer of the ship that shot down IR655 were given the Legion of Merit.

I am unfamiliar with Ronald Reagan and latin america, so I will not comment on that. The Iran Air flight that was shot down accidentally, and although medals should definitely not have been given out, this is different as the soldiers who shot down the flight are 1: uniformed soldiers in a recognized army and 2: they do not deliberately spend their lives going around looking for innocent people to kill, like the ones celebrated by palistinians. And I'm sure the vast majority of americans disagreed with and were outraged by the incident and the aftermath. If you can show me some footage or other proof of americans cheering in the streets that 290 innocents were killed, maybe I'll reconsider

speaking about the UN.. are they still waiting for Bush to agree to the proposed resolution condemning Israel's Siege of Gaza?

Siege of Gaza? Israel pulled out 2 years ago, because the Gazans were always screaming about how Israel has no right to be there, and it's Israel's presence in Gaza that was making them commit terrorist attacks. So Israel pulls out of Gaza, and the attacks greatly increase, not to mention Hamas getting elected. So, now Israel is in more danger than ever, so they build walls and checkpoints to protect themselves, and they prevent all NON ESSENTIAL GOODS from entering. It still allows food and medicine in, even at great risk to themselves. There is no humanitarian crisis, and calling it a siege is incorrect. They do not have their troops amassed at the border, trying to get in. If anything, Israel is under siege from all sides by people whose very point of existence is to kill Jews

, and although medals should definitely not have been given out...
The captain wasn't given a medal specifically for shooting down that plane; it was a medal routinely given to retiring officers who had served a tour in a "hot" zone. Shooting down that plane might well have been good cause for withholding that otherwise routine medal from him: that I would agree with.

Good, 'cause I was getting really bored of repeating myself. I can take 3 times. But that's my limit.
Yes, I can see that. Repeating "No it isn't" over and over must be tiresome. I find that including facts into the arguments tends to spice things up. You should try it sometime.

http://www.snappedshot.com/uploads/Intifada2008/capt.sge.bhq12.230108210907.photo04.photo.default-512x343.jpg
Yes, the poor, poverty stricken Palestinians
You know that you're making a fool of yourself by claiming that there isn't any poverty in Palestine, and backing it up with that pic? You should have stopped before that, or used better source.

"half of the people killed are unarmed civilians"
Israel often shoots militants in their cars. Not everyone who is unarmed (at the moment) is necessarily a "civilian".
No, that's why they're classified as "unarmed militants".

Civilians are the ones without an affiliation with militant groups.

You could have provided facts to back up your claims. That would probably help matters.
Nono, that's not the Intelligenstan way of debate. Surely it's sufficient to say "Hahaha, no, you make me laugh"? Be vary that you don't awaken the wrath and make him pull out his trump card: "It's common knowledge"

:eek:
*Flees*

Um, no, I basically know what I'm talking about but if you feel like something I said is untrue, I would willingly do the simple job of going to http://www.google.com and typing in the exact words and readily finding a source supporting what I say. With regards to the facts.
Yet you never did so when asked. Curious. Or, not really. I guess Google can be tricky...

Perhaps you are unfamiliar to debates.

People come with an opinion and/or argument, and they will generally back it up with sources. If they do, and you don't, then it's already a loss.

In any serious debate you have to source your claims .
This deserves quoting.
haha. so wrong it's not even funny.
See? At it again...
I think the point is not to change one's opinion, but each side to attempt to show that there are no rational arguments against his side. I think we have for the most part achieved this in this thread, and I feel rather satisfied from it.

Remember kids: Don't drink and post. :)

The captain wasn't given a medal specifically for shooting down that plane; it was a medal routinely given to retiring officers who had served a tour in a "hot" zone. Shooting down that plane might well have been good cause for withholding that otherwise routine medal from him: that I would agree with.

If that is the case, than I withdraw my objections to the medals.

You know that you're making a fool of yourself by claiming that there isn't any poverty in Palestine, and backing it up with that pic? You should have stopped before that, or used better source.

There is poverty everywhere, in every country and region. Reports from the media constantly paint the picture that all palestinians are poor, starving, homeless wretches, which just plainly isn't true. I have to go out, but when I get back I'll post some pictures of the "poor" pali's, who are being so mistreated, bying necessaties such as brand new motorcycles.

No, that's why they're classified as "unarmed militants".

Militants are militants. If that is the only chance that the IDF has to take them out before they go kill more innocent people, than it is imperative that they do so

Siege of Gaza?Yes. siege of Gaza.
.
Israel is under siege from all sides by people whose very point of existence is to kill Jewspoor Israel. Can I donate some food+Medicine to break that cruel siege?

There is poverty everywhere, in every country and region. Reports from the media constantly paint the picture that all palestinians are poor, starving, homeless wretches, which just plainly isn't true. I have to go out, but when I get back I'll post some pictures of the "poor" pali's..Yeah, and to help you... here is a -Master Debater- picture that proves Palestinians dont need any help because they have money.

http://www.snappedshot.com/uploads/Intifada2008/capt.sge.bhq12.230108210907.photo04.photo.default-512x343.jpg
Yes, the poor, poverty stricken PalestiniansMaster debater indeed :D

As someone who seems to like sources, do you have any proof that those killed are always civilians? Remember, the "freedom fighters" dress as civilians, even as women. Not to mention the fact that women and children participate in violence. If you claim they are all civilians, then proove it.

Nodinia didn't claim all of them were. Don't put words into other peoples' mouths.


It may predate suicides, but it does not predate attacks on Jewish citizens based solely on the fact that they are Jews. Nor do the settlements predate the first Arab invasions of Israel

Please. Christians have been treating Jews worse for longer than 'Arabs'. Using historical tit-for-tat attacks isn't a valid argument.


The EU are the ones whose aid trucks were found with explosives in them, and their response to the issue was "NO COMMENT". I don't place much trust in them.
You're claiming the EU is shipping explosives to Hamas/militant Palestinians?

Source?


Exhaustive report into the anti-semitic and anti-israeli sentiments in Pali textbooks

And lets not forget the constant racism and hatred espoused in the local media

No one is denying there is racism is the books. What the argument is, is that there is equally racist sentiments in the other sides books. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I am unfamiliar with Ronald Reagan and latin america, so I will not comment on that.
Get reading. Try googling "Reagan", "Contras".

If you can show me some footage or other proof of americans cheering in the streets that 290 innocents were killed, maybe I'll reconsider

What's that got to do with the current situation in Gaza?

And just think... if it wasn't for the racism and land-greed of their Arab neighbors, the Palestinians could have had their own 60-year-old independent state by now.

Bad gambles can haunt you all your life.

That's actually true to a point.

There is poverty everywhere, in every country and region. Reports from the media constantly paint the picture that all palestinians are poor, starving, homeless wretches, which just plainly isn't true. I have to go out, but when I get back I'll post some pictures of the "poor" pali's, who are being so mistreated, bying necessaties such as brand new motorcycles.

Why don't you go out and get some statistics instead of relying on random still images.

And just think... if it wasn't for the racism and land-greed of their Arab neighbors, the Palestinians could have had their own 60-year-old independent state by now.

Bad gambles can haunt you all your life.

There is poverty everywhere, in every country and region. Reports from the media constantly paint the picture that all palestinians are poor, starving, homeless wretches, which just plainly isn't true. I have to go out, but when I get back I'll post some pictures of the "poor" pali's, who are being so mistreated, bying necessaties such as brand new motorcycles.
Better yet, don't. It won't prove anything.

Nice straw man, btw.


Militants are militants. If that is the only chance that the IDF has to take them out before they go kill more innocent people, than it is imperative that they do so
So they kill innocent people to stop militants from killing innocent people...?

Yeah, and to help you... here is a -Master Debater- picture that proves Palestinians dont need any help because they have money.

Master debater indeed :D

People everywhere need help. I am refuting the claims that the pali's are such a horribly oppressed people. They aren't all poor, they aren't all starving, and there is no "humanitarian crisis", at least not caused by Israel.



Please. Christians have been treating Jews worse for longer than 'Arabs'. Using historical tit-for-tat attacks isn't a valid argument.

You are doing exactly that right now (tit for tat). "Christians have too...". We aren't talking about christians right now, and this conflict has very little to do with christians, other than the ones who are being persecuted in the west bank and gaza by palestinian muslims. Christians have persecuted Jews in the past, but are they right now? Are christians firing rockets willy nilly into Israel with the aim of killing innocent civilians? Are christians "martyring" themselves because they think God wants them to kill in his name? Does the christian holy book refer to Jews as "swine"?

The short answer is no to all of the above.


You're claiming the EU is shipping explosives to Hamas/militant Palestinians?

Source?

I didn't claim the EU is shipping them themselves, but the explosives are coming in EU aid shipments marked "EU Sugar"

http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Security/12514.htm
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/944592.html
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/124740
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3494131,00.html
http://www.infolive.tv/en/infolive.tv-16468-israelnews-tons-explosive-material-hidden-truck-carrying-aid-palestinians-caugh
http://www.bicom.org.uk/news/news-archive/eu-condemns-palestinian-chemicals-smuggling-disguised-as-humanitarian-aid

I was mistaken about EU giving no comment. Outdated info


No one is denying there is racism is the books. What the argument is, is that there is equally racist sentiments in the other sides books. Two wrongs don't make a right.


Since it seems to be popular on here: Source? I haven't seen anything concerning racist Israeli textbooks, but if you can show me some it would be greatly appreciated


What's that got to do with the current situation in Gaza?
Nothing. But other posters feel the need to compare the situation in Gaza with the actions of the American government 20 years ago, so I felt the need to address it.

Get reading. Try googling "Reagan", "Contras".
I'm not going to bother, because as we both seem to agree, it has nothing to do with Gaza.

Better yet, don't. It won't prove anything.

Nice straw man, btw.



So they kill innocent people to stop militants from killing innocent people...?

Are you blind? Just because someone is unarmed doesn't mean they are innocent. If Israel knows someone is a militant, they are going to kill them. They don't always know whether or not the militant has guns or bombs on him at that moment, and often it is too dangerous to try and arrest them.

No, thats a fact.

Sorry, but it's pretty elementary that the assessments: "far too few prosecutions and far too many deaths" is an opinion.

A section of their own populace disagrees with them, as do I.

Disagrees? it's not a matter of that. It's they're either telling the truth or lying. This time it is a fact, not an opinion. You can't say, in my opinion, Israel's government is building new settlements. First you claim that an opinion is a fact and then that a fact is an opinion. I asked you if they were lying?


No. On occassion I believe they are given instructions to 'send a message' however.

I'm glad you realize the answer is in fact no.


The fact that more appeared due to a specific threat in now way means that they don't serve a dual purpose.

maybe, (I think not) but at least you must admit they do stop terrorism, and israel has a right to protect its citizens, as long as Palestinian citizens aren't dying because of it. Which they are not, because the checkpoints don't kill people.



The IDF saying something does not make it nessecarily true.
Again, this is a fact, not an opinion. The number of shootings is pretty much a constant, not up to interpretation.

Originally Posted by Nodinia
The IDF saying something does not make it nessecarily true.

Palestinians and Hamas saying something doesn't make it necessarily true, either, but everyone always gives them the benefit of the doubt and demonizes israel mercilessly

Siege of Gaza? Israel pulled out 2 years ago, because the Gazans were always screaming about how Israel has no right to be there, and it's Israel's presence in Gaza that was making them commit terrorist attacks. So Israel pulls out of Gaza, and the attacks greatly increase, not to mention Hamas getting elected. So, now Israel is in more danger than ever, so they build walls and checkpoints to protect themselves, and they prevent all NON ESSENTIAL GOODS from entering. It still allows food and medicine in, even at great risk to themselves. There is no humanitarian crisis, and calling it a siege is incorrect. They do not have their troops amassed at the border, trying to get in. If anything, Israel is under siege from all sides by people whose very point of existence is to kill Jews
Great points.
There is poverty everywhere, in every country and region. Reports from the media constantly paint the picture that all palestinians are poor, starving, homeless wretches, which just plainly isn't true. I have to go out, but when I get back I'll post some pictures of the "poor" pali's, who are being so mistreated, bying necessaties such as brand new motorcycles.



Militants are militants. If that is the only chance that the IDF has to take them out before they go kill more innocent people, than it is imperative that they do so
more good points
Yes. siege of Gaza.
.
poor Israel. Can I donate some food+Medicine to break that cruel siege?
In fact, you can. Donations can be easily made.


No one is denying there is racism is the books. What the argument is, is that there is equally racist sentiments in the other sides books. Two wrongs don't make a right.

There are MOST DEFINITELY NOT equally racist sentiments in Israeli textbooks. You have NO IDEA what you're talking about.
Why don't you go out and get some statistics instead of relying on random still images.
Why don't you stop criticizing the debate-style of the side that most likely is the one that disagrees with your view and actually take part in the topic of the thread instead of off-topic accusations at individuals and the way they present their views?
And just think... if it wasn't for the racism and land-greed of their Arab neighbors, the Palestinians could have had their own 60-year-old independent state by now.

Bad gambles can haunt you all your life.
Somewhat true, although I must admit, it is partially their fault too, not just the neighbors'
Are you blind? Just because someone is unarmed doesn't mean they are innocent. If Israel knows someone is a militant, they are going to kill them. They don't always know whether or not the militant has guns or bombs on him at that moment, and often it is too dangerous to try and arrest them.

right.

...interesting stuff...(not)

Thought you were done?

Palestinians and Hamas saying something doesn't make it necessarily true, either, but everyone always gives them the benefit of the doubt and demonizes israel mercilessly

except that I haven't heard of a case where the IDF didn't tell the truth so...

hy don't you stop criticizing the debate-style of the side that most likely is the one that disagrees with your view and actually take part in the topic of the thread instead of off-topic accusations at individuals and the way they present their views?

Still not going to provide sources eh? Why would I engange you in debate when all you are going to do, as previously states, is say "nu-uh." You fail repeatedly to provide any proof what so ever to support your claim.

Brilliant straw man. Yes, obviously I don't have a problem with someone's inability to debate. You must hold an opposite belief that me. That's the only rational reason I'd refuse to engage a poster who doesn't provide any credible evidence to support their case. There's several, several links in the sticks about how to properly debate. If you don't want people getting on your case about your lack of debate ability, maybe you should educate yourself.

Palestinians and Hamas saying something doesn't make it necessarily true, either.except that I haven't heard of a case where the IDF didn't tell the truth so...riiiiight. :rolleyes:

No, that's why they're classified as "unarmed militants".
Not by Nodinia, who simply assumed that every person killed without carrying arms was an "unarmed civilian".

People everywhere need help. I am refuting the claims that the pali's are such a horribly oppressed people. They aren't all poor, they aren't all starving, and there is no "humanitarian crisis", at least not caused by Israel.
So... When are you going to do that?

Refute the claims, I mean?

Are you blind? Just because someone is unarmed doesn't mean they are innocent. If Israel knows someone is a militant, they are going to kill them. They don't always know whether or not the militant has guns or bombs on him at that moment, and often it is too dangerous to try and arrest them.
Again: A militant is a militant. A civilian is a civilian.

This is what I mean:

srael assassinated the most senior commander of the terror group Islamic Jihad in Gaza yesterday in an attack that also killed a woman bystander and her five-year-old son.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1779778,00.html

Was the five-year-old a target? No. Could his death - and indeed the death of his mother - have been avoided? Yes. Were they innocent civilians? Yes.

Get the picture?

Palestinians and Hamas saying something doesn't make it necessarily true, either, but everyone always gives them the benefit of the doubt and demonizes israel mercilessly
You really should read this thread more carefully. And you could also point out where anyone took Hamas at their word. Except Intelligenstan who has said that he would take their word for it if they claimed to minimize civilian casualties, but that shouldn't count since it's a hypotetical.

Thought you were done?
You missed me, didn't you?

And indeed, I was done debating the issue with you. As you can see.

Not by Nodinia, who simply assumed that every person killed without carrying arms was an "unarmed civilian".

Oh? I must have missed that. Care to quote it?

riiiiight. :rolleyes:

Don't worry about him - He doesn't believe in evidence, so of course he hasn't :)

Don't worry about him - He doesn't believe in evidence, so of course he hasn't :)

For someone who seems to care about evidence so much, it confuses me that you haven't presented any about the IDF, considering you are saying that we don't believe the evidence that they deliberately target children, yet I haven't seen any yet. Not anything that even claims to be evidence.

Oh? I must have missed that. Care to quote it?
Care to quote where he talked about "unarmed militants"?

For someone who seems to care about evidence so much, it confuses me that you haven't presented any about the IDF, considering you are saying that we don't believe the evidence that they deliberately target children, yet I haven't seen any yet. Not anything that even claims to be evidence.
That's because I don't claim that they're deliberately targeting children. I claim that they don't do enough to ensure that civilian collateral damage is minimized. That's what I have presented evidence for.

A well-trained army that has a 50/50 civilian/militant kill ratio is doing something wrong. And they don't do anything about it. At least, they haven't in this millennium.

Care to quote where he talked about "unarmed militants"?

Not really, because I haven't seen him do that. I did, however. You aren't confusing us, are you?

So... When are you going to do that?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1779778,00.html

Was the five-year-old a target? No. Could his death - and indeed the death of his mother - have been avoided? Yes. Were they innocent civilians? Yes.

The statement in bold is the thing that people who compare Israel to the terrorists are missing. Was the 5 year old the target? NO. The woman and her son were killed accidentally, because of soldier incompetence, as opposed to Palestinian terrorists, who target 5 year olds and their mothers purposely. I may have posted some of these links already but you must not have read them.

http://www.factsofisrael.com/blog/archives/000570.html
In the past two years, Palestinian terrorists have repeatedly targeted Israeli children. On April 27, gunmen broke into a home west of Hebron, found five-year-old Danielle Shefi hiding under her parents' bed and shot her in the head.


http://www.israelnewsagency.com/israelpalestineterrorism127691.html
Palestinian terrorists murdered 4 young Jewish children and their pregnant mother this afternoon. The terror attack targeted the family vehicle while it was traveling on the road that leads to the Gaza Strip settlement bloc of Gush Katif....After spraying the station wagon with bullets, the Palestinian terrorists walked up to the 4 terrified little girls and shot each one of them twice in the head, police said. The 8-month-old pregnant mother was shot in her belly at point blank range as she tried to cover her children

It lists several more deliberate murders of children, and not suicide bombings, point blank head shot executions.

Now here's an example of Israel killing some children:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/899414.html
The three Palestinian children killed in Gaza on Tuesday were only playing near rocket launchers targeted by Israeli troops, and were not connected with the terrorists, an army probe determined Thursday. ... The terrain did not allow for direct observation of the area, so the army had to rely on aerial photography. The unit that launched the missile at the children used this visual feed to direct their fire, army sources told Haaretz.
The video does show one of the figures to be a child, army sources said, but this happened so close to the moment of impact that the troops were unable to abort in time.
IDF troops near the Gaza Strip are under orders to fire at rocket launchers only when terrorists approach them. The launchers themselves are easily replaceable and are of little value to the terrorist organizations, so the IDF prefers to target the terrorists who are directing the firing

It was an accident because Hamas leaves it's rocket launchers lying around near where children play. Israel even did an internal investigation and admitted wrongdoing, as opposed to just promising more.

Get the picture?


You really should read this thread more carefully. And you could also point out where anyone took Hamas at their word. Except Intelligenstan who has said that he would take their word for it if they claimed to minimize civilian casualties, but that shouldn't count since it's a hypotetical.

Not here. In general. Just read AP, AFP, Reuters. They always report the statements of Hamas as if they were fact. They refuse to show the Israeli side of the issue.

That's because I don't claim that they're deliberately targeting children. I claim that they don't do enough to ensure that civilian collateral damage is minimized. That's what I have presented evidence for.


I agree that Israel could do more to stem the tide of civilian deaths; I was unclear on your position on the matter. Still, you claim we disregard evidence, yet how can we disregard evidence that hasn't been shown? That is, evidence to back up the claims of Nodinia and Ocean Drive that the IDF targets civs on purpose (and from what I can gather, Ocean Drive seems to think that they cover it up)?


A well-trained army that has a 50/50 civilian/militant kill ratio is doing something wrong. And they don't do anything about it. At least, they haven't in this millennium.
And since you are such a Source fiend, show me some evidence for the 50/50 claim

A well-trained army that has a 50/50 civilian/militant kill ratio is doing something wrong.
But ARE all the unarmed people killed actually "civilians"? Some of them, I'm sure. What proportion?
Not really, because I haven't seen him do that. I did, however. You aren't confusing us, are you?
No, but you were taking it for granted that when Nodinia referred to all the unarmed casualties as "civilians", that this must have reflected some sorting out of "unarmed militants" from that category, which is not the case.

We need to stop arguing about how to debate and just debate

The statement in bold is the thing that people who compare Israel to the terrorists are missing. Was the 5 year old the target? NO. The woman and her son were killed accidentally, because of soldier incompetence, as opposed to Palestinian terrorists, who target 5 year olds and their mothers purposely. I may have posted some of these links already but you must not have read them.
First of all, I don't dispute that Hamas are killing civilians in cold blood - they do. And other groups do it too, not just Hamas. However, to say that the Palestinians as a whole fully support that is just ignorant. So I dispute the sweeping generalizations that some put forward.

Secondly, you should choose your links a little more carefully. Undated news reports and blogs hold little credibility - again, not that I dispute that Hamas has done some Very Bad Things... Also, you could find more up-to-date stories. Just a tip.

Now here's an example of Israel killing some children:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/899414.html


It was an accident because Hamas leaves it's rocket launchers lying around near where children play. Israel even did an internal investigation and admitted wrongdoing, as opposed to just promising more.

Get the picture?

The Israeli military is dangerously incompetent?
On November 8, IDF artillery shelled the Gazan town of Beit Hanoun, killing 19 Palestinians and injuring others. Israeli authorities announced an investigation, stating that the shells missed the intended target.

Or what would you call this?
Israeli forces continued to use Palestinians as "human shields" in violation of Israeli law despite High Court rulings in 2002 and 2005 and an IDF Chief of Staff order in 2005.

I don't claim that the IDF is deliberately targeting the Palestinians, but I am looking for answers to some questions: Why do these accidents happen so often? Why are so few prosecuted for criminal acts when they happen? Why are there so many civilian casualties?

And as some former soldiers have stated (posted previously in the thread), many are not discouraged from abusing and hurting Palestinians - rather, the military (more or less) silently condones it. That is not acceptable for a modern democracy, wouldn't you agree?

Not here. In general. Just read AP, AFP, Reuters. They always report the statements of Hamas as if they were fact. They refuse to show the Israeli side of the issue.
I don't see that at all.

We need to stop arguing about how to debate and just debate

haha I agree. I feel that it's what was done in the last few days during this thread, and when all of Nodinia and Gravlen's arguments were refuted, we started coming to evasions, accusations of trolling, and now debate-style. It seems like they've just run out of logic to support their arguments (although Nodinia does seem to have a few left that are still up for debate, if he would just stop evading the points I bring up in return).

Don't worry about him - He doesn't believe in evidence, so of course he hasn't :)

Zionist 'evidence' is basically state propaganda.

As someone who seems to like sources, do you have any proof that those killed are always civilians?

I never said that.


It may predate suicides, but it does not predate attacks on Jewish citizens based solely on the fact that they are Jews. Nor do the settlements predate the first Arab invasions of Israel

None of which justifies colonisation.


I will not edit them out. The Masada links are....

.....Kahanist, racist, and possibly illegal in Israel.



The EU are the ones whose aid trucks were found with explosives in them, and their response to the issue was "NO COMMENT". I don't place much trust in them.....

Rrrrright........



I am unfamiliar with Ronald Reagan and latin america, so I will not comment on that. .....

I'd suggest you educated yourself and do so.


The Iran Air flight that was shot down accidentally, and although medals should definitely not have been given out, this is different as the soldiers who shot down the flight are 1: uniformed soldiers in a recognized army and 2: they do not deliberately spend their lives going around looking for innocent people to kill, .....

Well I'm sure thats a great comfort to the Iranians. Amazing the respectability a nice uniform most give.

You didn't mention Begin or the Irish, I note.

The Lehi and Irgun were issued medals by the state too, weren't they?

There is no humanitarian crisis,.....

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Saturday implored Israel to reverse its decision to close the Gaza border crossings, warning that the cutoff of supplies is provoking a humanitarian crisis among 1.4 million Gazans.
link (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1200572487688&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)

So whats Ban Ki-Moon on about then? Hes not Palestinian....


but when I get back I'll post some pictures of the "poor" pali's, who are being so mistreated, bying necessaties such as brand new motorcycles.

I believe somebody posted a picture of an orthodox Jew taking out the twin towers with a flying kick here at one stage...........

but the explosives are coming in EU aid shipments marked "EU Sugar".

No, somebody is disguising explosives as EU aid shipments. Try reading what you post.

I haven't seen anything concerning racist Israeli textbooks".

You should have read the whole thread then. For your delectation.....

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.
link (http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0999/9909019.html)

Disagrees? it's not a matter of that. It's they're either telling the truth or lying. This time it is a fact, not an opinion. You can't say, in my opinion, Israel's government is building new settlements. First you claim that an opinion is a fact and then that a fact is an opinion. I asked you if they were lying?

I wasn't aware they were saying they were not building.......
The Israeli authorities are planning to build three new Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem, an area regarded as occupied land under international law.
The plan, which has yet to receive final approval, would involve building about 20,000 homes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6645777.stm


The Israeli government says it plans to build 700 new homes in two settlement blocs in the occupied West Bank.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5312084.stm


Israel will enlarge Jewish settlement enclaves in the West Bank city of Hebron and include them within the country's final borders, said Otniel Schneller, a lawmaker who is helping to formulate Olmert's realignment plan.

It was the first time a government official has said Israel intends on retaining the volatile area, located well inside the West Bank, under Olmert's plan to unilaterally set Israel's final borders by 2008.
link (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1148482041386&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)

I suppose this gets a "haha"/"you should go to Israel" remark too....


except that I haven't heard of a case where the IDF didn't tell the truth so...


...says a lot really.


Not by Nodinia, who simply assumed that every person killed without carrying arms was an "unarmed civilian".

I did? Where did I type that? By the way, what makes you assume they weren't?

confuses me that you haven't presented any about the IDF, considering you are saying that we don't believe the evidence that they deliberately target children,

At 09:15hrs this morning, Ghadeer Jaber Mokheimer, a grade five pupil at UNRWA's Co-Ed Elementary D School in Khan Younis in the Gaza Strip died of her injuries from a gunshot wound received while sitting at her desk in an UNRWA school. She had been hit in the stomach by a shot from an Israeli military position on the outskirts of Khan Younis camp.
link (http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/eed216406b50bf6485256ce10072f637/52e082eeb35a757185256f2c0057eb4f!OpenDocument&Click=)

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

The two 15-year-old pupils at Jabaliya's school were both shot in the head by Israeli soldiers inside their homes just a few blocks and several hours apart. Islam died almost immediately after the bullet smashed through her forehead as she baked bread with her mother in their yard on Sunday. Tahreer is still on life support at a Gaza hospital after an operation to remove shards of shattered skull from her brain.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1320735,00.html

I wasn't aware they were saying they were not building.......

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6645777.stm


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5312084.stm


link (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1148482041386&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)

I suppose this gets a "haha"/"you should go to Israel" remark too....

nope. It gets an: again, this is a different matter, you AGAIN (this is like the third or fourth time now) bring examples of East Jerusalem expansion and existing cities in disputed territories being expanded. Not the building of new settlements. This is not what you might be so tempted to call 'colonization'.

You seem to have a misunderstanding on the meaning of the word "refuted."
You provided zero evidence to back your claim



Or you could just, I don't know, provide proof when asked for proof. That's how debating works. You seem to also have a fundamental misunderstanding about that.

Thank you. You have contributed much to the discussion.

haha I agree. I feel that it's what was done in the last few days during this thread, and when all of Nodinia and Gravlen's arguments were refuted

Where have you refuted anything I stated? A link please.

Where have you refuted anything I stated? A link please.

All the time, if you need a link, you can just scroll up. Notice, in the very last post, you said that Israel's government builds new settlements. And I showed you how you misrepresented the sources you used, that in fact only showed the expansion of East Jerusalem and existing large cities in disputed territories, not the building of new settlements.

I agree that Israel could do more to stem the tide of civilian deaths; I was unclear on your position on the matter. Still, you claim we disregard evidence, yet how can we disregard evidence that hasn't been shown?
Don't confuse yourself with Intelligenstan. If you go back in the thread you'll see the vast amount of evidence I've shown him. I haven't shown you much...

That is, evidence to back up the claims of Nodinia and Ocean Drive that the IDF targets civs on purpose (and from what I can gather, Ocean Drive seems to think that they cover it up)?
Well, I feel that it's a legitimte question to ask, and I hope the answer is that they don't.

However, you must also remember that it's not just killing that is the case here. Targeting for abuse and allowing people to be harmed through inaction... Well, now we're getting into the dangerous territory.
But ARE all the unarmed people killed actually "civilians"? Some of them, I'm sure. What proportion?
According to Amnesty International:
Some 650 Palestinians, half of them unarmed civilians and including some 120 children, were killed by Israeli forces.
...where civilians are not "members of Palestinian armed groups".
No, but you were taking it for granted that when Nodinia referred to all the unarmed casualties as "civilians", that this must have reflected some sorting out of "unarmed militants" from that category, which is not the case.
Did I ever respond to Nodinia about that? I think I have misunderstood you way back - I thought you were quoting me, back when you didn't use quote tags. I guess we'll leave this. I have no intention to comment on what he did or didn't mean when I apparently was crashing that part of the conversation. ;)

haha I agree. I feel that it's what was done in the last few days during this thread, and when all of Nodinia and Gravlen's arguments were refuted,
You seem to have a misunderstanding on the meaning of the word "refuted."
You provided zero evidence to back your claim

we started coming to evasions, accusations of trolling, and now debate-style. It seems like they've just run out of logic to support their arguments (although Nodinia does seem to have a few left that are still up for debate, if he would just stop evading the points I bring up in return).

Or you could just, I don't know, provide proof when asked for proof. That's how debating works. You seem to also have a fundamental misunderstanding about that.

Pfft! Links you ask for? Why, that's crazy talk. Clearly these n00bs have superior intellect and uber debate skillz. Links? Proof? That's insanity.

haha I wonder, can I ask you a question? Do you ever actually take part in a thread or just use the strategy of criticizing the side that doesn't agree with you. It is somehow funny to me how all the pro-Israel posters here seem to have poor debating skills. What a coincidence.

Where have you refuted anything I stated? A link please.

Pfft! Links you ask for? Why, that's crazy talk. Clearly these n00bs have superior intellect and uber debate skillz. Links? Proof? That's insanity.

Thank you. You have contributed much to the discussion.

And you are still refusing to provide evidence to back up your claims. You've been asked numerous times by numerous posters. If you want a debate to go forward, back your claims up.

And you are still refusing to provide evidence to back up your claims. You've been asked numerous times by numerous posters. If you want a debate to go forward, back your claims up.
Hmm. Interesting point of view. It's so coincidential that it happens to be all the posters from one side of the argument.
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.


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).




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.


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.

The statement in bold is the thing that people who compare Israel to the terrorists are missing. Was the 5 year old the target? NO. The woman and her son were killed accidentally, because of soldier incompetence, as opposed to Palestinian terrorists, who target 5 year olds and their mothers purposely. I may have posted some of these links already but you must not have read them.

http://www.factsofisrael.com/blog/archives/000570.html



http://www.israelnewsagency.com/israelpalestineterrorism127691.html


It lists several more deliberate murders of children, and not suicide bombings, point blank head shot executions.

Now here's an example of Israel killing some children:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/899414.html


It was an accident because Hamas leaves it's rocket launchers lying around near where children play. Israel even did an internal investigation and admitted wrongdoing, as opposed to just promising more.

Get the picture?



Not here. In general. Just read AP, AFP, Reuters. They always report the statements of Hamas as if they were fact. They refuse to show the Israeli side of the issue.

Pfft! Links you ask for? Why, that's crazy talk. Clearly these n00bs have superior intellect and uber debate skillz. Links? Proof? That's insanity.

Hmmm. Interesting. *cough* biased *cough*

nope. It gets an: again, this is a different matter, you AGAIN (this is like the third or fourth time now) bring examples of East Jerusalem expansion and existing cities in disputed territories being expanded. Not the building of new settlements. This is not what you might be so tempted to call 'colonization'.

You saying they aren't new settlements when even the Israeli government announces them as new settlements isn't convincing anyone. Next you'll be saying any place where they use old tyres as flowerpots doesnt count as a settlement either.....

All the time, if you need a link, you can just scroll up. Notice, in the very last post, you said that Israel's government builds new settlements. And I showed you how you misrepresented the sources you used.c

From the first link...
The Israeli authorities are planning to build three new Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem, an area regarded as occupied land under international law.

Bit hard to 'misrepresent that'....unless they don't count as settlements because its planned that kittens will frolic in the gardens, of course.

Pfft! Links you ask for? Why, that's crazy talk. Clearly these n00bs have superior intellect and uber debate skillz. Links? Proof? That's insanity.

Indeed. And they have pikturs of Arabz with monai 2.

You saying they aren't new settlements when even the Israeli government announces them as new settlements isn't convincing anyone. Next you'll be saying any place where they use old tyres as flowerpots doesnt count as a settlement either.....
c

From the first link...


Bit hard to 'misrepresent that'....unless they don't count as settlements because its planned that kittens will frolic in the gardens, of course.

1. It clearly says contiguous. 2. East Jerusalem is as I said a different matter. 3. 'New settlements' is not a quote by the Israeli goverenment or any of its officials. 4. It is very clear that this is the expansion of a city.
5. Finally, it says that the plans hadn't been approved (that is as for May 2007) so i guess that's not a valid source is it?

I never said that.
None of which justifies colonisation.

Better to just open up and let the terrorists come at them? That would be worse for both Israel and the Palestinians, because many more on both sides would die.

.....Kahanist, racist, and possibly illegal in Israel.
Maybe, but it doesn't stop them from being right (about the facts of the situations, not the racism)



Rrrrright........

I posted a correction for that in a later post. I'm not going to post it, if you are too lazy to click back 2 pages shucks to you


I'd suggest you educated yourself and do so.
As I said, it does not pertain to the conversation at hand.


Well I'm sure thats a great comfort to the Iranians. Amazing the respectability a nice uniform most give.

I say this because it is against the Geneva Convention to fight out of uniform. If you are engaging in warfare, you must wear a fixed, distinctive sign. Ski Masks and Kaffiyas are not enough. There is a difference between actual soldiers accidentally shooting down a civilian plane, and terrorists purposely blowing one up, which you don't seem to see.

You didn't mention Begin or the Irish, I note.

What do you mean by Begin? And I don't see how the Irish have anything to do with the Israel-palestine issue. Why should I mention them?

The Lehi and Irgun were issued medals by the state too, weren't they?

Yes, a long time ago, and they are banned and designated terrorists by the current administration.


link (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1200572487688&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)

So whats Ban Ki-Moon on about then? Hes not Palestinian....

I don't put much stock in anything they say. The UN always condemns Israeli missile strikes, even if not one civilian is killed, such as the strike on terrorist leader Ahmed Yassin. They also refuse to enter refugee camps to arrest terrorists. For some strange reason they signed a treaty that prevents them from doing so. Lets not forget the UN aid workers who like to go around raping people, including women and children, in the Congo. And guess what, apparently some of them didn't even lose their jobs
http://txfx.net/2005/01/08/ongoing-un-rape/
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42088


I believe somebody posted a picture of an orthodox Jew taking out the twin towers with a flying kick here at one stage...........


Yes, but aside from the fact that it came across the news wires from the Egypt/Gaza border and wasn't photoshopped
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28757_Amazing_Palestinian_Factoids&only

No, somebody is disguising explosives as EU aid shipments. Try reading what you post.

It wasn't disguised. The shipments arrive in the West Bank before going to Gaza. Plenty of time to pull an ole' switcharoo


You should have read the whole thread then. For your delectation.....
link (http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0999/9909019.html)


That is from 1999. Are Israeli textbooks still racist? Because pali ones are.

The remaining links you post are incidents of Israeli soldiers acting out alone, or making mistakes. I find it highly doubtful that Israel condones that. They have a policy of removing soldiers who voice aloud racist thoughts, because they cannot operate with a clear mind if they are racist. It is just like the people in america, some of them soldiers, some of them claiming to be soldiers but never were, who "come foreward" and claim all these horrible abuses by american soldiers, which under further investigation didn't actually happen. I don't have the time to get the sources now, but I'll do it when I return

someone like ...?

It's a hypothetical situation in which I am the permanent head of state of a powerful empire contiguous to modern day Israel.

Zayun's plans all sound very laudable, but depend on a general willingness on both sides to live in peace. It is all well and good to say that extremist groups will be "banned from meeting" and not allowed to operate, and so on, but how do you make that real, without police surveillance everywhere? Secret services who buy large numbers of informants make for a very paranoid atmosphere in the society, without being 100% effective in suppressing such groups.
Rather, it is necessary for the people at large in the society to give no support to the extremists. Just the other day, Abbas (supposedly the peaceful-minded one of the contenders for Palestinian leadership) proclaimed three days of mourning for George Habash, who committed more acts to make the name "Palestinian" an object of contempt and disgust than any single person-- and I doubt it was because Abbas himself felt all teary-eyed to hear that Habash was dead; rather, because Palestinian society honors its serial killers. The US didn't have days of mourning for Jeffrey Dahmer, and I can't imagine the UK mourning the Yorkshire Ripper when he passes; what is wrong with the Palestinians? This won't change in an instant.
Yes, by all means re-educate the children. But what do we do about those who are already adults? Wait for them all to die? In the meantime, should there be a wall between the societies? That would contradict the aim of re-education, since meeting actual humans from the other side is the best way to learn that they are really people like yourself.

I think that my plan solves for the situation which causes intense hatred on both sides. By giving opportunity and ending oppression on both sides, I think both sides will calm down. There will still be a few angry folks, but they'll die out, or be caught.

As for walls and such, I am totally against them. The people who hate will become a minority, and they will be much less likely to strike out. Even if the occasional attack occurs, it will happen with far less frequency then they occur today, and they would not be a problem of the future.

People everywhere need help. I am refuting the claims that the pali's are such a horribly oppressed people. They aren't all poor, they aren't all starving, and there is no "humanitarian crisis", at least not caused by Israel.




You are doing exactly that right now (tit for tat). "Christians have too...". We aren't talking about christians right now, and this conflict has very little to do with christians, other than the ones who are being persecuted in the west bank and gaza by palestinian muslims. Christians have persecuted Jews in the past, but are they right now? Are christians firing rockets willy nilly into Israel with the aim of killing innocent civilians? Are christians "martyring" themselves because they think God wants them to kill in his name? Does the christian holy book refer to Jews as "swine"?

The short answer is no to all of the above.




I didn't claim the EU is shipping them themselves, but the explosives are coming in EU aid shipments marked "EU Sugar"

http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Security/12514.htm
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/944592.html
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/124740
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3494131,00.html
http://www.infolive.tv/en/infolive.tv-16468-israelnews-tons-explosive-material-hidden-truck-carrying-aid-palestinians-caugh
http://www.bicom.org.uk/news/news-archive/eu-condemns-palestinian-chemicals-smuggling-disguised-as-humanitarian-aid

I was mistaken about EU giving no comment. Outdated info




Since it seems to be popular on here: Source? I haven't seen anything concerning racist Israeli textbooks, but if you can show me some it would be greatly appreciated



Nothing. But other posters feel the need to compare the situation in Gaza with the actions of the American government 20 years ago, so I felt the need to address it.


I'm not going to bother, because as we both seem to agree, it has nothing to do with Gaza.

Show me where in the Quran it says that Jews are swine.

We need to stop arguing about how to debate and just debate

There are styles of debate in high school policy debate (here in the US) where one side argues that the other should be voted down because they promote a bad style of debate somehow. And this works (though it depends on how good the debaters are).

So really, debating debate is legitimate.

And you are still refusing to provide evidence to back up your claims. You've been asked numerous times by numerous posters. If you want a debate to go forward, back your claims up.

So I think I'm starting to get an idea of what you're trying to do. So you say it's not because you hold an opposite view, right?
So you're the kind of poster who randomly goes through threads that he doesn't necessarily have an opinion about them that he wishes to share, and intentionally looks for posters who'se debate style you don't like, and then you do the noble job of educating them as to how to be better debaters. What a great mission you are on to improve on the debate style of NSG as a whole. I praise your work.

Better to just open up and let the terrorists come at them? That would be worse for both Israel and the Palestinians, because many more on both sides would die.
Strange. Negotiating with 'terrorists' does seem to bring more peace than war. See IRA, ETA, ANC for example - all similar in vein to PLO type groups (i.e socialist-nationalist ideology)


What do you mean by Begin? And I don't see how the Irish have anything to do with the Israel-palestine issue. Why should I mention them?

Stop. Think about the situation - compare and contrast. Come to a conclusion re the similarity of the situations.

Yes, a long time ago, and they are banned and designated terrorists by the current administration.

So are the IRA in Northern Ireland and ETA in Spain. Yet both of their political wings are in government (regional) and both (for the vast majority)
have resulted in peace and stability to the regions.

I don't put much stock in anything they say. The UN always condemns Israeli missile strikes, even if not one civilian is killed, such as the strike on terrorist leader Ahmed Yassin. They also refuse to enter refugee camps to arrest terrorists. For some strange reason they signed a treaty that prevents them from doing so. Lets not forget the UN aid workers who like to go around raping people, including women and children, in the Congo. And guess what, apparently some of them didn't even lose their jobs
http://txfx.net/2005/01/08/ongoing-un-rape/
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42088

Why are you blaming a supra-national organisation for the quality of volunteers from individual countries? Surely the pertinent argument would be to blame the individual countries for provided below-par volunteers?


It wasn't disguised. The shipments arrive in the West Bank before going to Gaza. Plenty of time to pull an ole' switcharoo

So you're blaming the EU then?


That is from 1999. Are Israeli textbooks still racist? Because pali ones are.

I'm going to go with....... textbooks from 1999 are still in circulation.

It is just like the people in america, some of them soldiers, some of them claiming to be soldiers but never were, who "come foreward" and claim all these horrible abuses by american soldiers, which under further investigation didn't actually happen.
Yeh, not like Abu Grahib, Haditha, Gitmo etc etc.

Hmm. Interesting point of view. It's so coincidential that it happens to be all the posters from one side of the argument.
Stop assuming my side of the argument. I'm intentionally refusing to show my hand until you start backing up your statements. I will however point out your flaws.

And what about the links Nodina supplied to refute your point? Oh, here lemme show you have to substantiate a claim.
Among those misled by Memri's "translation" was Glenn Beck of CNN, who had planned to run it on his radio programme, until his producer told him to stop. Beck informed listeners this was because CNN's Arabic department had found "massive problems" with it.
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/brian_whitaker/2007/05/arabic_under_fire.html

Courtesy of Nodina. Now, you need to refute the facts presented with more than "nu-uh." At this point in time you have done none of the above.


As for Cletus, Gravlen owned him with his own sources.


Hmmm. Interesting. *cough* biased *cough*
Bias? No. Disdainful of those ignorant of the rules of debate? Very. The sooner you start backing up your numerious assertions, the sooner this can turn back into a real debate.

Indeed. And they have pikturs of Arabz with monai 2.
ZOMG I FORGOTZORZ!!!!! DEM ARE SUM RICH ARABZ.

Stop assuming my side of the argument. I'm intentionally refusing to show my hand until you start backing up your statements. I will however point out your flaws.

And what about the links Nodina supplied to refute your point? Oh, here lemme show you have to substantiate a claim.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/brian_whitaker/2007/05/arabic_under_fire.html

Courtesy of Nodina. Now, you need to refute the facts presented with more than "nu-uh." At this point in time you have done none of the above.

I responded fully and completely to his statements. You are more than welcome to go back and read my posts. If you need clarification on anything I had not responded to, you can posit it yourself.

Bias? No. Disdainful of those ignorant of the rules of debate? Very. The sooner you start backing up your numerious assertions, the sooner this can turn back into a real debate.

I see, so you really are assuming the position that you just randomly go around threads and with no relation to your personal opinion point out to posters who don't follow debate etiquette as you see it?

So I think I'm starting to get an idea of what you're trying to do. So you say it's not because you hold an opposite view, right?
So you're the kind of poster who randomly goes through threads that he doesn't necessarily have an opinion about them that he wishes to share, and intentionally looks for posters who'se debate style you don't like, and then you do the noble job of educating them as to how to be better debaters. What a great mission you are on to improve on the debate style of NSG as a whole. I praise your work.

I never said that now did I? I said I refused to disclose which side of the debate I was on until there was enough intelligent debate in here. If I take your side, you are going to use my arguemnts as a crutch to bolster your own. If I'm for, I'm not going to jump in until you and your pal learn how to form and back your arguments.

I never said that now did I? I said I refused to disclose which side of the debate I was on until there was enough intelligent debate in here. If I take your side, you are going to use my arguemnts as a crutch to bolster your own. If I'm for, I'm not going to jump in until you and your pal learn how to form and back your arguments.
By saying that you have no bias towards to which posters to which you kindly point out their debate style.

By saying that you have no bias towards to which posters to which you kindly point out their debate style.

The syntax of that sentence makes it utterly unintelligble.

I responded fully and completely to his statements. You are more than welcome to go back and read my posts. If you need clarification on anything I had not responded to, you can posit it yourself.
Okay, where's your source refuting the validity of that article?

I see, so you really are assuming the position that you just randomly go around threads and with no relation to your personal opinion point out to posters who don't follow debate etiquette as you see it?

No, I'm pointing out your ignorance by using examples. It has nothing to do with ettiquette and everything to do with substantiating your claims. If you want to just randomly argue with no substantiation, this isn't the forum for you.

Okay, where's your source refuting the validity of that article?




I'm not saying it's not valid. I never said anything about what the girl had said. The point was that Mickey mouse clearly said: "You and I are laying the foundation for a world led by Islamists". He later asked the girl in question: "What are we going to do about Al-Aqsa?" and before she answered, to prompt an answer, the mouse makes a rifle-firing gesture and says "I'll shoot". That's all there is to it. No mistranslation about the words of 'Mickey Mouse'. It is clear that in this Hamas-run show, kids are being brainwashed to commit terrorism. There is no doubt to all parts that this is unacceptable. Then, to try and 'refute' this, both you and Nodinia bring up what the girl on the phone replied. It is of no relevance whatsoever. The fact that Mickey Mouse is going to shoot to liberate Al-Aqsa is exactly my point in reference to what I was talking about previously (if you had indeed read through the whole thread). And I said the exact same thing a few posts after Nodinia raised the issue, so repeating this was really a very special privilege I award to you for showing up late.

...where civilians are not "members of Palestinian armed groups".
Is that, in fact, the definition given by the authors of this report? The only thing that is really verifiable is whether a Palestinian is or isn't a member of the PA police or security forces; "civilian" could mean anyone except those. Other armed groups don't wear any uniforms or carry membership cards. It is quite common (I can't cite any particular story right now; I don't watch this as intensively as some others here; but I seem to recall this all the time) that Israeli forces will kill somebody they describe as a militant, and the Palestinians will deny it and say, oh no he had nothing to do with kind of thing. Do we automatically credit one side or the other? Was the Amnesty International report that Nodinia cited even attempting to separate out "unarmed militants" from "unarmed civilians"? This is not apparent: Nodinia, and you, are just taking it for granted that all those referred to are cases of totally innocent bystanders. Innocent-bystander deaths most decidedly do occur, no question: but how frequently?

I'm not saying it's not valid. I never said anything about what the girl had said.
No, you said the translations wasn't disputed. Stop moving the goal posts.
hmm, disputed you say. Sorry, I haven't heard any disputes. All I've heard was:
<snip links>

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).

Nodinia clearly showed you they were. Nodina also shows at least one of your "sources" chose to willfully use the mistranslation of the video.

The point was that Mickey mouse clearly said: "You and I are laying the foundation for a world led by Islamists". He later asked the girl in question: "What are we going to do about Al-Aqsa?" and before she answered, to prompt an answer, the mouse makes a rifle-firing gesture and says "I'll shoot". That's all there is to it. No mistranslation about the words of 'Mickey Mouse'. It is clear that in this Hamas-run show, kids are being brainwashed to commit terrorism.

Okay, let's look at the real translation:
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".

The child says: "I'm going to draw a picture."

Memri's translation ignores this remark and instead quotes the child (wrongly) as saying: "I'll shoot."

Pressed further by the mouse - "What are we going to do?" - the girl replies in Arabic: "Bidna nqawim." The normal translation of this would be "We're going to [or want to] resist" but Memri's translation puts a more aggressive spin on it: "We want to fight."

The mouse continues: "What then?"

According to Memri, the child replies: "We will annihilate the Jews."

The sound quality on the clip is not very good, but I have listened to it several times (as have a number of native Arabic speakers) and we can hear no word that might correspond to "annihilate".

What the girl seems to say is: "Bitokhoona al-yahood" - "The Jews will shoot us" or "The Jews are shooting us."

This is followed by further prompting - "We are going to defend al-Aqsa with our souls and blood, or are we not?"

Again, the girl's reply is not very clear, but it's either: "I'll become a martyr" or "We'll become martyrs."

In the context of the conversation, and in line with normal Arab-Islamic usage, martyrdom could simply mean being killed by the Israelis' shooting. However, Memri's translation of the sentence - "I will commit martyrdom" turns it into a deliberate act on the girl's part, and Colonel Carmon has since claimed that it refers to suicide bombers.
So in reality this is a cartoon about resistence, not about brainwashing children into being terrorists.

There is no doubt to all parts that this is unacceptable.
But it's not about terrorism. It's not about being a suicide bomber. It's not about any of that stuff.

Then, to try and 'refute' this, both you and Nodinia bring up what the girl on the phone replied. It is of no relevance whatsoever.
It changes the entire tone and context of the cartoon.

The fact that Mickey Mouse is going to shoot to liberate Al-Aqsa is exactly my point in reference to what I was talking about previously (if you had indeed read through the whole thread).
I don't see how a cherry picking proves anything.

And I said the exact same thing a few posts after Nodinia raised the issue, so repeating this was really a very special privilege I award to you for showing up late.
Awww... how cute. You don't have an intelligent response so you stick out your tongue and kick sand around.

No, you said the translations wasn't disputed. Stop moving the goal posts.


Nodinia clearly showed you they were. Nodina also shows at least one of your "sources" chose to willfully use the mistranslation of the video.

.

Okay, let's look at the real translation:

So in reality this is a cartoon about resistence, not about brainwashing children into being terrorists.


But it's not about terrorism. It's not about being a suicide bomber. It's not about any of that stuff.


It changes the entire tone and context of the cartoon.


I don't see how a cherry picking proves anything.


Awww... how cute. You don't have an intelligent response so you stick out your tongue and kick sand around.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
I will say a few things and say no more about the subject.

The translation of Mickey Mouse was not disputed. Sorry. No. Wasn't.
What I said was clearly about what Mickey Mouse said. Nodinia replied that there was dispute. I said that there was no dispute. The show was of Mickey Mouse, and included interviews with children over the phone. What Mickey Mouse says is what Hamas is portraying as it is run by Hamas. I DON'T CARE what the girl said after. That is OF NO RELEVANCE. It was not planned ahead of time, it just shows that there are Palestinian kids who don't necessarily want to go blow themselves up. The point is, for the very last time, (so listen carefully):

Mickey Mouse said that he will shoot.

This is as clear as it gets. If you are too ignorant (and man would it take a ton of ignorance) to accept this, I cannot argue logically with you anymore. That's it.

It was sent across the wires as part of a report into the palestinian border crossing, and yes, they are palestinians. And the money pictured is Israeli Shekels and Egyptian (whatever egyptian money is called).

And this report is where? And don't try that rubbish "google it" or "look for it yourself" approach. That's the excuse of liars and hypocrites.

And just images don't work either. For all we know, that image could be a bunch of Californians trading Brunei dollars. Persist, and I have to conclude that you are nothing but a sensationalist who cares nothing for facts.

The statement in bold is the thing that people who compare Israel to the terrorists are missing. Was the 5 year old the target? NO.

This one was.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1332219,00.html

The Guardian I know, but most other news sources seem to have dumped it since it's old.

This isn't a one off thing, and appears to happen somewhat often enough that it shows up in the news now and again. So far, none of the ones involved appear to be punished beyond that of a reprimand. And yes, what happened broke official rules of engagement, so it is a case of prosecutable wrongdoing.

Is the targeting official IDF policy? No idea. But the fact that they do not prosecute soldiers that have committed wrongdoing implies that either they are unwilling to do anything or are complicit in these actions.

1. It clearly says contiguous. 2. East Jerusalem is as I said a different matter. 3. 'New settlements' is not a quote by the Israeli goverenment or any of its officials. 4. It is very clear that this is the expansion of a city.
5. Finally, it says that the plans hadn't been approved (that is as for May 2007) so i guess that's not a valid source is it?

Arab East Jerusalem is not a "different matter" as its outside the 1967 borders.

An Israeli official said on Thursday that the plan foresees three separate Jewish neighbourhoods being set up on land Israel annexed after the 1967 Middle East War in a move that has not been recognised internationally.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKL1010468620070510?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

Also the idea is to make them "contigous". Your penchant for the cherry-pick knows no bounds, it seems.


Maybe, but it doesn't stop them from being right (about the facts of the situations, not the racism).

Actually their views on Arabs and the world in general are so extreme I think we know full well what camp it puts them in. Theres a "left" a "right" and then theres "out there". I remember some lunatic in a group who was constantly linking to sites that were obessessed with Freemasons (Jewish freemasons). Thats the camp Masada belong to - "out there".

What do you mean by Begin? And I don't see how the Irish have anything to do with the Israel-palestine issue. Why should I mention them?).

Because we were discussing countries that 'celebrate terrorists'. I said it was a matter of opinion who fitted that definition and gave examples.

Yes, a long time ago, and they are banned and designated terrorists by the current administration.

This is from 2006
British anger at terror celebration
The commemoration of Israeli bombings that killing 92 people has caused offence
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article690085.ece

The Irgun ribbon was established by Israel in 1979, the Lehi ribbon in 1980.
Personally, I don't have a problem with this. However I find the efforts to deny it, and deny the nature of the organisations, rather dishonest.


I don't put much stock in anything they say

Well thats the UN off the list.

How about the red cross?
http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/palestine-interview-250108?opendocument


It wasn't disguised. The shipments arrive in the West Bank before going to Gaza. Plenty of time to pull an ole' switcharoo

So they switch them.....so the EU aren't smuggling them explosives...so same difference, thanks bunches. Bear in mind, if the EU were supply the Palestinians with arms, I'd be busy saying how right they were to do so.

That is from 1999. Are Israeli textbooks still racist? Because pali ones are.


No, as stated by the people that pay for them - the EU - they are not. All claims came from a single source and were checked and found to be untrue. Are you saying that the EU are incorrect/lying or deliberately funding racism?

I find it highly doubtful that Israel condones that.

No one was ever charged with the incidents I listed, with one exception - the Captain who shot the little girl. His penalty was to be transferred to another unit.

responded fully and completely to his statements.

Not at all.

see, so you really are assuming the position that you just randomly go around threads and with no relation to your personal opinion point out to posters who don't follow debate etiquette as you see it?.

Behold, the red herring cometh.....

This is not apparent: Nodinia, and you, are just taking it for granted that all those referred to are cases of totally innocent bystanders. Innocent-bystander deaths most decidedly do occur, no question: but how frequently?

When its a 'reprisal' raid, very frequently. A lot of the time its by rifle fire, and a single shot.


The translation of Mickey Mouse was not disputed. Sorry. No. Wasn't.

Yes, the translation of the video was disputed by CNN'S Arabic department, amongst others. They did not run it as a result. The fact that certain segments may be correct does not change the way the context and tone has been altered by the mistranslation of the rest.

Arab East Jerusalem is not a "different matter" as its outside the 1967 borders.
We can discuss it as a seperate matter from the West Bank because of its religious connections to more Israelis.


http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKL1010468620070510?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

Also the idea is to make them "contigous". Your penchant for the cherry-pick knows no bounds, it seems.


This is still expansion of existing cities (i.e. Jeruslam which is growing at an extremely fast pace).

You accuse me of cherry picking when you repeatedly cherry pick out of MY posts. Look back at item 5. Also in your new source:

"Jerusalem's municipality said in a statement no decisions have been made regarding the construction of the neighbourhoods. Pollak said it could take several years for the project to be ratified by municipal committees."


Yes, the translation of the video was disputed by CNN'S Arabic department, amongst others. They did not run it as a result. The fact that certain segments may be correct does not change the way the context and tone has been altered by the mistranslation of the rest.

For the millionth time: translation of the video yes (i.e. what the girl said), translation of what Mickey Mouse said no. Absolutely no. No dispute at all. I don't care how it was portrayed in the West, that's a different matter. What I care about is that Mickey Mouse said that he will shoot to liberate Al-Aqsa. There is not dispute about this whatsoever. This is completely inappropriate, and completely relates to what I had said before, as it gives an example of the brainwashing the Palestinian children are exposed to.

We need to stop arguing about how to debate and just debate
There can be no debate when the other debators refuse to, well, adhere to the ground rules on debating. Like backing up claims, providing evidence, and supporting their assertion. We are after all engaged in debating facts in this thread, not ideas. Hence, single opinions tends to not carry much weight.

So "No, it isn't, hahaha" simply doesn't cut it.
haha I agree. I feel that it's what was done in the last few days during this thread, and when all of Nodinia and Gravlen's arguments were refuted, we started coming to evasions, accusations of trolling, and now debate-style. It seems like they've just run out of logic to support their arguments (although Nodinia does seem to have a few left that are still up for debate, if he would just stop evading the points I bring up in return).
Your definition of "refuted" seems to be missing something... Substance, I believe it is.

Zionist 'evidence' is basically state propaganda.
It was about evidence from the other side, sport. ;)
Want to try again?
Hmm. Interesting point of view. It's so coincidential that it happens to be all the posters from one side of the argument.
Not really - if you take a step back, you'll see that it's just you.

1. It clearly says contiguous. 2. East Jerusalem is as I said a different matter. 3. 'New settlements' is not a quote by the Israeli goverenment or any of its officials. 4. It is very clear that this is the expansion of a city.
5. Finally, it says that the plans hadn't been approved (that is as for May 2007) so i guess that's not a valid source is it?
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3493785,00.html
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1198517322280&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
I never said that now did I? I said I refused to disclose which side of the debate I was on until there was enough intelligent debate in here. If I take your side, you are going to use my arguemnts as a crutch to bolster your own. If I'm for, I'm not going to jump in until you and your pal learn how to form and back your arguments.
...you made me wonder about something:

When you asked him why he had been refusing to provide evidence to back up your claims, he tried to show that he had by quoting himself and Cletustan. I found that to be quite amusing :p

This one was.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1332219,00.html

The Guardian I know, but most other news sources seem to have dumped it since it's old.
Is the Guardian not credible?

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
I will say a few things and say no more about the subject.

The translation of Mickey Mouse was not disputed. Sorry. No. Wasn't.
What I said was clearly about what Mickey Mouse said. Nodinia replied that there was dispute. I said that there was no dispute. The show was of Mickey Mouse, and included interviews with children over the phone. What Mickey Mouse says is what Hamas is portraying as it is run by Hamas. I DON'T CARE what the girl said after. That is OF NO RELEVANCE. It was not planned ahead of time, it just shows that there are Palestinian kids who don't necessarily want to go blow themselves up. The point is, for the very last time, (so listen carefully):

Mickey Mouse said that he will shoot.

This is as clear as it gets. If you are too ignorant (and man would it take a ton of ignorance) to accept this, I cannot argue logically with you anymore. That's it.
Oh, so now that I've forced you to stop moving the goal posts you don't want to debate? I also like how the girl is of no relevance since it doesn't back up that part of your argument. In fact, put the whole thing in context and it makes your argument completely foolish.

Is that, in fact, the definition given by the authors of this report?
Yes, it seemes so.

Do we automatically credit one side or the other?
No.

Was the Amnesty International report that Nodinia cited even attempting to separate out "unarmed militants" from "unarmed civilians"? This is not apparent: Nodinia, and you, are just taking it for granted that all those referred to are cases of totally innocent bystanders. Innocent-bystander deaths most decidedly do occur, no question: but how frequently?
I don't know about the eport Nodinia is supposed to have referred to, but the one I mentioned separates them, yes.

And that makes the claim that half of the people killed in the Gaza strip by Israeli foces in 2006 were unarmed civilians - including some 120 children. So how frequently? All too often.

...you made me wonder about something:

When you asked him why he had been refusing to provide evidence to back up your claims, he tried to show that he had by quoting himself and Cletustan. I found that to be quite amusing :p

I noticed that too. My puppet senses are tingling.

This one was.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1332219,00.html

The Guardian I know, but most other news sources seem to have dumped it since it's old.

This isn't a one off thing, and appears to happen somewhat often enough that it shows up in the news now and again. So far, none of the ones involved appear to be punished beyond that of a reprimand. And yes, what happened broke official rules of engagement, so it is a case of prosecutable wrongdoing.

Is the targeting official IDF policy? No idea. But the fact that they do not prosecute soldiers that have committed wrongdoing implies that either they are unwilling to do anything or are complicit in these actions.
Allow me to quote the State Department description of the incident and the following developments:

In 2004 IDF soldiers shot and killed Iman al-Hams, a 13-year-old schoolgirl, as she approached an IDF outpost in southern Gaza carrying a bag of schoolbooks that troops suspected contained explosives. After the girl had been shot from a distance, the IDF company commander allegedly repeatedly fired his automatic weapon into her at close range. In February 2005 a military court released the company commander after soldiers who witnessed the incident recanted testimony. On December 14 (2006), the High Court accepted the petition of the girl's parents and PCATI (The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel) and ordered an investigation to determine whether illegal open fire orders were given in the area of the military post which led to the killing.

So nobody has been punished as far as I know, no.

I noticed that too. My puppet senses are tingling.

*Cues theme music* :p

Indeed. And they have pikturs of Arabz with monai 2.

So I guess all the links I've posted mean nothing? Cuz I've posted quite a bit...


Show me where in the Quran it says that Jews are swine.

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Authors/Arlandson/jew_apes.htm


The Israeli military is dangerously incompetent?

Some of the soldiers, yes

I don't claim that the IDF is deliberately targeting the Palestinians, but I am looking for answers to some questions: Why do these accidents happen so often? Why are so few prosecuted for criminal acts when they happen? Why are there so many civilian casualties?

And as some former soldiers have stated (posted previously in the thread), many are not discouraged from abusing and hurting Palestinians - rather, the military (more or less) silently condones it. That is not acceptable for a modern democracy, wouldn't you agree?

I find it highly doubtful that the IDF are encouraged to mistreat palistineans or that so many of the people killed are innocent. When you are dealing with people who dress like innocents, and when so many of the populace at large hate Israel and support Hamas and the terrorists, oftentimes the line between civilian and terrorist blur or disappears. If you have some proof that Israel condones it please post it

This one was.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1332219,00.html

The Guardian I know, but most other news sources seem to have dumped it since it's old.

This isn't a one off thing, and appears to happen somewhat often enough that it shows up in the news now and again. So far, none of the ones involved appear to be punished beyond that of a reprimand. And yes, what happened broke official rules of engagement, so it is a case of prosecutable wrongdoing.

Is the targeting official IDF policy? No idea. But the fact that they do not prosecute soldiers that have committed wrongdoing implies that either they are unwilling to do anything or are complicit in these actions.


See, the thing is that the only eye witness accounts they have are those of the pali's, who are notorious liars. The palestinians are the only ones ever spoken to in this case, other than "an Israeli source", whose statements are never given any credence

Actually their views on Arabs and the world in general are so extreme I think we know full well what camp it puts them in. Theres a "left" a "right" and then theres "out there". I remember some lunatic in a group who was constantly linking to sites that were obessessed with Freemasons (Jewish freemasons). Thats the camp Masada belong to - "out there".

That doesn't stop their account of the Ramallah lynching from being accurate, nor the does it mean that the historical account of Israel that they give is incorrect. Just because someone is bonko's doesn't mean they are wrong all the time. Ron Paul is batshit, but he is right about a few things (mainly drug prohibition)

Because we were discussing countries that 'celebrate terrorists'. I said it was a matter of opinion who fitted that definition and gave examples.

Well, you were the first person to mention it to me, but Terrorists are anyone who deliberately target innocents and civilians in order to fight a war. IRA = terrorists, PKK = terrorists, ETA = terrorists, Christian abortion bombers = terrorists. I don't see what any of this has to do with palestine. Yes, there are other terrorists and other countries that support terrorism. So?

It says in that article about Irgun, that the event was organized by Irgun vets. I don't see how that is the fault of all of Israel

No, as stated by the people that pay for them - the EU - they are not. All claims came from a single source and were checked and found to be untrue. Are you saying that the EU are incorrect/lying or deliberately funding racism?

I posted more than one source, and I didn't see anyone prove them to be untrue.

No one was ever charged with the incidents I listed, with one exception - the Captain who shot the little girl. His penalty was to be transferred to another unit.
How do you know no one was charged? Do you work for the Israeli state department or something?

Terrorists are anyone who deliberately target innocents and civilians in order to fight a war. IRA = terrorists, PKK = terrorists, ETA = terrorists, Christian abortion bombers = terrorists. I don't see what any of this has to do with palestine. Yes, there are other terrorists and other countries that support terrorism. So?


So, you agree then that the State of Israel (embodied by the government and its actions) is a terrorist and has committed terrorist actions?

Is the targeting official IDF policy? No idea. But the fact that they do not prosecute soldiers that have committed wrongdoing implies that either they are unwilling to do anything or are complicit in these actions.

Likely it's the end result of a long string of dehumanizing events, including barracks talk with fellow soldiers, cultural attitudes and (likely most importantly) a betrayal of the themis, I wouldn't be surprised if the company commander is currently suffering (or will in the future) from PTSD. It would appear that a disconnect with reality has occurred in many of these cases, exactly what one would expect from such a prolonged and violent conflict.

So, you agree then that the State of Israel (embodied by the government and its actions) is a terrorist and has committed terrorist actions?

States cannot, under any circumstances, be terrorist organizations. Their proxies can, but a state, and it's agencies, cannot.

Some of the soldiers, yes
How many?

I find it highly doubtful that the IDF are encouraged to mistreat palistineans or that so many of the people killed are innocent. When you are dealing with people who dress like innocents, and when so many of the populace at large hate Israel and support Hamas and the terrorists, oftentimes the line between civilian and terrorist blur or disappears.
Then disprove it. I have posted evidence - the Amnesty report. Discredit the report or find evidence to the contrary please. See, again, as we've been over in this thread, "I don't believe the evidence" doesn't cut it.

If you have some proof that Israel condones it please post it
As I've said before, the body of evidence that has been presented is the proof that indicates that something is rotten.

The lack of prosecution, the lenient sentences for the few prosecuted, the failure in their duty to protect civilians in different ways, the reports of abuse, the testimonials of former IDF soldiers...



See, the thing is that the only eye witness accounts they have are those of the pali's, who are notorious liars. The palestinians are the only ones ever spoken to in this case, other than "an Israeli source", whose statements are never given any credence
Careful, your bias is showing...


How do you know no one was charged? Do you work for the Israeli state department or something?
Allow me to yet again quote the State Department description of the incident and the following developments:

In 2004 IDF soldiers shot and killed Iman al-Hams, a 13-year-old schoolgirl, as she approached an IDF outpost in southern Gaza carrying a bag of schoolbooks that troops suspected contained explosives. After the girl had been shot from a distance, the IDF company commander allegedly repeatedly fired his automatic weapon into her at close range. In February 2005 a military court released the company commander after soldiers who witnessed the incident recanted testimony. On December 14 (2006), the High Court accepted the petition of the girl's parents and PCATI (The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel) and ordered an investigation to determine whether illegal open fire orders were given in the area of the military post which led to the killing.
As you can see, there were soldiers who also were eyewitnesses, and who recanted later.

States cannot, under any circumstances, be terrorist organizations. Their proxies can, but a state, and it's agencies, cannot.

Be terrorist organizations? No.

Commit acts of terrorism? That would be the question there...

I would argue that, if don't want the term terrorist to be made into a term that is so broad that it is useless, we must restrict it's use to non-state actors, and the actions of non-state actors only. If we permit states to be included in this definition, then we begin to run into serious problems pertaining to the functionality of the definition.

Then just classify it as State Sponsored Terrorism.

Be terrorist organizations? No.

Commit acts of terrorism? That would be the question there...

I would argue that, if don't want the term terrorist to be made into a term that is so broad that it is useless, we must restrict it's use to non-state actors, and the actions of non-state actors only. If we permit states to be included in this definition, then we begin to run into serious problems pertaining to the functionality of the definition.

We can discuss it as a seperate matter from the West Bank because of its religious connections to more Israelis.
.

And yet earlier you asked me if I was a muslim, in case I thought Arab claims were justified by religon? I don't give a shit if the Shrine to The Great God of Bananas is in the place. Its outside the 1967 borders. Thats the significant factor.


This is still expansion of existing cities (i.e. Jeruslam which is growing at an extremely fast pace)..

Its new Israeli settlements within Arab East Jerusalem.



"Jerusalem's municipality said in a statement no decisions have been made regarding the construction of the neighbourhoods. Pollak said it could take several years for the project to be ratified by municipal committees."


Your point? They're still planning to build them. If they werent interested in colonisation, why would they be planning it? The laugh? Boredom? Why?


For the millionth time: translation (....)are exposed to.

Even were this true, the girl indicates she will choose a non-violent action. Secondly, in the event that this is propoganda to militarise children, there are indications that this kind of thing is hardly unique to one side. I think it best to condemn the polticisation of the very young on both sides.

Answering Islam-Did Allah transform Jews into apes and pigs?.




Emmm....No, not unless you take a disputed and fundamentalist, narrow reading of it.
http://eteraz.wordpress.com/2006/07/21/jews-as-apes-and-swine/


See, the thing is that the only eye witness accounts they have are those of the pali's, who are notorious liars. ?.

..in the same way all black folk are criminals?

That officer was reported by his own unit. How now, Brown cow?

What about the examples I posted involving Europeans, btw?

That doesn't stop their(....)a few things
.

In any matters related to Arabs, the middle East or the like, I'm fairly sure it means it does.

It says in that article about Irgun, that the event was organized by Irgun vets. I don't see how that is the fault of all of Israel.

Attended by B Netanyahu and co.....And the state honoured them with a ribbon, as I pointed out (the Lehi as well with a seperate one). Therefore Israel honours "terrorists", other countries honour "terrorists" and whinging by anyone about the Palestinians being somehow the only ones that do so is rather selective and pathetic.


posted more than one source, and I didn't see anyone prove them to be untrue.

I did. Twice.


How do you know no one was charged? .

....with the vast majority? Because Amnesty, HRW, B'tselem and a number of organisations keep records and it hasn't happened.

I noticed that too. My puppet senses are tingling.


Is puppetry 'legal' here?

And yet earlier you asked me if I was a muslim, in case I thought Arab claims were justified by religon? I don't give a shit if the Shrine to The Great God of Bananas is in the place. Its outside the 1967 borders. Thats the significant factor.



Its new Israeli settlements within Arab East Jerusalem.




Your point? They're still planning to build them. If they werent interested in colonisation, why would they be planning it? The laugh? Boredom? Why?

I am aware of what you're saying and agree with it. BUT, this IS something that is important to many religious Israelis. This is their point of view: Jerusalem is growing at a VERY fast pace. They don't want it to turn into a Berlin-type capital. They feel that the capital should be shared by all religions as there are many Muslim neighborhoods as well. I perhaps don't agree, and many others in Israel don't, but they do hold some support in the population and thus have political power. Shas is now this party, and they are part of the coalition. If you understand how Israeli democracy works, the party in power (Kadimah) needs enough MPs of other parties to form a coalition. Unfortunately, Shas holds many of these and are currently in the coalition. They threaten that Jerusalem not be given up in negotiations with Palestine or they will withdraw from the coalition.


Even were this true, the girl indicates she will choose a non-violent action. Secondly, in the event that this is propoganda to militarise children, there are indications that this kind of thing is hardly unique to one side. I think it best to condemn the polticisation of the very young on both sides.

It is VERY unique to one side. The politicisation of the very young by no means occurs for the grand majority of Israeli kids (and especially not by the party in power or the government or its bodies). Give me ANYTHING even close to approaching Mickey Mouse saying that he will shoot to liberate Al-Aqsa on a government run channel in Israeli media. Not even remotely close.

Is puppetry 'legal' here?

It's only illegal if you're using a puppet to get around a forum ban. Otherwise it's just a sign that your argument is weak to the point where you need to support it with fluff.

Once again, if we accept the intrinsic definition that terrorism in and of itself must not be carried out by a state directly

Eh, well 'we' don't accept that as an intrinsic definition.

but I wouldn't class the actions of one of the traditional branches of the state as being capable of terrorist acts.

Why not pray tell?

Then just classify it as State Sponsored Terrorism.

Once again, if we accept the intrinsic definition that terrorism in and of itself must not be carried out by a state directly (specifically by it's uniformed armed forces or un-uniformed intelligence services, or some other direct apparatus of the state) then calling it state terrorism is a bit of an oxymoron.

Now, there are groups that do receive backing from certain states, such as is the case with Hiz'bo'allah and Iran, the Contras and the US, the NLF and North Vietnam, in that these are non-state groups, who have the ability to go independent from the wishes of their sponsor. And I'd guess this is what I'd refer to as "State Sponsored Terrorism", but I wouldn't class the actions of one of the traditional branches of the state as being capable of terrorist acts.

[Is that, in fact, the definition given by the authors of this report?] Yes, it seemes so.
Does not seem so to me. Where are the figures for "unarmed militants", since you claim that is broken out as a separate category?

I don't know about the eport Nodinia is supposed to have referred to, but the one I mentioned separates them, yes.
Sorry, I did not understand that you were referring to anything except what Nodinia was citing.

Arab East Jerusalem is not a "different matter" as its outside the 1967 borders.

Jerusalem as a whole has been treated as a different matter since 1947, when the UN would not assign it either to the Arabs or to the Jews, but resolved that people of all three religious faiths must be guaranteed full access (YOU may not care about the religious aspects, but the world at large most certainly does). The projected international trusteeship to guarantee this end, of course, never materialized, nor is it likely to do so now. Jordan violated the rules while it was the occupying power, forbidding Jews from going to their most holy site, while Israel has complied, allowing Muslims access to the Aqsa.

the girl indicates she will choose a non-violent action.
I don't see the distinction between the girl drawing a picture of someone shooting the Jews, and her taking up a gun herself, as being all that significant. OK, Hamas TV is not expecting little girls to take up arms right away, just to get ready to do so when they grow up a little more?

Originally Posted by Cletustan
Maybe, but it doesn't stop them from being right (about the facts of the situations, not the racism).

It may not "stop" them from being right, but it does raise the chances that what they have to say is distorted or completely off. If you found what you think is useful information there, verify it with a saner source before expecting anybody else to give it credence.

Jerusalem as a whole has been treated as a different matter since 1947, when the UN would not assign it either to the Arabs or to the Jews, but resolved that people of all three religious faiths must be guaranteed full access (YOU may not care about the religious aspects, but the world at large most certainly does). The projected international trusteeship to guarantee this end, of course, never materialized, nor is it likely to do so now. Jordan violated the rules while it was the occupying power, forbidding Jews from going to their most holy site, while Israel has complied, allowing Muslims access to the Aqsa.


That's right.

I don't see the distinction between the girl drawing a picture of someone shooting the Jews, and her taking up a gun herself, as being all that significant. OK, Hamas TV is not expecting little girls to take up arms right away, just to get ready to do so when they grow up a little more?

I feel that the girl's reply is completely besides the point, which is what Mickey Mouse (i.e. Hamas) is trying to portray to little kids. And don't be so surprised little girls (well maybe not that little but nonetheless girls) of ages as young as 15 or maybe even 14 (I think I saw one 14 one) haven't been too shy about blowing themselves up killing Israeli children 'to liberate Al Aqsa'.

Does not seem so to me. Where are the figures for "unarmed militants", since you claim that is broken out as a separate category?
No. I claim they're divided in two: Militants and civilians, where "civilians" are civilians are not members of Palestinian armed groups. Militants are militants whether or not they're armed.


Sorry, I did not understand that you were referring to anything except what Nodinia was citing.
's OK :)

Jordan violated the rules while it was the occupying power, forbidding Jews from going to their most holy site, while Israel has complied, allowing Muslims access to the Aqsa.
Only restricting access due to security - mostly meaning that they curb the number of people allowed entry.

I am aware of what you're saying and agree with it. BUT,....... this IS something om the coalition. .

There would have to be equal access to all holy sites by all sides. Worrying about that is valid, understandable and fair enough. Building apartment blocks, whittling down the Arab population, and trying to annex the area is not, whatever they believe. The fact that the Jordanians are/were assholes is no excuse.

It is VERY unique to one side.

Apart from the negative stereotypes, that cartoons of some sects of ultra-orthodox, the training camps, the 'cute' messages on the artillery shells....

don't see the distinction between the girl drawing a picture of someone shooting the Jews,.

I've been working 8-6 lately, so I'm a bit tired at the end of the week. As a result I'm having an hallucination that you've had an hallucination of a girl drawing a picture of someone shooting Jews. Hopefully a good kip and it will pass.

Apart from the negative stereotypes, that cartoons of some sects of ultra-orthodox, the training camps, the 'cute' messages on the artillery shells....

And let me remind you of what the settlers I mentioned earlier were teaching their children....

Does not seem so to me. Where are the figures for "unarmed militants", since you claim that is broken out as a separate category?


You can start here.....
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=907708

And let me remind you of what the settlers I mentioned earlier were teaching their children....


Indeed. Pardon my omission.

There would have to be equal access to all holy sites by all sides. Worrying about that is valid, understandable and fair enough. Building apartment blocks, whittling down the Arab population, and trying to annex the area is not, whatever they believe. The fact that the Jordanians are/were assholes is no excuse.
Apart from the negative stereotypes, that cartoons of some sects of ultra-orthodox, the training camps, the 'cute' messages on the artillery shells....

So you're saying that other countries don't have negative stereotypes?
You said it: the ultra-orthodox. That's less than 1% of Israel pop.
Training camps? To prepare them for an easier transition into the military at ages 16 and 17 so they don't go into shock when they have to start working at checkpoints where pregnant women in fact turn out to be ones disguised with actual bombs strapped all over them. Yea.
None of this is even remotely close to and nothing like Mickey Mouse saying to shoot at Palestinians.

Is puppetry 'legal' here?

UN multiiing is illegal, but yeah you can have puppets. Puppet wanking is frowned upon and this fellow gives us a shining example of why.

It's only illegal if you're using a puppet to get around a forum ban. Otherwise it's just a sign that your argument is weak to the point where you need to support it with fluff.
And everyone thinks they are oh so clever for doing it and that it's oh so indetectable.

So you're saying that other countries don't have negative stereotypes?.

Its a bit irrelevant for you to mention other countries when you didn't previously when mentioning alleged Hamas stereotyping of Israelis....


You said it: the ultra-orthodox. That's less than 1% of Israel pop. ?.

There are various sects of orthodox, and I believe Gravelen mentioned the settlers.......

Training camps? To prepare them for an easier transition into the military at ages 16 and 17 so they don't go into shock when they have to start working at checkpoints ?.

These aren't Israeli citizens per se, however......
http://www.newstatesman.com/200709030003


where pregnant women in fact turn out to be ones disguised with actual bombs strapped all over them?.

Could we have an example of this?


None of this is even remotely close to and nothing like Mickey Mouse saying to shoot at Palestinians.

No, its far more proffessionally and carefully run. And he wasn't saying he'd shoot at the Palestinians either.....

UN multiiing is illegal, but yeah you can have puppets. Puppet wanking is frowned upon and this fellow gives us a shining example of why.


Indeedy. I wasn't too sure. However a two-headed donkey is still a donkey, at the end of the day.

Its a bit irrelevant for you to mention other countries when you didn't previously when mentioning alleged Hamas stereotyping of Israelis....

Except what Hamas is doing is not even anywhere close to stereotyping, it's calling to destroy Israel.


There are various sects of orthodox, and I believe Gravelen mentioned the settlers.......

yes, but these ultra-orthosox which you talk about wanting to destroy all the Palestinians are far less than 1% of the population.

These aren't Israeli citizens per se, however......
http://www.newstatesman.com/200709030003

Your point being...?


Could we have an example of this?

Absolutely:
http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2002/A%20woman%20terrorist-%20en%20route%20to%20carry%20out%20a%20suicide



No, its far more proffessionally and carefully run. And he wasn't saying he'd shoot at the Palestinians either.....

wow, I can't honestly believe that you actually think Israel's media has the same propaganda/brainwashing as was demonstrated by Hamas in their children's TV show.

Except what Hamas is doing is not even anywhere close to stereotyping, it's calling to destroy Israel..

And as a subscriber to an Israeli daily, I get (on occassion) e-mails asking me to contact my "congressman" to campaign to "deal" with Iran "before its too late".....


yes, but these ultra-orthosox which you talk about wanting to destroy all the Palestinians are far less than 1% of the population...

The 'National Union' group gets over 7% of the vote.

Your point being...?...

Flying in children of the Jewish diaspora and militarising them speaks for itself, I would have thought.


Absolutely:
http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2002/A%20woman%20terrorist-%20en%20route%20to%20carry%20out%20a%20suicide...?...

Thank you. Thats a pleasant change.


wow, I can't honestly believe that you actually think Israel's media has the same propaganda/brainwashing as was demonstrated by Hamas in their children's TV show.

I don't think that the Palestinian (or Israeli population) is "brainwashed". However interest groups on both sides do pump out propaganda, with varying levels of sophistication.

I don't think that the Palestinian (or Israeli population) is "brainwashed". However interest groups on both sides do pump out propaganda, with varying levels of sophistication.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mi1ZNEjEarw

And as a subscriber to an Israeli daily, I get (on occassion) e-mails asking me to contact my "congressman" to campaign to "deal" with Iran "before its too late".....

Except no one is calling for the destruction of Iran and its people. That's not even close to what Hamas is calling out for. For example, in the beginning of this school year it greeted the new kids going into 1st grade with a welcome to school present: rockets. And proclaim their intent to do so.
Iran has called for the destruction of Israel. Should it get a nuke, who knows what the future of Israel would look like. Just out of curiousity, which newspaper do you subscribe to?


The 'National Union' group gets over 7% of the vote.

Even if all these 7% were as extereme as you claim (not even close) what is 7% in comparison to what was it like the forty something percent party with the most supporters in Hamas.

Flying in children of the Jewish diaspora and militarising them speaks for itself, I would have thought.

Children that will join the army in a year or two, facilitating the transition...It's not like they send them off to fight. As opposed to the 14 year old teens sent to blow themselves up on the other side.



I don't think that the Palestinian (or Israeli population) is "brainwashed". However interest groups on both sides do pump out propaganda, with varying levels of sophistication.

So when you say interest group on the Palestinian side, you actually mean the party in power who runs their own TV channel and shows? While in Israel it's a small minority. So both sides are equivalently at fault?

Except no one is calling for the destruction of Iran and its people.

Because its more sophisticated in its langauage.....


That's not (.....): rockets.

Yes, evil old Palestinians..and I presume no rockets or artillery were ever lobbed into Gaza, the West Bank or say ,Lebanon, because that would be equally reprehensible, wouldn't it?


Even if all these 7% were as extereme as you claim (not even close) what is 7% in comparison to what was it like the forty something percent party with the most supporters in Hamas..

7% as oppossed to your 1%. Plus we have the lovely folk of Likud.....


Children that will join the army in a year or two, facilitating the transition...It's not like they send them off to fight.
..

They aren't Israeli citizens.....As the article I posted earlier pointed out, if these were Arabs being sent off to a fundamentalist camp, they'd be arrested.


As opposed to the 14 year old teens sent to blow themselves up on the other side...

Why would a nuclear power with a modern fully equipped army "blow themselves up"?


So when you say interest group on the Palestinian side, you actually mean the party in power who runs their own TV channel and shows? While in Israel it's a small minority. So both sides are equivalently at fault?

The small minority in Israel are not the only ones throwing out anti-Arab imagery and propoganda. There are many groups involved.

The fact that the Jordanians are/were assholes is no excuse.
The point is not that there is any recognized claim by Israel to the city; but that there is no recognized claim that it belongs to the Arabs, either. Your claim that Jerusalem is in the same legal status as anything else captured in 1967 is just not correct.
I've been working 8-6 lately, so I'm a bit tired at the end of the week. As a result I'm having an hallucination that you've had an hallucination of a girl drawing a picture of someone shooting Jews. Hopefully a good kip and it will pass.
I've never seen the clip. I am going by the descriptions given here. Mickey Mouse says he will defend the Aqsa by shooting down the Jews, so the little girl says she'll draw a picture. Presumably the kids at home are supposed to play along at home, drawing pictures of Mickey Mouse shooting the Jews; naturally they are not expected to play along at home by picking up guns and shooting Jews right at that moment, but encouraging them to draw pictures of the scene is certainly going to prepare them to do so later.
Originally Posted by Tmutarakhan
Does not seem so to me. Where are the figures for "unarmed militants", since you claim that is broken out as a separate category?

You can start here.....
I find absolutely nothing at your link to justify the claim that "unarmed militants" were broken out as a separate category in the figures you gave.

Because its more sophisticated in its langauage.....

right. saying "let's protect our country" is just a more sophisticated way of saying "let's annihilate another country and its people". Didn't see that but thanks for the pointer.


Yes, evil old Palestinians..and I presume no rockets or artillery were ever lobbed into Gaza, the West Bank or say ,Lebanon, because that would be equally reprehensible, wouldn't it?

No, only if they were targetted at innocents (i.e. little first graders on their first day of school being aimed for).


7% as oppossed to your 1%. Plus we have the lovely folk of Likud.....

Yea, because the Likud calls for the death of all the Palestinians. man, are your facts accurate.


They aren't Israeli citizens.....As the article I posted earlier pointed out, if these were Arabs being sent off to a fundamentalist camp, they'd be arrested.

Except - it's not a fundamentalist camp so I see no connection. Kids who are going to the army in a year or two being prepared for the transition, no matter which country they are citizens of, is nothing like sending kids off to blow themselves up. No. It is not even close.


Why would a nuclear power with a modern fully equipped army "blow themselves up"?

They wouldn't, because blowing one's self up to kill innocents is unacceptable for both nuclear and non-nuclear powers.


The small minority in Israel are not the only ones throwing out anti-Arab imagery and propoganda. There are many groups involved.

Really? Give me one example of someone calling for the destruction of Palestine and its people that for some reason in your eyes does not qualify as a very small minority.

The point is not that there is any recognized claim by Israel to the city; but that there is no recognized claim that it belongs to the Arabs, either. Your claim that Jerusalem is in the same legal status as anything else captured in 1967 is just not correct..

In the context it was being discyssed there is internationally a recognition that (a) the Arab people living there have every right to do so and that (b) Israel has fuck all right to build settlements in it, so therefore it does have the same 'legal status' for all intents and purposes of the converstation.


I've never seen the clip. I am going by the descriptions given here. ..

You've never bothered reading the transcripts (the disputed MEMRI one and the other version)....? Seriously, if thats your level of interest 'go away' is the best advice I can give you. You also seem to presume far too much.



I find absolutely nothing at your link to justify the claim that "unarmed militants" were broken out as a separate category in the figures you gave.

I never said anything about "unarmed militants". Thats something else you seem to have imagined. I provided an article which mentions a number of incidents involving children and said "you can start here".

right. saying "let's protect our country" is just a more sophisticated way of saying "let's annihilate another country and its people". Didn't see that but thanks for the pointer..

Its a more sophisticated way of campaigning for war...


No, only if they were targetted at innocents (i.e. little first graders on their first day of school being aimed for)...

I think the Ha'aretz article I posted gives a good idea of whose likely to have killed a child who dies violently in the OT/Israel area....


Yea, because the Likud calls for the death of all the Palestinians. man, are your facts accurate.)...

Its a very right wing, anti-arab and pro-settler party - rather notoriously so. Or did they call Ariel Sharon the "bulldozer" because he was a big gentle type?


Except - it's not a fundamentalist camp so I see no connection. Kids who are going to the army in a year or two being prepared for the transition,.)...

They'd have to become Israeli citizens to be called up. Thats a fact you seem to be hell bent on evading.


no matter which country they are citizens of, is nothing like sending kids off to blow themselves up. No. It is not even close.,.)...

If one of those persons does move to Israel and serves in the IDF because of the attitudes conveyed to them in that camp, and they are equipped with a sniper rifle and take out a school girl or a un worker then why yes, yes they are.....


They wouldn't, because blowing one's self up to kill innocents is unacceptable for both nuclear and non-nuclear powers..

...because dropping a h-bomb on a city and living to tell the tale is a more humane way of doing things, presumably.


Really? Give me one example of someone calling for the destruction of Palestine and its people that for some reason in your eyes does not qualify as a very small minority.

Trying to frame the question to get the answer you want again?

I find absolutely nothing at your link to justify the claim that "unarmed militants" were broken out as a separate category in the figures you gave.

What figures I gave? And be precise please. I have a large library of reference material. Provide the link I placed/extract posted so I can find what it is you're on about.

Its a more sophisticated way of campaigning for war...

No, Israel has no incentive in going to war with Iran. Iran was the one who called for the annihilation of Israel. There's a big difference between calling upon the destruction of a country and its people and defending one's country and its people.


I think the Ha'aretz article I posted gives a good idea of whose likely to have killed a child who dies violently in the OT/Israel area....

Its a very right wing, anti-arab and pro-settler party - rather notoriously so. Or did they call Ariel Sharon the "bulldozer" because he was a big gentle type?

So you're saying they want to destroy Palestine and kill all the Palestinians?

They'd have to become Israeli citizens to be called up. Thats a fact you seem to be hell bent on evading.

Um, no, (wow am I finding out how misinformed you are), foreign volunteers are more than welcome.


If one of those persons does move to Israel and serves in the IDF because of the attitudes conveyed to them in that camp, and they are equipped with a sniper rifle and take out a school girl or a un worker then why yes, yes they are.....

Actually, not at all. wow, your world view is so messed up... an 18 year old serving in an army is much, much different than a 14 year old blowing himself up to kill innocents. The reason they are in the camp in the first place, is basically because they plan on serving in the army for the most part. So, sorry, you fail, again.


...because dropping a h-bomb on a city and living to tell the tale is a more humane way of doing things, presumably.

Haha the old accusation that Israel has nukes that it would use for purposes other than last-resort self-defence. Wow, are you running out of arguments fast if we've already gotten to this old one.


Trying to frame the question to get the answer you want again?
The only example you gave (which didn't come nearly as close to Mickey Mouse saying he'll shoot) was of ultra-orthodox lunatics as you yourself admitted, so basically, you're making up a whole lot of your argument as you go. nice.

See, the thing is that the only eye witness accounts they have are those of the pali's, who are notorious liars. The palestinians are the only ones ever spoken to in this case, other than "an Israeli source", whose statements are never given any credence

Members of the commander's own troop testified against him. Read the article next time.

And I see you instantly assume "anything a Palestinian says is a lie."

Well guess what? I now claim that everything you say to support your argument is a lie. Regardless of facts. I need no proof because people like you are notorious liars so a blanket statement will do. You are a liar.

You can lie to yourself, because that's what you like to do, but you're not fooling anyone.

Aren't random accusations with no bearing in reality fun?

Likely it's the end result of a long string of dehumanizing events, including barracks talk with fellow soldiers, cultural attitudes and (likely most importantly) a betrayal of the themis, I wouldn't be surprised if the company commander is currently suffering (or will in the future) from PTSD. It would appear that a disconnect with reality has occurred in many of these cases, exactly what one would expect from such a prolonged and violent conflict.

Is that a free pass to commit crimes you're saying? I can't tell.

...
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Authors/Arlandson/jew_apes.htm

...

See, the thing is that the only eye witness accounts they have are those of the pali's, who are notorious liars. The palestinians are the only ones ever spoken to in this case, other than "an Israeli source", whose statements are never given any credence
...


a) So the first surah only proves that either physically or figuratively a group of Jews were supposedly punished.

b) The same for the second.

c) The third surah they cite specificies this about those changed, that they were those "who worshipped taghut [the devil or idols]". It is not a generalizing statement, but rather a very specific one.

And you might want to know that your statement that "pali's, who are notorious liars" falls under the category of racist language. You are assuming that many, or most Palestinians, if not Arabs, are liars. This is inherently racist.

What is wrong with Hamas wanting to destroy Israel and using suicide bombers? Israel is a racist, illegitimate state that defies international law and refuses to allow displaced Palestinians to return to their homes. I do not weep for Israel when a suicide bombing occurs and I wouldn't weep if it was destroyed (unfortunately, the Palestinians can't destroy it because of US weapons and aid, as well as its superior wealth).

Ted Honderich, an eminent Canadian-born moral philosopher who is an Emeritus Professor at University College, London, has written an excellent paper arguing for the ethical justification of Palestinian suicide bombers. The Palestinians are desperate and have less money and their weapons are less good. Israel has dispossesed them and treated them disgracefully.

so I understand you support the intentional killing of innocent civillians?

What is wrong with Hamas wanting to destroy Israel and using suicide bombers? Israel is a racist, illegitimate state that defies international law and refuses to allow displaced Palestinians to return to their homes. I do not weep for Israel when a suicide bombing occurs and I wouldn't weep if it was destroyed (unfortunately, the Palestinians can't destroy it because of US weapons and aid, as well as its superior wealth).

Ted Honderich, an eminent Canadian-born philosopher who is an Emeritus Professor at University College, London, has written an excellent paper arguing for the ethical justification of Palestinian suicide bombers. The Palestinians are desperate and have less money and their weapons are less good. Israel has dispossesed them and treated them disgracefully.

They could leave. Most of them are complicit in, and support, the continuation of the existence of a state that has dispossed Palestinians and ignored international law. It is unfortunate that people have to die, but I do not feel that the bombers can rightly be condemned. The Palestinians are desparate and fighting with all the have against a state that has vastly superior weapons and military (partially thanks to the US).

They could leave. Most of them are complicit in, and support, the continuation of the existence of a state that has dispossed Palestinians and ignored international law. It is unfortunate that people have to die, but I do not feel that the bombers can rightly be condemned. The Palestinians are desparate and fighting with all the have against a state that has vastly superior weapons and military (partially thanks to the US).

I think that Palestinian "terrorists" should not be condemned, just as I think that ANC "terrorists" like Nelson Mandela should not be condemned for using violent resistence against Apartheid. Israel, like South Africa, practices Apartheid. Palestinians have a right to resist oppression, just as black South Africans did.

So you support the intentional killing of innocent civillians.

Ted Honderich, an eminent Canadian-born philosopher who is an Emeritus Professor at University College, London, has written an excellent paper arguing for the ethical justification of Palestinian suicide bombers.

He's wrong about free will and he's wrong about suicide bombers. Slaughtering innocent people is neither justifiable nor effective.

I think that Palestinian "terrorists" should not be condemned, just as I think that ANC "terrorists" like Nelson Mandela should not be condemned for using violent resistence against Apartheid. Israel, like South Africa, practices Apartheid. Palestinians have a right to resist oppression, just as black South Africans did.

In the context it was being discyssed there is internationally a recognition that (a) the Arab people living there have every right to do so and that (b) Israel has fuck all right to build settlements in it, so therefore it does have the same 'legal status' for all intents and purposes of the converstation.
I do not believe you are correct here. The expulsion of the old Jewish communities in East Jerusalem, in 1929 and 1948, left a lot of property-title issues murky, and I know of no international decision that Jews have any less right to purchase property there than anyone else. By contrast, in the rest of the West Bank even hypothetical settlers who bought land (rather than entering as pure "squatters") would be legally dubious, since that is internationally recognized as Palestinian territory where the occupying power cannot taken advantage of its position.
You've never bothered reading the transcripts (the disputed MEMRI one and the other version)....? Seriously, if thats your level of interest 'go away' is the best advice I can give you. You also seem to presume far too much.
Of course I read the transcripts, which is what I meant by the "descriptions" of what went on; what I have not seen is the video. I presume that she drew a picture of the scene that Mickey Mouse was describing, not a picture of wheat fields in the south of France. I do not think that is presuming very much.
I never said anything about "unarmed militants". Thats something else you seem to have imagined. I provided an article which mentions a number of incidents involving children and said "you can start here".
It was Gravlen who was making the claim that your "50% unarmed civilians" was a statistic derived by first separating out "unarmed militants": I pointed out that Israel often fires at militants (or suspected militants; the Palestinians sometimes dispute whether these people were actually involved, which is what makes this question difficult) when they are in their cars, and thus not carrying weapons at the time.
In this case, it is you who do not seem to have been following the conversation. My #459 is responding to his #441 to my #432 to his #412 to my #402 to his #399, if you want to trace back what the issue has been, ultimately to your figures (nobody here has been disputing that it is a bad thing when children get killed; we are talking about who the adults are, and whether there has been any attempt to count what proportion of them were and were not working to kill Israelis when the Israelis got them first).

so I understand you support the intentional killing of innocent civillians?
No one is innocent, and least of all the Israeli racist/nationalist settlers, if you can't handle death in war then you probably don't have the stomach for life, remember across the street not down the road....;)

Also, I have made this post before and I think it needs to be said again to all these bleeding hearts in this thread....

Incredibly reactionary claims like yours are 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-occupier human rights.
Both have no place in reality. It is quite easy to "condemn" the actions of persecuted Palestinians against the Zionist imperialist war-machine, isn't it? While the Zionists use any violent and brutal method they want, we must endlessly seek the liberation of all the Palestinians, unless of course it hurts someone. Then of course, the resistance must be dropped immediately as "unjust." Ridiculous drivel.

No, Israel has no incentive in going to war with Iran. Iran was the one who called for the annihilation of Israel. There's a big difference between calling upon the destruction of a country and its people and defending one's country and its people..

....by campaigning for war. As oppossed to ending an occupation by campaigning for war.


So you're saying they want to destroy Palestine and kill all the Palestinians?
..

The loaded question again? I never said any such thing.


Um, no, (wow am I finding out how misinformed you are), foreign volunteers are more than welcome...

So its perfectly fair enough for Israel to attempt to militarise the Jewish diasporas children, but unacceptable for the other side to do the same to the muslim populations.....?


Actually, not at all. wow, your world view is so messed up... an 18 year old serving in an army is much, much different than a 14 year old blowing himself up to kill innocents....

Though not an expert on the subject of being killed, I'd imagine it works out 6 of one, a half dozen of the other, to the person on the receiving end of their respective attentions.


Haha the old accusation that Israel has nukes that it would use for purposes other than last-resort self-defence. Wow, are you running out of arguments fast if we've already gotten to this old one.....

I never mentioned Israel. Nor has Israel actually used a weapon on a city.....Kindly refrain from making statements that imply I said something other than I did. Its just a small notch down from misquoting.


, so basically, you're making up a whole lot of your argument as you go. nice.

I'm afraid I leave anecdotes to yourself.

I do not believe you are correct here. The expulsion of the old Jewish communities in East Jerusalem, in 1929 and 1948, left a lot of property-title issues murky, and I know of no international decision that Jews have any less right to purchase property there than anyone else.).

The problem is not "Jews" but citizens of Israel, buying property at the behest of either settler organisations, or the Israeli Government to create an Israeli majority.
http://www.btselem.org/english/Jerusalem/Legal_Status.asp



I do not think that is presuming very much...

It is, and choosing the wording "Jews" over "zionists" or "occupiers" is dubious too, IMO.


In this case, it is you who do not seem to have been following the conversation. My #459 is responding to his #441 to my #432 to his #412 to my #402 to his #399, if you want to trace back what the issue has been, ultimately to your figures (nobody here has been disputing that it is a bad thing when children get killed; we are talking about who the adults are, and whether there has been any attempt to count what proportion of them were and were not working to kill Israelis when the Israelis got them first).

As "martyrdom" is an intrinsic part of many of the groups propaganda, it would strike me that they would be quick to claim their own. However.....

From the beginning of the intifada on 29 September 2000, until 31 December 2006, 3,944 Palestinians were killed in the Occupied Territories. Among them were 809 minors (under the age of 18). At least 1,915 of those killed were not participating in fighting at the time, and 210 were objects of targeted killing. Thousands more were wounded.
http://www.btselem.org/english/Firearms/Index.asp

No one is innocent, and least of all the Israeli racist/nationalist settlers, if you can't handle death in war then you probably don't have the stomach for life, remember across the street not down the road....;)

Also, I have made this post before and I think it needs to be said again to all these bleeding hearts in this thread....

Incredibly reactionary claims like yours are 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-occupier human rights.
Both have no place in reality. It is quite easy to "condemn" the actions of persecuted Palestinians against the Zionist imperialist war-machine, isn't it? While the Zionists use any violent and brutal method they want, we must endlessly seek the liberation of all the Palestinians, unless of course it hurts someone. Then of course, the resistance must be dropped immediately as "unjust." Ridiculous drivel.

So you too, support of the intentional killing of innocent civillians. Nice.

....by campaigning for war. As oppossed to ending an occupation by campaigning for war.

Except that when Hamas campaigns for war, it doesn't call for the end of the 'occupation' in what YOU think of it. It's calling for the destruction of Israel and its people and Palestinian control of the country. It's not hard to distinguish. Hamas doesn't go to war for self-defence. not at all. It is the attacker. It is the provoker. It's not hard to figure this out, doesn't take advanced logic or anything like that.


The loaded question again? I never said any such thing.

But that's my point, that Hamas does want to do this to Israel.


So its perfectly fair enough for Israel to attempt to militarise the Jewish diasporas children, but unacceptable for the other side to do the same to the muslim populations.....?

Um, no, children aren't being militarised, their transition into the military at 18 requires some mental preparation. It is completely unacceptable to tell your kids that Mickey Mouse shoots at Israelis and that they should go blow themselves up to kill innocents. no. HUGE distinction.


Though not an expert on the subject of being killed, I'd imagine it works out 6 of one, a half dozen of the other, to the person on the receiving end of their respective attentions.

So you're seriously saying that an 18 year old serving in an army is the same as a 14 year old blowing himself up to kill innocents?


I never mentioned Israel. Nor has Israel actually used a weapon on a city.....Kindly refrain from making statements that imply I said something other than I did. Its just a small notch down from misquoting.

haha so you just innocently brought it up in conversation with no implications whatsoever. nice. Not only are your arguments getting weaker but you're also mixing in irrelevant ones.


I'm afraid I leave anecdotes to yourself.
more evasions....?



As far as I can see, we have pretty much come down to two small accusations that will be over very shortly probably.
1. Israel's self-defence against Iran = Hamas's calls for the destruction of Israel.
2. An 18 year old serving in an army = a 14 year old blowing himself up to kill innocents.

Both are very weak. It's apparent that we have reached close to the end of the discussion.

So you too, support of the intentional killing of innocent civillians. Nice.

Take what he says with a grain of salt. It is known on here that he's an anti-semite who loves to see jews dead.

Take what he says with a grain of salt. It is known on here that he's an anti-semite who loves to see jews dead.

that's not what I have a problem with. It's that somehow, terrorism has become legitimate in some people's eyes

that's not what I have a problem with. It's that somehow, terrorism has become legitimate in some people's eyes

Only to racists and fanatics is terrorism acceptable. Andaras fits both.

Except that (....)like that..

And I remember when the PLO wree only pawns of the soviet Union, then gangsters, then "Islamists"....Yet the one consistent thing seemed to be they were still occupied by Israel and wanted them out....

Um, no, children aren't being militarised, their transition into the military at 18 requires some mental preparation...

...but you already acknowledged they were not Israeli citizens and thus are not subject to the draft. Therefore they are being militarised and fed propoganda.


It is completely unacceptable to tell your kids that Mickey Mouse shoots at Israelis and that they should go blow themselves up to kill innocents. no. HUGE distinction....

None whatseover, and theres enough dead Arab Civillians to show it.



haha so you just innocently brought it up in conversation with no implications whatsoever. nice.....

I have no idea why you are striving to be dishonest in this manner, however.....

You stated

They wouldn't, because blowing one's self up to kill innocents is unacceptable for both nuclear and non-nuclear powers..

to which I replied

...because dropping a h-bomb on a city and living to tell the tale is a more humane way of doing things, presumably.

You seek to create the red herring regarding Israel thereafter.


more evasions....?.

I find that a bit amusing from somebody who refuses point blank to discuss the semi-apartheid policy in the OT, evades discussions of settlements by the cry "but thats different" etc and so on.


that's not what I have a problem with. It's that somehow, terrorism has become legitimate in some people's eyes.....

When I mentioned Benjamin Netanyahu celebrating the King David Hotel bomings anniversary, you didn't feel moved to make such a comment. Why?

Only to racists and fanatics is terrorism acceptable. Andaras fits both.

sadly i am forced to agree with you, and i reaaaaaaalllllllllllly dont like to agree with you, I am lebanese and i dont strive so bad for the defeat of Israel, but with all honesty, check the numbers of arabs dead over the conflict and the numbers of Israelis dead, and do the math.
PS: my religion teacher told me God always valued blood sacifices more than others, AKA Cain and Abel, considering all of the people dead were "martyring " themselves, he must be pretty pleased