NationStates Jolt Archive

Hi everybody.

I know this is probably being talked about in a couple other threads, but they're mostly discussing other things and I'd like to concentrate the topic here.

So, I guess I'll introduce myself first.

I'm a Jewish Israeli citizen who lives near Jerusalem, and I've been really amazed at what some people wrote about Israel.
Now, I'm only going to say this once, so listen up.

Israel is not occupying Palestinian territories.
The term "Palestinian" is incorrect. To quote a friend,
"The Romans renamed Judea after the failed Jewish revolt to piss the Jews off. They named it palestina after the Jews enemy - The Philistines." the Arabs adopted this name around the time that Israel was being founded.

Next, Israel isn't the bad guy in the conflict. May I remind you that the "Palestinians" are being led by a terrorist government who spread themselves out near civilians?
For example, during operation cast lead (This was about a month ago), Israel dropped thousands of papers in arabic saying that the place will be bombed in a few days and to please evacuate.

Israel goes out of their way to avoid civilian casualties!

Ahem. Well, I could go on and on for hours, but I don't think any of you will read all that. Anyhow, I want to hear what you think.

Welcome. This is a debate you will not win on here, at least not likely.

I sympathize with Israel as it is democratic, but it always will look like the big bully because it has superior fire power against the Palestinians, and Palestinian casualties are always multiples higher than Israeli ones, in any conflict. This does not justify Hamas firing rockets, which should be condemned equally.

Israel needs to learn restraint and realize they are damned if they do and damned if they don't, and Palestinians need to realize electing groups that support outright hostility against Israel will just compound their problems.

I pray for peace. Good luck.

The 1967 war showed that Israel was willing to take a very pragmatic approach to fighting wars. It launched preemptive strikes, ignored civilians, and consequently won the greatest victory it had achieved since 1948. Lacking any other means to fight Israel, which it is sworn to destroy, Hamas has been reduced to trying to use this to sway international opinion against Israel. It's worked, but not as well as they'd hoped.

I'm inclined to say that most of the blame for the '09 conflict lies with Hamas simply because they chose to use civilians in this fashion, and are thus directly responsible for their deaths. On the other hand, I'm not sure why Israel and its neighbors don't just, you know, evacuate everyone living in Gaza at the moment and just screen all of the evacuees for terrorists. Conditions there are pretty awful and the residents really have nowhere to go to avoid being used as human shields by Hamas militants and blown up by Israeli bombings. I'd imagine life would become a lot easier for everyone if the Gazans were allowed to move to the nation of their choice and start working towards naturalization like normal people. Sure, you could be cynical and say that Israel's just keeping all the Gazans in there so it can keep track of all the terrorists, but it's not as though that's helping them in the long run.

I'm not sure what the ideal situation would be. Probably for the Israeli government to establish the disputed areas as an independent Palestinian state, then work with the new government until such time as it has stamped out the terrorists and restored internal order. But that, as we all know, will never happen.

On the other hand, I'm not sure why Israel and its neighbors don't just, you know, evacuate everyone living in Gaza at the moment and just screen all of the evacuees for terrorists.
How on Earth do you 'screen' for terrorists?

Do you stop anyone wearing a ski-mask or holding an AK-47? Detain those who've ever held a sympathetic though for violent action?

Israel is not occupying Palestinian territories.

I stopped taking you seriously around here.

This argument is stupid for lots of reasons, but chiefly because it's a completely irrelevant and intellectually dishonest attempt to deny a legitimate aspiration for self-determination.

...
Israel goes out of their way to avoid civilian casualties!


Considering the ratio of Palestinians to Israelis killed I find It hard to understand why you would believe this.

Considering the war crimes which have been Israel has been accused of in recent months and which have been well documented in the press I find it surprising that you would make excuses for your government.

I understand that it's no simple matter of good guys and bad guys, but do you?

How on Earth do you 'screen' for terrorists?

Do you stop anyone wearing a ski-mask or holding an AK-47? Detain those who've ever held a sympathetic though for violent action?

I dunno. Same way they do at airports, I guess. *shrug* Most likely they'd be released into refugee camps anyway, to begin with, where they could be observed and those considered most likely to be terrorists can be questioned or investigated further. Anyway, I doubt most of the Gazan Arabs would want to move into Israel, seeing as it's a Jewish state and they might experience prejudice or something (I'm not entirely sure how Israeli Jews see Israeli Arabs. I'd imagine there's some mutual distrust though.)

I think it's fairly naive to suggest that there is a "bad guy" (and, by extension, a "good guy") in the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. Both sides have spent decades pretty much acting like toddlers shrieking, "NO! MINE!" at each other, and, frankly, I think the only real solution is the same one used for those toddlers - tell them, "I don't CARE who started it; you are both going to stop it now," and then separate them.

I'm inclined to say that most of the blame for the '09 conflict lies with Hamas simply because they chose to use civilians in this fashion, and are thus directly responsible for their deaths.

That and, oh, you know.... Them being terrorists and wanting to kill all the Jews.

On the other hand, I'm not sure why Israel and its neighbors don't just, you know, evacuate everyone living in Gaza at the moment and just screen all of the evacuees for terrorists.

Not that easy. There's the same problem with Israeli-Arabs. While many are great people and support Israel, there are many people who raise their kids (In Israel) to be terrorists, and many in Gaza who hide terrorists in their homes.

Really, many Arab leaders say right out that they want to drive the Jews into the sea. There are marches where thousands of Arabs chant things like, "Burn the Jews!" and hold signs that praise Hitler (May he rot in hell).

I seriously can't for the life of me imagine how anybody with all the facts can be anti-Israel on this conflict.

Israel supplies Gaza with electricity, water and money, and Israel gets bombed.

Israel gives away land in hopes for peace, Israel gets bombed from that land.

You see how this works?

Israel supplies Gaza with electricity, water and money, and Israel gets bombed.

Israel gives away land in hopes for peace, Israel gets bombed from that land.

You see how this works?

It's not that simple.

Israel supplies Gaza with electricity, water, and money. Let's say about 1.2 million of the inhabitants of Gaza fully appreciate this and only desire to live in peace and relative security.

That might leave a few thousand people who would rather live without water and electricity than accept aid from Israel, and those are the people who fire the rocket launchers. Doesn't mean Israel should invade and kill potentially thousands more innocent people just to root out those few thousand.

Considering the ratio of Palestinians to Israelis killed I find It hard to understand why you would believe this.

Considering the war crimes which have been Israel has been accused of in recent months and which have been well documented in the press I find it surprising that you would make excuses for your government.

I understand that it's no simple matter of good guys and bad guys, but do you?

Okay, I have to apologize for using the term "Good guys". You're right, it's definitely not black and white.

And please, don't ever believe the press.
The reason there's a huge number of "Palestinian" deaths and a small number of Israeli deaths is because Hamas is in civilian areas.

To fight back, Israel HAS TO risk civilian casualties. It happens in every war. Why is it only a crime when we do it?

Would you rather Israel sat and continued to do nothing about the last 6-7 years that we're being bombed daily ONLY in civilian locations?

That and, oh, you know.... Them being terrorists and wanting to kill all the Jews.



Not that easy. There's the same problem with Israeli-Arabs. While many are great people and support Israel, there are many people who raise their kids (In Israel) to be terrorists, and many in Gaza who hide terrorists in their homes.

Really, many Arab leaders say right out that they want to drive the Jews into the sea. There are marches where thousands of Arabs chant things like, "Burn the Jews!" and hold signs that praise Hitler (May he rot in hell).

I seriously can't for the life of me imagine how anybody with all the facts can be anti-Israel on this conflict.

Israel supplies Gaza with electricity, water and money, and Israel gets bombed.

Israel gives away land in hopes for peace, Israel gets bombed from that land.

You see how this works?

Israel gives back a small part of land which it took. I gets bombed by a few radicals called Hamas.

Israel kills 100 Palestinians indiscriminately in reprisal.

Hamas gains popularity in Gaza and world wide (especially in the Islamic world). Millions of dollars flow into the hands of these extremists though unofficial channels to build more rockets.

Hamas bombs Israel again.

You see how this works?

...
The reason there's a huge number of "Palestinian" deaths and a small number of Israeli deaths is because Hamas is in civilian areas.


What do you mean by putting "quotes" around the word Palestinian but not around the word Israeli?

Could it be that you fundamentally believe that only pure-bred Jews are entitled to inhabit the area formerly known as Judea and that the Palestinians don't deserve to be called so because Palestine never existed as an independent state? Know what, the Palestinians disagree ant they always will!

Putting quotes around another ethnic group is never a good sign. It's somewhat of a dehumanizing gesture on your part.

What about the settlements that Israel continues to build in the disputed territories, despite knowing that it is a provocative act that acts as a barrier to peace negotiations?

I think Israel & the Palestinians are as bad as eachother. Hamas rockets are launched at Israel. Civillians are killed, so in retaliation Israeli air strikes hit back at Hamas. Civillians are killed, so in retaliation a bomb is planted on an Israeli bus. Civillians are killed, so in retaliation Israeli troops enter Gaza & attack Hamas on the ground. Civillians are killed, so in retalition.....

Do you see where this is going? Both sides just perpetuate the cycle of violence and revenge, without making any genuine attempts to stop it. Quite frankly, I often think that you deserve eachother. It makes me sad though that lives a needlessly lost in the whole stupid process.

The state of Israel in itself was acquired through terror tactics. How am I supposed to listen to the likes of you while Israel's forefathers are considered to be terrorists? I'm sure the occupying British forces can attest how they were treated by militant Jews. As for those letters being dropped at Gaza, it's a lame excuse as to why Israel killed so many innocent Palestinian people. The surrounding borders to Gaza were blockaded and so the air droplets only told Palestinians to stay in their homes.

One thing I learned from the Middle East is that, powers hardly stay for too long. Couple of hundreds of years from now, someone will be digging up sand on where Israel is today :D

What do you mean by putting "quotes" around the word Palestinian but not around the word Israeli?

Could it be that you fundamentally believe that only pure-bred Jews are entitled to inhabit the area formerly known as Judea and that the Palestinians don't deserve to be called so because Palestine never existed as an independent state? Know what, the Palestinians disagree ant they always will!

Putting quotes around another ethnic group is never a good sign. It's somewhat of a dehumanizing gesture on your part.

I have absolutely nothing against them, really. It just really bugs me that the world adopted this term which they're using for sympathy.

Oh, and Hamas isn't "A few radicals". There are thousands and thousands of them. you don't realize that these people try to attack civilians DAILY. Blowing up buses. Drive by shootings. This is their GOVERNMENT. What happened to "Don't negotiate with terrorists"?

Anyway, I'd like you all to look at this from our point of view.
All around the world, at any given time there was is and will be antisemitism. there were people in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida who were shouting, "Throw them back in the ovens!" and such.

In WW2 this became a whole lot bigger. Jews were robbed of their businesses, forced to wear yellow stars, set apart from everyone else and eventually murdered.

And the world hasn't learned. There are still many many people who hate Jews and want to kill them.

So the Jews decided to get away from it all, to stop apparently bothering the world and to have the world stop hating them. They moved to a very small country, about the size of New Jersey, the place they were expelled from 2000 years earlier. The place where they pray 3 times a day to return to.

Surely that isn't too much to ask?

I think Israel & the Palestinians are as bad as eachother. Hamas rockets are launched at Israel. Civillians are killed, so in retaliation Israeli air strikes hit back at Hamas. Civillians are killed, so in retaliation a bomb is planted on an Israeli bus. Civillians are killed, so in retaliation Israeli troops enter Gaza & attack Hamas on the ground. Civillians are killed, so in retalition.....

Ha! Every time there's a cease-fire, they break it.]

If Israel stopped fighting back (Which it only does every so often) we'd be wiped off the map.

The state of Israel in itself was acquired through terror tactics. How am I supposed to listen to the likes of you while Israel's forefathers are considered to be terrorists? I'm sure the occupying British forces can attest how they were treated by militant Jews. As for those letters being dropped at Gaza, it's a lame excuse as to why Israel killed so many innocent Palestinian people. The surrounding borders to Gaza were blockaded and so the air droplets only told Palestinians to stay in their homes.

One thing I learned from the Middle East is that, powers hardly stay for too long. Couple of hundreds of years from now, someone will be digging up sand on where Israel is today :D

Actually, the State of Israel was acquired partly through lawful purchase and mostly through UN fiat (international recognition), and its existence ratified by right of combat (proof that it can maintain its own sovereignty).

As has been shown, trying to lay the blame on one side or on the other is rather futile, since both sides are more or less equally at fault. Those civilians died largely because Hamas was willing to sacrifice them for its own political ends. Could the situation have been better handled by Israel? Absolutely. Whose fault is it? I'll go with something everyone can agree with, and blame George W. Bush. All his fault. *nods*

EDIT: Also, not true at all. A couple hundred years from now a few other ethnic/religious groups will be continuing to fight one another in the blasted irradiated wasteland that used to be Israel, with whatever sticks and stones and remnants of modern technology that survived the Twenty-Minute War. Of course, we in North America probably won't be hearing much about it, as the radiation will have knocked out radio communications and practically all modern technology, and we'd spend most of the 42 years of our expected lifespan wandering the earth trying to cultivate crops in the barren soil.

Israel is not occupying Palestinian territories.
The term "Palestinian" is incorrect. To quote a friend,
"The Romans renamed Judea after the failed Jewish revolt to piss the Jews off. They named it palestina after the Jews enemy - The Philistines." the Arabs adopted this name around the time that Israel was being founded.

If you were right, then I should still be calling Istanbul, Byzantium.

So in many ways, you're obtuse...

I have absolutely nothing against them, really. It just really bugs me that the world adopted this term which they're using for sympathy.

Oh, and Hamas isn't "A few radicals". There are thousands and thousands of them. you don't realize that these people try to attack civilians DAILY. Blowing up buses. Drive by shootings. This is their GOVERNMENT. What happened to "Don't negotiate with terrorists"?

Anyway, I'd like you all to look at this from our point of view.
All around the world, at any given time there was is and will be antisemitism. there were people in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida who were shouting, "Throw them back in the ovens!" and such.

In WW2 this became a whole lot bigger. Jews were robbed of their businesses, forced to wear yellow stars, set apart from everyone else and eventually murdered.

And the world hasn't learned. There are still many many people who hate Jews and want to kill them.

So the Jews decided to get away from it all, to stop apparently bothering the world and to have the world stop hating them. They moved to a very small country, about the size of New Jersey, the place they were expelled from 2000 years earlier. The place where they pray 3 times a day to return to.

Surely that isn't too much to ask?

Your sense of entitlement is nauseating.

I think since neither Jews nor Arabs have managed to take control of the region, we give Catholics a shot again

Ha! Every time there's a cease-fire, they break it.]

If Israel stopped fighting back (Which it only does every so often) we'd be wiped off the map.

You're missing my point. Neither side does anything to stop the perpetuation of the killing/revenge cycle. You have to get out of the "they are to blame" mindset and start thinking about how you're going to solve the problem. Otherwise, you'll just continue killing eachother in perpetuity.

Now, I'm only going to say this once, so listen up.

I normally lean towards the Israeli side in my view of this conflict, but the way you've put this, it indicates tremendous arrogance and lack of real willingness to even hear the other side, or any side beyond your own. Its disingenuous to then turn around and say you're interested in what other people think.

If many Israelis have the attitude you're displaying, perhaps I should rethink my support for them.

I think since neither Jews nor Arabs have managed to take control of the region, we give Catholics a shot again

Yes, I agree. Let's shoot the Catholics too.

Yes, I agree. Let's shoot the Catholics too.

Oh gods, you read my mind!

Yes, I agree. Let's shoot the Catholics too.

We'll give the whole area to the Pastafarians.

:tongue:

That and, oh, you know.... Them being terrorists and wanting to kill all the Jews.

Not that easy. There's the same problem with Israeli-Arabs. While many are great people and support Israel, there are many people who raise their kids (In Israel) to be terrorists, and many in Gaza who hide terrorists in their homes.

Really, many Arab leaders say right out that they want to drive the Jews into the sea. There are marches where thousands of Arabs chant things like, "Burn the Jews!" and hold signs that praise Hitler (May he rot in hell).


You have to admit some of the blustering is for the crowd. Iran is famous for screaming "Death to America" and yet a fellow(of course I can't remember his name) who does travel guides. He spent time in Iran and was stuck in a traffic jam. A fellow saw him walked over to his car and asked the driver if he could give him flowers for the hassle of getting stuck. intrigued he asked to talk to the man and they started to leave and the man cried "Death to traffic!" He was floored by that and said usually he hears that phrase involving America. The man smiled and told him in Iran when people are frustrated by something they usually scream for its death.

People will say anything when they are frustrated. Not everyone of them are killers.

I seriously can't for the life of me imagine how anybody with all the facts can be anti-Israel on this conflict.


Do you truly believe Israel is without any faults in this affair? Israel has been on the lawful side of things? Never did anything underhanded?

Israel supplies Gaza with electricity, water and money, and Israel gets bombed.

Israel gives away land in hopes for peace, Israel gets bombed from that land.

You see how this works?

Yes. It's called control.

Israel controls water, electricity, food, air ways, and ocean access.

How in the world do you build up a country with that arrangement?

If a Palestinian man has a job, provide for a family and offer his children a better future, terrorism isn't an attractive offer.

Now are the Palestinians innocent? Of course not. They have done some crappy things as well.

As Poli has described it. It's two children screaming mine in a leathal fight.

I think since neither Jews nor Arabs have managed to take control of the region, we give Catholics a shot again

:o you're dismissing all the years of control of the region by the British Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, the Roman Empire, the Persian Empire, and all those other folks! If the Jews and Arabs are screwing it up, let's give it back to the British, or the Turks, or the Italians, or the Persians, or someone else, and see how they manage it! Remember, the British/Turks/Romans/Persians/Byzantines/Phoenicians/Canaanites were there first!

Hi everybody.

I know this is probably being talked about in a couple other threads, but they're mostly discussing other things and I'd like to concentrate the topic here.

So, I guess I'll introduce myself first.

I'm a Jewish Israeli citizen who lives near Jerusalem, and I've been really amazed at what some people wrote about Israel.
Now, I'm only going to say this once, so listen up.

Israel is not occupying Palestinian territories.
The term "Palestinian" is incorrect. To quote a friend,
"The Romans renamed Judea after the failed Jewish revolt to piss the Jews off. They named it palestina after the Jews enemy - The Philistines." the Arabs adopted this name around the time that Israel was being founded.

Next, Israel isn't the bad guy in the conflict. May I remind you that the "Palestinians" are being led by a terrorist government who spread themselves out near civilians?
For example, during operation cast lead (This was about a month ago), Israel dropped thousands of papers in arabic saying that the place will be bombed in a few days and to please evacuate.

Israel goes out of their way to avoid civilian casualties!

Ahem. Well, I could go on and on for hours, but I don't think any of you will read all that. Anyhow, I want to hear what you think.

I think Israelis and Palestinians would get along a lot better if you guys had more tacos.

There really isn't a plausible right way out of it or that path would have been explored already...

One side of the conflict has to go...

The Israeli's are looking more productive and more pleasant to work with than the Palestinians, correct? Or did I get that backwards?

I think Israelis and Palestinians would get along a lot better if you guys had more tacos.

As long as it wasn't pork taco.

As long as it wasn't pork taco.

if it was they might team up and attack Mexico.

I think Israelis and Palestinians would get along a lot better if you guys had more tacos.

You might be on to something. They have Pizza Hut over there! It might be the reason for some of the crankiness.

Israel is not occupying Palestinian territories.

Iffy proposition. No, they are not controlling Gaza or the West Bank via personnel on the ground. However, by physically occupying all of the territory surrounding those areas, and using that possession to control import, export and travel, Israel is holding control of those territories - it has power over them. A practical occupation if not a literal one.

The term "Palestinian" is incorrect. To quote a friend,
"The Romans renamed Judea after the failed Jewish revolt to piss the Jews off. They named it palestina after the Jews enemy - The Philistines." the Arabs adopted this name around the time that Israel was being founded.

Then both you and your friend are totally wrong.

What the Romans did 2000 years ago is irrelevant, as is the origin of the term sixty years ago. The inhabitants of that area now self-identify as "Palestinians", and make a distinction between themselves as a people and other Arab cultural groups. They are now Palestinians. The fact that they were not 100 years ago matters no more than the fact that 100 years ago there were no Israelis - reality trumps theory.

Israel goes out of their way to avoid civilian casualties!

This is also questionable. The Israeli military in the last conflict appears to have held to the particulars of the Hague Convention regarding what could and could not be considered military targets, for the most part. However, we saw no hesitation in them striking against military targets with civilian presence, and they clearly made some questionable choices of weapon selection and use for striking specific targets in built-up areas.

I would not call this "going out of their way".

Israel is not occupying Palestinian territories.

Bullshit.

May I remind you that the "Palestinians" are being led by a terrorist government who spread themselves out near civilians?

Since Gaza's so crammed, they can't really avoid the civilians.

Israel dropped thousands of papers in arabic saying that the place will be bombed in a few days and to please evacuate.

Where can they evacuate to?
Israel goes out of their way to avoid civilian casualties!

That's why they bomb refugee camps and schools then, is it?

If Israel stopped fighting back (Which it only does every so often) we'd be wiped off the map.

By a couple of incompetent morons using extremely unreliable mortars? I doubt it.

Israel is not occupying Palestinian territories.
Oh? Really? Then what is it doing, and why doesn't it grant the people living there full citizenship rights if it's not occupying it?

Nevermind that you're incorrect, according to both international law and common international perception (As demonstrated by statements from the UN, like for example United Nations Security Council Resolution 242). Also, it seems that your former and both of your potential new PMs aren't all that convinced about your point of view.

The term "Palestinian" is incorrect. To quote a friend,
"The Romans renamed Judea after the failed Jewish revolt to piss the Jews off. They named it palestina after the Jews enemy - The Philistines." the Arabs adopted this name around the time that Israel was being founded.
So now you're trying to define away the people who live there? Nevermind that Israel recognizes the Palestinian National Authority as as the representative of the Palestinian people, making your argument... strange. Or do you still perhaps believe that the people are a part of Israel, and try to define them from that point of view? (See: "Not occupied")

Israel isn't the bad guy in the conflict.
Yes, they are. Just as much as the Palestinians are.

May I remind you that the "Palestinians" are being led by a terrorist government who spread themselves out near civilians?
So what terrorist acts are Fatah and the PA responsible for lately?

For example, during operation cast lead (This was about a month ago), Israel dropped thousands of papers in arabic saying that the place will be bombed in a few days and to please evacuate.
...and go where?

Maybe they should have gone into Israel? Not easy to evacuate the area when the area is being blocaded, is it?

Israel goes out of their way to avoid civilian casualties!
Debatable. And in my opinion, most likely untrue.

Ahem. Well, I could go on and on for hours, but I don't think any of you will read all that. Anyhow, I want to hear what you think.
It wasn't exactly an epic opus, was it?

Anyway, I support the right of Israel to exist. I also support the formation of a Palestinian state. If Israel is serious about wanting peace, something Israeli actions and information from various sources including but not limited to Peace Now, Amnesty International, Shovrim Shtika, B'Tselem and Yesh Din has made me seriously doubt, it would start by ending the occupation and removing the settlers from the West Bank. It would end torture and extrajudicial killings, and stop letting the IDF and the settlers violate the human rights of Palestinians with impunity.

And stop killing innocent civilians, that only fuels the extremist movement.

That and, oh, you know.... Them being terrorists and wanting to kill all the Jews.
Does every single member of Hamas want to kill all the jews?


Not that easy. There's the same problem with Israeli-Arabs. While many are great people and support Israel, there are many people who raise their kids (In Israel) to be terrorists, and many in Gaza who hide terrorists in their homes.
"Many"? How many Israeli terrorists are you saying there is, exactly?

I seriously can't for the life of me imagine how anybody with all the facts can be anti-Israel on this conflict.
That's a part of your problem right there. You seem to be incapable of accepting that Israel can do something wrong if you cannot imagine how anybody can be anti-Israel. You lack the ability to put yourself in the shoes of any Palestinian who have suffered any kind of damage or loss due to the policies of Israel. [/QUOTE]

Okay, I have to apologize for using the term "Good guys". You're right, it's definitely not black and white.
But if it's not black and white, why can't you imagine how anybody with all the facts can be anti-Israel?

To fight back, Israel HAS TO risk civilian casualties. It happens in every war. Why is it only a crime when we do it?
It's not.

Would you rather Israel sat and continued to do nothing about the last 6-7 years that we're being bombed daily ONLY in civilian locations?
I would rather that Israel fulfilled their part of the roadmap to peace, the Oslo accords, and all the rest of the agreements that have been presented and/or accepted.

What happened to "Don't negotiate with terrorists"?
Israel abandoned that idea decades ago. It's possible that Israel never had that policy, and a reason for that could be all of the former jewish terrorists that made up the first Israeli governments. Maybe.



Iffy proposition. No, they are not controlling Gaza or the West Bank via personnel on the ground.
Well, there are quite a few IDF soldiers on the ground in the West Bank, so I'd say they're still controlling the West Bank via prsonnel on the ground...

To Shceev:

What is your opinion on settlements and the settlers?

What is your opinion on "dividing" Jerusalem?

Israel is not occupying Palestinian territories.
The term "Palestinian" is incorrect. To quote a friend,
"The Romans renamed Judea after the failed Jewish revolt to piss the Jews off. They named it palestina after the Jews enemy - The Philistines." the Arabs adopted this name around the time that Israel was being founded.

Oh, this one. What a bunch of drivel. "There are no real Palestinians, hence we're not actually killing Palestinians!"

Your own government on all levels often and repeatedly refers to Palestinians, and Palestine. Is your government wrong?

That is, assuming you're Jewish or Israeli at all - somehow I doubt it, since you're making such a naive argument very typical of clueless Americans.

Really, get a new line. Pretending that a people and land do not exist just because you don't like them is one of the most absurd arguments it is possible to make.

Next, Israel isn't the bad guy in the conflict. May I remind you that the "Palestinians" are being led by a terrorist government who spread themselves out near civilians?

The who? See, this is where your dumbass argument fails. You yourself just argued that there are no Palestinians. So I dunno whose government you could possibly be referring to when you then say the Palestinians.

Anyhow, I want to hear what you think.

I think the naivete of your arguments indicates you're not who you say you are, and I doubt too that you want to hear what anyone else thinks. You'd rather just go on your de-humanizing propaganda rampage and have people react. Bo-ring.

Israel is not occupying Palestinian territories..

40 years means it exceeds what a reasonable person would describe as a "day trip".



revolt to piss the Jews off. They named it palestina after the Jews enemy - The Philistines." the Arabs adopted this name around the time that Israel was being founded...

Reality begs to differ.

The first widespread use of "Palestinian" as an endonym to refer to the nationalist concept of a Palestinian people by the local Arabic-speaking population of Palestine began prior to the outbreak of World War I,[10] and the first demand for national independence was issued by the Syrian-Palestinian Congress on 21 September 1921.[11]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian



Next, Israel isn't the bad guy in the conflict..

Israel is colonising the West Bank, Arab East Jerusalem etc, therfore they are the "bad guys". Its a very simple thing to get the head around.


I'd imagine life would become a lot easier for everyone if the Gazans were allowed to move to the nation of their choice and start working towards naturalization like normal people...

You mean faciltate ethnic cleansing? Classy.

I'm not entirely sure how Israeli Jews see Israeli Arabs. I'd imagine there's some mutual distrust though...

A small article on which you might base further reading
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/19/AR2007121902681.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2007121902748

If many Israelis have the attitude you're displaying, perhaps I should rethink my support for them.

Try talking to the settlers if you want to sour your views.

One thing that I have trouble with is the mantra: "Israel is a Democracy".
Yes it has free and fair elections which is democratic.
However, the Rabbinate has too much political power. There needs to be a separation of religion and the state. Otherwise you end up with Mullahs running a country. Maybe Israel shares more in common with Hamas than it is owning up to. State religions are simply reactionary - whatever religion it is. I believe in freeing Tibet but Tibet would be a lot better off if, once it gets its independence, it has a secular government. Hey! I just realised...... The Dalai Lama leads the Buddhist diaspora!

I despair that a fascist Russian emigre can get the third highest vote when he wants to get rid of all the Arabs living in Israel. I despair that successive Israeli governments have used both "legal" means and actual violence to force Palestinians off their land.
Israel has lost a whole lot of support it once had from the world community and palling up with the George Bush neo-con Crusaders was a really bad strategic move.
Israel is more isolated than any time in its history and anti-semitism is on the rise. It is certainly not too late for Israel ..... it should recognise a Palestinian state while there is still goodwill with Abbas and it should embark on meaningful peace talks with Hamas.
One think it also must do is to give back the land it has taken from the Palestinians. I don't think that the new Knesset will allow this, however. So the outlook for a genuine peace is pretty dismal.

Hi everybody.
Shalom etc.
Israel is not occupying Palestinian territories.
I think that's a general territory of both people. To call it Israel or Palestine sort of excludes one group or the other.
The term "Palestinian" is incorrect.
Not really, no. It's pretty old.
To quote a friend, "The Romans renamed Judea after the failed Jewish revolt to piss the Jews off. They named it palestina after the Jews enemy - The Philistines." the Arabs adopted this name around the time that Israel was being founded.
Right... so it's incorrect because it's 'only' 2000 years old?
Next, Israel isn't the bad guy in the conflict. May I remind you that the "Palestinians" are being led by a terrorist government who spread themselves out near civilians?
Right, right...

Hamas is different to Irgun how? And seeing as Likud is basically just Irgun and a couple of other groups, that makes the situation in Israel pretty similar to my mind. Both sides are arseholes.
For example, during operation cast lead (This was about a month ago), Israel dropped thousands of papers in arabic saying that the place will be bombed in a few days and to please evacuate.
... uhu... doesn't mean that the Palestinians aren't getting fucked over.

"We're bombing your house, but we told you that we were so it's ok"
Israel goes out of their way to avoid civilian casualties!
I'm sure some effort is put in or we'd have far higher casualties, but really, bombing residential areas is not cool.

At this point I think they should glass the whole place over.

Let's just build a big dome over all of Israel and Palestine. Kinda like in that Poli Shore movie bio-dome but with more killing.

OP: People on your side insist that you're absolutely right and will never change.

People on the other side insist that you're absolutely wrong and you must change.

And since both sides are so stubborn, everyone in jerusalem is stuck worrying daily that their house will be struck by a missile.

You know they'll never let you get the whole thing, and they know you won't let them get the whole thing, so just divide the damned thing in two and let them choose a half!

Israel is not occupying Palestinian territories.
The term "Palestinian" is incorrect. To quote a friend,
"The Romans renamed Judea after the failed Jewish revolt to piss the Jews off. They named it palestina after the Jews enemy - The Philistines." the Arabs adopted this name around the time that Israel was being founded.

And your point is ?
Sure - there was no real nation there when Israel was founded. But there were people there. People whose ancestors had lived there for generations.

Why are they considered second rate citizens ?
Why would Jews have more rights to live there ? Maybe some did live there millenia ago - but I am certain other people lived there even before them.

You know they'll never let you get the whole thing, and they know you won't let them get the whole thing, so just divide the damned thing in two and let them choose a half!

Both sides want the Temple Mount, though.

At this point I think they should glass the whole place over.

"At this point I think we should kill millions of people."

Honestly, do people like you come into those relationship advice threads and say, "At this point I think you should kill her and then yourself." Did you perhaps spend the 2008 election saying things like "At this point, I think every man, woman and child in the US should be murdered!"

No you didn't. Because that's not cool or funny. It's only cool and funny when, for the eight thousandth time, someone pops in with a "Hey, why not genocide?" 'solution' to Middle East problems. He he, hilarious.

No you didn't. Because that's not cool or funny. It's only cool and funny when, for the eight thousandth time, someone pops in with a "Hey, why not genocide?" 'solution' to Middle East problems. He he, hilarious.

One of the major current political parties in Israel has in fact suggested the use of nukes, as well as a segregation policy.

Both sides want the Temple Mount, though.

Lets just destroy the Temple Mount then. Grind all the buildings into powder and dump them at sea, excavate the whole area and dump that in the sea and then trun the place into a zoo.

That should solve that problem.

"At this point I think we should kill millions of people."

Honestly, do people like you come into those relationship advice threads and say, "At this point I think you should kill her and then yourself." Did you perhaps spend the 2008 election saying things like "At this point, I think every man, woman and child in the US should be murdered!"

No you didn't. Because that's not cool or funny. It's only cool and funny when, for the eight thousandth time, someone pops in with a "Hey, why not genocide?" 'solution' to Middle East problems. He he, hilarious.

Actually, for my 2¢, it would be pretty funny for someone to give that kind of response to a relationship thread or an election thread. But only the first or second time. After that it would get as tiresome as all of the forced memes we've had since Myrth (and it only started with Myrth because that was the first one I was around to see).

Hi everybody.

I know this is probably being talked about in a couple other threads, but they're mostly discussing other things and I'd like to concentrate the topic here.

So, I guess I'll introduce myself first.

I'm a Jewish Israeli citizen who lives near Jerusalem, and I've been really amazed at what some people wrote about Israel.
Now, I'm only going to say this once, so listen up.

Israel is not occupying Palestinian territories.
The term "Palestinian" is incorrect. To quote a friend,
"The Romans renamed Judea after the failed Jewish revolt to piss the Jews off. They named it palestina after the Jews enemy - The Philistines." the Arabs adopted this name around the time that Israel was being founded.

Next, Israel isn't the bad guy in the conflict. May I remind you that the "Palestinians" are being led by a terrorist government who spread themselves out near civilians?
For example, during operation cast lead (This was about a month ago), Israel dropped thousands of papers in arabic saying that the place will be bombed in a few days and to please evacuate.

Israel goes out of their way to avoid civilian casualties!

Ahem. Well, I could go on and on for hours, but I don't think any of you will read all that. Anyhow, I want to hear what you think.

Obama gives you fellas his full support.

"At this point I think we should kill millions of people."

Honestly, do people like you come into those relationship advice threads and say, "At this point I think you should kill her and then yourself." Did you perhaps spend the 2008 election saying things like "At this point, I think every man, woman and child in the US should be murdered!"

No you didn't. Because that's not cool or funny. It's only cool and funny when, for the eight thousandth time, someone pops in with a "Hey, why not genocide?" 'solution' to Middle East problems. He he, hilarious.

It's the same stupidity, I think, that makes people say both sides are "acting like children." It's, at worst, a form of subdued racism, and, at best, a vast over-simplification put in pejorative terms. It's called a conflict, it's unfortunate and much of the world is currently embroiled in some form of it. These little quips people like to toss about to show superiority through apathy or maturity are petty and sad.

I stopped taking you seriously around here.

This argument is stupid for lots of reasons, but chiefly because it's a completely irrelevant and intellectually dishonest attempt to deny a legitimate aspiration for self-determination.

Would you then, if necessary, support the Cornish Liberation army?

I support Israel right of self-defense. Until the rocket attacks stop once and for all. I think they should use whatever mean necessary to get the job done. If the Palestinians are serious about peace they will disarm and return to the bargaining table if not we will see how they will do on the battlefield. There is not one civilized country on this forum that would let these acts go unpunished.

I do however think that the reaction was a little strong but again until the rocket attacks stop there is nothing anyone can do.

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

Hamas's charter calls for replacing the State of Israel with a Palestinian Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.[22] However, Ismail Haniyeh, Prime Minister of the Hamas government in Gaza, stated in 2008 that the group was willing to accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders and has offered Israel a long-term truce.[23] Hamas describes its conflict with Israel as political and neither religious[24] nor antisemitic.[25][26] However, the Hamas Charter and public statements by several prominent members of Hamas reflect the influence of antisemitic conspiracy theories.[27] On the other hand, the head of the political bureau of Hamas stated that their conflict with Israel "is not religious but political", and that the Jews have a covenant from God " that is to be respected and protected." [24]

Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by Canada,[28] the European Union,[29][30][31] Israel,[32] Japan,[33] and the United States.[34] The nations of Australia[35] and the United Kingdom[36] list only the military wing of Hamas, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, as a terrorist organization. The United States and the European Union have implemented restrictive measures against Hamas on an international level.[37][38]

I support Israel right of self-defense. Until the rocket attacks stop once and for all. I think they should use whatever mean necessary to get the job done. If the Palestinians are serious about peace they will disarm and return to the bargaining table if not we will see how they will do on the battlefield. There is not one civilized country on this forum that would let these acts go unpunished.

And what do you say to the constant construction by settlers encroaching into Palestinian land, the use of courts to steal homes out from Palestinians to give them to Israeli burglars cum squatters, the quietly encouraged and unpunished attacks and murders of farmers and workers by Israeli settlers with the specified goal of driving out the Palestinians from their lands hmm?

All perfectly fine?

Both sides have long since forsaken any sort of moral high ground in their preference for bloodshed, and it is the innocent on both sides (although the Palestinians suffer far greater, don't pretend otherwise) who suffer for it, dredged up only to be used as propaganda when it's useful and then discarded like so much scrap paper once they have the support necessary to carry on their killings.

Trying to pretend that they have some sort of justification for all of this, given what they have done, is nothing more than empty air.

And what do you say to the constant construction by settlers encroaching into Palestinian land, the use of courts to steal homes out from Palestinians to give them to Israeli burglars cum squatters, the quietly encouraged and unpunished attacks and murders of farmers and workers by Israeli settlers with the specified goal of driving out the Palestinians from their lands hmm?

All perfectly fine?

Both sides have long since forsaken any sort of moral high ground in their preference for bloodshed, and it is the innocent on both sides (although the Palestinians suffer far greater, don't pretend otherwise) who suffer for it, dredged up only to be used as propaganda when it's useful and then discarded like so much scrap paper once they have the support necessary to carry on their killings.

Trying to pretend that they have some sort of justification for all of this, given what they have done, is nothing more than empty air.

He'll probably quote Rabbi Yaacov Perin.

"One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail."

I think it's fairly naive to suggest that there is a "bad guy" (and, by extension, a "good guy") in the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. Both sides have spent decades pretty much acting like toddlers shrieking, "NO! MINE!" at each other, and, frankly, I think the only real solution is the same one used for those toddlers - tell them, "I don't CARE who started it; you are both going to stop it now," and then separate them.

^^^This...

I'll start supporting Israel when it stops acting like the very thing it claims to have fled from.

Both parties are wrong and the whole thing's a mess. Self-righteous attitudes and having the idea hammered in that one hates the other beyond all reason also kinda hinders peace talks.

Then again, so does being completely unreasonable when trying to reach a compromise.

The term "Palestinian" is in fact inaccurate & of Roman origin. There is no letter "P" in Arabic. Arabs pronounce it "Fallasteen", i.e. Philistine.

Recall that Israel was created by the UN. If you believe in the UN, you really ought to support Israel's right to defend itself. If you think the Philistines deserve their own nation as well, bear in mind that the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which is 5 times as large as Israel, was created by the UN at the same time, specifically as an Arab equivalent to Israel. It is 50% ethnically Philistine, yet has never accepted refugees from Gaza nor the West Bank. Whether this is because Jordan finds these refugees useful political tools against the Israelis or because they don't want potential martyrs for jihad spoiling what they've built for themselves I leave for you to determine.

Are the Philistines suffering? You betcha. And whose fault is that? If they spent one tenth the energy building their infrastructure instead of bombs, or designing a functioning government instead of "Death to the sons of pigs and monkeys" posters for the next Intifada rally, perhaps they'd do as well as their Jordanian cousins.

Moral equivalence in this situation is the lazy way out. One group has built a functioning democracy, the other a gangster state. One supports itself through international trade, the other through international aid. Israel isn't perfect. What nation is? But to suggest they are no better than Hamas is silly.

The term "Palestinian" is in fact inaccurate & of Roman origin. There is no letter "P" in Arabic. Arabs pronounce it "Fallasteen", i.e. Philistine.
The origin doesn't matter. All kinds of nations names have come about in strange and unusual ways. It's a case of usage determining validity. There are people who call themselves Palestinian (pronunciation aside) and the term has become widely used. Therefore they are de facto Palestinians. Why are you so hung up on a term?


Recall that Israel was created by the UN. If you believe in the UN, you really ought to support Israel's right to defend itself. If you think the Philistines deserve their own nation as well, bear in mind that the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which is 5 times as large as Israel, was created by the UN at the same time, specifically as an Arab equivalent to Israel. It is 50% ethnically Philistine, yet has never accepted refugees from Gaza nor the West Bank. Whether this is because Jordan finds these refugees useful political tools against the Israelis or because they don't want potential martyrs for jihad spoiling what they've built for themselves I leave for you to determine.

I believe the UN wanted to partition the land and have Jerusalem run by the UN. So if you believe in the UN you believe in that partition by your logic.

And unbelievably ethnicity isn't everything. Go round most countries of the world and say "would you like all these people to move into your country because they're the same race as you" and you'll get short shrift.


Are the Philistines suffering? You betcha. And whose fault is that? If they spent one tenth the energy building their infrastructure instead of bombs, or designing a functioning government instead of "Death to the sons of pigs and monkeys" posters for the next Intifada rally, perhaps they'd do as well as their Jordanian cousins.

I suspect you're severely overestimating the level of effort going into the activities you describe.



Moral equivalence in this situation is the lazy way out. One group has built a functioning democracy, the other a gangster state. One supports itself through international trade, the other through international aid. Israel isn't perfect. What nation is? But to suggest they are no better than Hamas is silly.
I don't have the time to argue this bit right now, if someone else hasn't addressed it by the time I get back I'll edit or reply again. Suffice to say I disagree with your apparent historical vision of two groups in the same situation and one group did better than the other.

The term "Palestinian" is in fact inaccurate & of Roman origin. There is no letter "P" in Arabic. Arabs pronounce it "Fallasteen", i.e. Philistine.
The French pronounce Croissant 'kwasson', but it doesn't mean I have to call it that.

Recall that Israel was created by the UN. If you believe in the UN, you really ought to support Israel's right to defend itself.
I doubt you'll find many people who disagree with that. However, much of what Israel does in the West Bank and Gaza goes well beyond self defense. Self defense is not a trump card one can play to justify perpetual occupation, annexation and colonisation of foreign territory and targeting civilians. For the record, this applies to Hamas and the PLO too.

However, since the UN also created a Palestinian state, surely it follows that the Palestinian people have a right to self-defense against external agression also?

If you think the Philistines deserve their own nation as well, bear in mind that the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which is 5 times as large as Israel, was created by the UN at the same time, specifically as an Arab equivalent to Israel.
The Kosovars have their 'own nation' (Albania), the Québecois have their 'own nation' (France) and Romanian Hungarians have their 'own nation' (Hungary). Has the UN ever suggested the ethnic cleansing of Serbia, Canada or Romania? No. So why should I believe the UN supported it here? If the UN rather uncharacteristically supported the ethnic cleansing of the British Mandate of Palestine, why do no UN resolutions exist authorising this?

Also consider that UN General Assembly resolution 181 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan) authorised the creation of two separate Jewish and an Arab states in the parts of Palestine west of the Jordan River 26 years after Jordan had been created (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transjordan).

It is 50% ethnically Philistine, yet has never accepted refugees from Gaza nor the West Bank. Whether this is because Jordan finds these refugees useful political tools against the Israelis or because they don't want potential martyrs for jihad spoiling what they've built for themselves I leave for you to determine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus#Palestinian_refugees

Are the Philistines suffering? You betcha. And whose fault is that? If they spent one tenth the energy building their infrastructure instead of bombs, or designing a functioning government instead of "Death to the sons of pigs and monkeys" posters for the next Intifada rally, perhaps they'd do as well as their Jordanian cousins.
Actually, there is infrastucture in Palestine. Or should I say, was.

How one can expect the Palestinians to have a functioning government in a military occupation is entirely beyond me. The two are mutially exclusive.

Moral equivalence in this situation is the lazy way out. One group has built a functioning democracy, the other a gangster state. One supports itself through international trade, the other through international aid. Israel isn't perfect. What nation is? But to suggest they are no better than Hamas is silly.
I don't care what Israel is. I care what Israel does.

Moral equivalence in this situation is the lazy way out. One group has built a functioning democracy, the other a gangster state.

Right since others addressed the earlier bits, I won't rehash them.

Functioning democracy? You're having a laugh right? What functioning democratic government actively ignores their own law, their own Supreme Court and a variety of international law?

Moral equivalence in this situation is the lazy way out.

You're absolutely right. Moral absolutes is the way to go. Israel and Hamas have both been guilty of horrendous crimes against each other. Thereby, the solution is complete and total extermination of every man, woman and child in the entire area. No mercy, no quarter, no survivors. Not even one blade of grass shall be left standing.

Moral absolutes FTW!

[/sarcasm]

Right since others addressed the earlier bits, I won't rehash them.

Functioning democracy? You're having a laugh right? What functioning democratic government actively ignores their own law, their own Supreme Court and a variety of international law?

Don't forget the fact that Israel banned political parties based on race (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1054867.html). Lovely de-mock-racey eh?

Don't forget the fact that Israel banned political parties based on race (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1054867.html). Lovely de-mock-racey eh?

You mean they tried... Obviously they didn't succeed.

You mean they tried... Obviously they didn't succeed.

You mean because the courts wouldn't uphold it? We've seen exactly what happens when Israel's courts rule against the Israeli radicals. They ignore it.

Right since others addressed the earlier bits, I won't rehash them.

Functioning democracy? You're having a laugh right? What functioning democratic government actively ignores their own law, their own Supreme Court and a variety of international law?

Why is observance of international law a requisite for democracy?

You mean because the courts wouldn't uphold it? We've seen exactly what happens when Israel's courts rule against the Israeli radicals. They ignore it.

Okay, so by what magic did the Arabic parties manage to get air-time for their propaganda-mercials and seats in the Knesset even with the illegal bannings in place?

Okay, so by what magic did the Arabic parties manage to get air-time for their propaganda-mercials and seats in the Knesset even with the illegal bannings in place?

Do you think it'll end with just the Supreme Court saying "No, you can't ban them"? Seriously? When the radicals are perfectly willing to kill/place bounties on their own ethnic group because they aren't as radical as them?

Do you think it'll end with just the Supreme Court saying "No, you can't ban them"? Seriously? When the radicals are perfectly willing to kill/place bounties on their own ethnic group because they aren't as radical as them?

Aha... So you concede that Israel hasn't banned the Arabic parties from being in the Knesset yet?

You mean because the courts wouldn't uphold it? We've seen exactly what happens when Israel's courts rule against the Israeli radicals. They ignore it.

This is disingenuous, and you know it.

Aha... So you concede that Israel hasn't banned the Arabic parties from being in the Knesset yet?

They did for a while, until the Supreme Court overturned it. It's not the end of it though. Far from it. And of course, it only shows how much the radical Israeli's believe in democracy when it isn't a slave to their, and only theirs, opinion.

The origin doesn't matter. All kinds of nations names have come about in strange and unusual ways. It's a case of usage determining validity. There are people who call themselves Palestinian (pronunciation aside) and the term has become widely used. Therefore they are de facto Palestinians. Why are you so hung up on a term?

Several commenters accused Shceev of dehumanizing Palestinians by pointing out that the word "Palestine" is of neither Hebrew nor Arabic origin. I am merely pointing out that Shceev is correct: nobody actually calls themselves Palestinian. The word is widely used only by people who don't live there. Why are you so hung up on a term? You can use Palestinian, I'll use Philistine, and everyone can go on arguing.

I believe the UN wanted to partition the land and have Jerusalem run by the UN. So if you believe in the UN you believe in that partition by your logic.

I think the UN is a stupid waste of time and money. If you have faith in it, support their plan.

And unbelievably ethnicity isn't everything. Go round most countries of the world and say "would you like all these people to move into your country because they're the same race as you" and you'll get short shrift.

Ethnicity and race are not the same thing. I am the same race as Ahmed Yassin, but not the same ethnicity.

They did for a while, until the Supreme Court overturned it. It's not the end of it though. Far from it. And of course, it only shows how much the radical Israeli's believe in democracy when it isn't a slave to their, and only theirs, opinion.

Yes, what a surprise. Radical people don't want democracy. I'm amazed by this discovery. And I don't suppose the supreme court removing the ban the Knesset tried to impose is evidence for the government being democratic rather than not.

Why is observance of international law a requisite for democracy?

Why is the observance of the rule of law [or even, the non blatant disregard and flouting of law] a requisite for a democratic society? Really?

Several commenters accused Shceev of dehumanizing Palestinians by pointing out that the word "Palestine" is of neither Hebrew nor Arabic origin. I am merely pointing out that Shceev is correct: nobody actually calls themselves Palestinian. The word is widely used only by people who don't live there. Why are you so hung up on a term? You can use Palestinian, I'll use Philistine, and everyone can go on arguing.



I think the UN is a stupid waste of time and money. If you have faith in it, support their plan.



Ethnicity and race are not the same thing. I am the same race as Ahmed Yassin, but not the same ethnicity.

Almost if not everyone in Israel uses the term 'Palestinian' and 'Palestine', including the government.

Yes, what a surprise. Radical people don't want democracy. I'm amazed by this discovery. And I don't suppose the supreme court removing the ban the Knesset tried to impose is evidence for the government being democratic rather than not.

It's not if the government doesn't listen to the supreme court now does it?

Also, since the radicals appear to be coming to power, the same ones who don't want democracy, you can hardly claim that it would uphold the values of democracy in actuality now can you?

I think the UN is a stupid waste of time and money. If you have faith in it, support their plan.


Israel isn't following the UN plan. Why should those who have faith in the UN support Israel who isn't following the UN plan?

Self defense is not a trump card one can play to justify perpetual occupation, annexation and colonisation of foreign territory and targeting civilians. For the record, this applies to Hamas and the PLO too.

However, since the UN also created a Palestinian state, surely it follows that the Palestinian people have a right to self-defense against external agression also?

I believe self-defense can indeed justify occupation, annexation, and colonization. Targeting civilians? A tougher question. First you'll have to establish that Israel does so. Given that Hamas routinely uses guerrilla tactics & uses "civilians" as human shields, I personally would not hesitate to kill anyone standing close to a Hamas guerrilla were I in the IDF. The IDF itself does not officially approve of that attitude, so it is fortunate that I'm an American gentile.

Philistines do indeed have the right of self-defense. Firing rockets across the border during a cease-fire does not qualify. That is an act of war.

The Kosovars have their 'own nation' (Albania), the Québecois have their 'own nation' (France) and Romanian Hungarians have their 'own nation' (Hungary). Has the UN ever suggested the ethnic cleansing of Serbia, Canada or Romania? No. So why should I believe the UN supported it here? If the UN rather uncharacteristically supported the ethnic cleansing of the British Mandate of Palestine, why do no UN resolutions exist authorising this?

Ethnic cleansing? What on Earth are you talking about? There are 3-4 million Philistines in Gaza & the West Bank, and another million in Israel. Jews must be just about the most incompetent ethnic cleansers in human history.

Also consider that UN General Assembly resolution 181 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan) authorised the creation of two separate Jewish and an Arab states in the parts of Palestine west of the Jordan River 26 years after Jordan had been created (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transjordan).

How did that work out?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Pa...inian_refugees

How one can expect the Palestinians to have a functioning government in a military occupation is entirely beyond me. The two are mutially exclusive.

Re: refugees to Jordan, I stand corrected. Given that the UN cannot seem to agree amongst themselves how to define a Philistine refugee, I rather doubt their figures. Still, your point is taken.

It is precisely because the Philistines failed to develop a functioning government that the current military occupation occurred.

It's not if the government doesn't listen to the supreme court now does it?

Also, since the radicals appear to be coming to power, the same ones who don't want democracy, you can hardly claim that it would uphold the values of democracy in actuality now can you?

Except that the Knesset is listening to the supreme court (Supreme Court? Are you supposed to capitalize it?) for the moment. As evidence, Balad and Ta'al both have seats in the new Knesset.

As for the radicals coming into power, yes, you are completely correct. In fact, I mostly agree with you that Israel isn't democratic enough, especially with all the theocracy that's in it.

But from what I've seen Israel seems to have a cycle where the radicals become stronger and stronger, then you get a radical right-wing government, and the populace notices that still they act the same as every government to keep US support and the next election goes more to the left and the cycle repeats. Since luckily Bush isn't in power anymore, the cycle might repeat again. If not...

Well, Israel as a Democratic Jewish state was doomed from its inception as far as I could tell. It would have to either lose its Jewish nationality or its Democratic government-form. If things go on it'll probably lose the latter, and I'll start work on moving to the US I guess (good thing I've got American citizenship so I have somewhere to run to if things go bad).

I believe self-defense can indeed justify occupation, annexation, and colonization. Targeting civilians? A tougher question. First you'll have to establish that Israel does so. Given that Hamas routinely uses guerrilla tactics & uses "civilians" as human shields, I personally would not hesitate to kill anyone standing close to a Hamas guerrilla were I in the IDF. The IDF itself does not officially approve of that attitude, so it is fortunate that I'm an American gentile.

Philistines do indeed have the right of self-defense. Firing rockets across the border during a cease-fire does not qualify. That is an act of war.
Alas, the Geneva Conventions (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Geneva_Convention/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Section_III:_Occupied_territories) disagree. The laws of war clearly deny the right of an occupying power to annex occupied territory, regardless of the motive. Israel has long gone beyond what can reasonably defined as self defense, considering that most of the people who suffer in consequence of the Israeli occupation are, in fact, civilians. Given that Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas in the world, your definition of an accaptable civilian target makes any Arab citizen there or international observer a legitimate target for Israeli gunships.

Israel scaling back its operations to what genuinely counted as reasonable self-defense would do far more for its peace and security than any number of Operation Cast Lead.

Ethnic cleansing? What on Earth are you talking about? There are 3-4 million Philistines in Gaza & the West Bank, and another million in Israel. Jews must be just about the most incompetent ethnic cleansers in human history.

How did that work out?
You managed to both miss and dodge the point. Impressive. You claimed that the UN supported the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. It didn't, end of.

It is precisely because the Philistines failed to develop a functioning government that the current military occupation occurred.
At the time of the start of the occupation Palestine had functioning governments, albeit based in Anman and Cairo. A 'native' Palestinian government never developed as a result of the (illegal) Jordanian/Egyptian invasion of Israel and annextation of the intended Palestinian state. Given that neither of these countries were democracies and the level of Pan-Arabism at the time, I dount we will ever know what Palestinian Arabs made of this.

However, it is impossible and unreasonable to expect a fully functioning government to develop in a military occupation. The two concepts contradict each other, and until Israel (and Hamas) are prepared to see an independent Palestinian state and hand power to a Palestinian government a functioning Palestinian government will not come to exist.

They did for a while, until the Supreme Court overturned it. It's not the end of it though. Far from it. And of course, it only shows how much the radical Israeli's believe in democracy when it isn't a slave to their, and only theirs, opinion.

If they had a Jewish equivalent of Fort Sumter they'd be screaming it over and over.

why cant israel and palestine become one country with both peoples in charge (like in cyprus, before the greek invasion)............i like arabs and i like jews and everyone else for that matter.........but it certainly isnt about being muslim or hebrew now........it is just turning into a terrible mess caused by a few bad apples and rogue states paying for crappy weapons for the weak to use.....who unfortunatly are cannon fodder.

i just hope i see peace in the middle east in my life, as i know it is a wonderfull beautifull place and i would like to visit.

If they had a Jewish equivalent of Fort Sumter they'd be screaming it over and over.

I've been meaning to ask this for ages; what's Fort Sumter?

I've been meaning to ask this for ages; what's Fort Sumter?

Fort Sumter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Sumter)

But you can click on the link in the signature to read the context in which Fort Sumter is being used. Basically a sore loser cry for secession when the people and government don't go one's way.

But you can click on the link in the signature to read the context in which Fort Sumter is being used. Basically a sore loser cry for secession when the people and government don't go one's way.

I've read that post before, but I didn't know that's what it meant. However much I think Obama's overrated, I think secession and civil war's a little over the top.

It is really hard to say who is good or evil or wright or wrong, and feuds and grudges will not get us anywhere. If parents stop teaching children that we is good and they is bad, we will be closer to peace. Blame and divisions are not the answer.

I think it's fairly naive to suggest that there is a "bad guy" (and, by extension, a "good guy") in the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. Both sides have spent decades pretty much acting like toddlers shrieking, "NO! MINE!" at each other, and, frankly, I think the only real solution is the same one used for those toddlers - tell them, "I don't CARE who started it; you are both going to stop it now," and then separate them.

That was the greatest, most concise, and clearest oversimplification it has ever been my pleasure to read.

If you think the Philistines deserve their own nation as well, bear in mind that the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which is 5 times as large as Israel, was created by the UN at the same time, specifically as an Arab equivalent to Israel. It is 50% ethnically Philistine, yet has never accepted refugees from Gaza nor the West Bank..

It's 51% Palestinian because it was flooded with refugees after the war and occupation of 1967. Try reading now and again, it helps greatly.


Are the Philistines suffering? You betcha. ..

Palestinians. And don't list some half arsed reason to state otherwise.


And whose fault is that? If they spent one tenth the energy building their infrastructure instead of bombs, ..

Source?


Moral equivalence in this situation is the lazy way out. One group has built a functioning democracy, the other a gangster state. .

Well seeing one is stealing land from the other, I think we know who the gangsters are.


I believe self-defense can indeed justify occupation, annexation, and colonization. .

Thats nice. Welcome to the 21st Century by the way. You may note that some attitudes have changed since 1,500 years ago.

Thats nice. Welcome to the 21st Century by the way. You may note that some attitudes have changed since 1,500 years ago.

Yup. And thankfully, some haven't. Self-Defense IS a good enough reason, where almost nothing else would be. If someone is attacking you, and in the resulting war you take some of their territory, there is NO obligation to give it back.

Self defence while admittedly a decent enough reason to justify retaliation (even the occasional disproportionate retalliation) is also a reason often given for massive land grabs.
Here is an Akiva Eldar article that may interest you:


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1064445.html

How is Livni's dove doing?

By Akiva Eldar



At the end of Operation Defensive Shield in 2002, after the Israel Defense Forces took over the West Bank's cities and Ariel Sharon's government imposed a boycott on Yasser Arafat, I asked then-foreign minister Shimon Peres how he was able to support the destruction of the Palestinian Authority. "What do you want from me?" he said. "Ask the Americans why they stood on the side. You expect me to oppose an operation that they have given a green light to?" I also asked the question to a senior official in the Bush administration. "How can we condemn an operation that the leader of the 'peace camp' is peddling around the world, while defense minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, a leader of the Labor Party, is running things at home?" I was told.



This story explains why Benjamin Netanyahu announced that Tzipi Livni would be the first person he'd call after President Peres assigned him to form a government. Were Peres, Arafat's Nobel Peace Prize partner, available for a job offer, Netanyahu would gladly include him in his group of supporters. He learned from Ariel Sharon that a little leftist spice improves the flavor of a rightist dish.



Livni did terrific work with Condoleezza Rice on peace. What fun it will be to tell the guys how she explained to Hillary Clinton that Netanyahu does not really intend to keep the Golan Heights and the Shuafat refugee camp. When Barack Obama pressures Bibi to dismantle the outposts, he will ask Livni to tell the American president why a Kadima-Labor government, with Amir Peretz and Ehud Barak at the defense ministry, stuck him with this problem.



The question, therefore, is not why Bibi is interested in Tzipi, but why should a politician who has made a name for herself as a woman of principle be interested in joining his government. Livni directed her comments to the "children of the winter of 1973" less than two weeks ago. "There is a dove on the windowsill," she said. "We can slam the window shut and it will go away, and we can open it and let the dove in, carefully, and promote the peace process." The children of '73, and also the children of the '67 and '82 wars, believed that if they voted for Kadima in the elections, Livni would bring the dove home and save it from Bibi and Avigdor Lieberman.



Polls supporting the Geneva Initiative by the company New Wave suggest that Kadima owes its narrow election victory to these people. Unlike previous elections where Kadima supporters positioned themselves in the middle on all political issues - between Likud and Labor - before the last elections, at the peak of the Gaza fighting, 70 percent of those who described themselves as Kadima supporters favored continuing talks for a permanent settlement (compared with 45 percent of Likud supporters). Moreover, 63 percent of Kadima supporters favored a withdrawal to the 1967 lines with minor changes based on the exchange of territory. They also backed the division of Jerusalem and a limited return of refugees, which Israel would agree to.



If Livni poses for a photograph at the President's Residence next to Netanyahu and Benny Begin, as if nothing had happened since she left Likud, these good people will be contemptuous of her. And what will her partners in Ramallah say, the same ones gripping what is left of the diplomatic process? And was the "Big Bang" that Haim Ramon promised actually the entry of Kadima into a coalition government with Avigdor Lieberman?



The history of governments that were erroneously called "unity governments" teaches us that no party ever rose to power by being a co-pilot. This has only happened after a period of rehabilitation on the opposition benches. More important is that history dispels the overused argument that the presence of moderate politicians (everything is relative, of course) in such governments helps balance the ship. All our important political agreements were reached under governments led separately by Likud and Labor.




In Livni's dove-on-the-windowsill speech, Livni presented Israel's citizens with a challenge by calling them to choose in the elections between a Jewish state and a binational state, between a state of fear and a state of hope, a state of initiative and a state of gridlock. In other words, to choose between her and the rest. Now the challenge is entirely hers. She must not join a Netanyahu government.

Several commenters accused Shceev of dehumanizing Palestinians by pointing out that the word "Palestine" is of neither Hebrew nor Arabic origin. I am merely pointing out that Shceev is correct: nobody actually calls themselves Palestinian. The word is widely used only by people who don't live there. Why are you so hung up on a term? You can use Palestinian, I'll use Philistine, and everyone can go on arguing.

Shceev was the one who felt it of major importance. I note that when speaking English many Palestinians call themselves Palestinian.



I think the UN is a stupid waste of time and money. If you have faith in it, support their plan.


Recall that Israel was created by the UN. If you believe in the UN, you really ought to support Israel's right to defend itself.
I was countering this point.


Ethnicity and race are not the same thing. I am the same race as Ahmed Yassin, but not the same ethnicity.

Very well, nice job in dodging my point on a technicality.

There will be a time that both sides are really war sick. It's just a matter of time.

Yup. And thankfully, some haven't. Self-Defense IS a good enough reason, where almost nothing else would be. If someone is attacking you, and in the resulting war you take some of their territory, there is NO obligation to give it back.

Assuming the self defense is from a real attack. Carte blanche anytime the cry of self defense goes up gives us another burning Reichstag no?

Yup. And thankfully, some haven't. Self-Defense IS a good enough reason, where almost nothing else would be. If someone is attacking you, and in the resulting war you take some of their territory, there is NO obligation to give it back.


And this is based on.....?

EFRAT, West Bank, Feb. 16 -- Plans to expand a West Bank settlement by up to 2,500 homes drew Palestinian condemnation Monday and presented an early test for President Obama, whose Middle East envoy is well known for opposing such construction.

Israel opened the way for possible expansion of the Efrat settlement by taking control of a nearby West Bank hill of 423 acres. The rocky plot was recently designated state land and is part of a master plan that envisions the settlement growing from 9,000 to 30,000 residents, Efrat Mayor Oded Revivi said.


link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/16/AR2009021601293.html?hpid=sec-world)

A far more significant act of aggression than any homemade rocket.

ffs

link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/16/AR2009021601293.html?hpid=sec-world)

A far more significant act of aggression than any homemade rocket.

Watch the Israeli supremacists come out and proclaim that the expansion is not only alright, but justified by Palestinian acts that happened somewhere else, and years ago. They might even use the Lebensraum argument.

Yes...the usual....

'But Teh Mufti!111.....HITLER!!!!11!!!!!!!...you hayte joos'

Israel is not occupying Palestinian territories.

The UN says the contrary. Btw, Israel exists BECAUSE the UN voted for it being constituted as country, so you'd better think twice before saying "the UN is shit".
Btw, Israeli colonists are violating even the borders chosen by the Israeli government and settling into what the Israeli government said it's palestinian territory.

The term "Palestinian" is incorrect. To quote a friend,
"The Romans renamed Judea after the failed Jewish revolt to piss the Jews off. They named it palestina after the Jews enemy - The Philistines." the Arabs adopted this name around the time that Israel was being founded.

False.

wiki:Palestine (excerpts)
Palestine (Greek: Παλαιστίνη; Latin: Palaestina; Hebrew: פלשתינה‎ Palestina; Arabic: فلسطين‎ Filasṭīn, Falasṭīn, Filisṭīn is a name which has been widely used since Roman times to refer to the region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River.

The Assyrian emperor Sargon II called the region the Palashtu in his Annals. By the time of Assyrian rule in 722 BCE, the Philistines had become 'part and parcel of the local population',[14][15] and prospered under Assyrian rule during the seventh century despite occasional rebellions against their overlords.

In the 5th century BCE, the Greek historian and geographer Herodotus wrote in Greek of a "district of Syria, called Παλαιστινη (Palaistinê)."[17][18][19] Syria, at that time, referred rather imprecisely to the region lying between Asia Minor, Sinai, the Mediterranean Sea and the Persian Gulf. The boundaries of the "district" of Palaistinê described by Herodotus are even more imprecise, as is the ethnic nature of its people; sometimes it denotes the coast north of Mount Carmel, and elsewhere it seems to extend down all the coast from Phoenicia to Egypt, and as far east as the Jordan River.[20]

During the Byzantine Period, this entire region (including Syria, Palestine, Samaria, and Galilee) was renamed Palaestina and then subdivided into Diocese I and II. The Byzantines also renamed an area of land including the Negev, Sinai, and the west coast of the Arabian Peninsula as Palaestina Salutoris, sometimes called Palaestina III. Since the Byzantine Period, the Byzantine borders of Palaestina (I and II) have served as a name for the geographic area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

The Hebrew Bible calls the region Canaan (כּנען) (Numbers 34:1–12), while the part of it occupied by Israelites is designated Israel (Yisrael).
...


Btw, the Jewish Bible says that Israel invaded that land and took it from the Philistines via a series of nice massacres, like the siege of Jericho and the subsequent extermination. So?


Next, Israel isn't the bad guy in the conflict. May I remind you that the "Palestinians" are being led by a terrorist government who spread themselves out near civilians?

Ehm, and with the density of the Gaza Strip, where do they have to spread?


For example, during operation cast lead (This was about a month ago), Israel dropped thousands of papers in arabic saying that the place will be bombed in a few days and to please evacuate.
Israel goes out of their way to avoid civilian casualties!

AHAHAHAHAH!!!
Dropping on urban territory weapons whose use is FORBIDDEN in populated areas isn't exactly what I would call "going out of its way to avoid civilian casualties".


Ahem. Well, I could go on and on for hours, but I don't think any of you will read all that.
Thank you for sparing us from hours of a poorly-grounded rant.

Basically, your reasoning is: this land was given to the Jews (by God, I suppose you'd mean), and, by God, we're getting it all back! Who cares about other people who entered it when we were temporarily absent from it, for just about two millennia! We're the goodies! They're the baddies! God is with us! We need our vital space!

Childish warmongering.

I believe self-defense can indeed justify occupation, annexation, and colonization.

Self-defence was the excuse Hitler used to invade Czechoslovakia, Poland and Belgium (remember that it was France who declared war to Nazi Germany, and not the other way around, so Nazi Germany was defending itself against France, in a sort of way, when they invaded Belgium: hey, it's Belgium's fault if they stay so close to France!)

So maybe one should think about possible alternatives for self-defence instead of carpet bombing, occupation, annexation and colonisation.

Also one should be really sure that it's really self-defence, and not expansionism.

Generally, self-defence might justify war and temporary occupation... annexation and colonisation are expansionism.

Why is the observance of the rule of law [or even, the non blatant disregard and flouting of law] a requisite for a democratic society? Really?

International law is a different entity, with different targets, and a different function.

Assuming the self defense is from a real attack. Carte blanche anytime the cry of self defense goes up gives us another burning Reichstag no?

Quite so. But the taking of the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan Heights, Sinai etc. all occurred in wars where either Israel was attacked by surrounding states, or struck first upon discovery that such an attack was imminant (the latter, incidentally, I don't actually have a problem with).

The settlement issue is quite different. That is not a miltary invasion; Israel already effectively is in control of that land. It is only a change in who lives on it - ethnic cleansing, basically, and not really justifiable.

And this is based on.....?

Let's see - ripping Alsace and Lorraine off of Germany post WWI, the creation of Poland and giving it a ridiculous "corridor" through what had been Germany, the taking of Germany, Austria's and the Ottoman Empire's colonial assets?

Not to mention that there is no international convention anywhere, that I know of, that condemns the taking of territory by the victim of aggression?

Let's see ~(.........) victim of aggression?

....in law?

I'm somewhat amused at peoples' continued efforts to lay increased portions of the blame on one side or another. (Most of them seem to be blaming Israel primarily or exclusively, I've noticed, probably due to the publicity generated by Cast Lead.) Yes, there was a time when the violence was due mostly to self-defense, but not anymore; not on either side. There's no reason for the Palestinians to attack Israel; there's no reason for the Israelis to continue to occupy the Palestinian territories. Basically, both sides are wrong, and will continue to be wrong until they display a willingness to compromise. Otherwise they're just wasting lives, money, time, and effort. Peace in the Middle East will only be achieved through compromise or imposed from outside, and at this point, most likely the latter.

The term "Palestinian" is in fact inaccurate & of Roman origin. There is no letter "P" in Arabic. Arabs pronounce it "Fallasteen", i.e. Philistine.

Recall that Israel was created by the UN. If you believe in the UN, you really ought to support Israel's right to defend itself. If you think the Philistines deserve their own nation as well, bear in mind that the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which is 5 times as large as Israel, was created by the UN at the same time, specifically as an Arab equivalent to Israel. It is 50% ethnically Philistine, yet has never accepted refugees from Gaza nor the West Bank. Whether this is because Jordan finds these refugees useful political tools against the Israelis or because they don't want potential martyrs for jihad spoiling what they've built for themselves I leave for you to determine.

Are the Philistines suffering? You betcha. And whose fault is that? If they spent one tenth the energy building their infrastructure instead of bombs, or designing a functioning government instead of "Death to the sons of pigs and monkeys" posters for the next Intifada rally, perhaps they'd do as well as their Jordanian cousins.

Moral equivalence in this situation is the lazy way out. One group has built a functioning democracy, the other a gangster state. One supports itself through international trade, the other through international aid. Israel isn't perfect. What nation is? But to suggest they are no better than Hamas is silly.

Well said. Get on with it already. Instead of building pipe bombs use those pipe to improve your situation. I think if they has something else to do besides blow up the other side a lot of this would go away.

Right since others addressed the earlier bits, I won't rehash them.

Functioning democracy? You're having a laugh right? What functioning democratic government actively ignores their own law, their own Supreme Court and a variety of international law?

America?

The term "Palestinian" is in fact inaccurate & of Roman origin.
Actually, the term Palashtu pre-dates even Greek. So "Palestine" cannot be a term deriving from Latin.


Recall that Israel was created by the UN. If you believe in the UN, you really ought to support Israel's right to defend itself.



Are the Philistines suffering? You betcha. And whose fault is that? If they spent one tenth the energy building their infrastructure instead of bombs, or designing a functioning government instead of "Death to the sons of pigs and monkeys" posters for the next Intifada rally, perhaps they'd do as well as their Jordanian cousins.

And maybe if some airplanes with a blue David's Star painted on them didn't bomb the precious few infrastructures, schools and hospitals the UN and the EU had managed to build...


Moral equivalence in this situation is the lazy way out. One group has built a functioning democracy, the other a gangster state. One supports itself through international trade, the other through international aid. Israel isn't perfect.
1.Hamas has been elected through legitimate elections. I don't like Hamas, but this must be told for the sake of truth.
2.Palestine CANNOT support itself through international trade and must rely on international aid because there is another country which controls Palestine's borders. And it even blocks international aid at his whim. Guess what country is...
3.I don't know exactly how much the US aid to Israel counts in Israel's budget, but I guess it's not very small, given the influence of pro-Israel lobbying at Washington.


Let's face it: Gaza has become nothing but a ghetto. And ghettos use to revolt.

Palestine CANNOT support itself through international trade
Palestine CHOOSES not to be a trading partner.

Palestine CHOOSES not to be a trading partner.

Right.. Absolutely.. I forgot that the Palestinians sent the Israelis a memo DEMANDING that the latter take command of their land borders, their territorial borders, and their airspace.

Right.

Let's face it: Gaza has become nothing but a ghetto. And ghettos use to revolt.

And you'd think a nation founded by people who suffered through life in ghettoes would know better than to perpetuate the cycle.

Palestine CHOOSES not to be a trading partner.

False.

source: reuters

By Nidal al-Mughrabi

RAFAH, Gaza Strip, Feb 2 (Reuters) - Hamas agreed on Saturday to Egyptian calls to control the flow of Palestinians through the breached Gaza border and expects Egypt to seal remaining gaps in the frontier wall, a Hamas official said.

Gunmen from the Islamist group which rules Gaza blew up metal barricades on Jan. 23 to allow Gazans relief from an Israeli-led blockade. Since then Hamas has been under pressure from Egypt to stem the flow of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who have crossed the border.

"We will restore control over this border, in cooperation with Egypt, and gradually," Mahmoud al-Zahar said at the border town of Rafah, adding he expected the remaining gap in the border wall to be sealed as early as Sunday.

He said Hamas wanted Israel excluded from the future running of the crossing: "We do not accept that the Israeli occupation will continue to have any control."

...


I'd say that it's pretty clear that the Gaza Strip isn't free to trade with the rest of the world, having Israeli soldiers on his borders and the Israeli Navy holding a blockade off the Gaza coast.

And you'd think a nation founded by people who suffered through life in ghettoes would know better than to perpetuate the cycle.

This, I think, is the saddest part of the whole thing. But looks like the israeli mainstream thought chose blind nationalism over empathy.

....in law?

What law? We're talking international relations here. There is no law, only treaties.

Let's see - ripping Alsace and Lorraine off of Germany post WWI, the creation of Poland and giving it a ridiculous "corridor" through what had been Germany, the taking of Germany, Austria's and the Ottoman Empire's colonial assets?
You realise World War Two happened, right? You realise that we base more international law (re:international peace and security, laws of war etc) on post-WWII, than pre-WWII.


Not to mention that there is no international convention anywhere, that I know of, that condemns the taking of territory by the victim of aggression?
Because wars of territorial aggrandisement (and wars of aggression also) are ius cogens. It doesn't have to be listed in any convention.

What law? We're talking international relations here. There is no law, only treaties.
Even International Relations has parameters - set by what International Law says can happen. Secondly, Treaty Law is only one part of International Law.

What law? We're talking international relations here. There is no law, only treaties.

Treaties are only as strong as the signatories ability and will to enforce them.

And you'd think a nation founded by people who suffered through life in ghettoes would know better than to perpetuate the cycle.

The very problem is those arn't the people in charge of the country. The people in the country now are the equivalent of the Cubans in America. Refugees who hate the people in charge of where they came from.

You realise World War Two happened, right? You realise that we base more international law (re:international peace and security, laws of war etc) on post-WWII, than pre-WWII.

Certainly. And post WWII, we took Manchuria and Korea from Japan, as well as Taiwan - all of which had been part of Japan for decades - and ripped Germany in half.
You cannot say there is not precedent.


Because wars of territorial aggrandisement (and wars of aggression also) are ius cogens. It doesn't have to be listed in any convention.

I might buy that if we were talking aggression. I DON'T buy that when we're talking about the defender. What isn't prohibited is allowed.


Even International Relations has parameters - set by what International Law says can happen. Secondly, Treaty Law is only one part of International Law.

No. ALL international relations relies on a treaty at some point - an agreement between parties - because no one and nothing has the right to violate national sovereignty and impose law. Even the basics of international diplomacy, such as diplomatic and consular immunities, have as their basis a treaty.

Certainly. And post WWII, we took Manchuria and Korea from Japan, as well as Taiwan - all of which had been part of Japan for decades - and ripped Germany in half.
You cannot say there is not precedent.



Except that Manchuria and Korea were never Japanese. They were occupied by Japan. Israel occupying Palestinian territory doesn't mean it isn't Palestine.

Cerean;14524833']Except that Manchuria and Korea were never Japanese. They were occupied by Japan. Israel occupying Palestinian territory doesn't mean it isn't Palestine.

define Israeli territory though. Cause I mean that place was "created" post WW2

I'm somewhat amused at peoples' continued efforts to lay increased portions of the blame on one side or another. (Most of them seem to be blaming Israel primarily or exclusively, I've noticed, probably due to the publicity generated by Cast Lead.) Yes, there was a time when the violence was due mostly to self-defense, but not anymore; not on either side. There's no reason for the Palestinians to attack Israel; there's no reason for the Israelis to continue to occupy the Palestinian territories. Basically, both sides are wrong, and will continue to be wrong until they display a willingness to compromise. Otherwise they're just wasting lives, money, time, and effort. Peace in the Middle East will only be achieved through compromise or imposed from outside, and at this point, most likely the latter.

Until Israel stops occupying the territories, Palestinians will have a reason to fight.

Whichever side you are on, the Palestinians are the ones who got shafted. The world just doesn't like the fact that they didn't lie back and take it like a bitch.

Until Israel stops occupying the territories, Palestinians will have a reason to fight.

Whichever side you are on, the Palestinians are the ones who got shafted. The world just doesn't like the fact that they didn't lie back and take it like a bitch.

Palestinians got shafted? you heard of a little thing called the holocaust perhaps?

Palestinians got shafted? you heard of a little thing called the holocaust perhaps?

Yes I have. Can you please point out where it was the Palestinians who thought up, planned and implemented the Holocaust? Can you explain to me why they are being forcibly expelled from the lands they lived on to make way for victims of something they had nothing to do with?

No lessons were learnt from WWI and the rise of Hitler and German Nationalism thanks to the treaty of Versailles' crippling conditions against Germany. We simply took land from people that we considered "beneath us", rather than the losers. And now we are paying the consequences.

I abhor the violence of Hamas and its targeting of civilians and other organisations who do or advocate the same. I just disagree with the statement that Palestinians have nothing to fight for and should stop.

define Israeli territory though. Cause I mean that place was "created" post WW2
I think you'll find that there was a Palestinian state devised as part of that.

Palestinians got shafted? you heard of a little thing called the holocaust perhaps?

My advice is to run for cover, now.

Can you please point out where it was the Palestinians who thought up, planned and implemented the Holocaust?
They did as much as they could to assist the Germans, kill as many Jews as they could, spread propaganda calling for the extermination of the Jews, and train Muslim units of the SS.

define Israeli territory though. Cause I mean that place was "created" post WW2

Judging from the media, I'd say that the idea at the UN is that Israel's borders are the so-called "1967 borders".
And since Israel exists because the UN said so, I'd guess that Israel (and its neighbouring countries) can accept that idea.

The very problem is those arn't the people in charge of the country. The people in the country now are the equivalent of the Cubans in America. Refugees who hate the people in charge of where they came from.

Wait...Cubans hate our Government?

They did as much as they could to assist the Germans, kill as many Jews as they could, spread propaganda calling for the extermination of the Jews, and train Muslim units of the SS.

Some Palestinians did that, true.
Some Italians did that, too.
Some Austrians did that, too
Some French did that, too.
Some Ukrainians did that, too.
Some Poles did that, too.
... (and there were also a UK and a USA Nazi party, iirc...)

The fact that there were palestinian Nazi isn't enough to say "they've lost their right to live in their land". Because, by the same standard, Italy, Austria, France, Ukraine and Poland should be half-emptied and the inhabitants compressed in -let's say- Switzerland.

Certainly. And post WWII, we took Manchuria and Korea from Japan, as well as Taiwan - all of which had been part of Japan for decades - and ripped Germany in half.
You cannot say there is not precedent.
This has been dealt with by another poster.


I might buy that if we were talking aggression. I DON'T buy that when we're talking about the defender.
Wars of territorial aggrandisement - doesn't have anything to do with who is the aggressor. And it's not there for you to 'buy'.

What isn't prohibited is allowed.
Right..... but wars of territorial aggrandisement are prohibited.


No. ALL international relations relies on a treaty at some point - an agreement between parties
No. Like I said, treaty law is only one part of international law; customary law is the other major part. That does not have to be codified. If there isn't a codified document, custom applies.

Palestine CHOOSES not to be a trading partner.

Yep, they just park themselves at the checkpoints, pay the guards to keep them there till the produce rots or falls off the trees, and then head home, content with what they have wrought....Of course most days are spent building rockets, writing "Colonise Us Or Else" on the sides and firing at them at Israel, in case they start slacking....


They did as much as they could to assist the Germans, kill as many Jews as they could, spread propaganda calling for the extermination of the Jews, and train Muslim units of the SS..

And so, it did come to pass..... (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14521638&postcount=102)

And so, it did come to pass..... (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14521638&postcount=102)

What did I tell you? Tmutarakhan may not be the worst of the lot, but that sort of mentality ardently believes that just because someone tried to wipe them out generations ago gives them carte blanche to do whatever the hell they want right up to grand scale murder and theft.

that sort of mentality ardently believes that just because someone tried to wipe them out generations ago gives them carte blanche to do whatever the hell they want right up to grand scale murder and theft.

One wonders, if the Russians were to use the same standards, what would be now left of a good half of the countries of Europe and Asia.

Cerean;14524833']Except that Manchuria and Korea were never Japanese. They were occupied by Japan.

Wrong. They were annexed by Japan. They were legally part of the Empire of Japan, NOT occupied territory. This was recognized by all major nations of the time.


Israel occupying Palestinian territory doesn't mean it isn't Palestine.

But it may mean it isn't Palestinian anymore.

This has been dealt with by another poster.

No, this was failed by another poster, who did not even attempt to deal with Germany. My point stands.



Wars of territorial aggrandisement - doesn't have anything to do with who is the aggressor.

Bollocks. Wars of territorial aggrandizement by DEFINITION are those where the AGGRESSOR was attempting to take land. The defender CANNOT be engaged in such a war.

And it's not there for you to 'buy'.

Oh sorry, I didn't realize I was in the presence of someone with delusions of godhood. Kaloo, Kallay, the second coming is here!

If you don't want your points debated, I suggest you get the F___ out of NSG.


Right..... but wars of territorial aggrandisement are prohibited.

No, they aren't, actually. Wars of aggression are prohibited.



No. Like I said, treaty law is only one part of international law; customary law is the other major part. That does not have to be codified. If there isn't a codified document, custom applies.

There is no "custom".

One wonders, if the Russians were to use the same standards, what would be now left of a good half of the countries of Europe and Asia.

Remember, it's only a bad standard when the ideological "enemy" uses it.

Wrong. They were annexed by Japan. They were legally part of the Empire of Japan, NOT occupied territory. This was recognized by all major nations of the time..

....but not the people of China or Korea. The ages of empires is dead, btw.


But it may mean it isn't Palestinian anymore.

Well, I'd say that was largely up to the Palestinians. They haven't gone away, ye know.

....but not the people of China or Korea. The ages of empires is dead, btw.

Tell that to the people of France, or China, or India, or Mexico, or any nation that has minorities that want self-determination and aren't getting it. Which is most of them. The age of empires is alive and well.



Well, I'd say that was largely up to the Palestinians. They haven't gone away, ye know.

But if they want to see much of that land again, they're going to have to either negotiate for it or take it. Given they seem unwilling to do the former and unable to do the latter, we might as well just call it Israel.

But if they want to see much of that land again, they're going to have to either negotiate for it or take it. Given they seem unwilling to do the former

How can they negotiate properly and fairly when the arbitrator is the chief ally and backer of the occupier?

How can they negotiate properly and fairly when the arbitrator is the chief ally and backer of the occupier?

The US has worked fairly and honestly with Egypt and Jordan to resolve their differences with Israel; those peace treaties are now long standing and respected. Likewise, the US acted as a fair broker with the Northern Ireland Peace Agreement, despite everyone at the table knowing full well that the Provo IRA was fundamentally funded from the US.

It's all about enlightened self interest. It is in the US' interests, true, that Israel continues to exist and is strong. But it is ALSO in the US' interests for there to be peace and trade in the Middle East. No, the US isn't going to allow anti-Israel bills through the Security Council. Yes, they CAN be relied upon to be a fair dealer at the negotiating table.

And has anyone else honestly been willing to take their place?

Bollocks. Wars of territorial aggrandizement by DEFINITION are those where the AGGRESSOR was attempting to take land.
It's a war where land is kept - be it aggressor or defender.

The defender CANNOT be engaged in such a war.
If the defender wins the war, and takes land - that's still territorial aggrandisement.

Oh sorry, I didn't realize I was in the presence of someone with delusions of godhood. Kaloo, Kallay, the second coming is here!
Um, right. Didn't mean to point out what the law was. But you might as well continue, I'm getting a kick out of your responses.

If you don't want your points debated, I suggest you get the F___ out of NSG.
It's not a debatable point. It's simply a core of ius cogens. Maybe you should step away from the computer for a while.


No, they aren't, actually. Wars of aggression are prohibited.
The norms of international law would utterly disagree with you there. But like I said earlier, please continue.


There is no "custom".
Aw, this is hilarious.

It's a war where land is kept - be it aggressor or defender.


If the defender wins the war, and takes land - that's still territorial aggrandisement.

Which is, in fact, NOT prohibited. Only AGGRESSION is.


Um, right. Didn't mean to point out what the law was. But you might as well continue, I'm getting a kick out of your responses.

Then you should take that kick and review your sources. From the Wiki:

"There are often disagreements over whether a particular case violates a peremptory norm. As in other areas of law, states generally reserve the right to interpret the concept for themselves."


It's not a debatable point. It's simply a core of ius cogens. Maybe you should step away from the computer for a while.

Maybe you should review your "Law"(Which it isn't - it's a broad treaty). It doesn't say what you think it says.



The norms of international law would utterly disagree with you there. But like I said earlier, please continue.

Really? Put your money where your mouth is. Point out where it says that.





Aw, this is hilarious.

No, it is simple truth. "Custom" does not exist. Only treaties, even if they are broad ones like the Vienna Convention.

. Yes, they CAN be relied upon to be a fair dealer at the negotiating table.


Yet the settlement population now stands in the hundreds of thousands. Compare that to the isolation imposed on Arafat or Hamas. If there has been fairness, I've not seen it.

Yet the settlement population now stands in the hundreds of thousands. Compare that to the isolation imposed on Arafat or Hamas. If there has been fairness, I've not seen it.

Ah, I'm not seeing the link between what you posted before and this. Yes, we can agree that the Settlements are a bad idea, but that's Israel's doing, not the US'.

Ah, I'm not seeing the link between what you posted before and this. Yes, we can agree that the Settlements are a bad idea, but that's Israel's doing, not the US'.


Hamas - "terrorists" - seen as bad, punished, isolated. Arafat - deemed to have been supporting "terrorism" - seen as bad, punished, isolated. Israel - building like fuckery (we won't bother with the treatment of the OT population, Arabs, they don't count)....ok, nothing to see here, carry on regardless.

See what I mean now?

Which is, in fact, NOT prohibited. Only AGGRESSION is.
See below.

Then you should take that kick and review your sources. From the Wiki:

"There are often disagreements over whether a particular case violates a peremptory norm. As in other areas of law, states generally reserve the right to interpret the concept for themselves."

You see, ius cogens has grown over the past half century - that's what it means by "disagreements". It's constantly growing to include more 'crimes' that are universally reviled. Piracy, Torture, Slavery, Wars of aggression and wars of territorial aggrandisement have never been successfully argued to be outside ius cogens. Unless you can find me a case where a State has won a case allowing them to keep territory they grabbed in war (offensive or defensive)?


Maybe you should review your "Law"(Which it isn't - it's a broad treaty). It doesn't say what you think it says.

Really? Put your money where your mouth is. Point out where it says that.
Territory belonging to a State (or to which a 'people' entitled to self determination' may legitimately make a claim) may not be 'the object of acquisition by another State resulting from the threat or the use of force' (1970 Declaration on Friendly Relations, Principle I, S10; in Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall (at SS87 and 117), the ICJ held that the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by the threat or use of force is provided for in a rule of customary law.*note: there is no reference to who is the aggressor - merely the use of force* This means that conquest does not transfer a legal title of sovereignty, even if it is followed by a de facto occupation, and assertion of authority, over the territory. Furthermore, all other States are enjoined to withhold recognition of the territorial expansion resulting from the threat or use of force.
[Antonio Cassese International Law, 2nd Edition 5.2.1 and also 3.3]


No, it is simple truth. "Custom" does not exist. Only treaties, even if they are broad ones like the Vienna Convention.

Secondly, "From the beginning of the international community States have evolved two principal methods for creating legally binding rules: treaties and custom. Article 38.1 b of the ICJ Statute lists among the sources of law upon which the Court can draw, 'international custom, as evidence of general practice accepted as law'. " [Antonio Cassese, International Law 2nd Edition, 8.2.1] Or you can check the ICJ Statute for that specific Article yourself, if you still don't believe the Custom exists and is a major part of international law.

Custom is made up on two elements: state (or 'general') practice and opinio juris.

Edit: Sorry, it's this book http://search.barnesandnoble.com/International-Law/Antonio-Cassese/e/9780199259397 - a pretty base run through on International Law.

See below.


You see, ius cogens has grown over the past half century - that's what it means by "disagreements". It's constantly growing to include more 'crimes' that are universally reviled. Piracy, Torture, Slavery, Wars of aggression and wars of territorial aggrandisement have never been successfully argued to be outside ius cogens. Unless you can find me a case where a State has won a case allowing them to keep territory they grabbed in war (offensive or defensive)?





Territory belonging to a State (or to which a 'people' entitled to self determination' may legitimately make a claim) may not be 'the object of acquisition by another State resulting from the threat or the use of force' (1970 Declaration on Friendly Relations, Principle I, S10; in Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall (at SS87 and 117), the ICJ held that the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by the threat or use of force is provided for in a rule of customary law.*note: there is no reference to who is the aggressor - merely the use of force* This means that conquest does not transfer a legal title of sovereignty, even if it is followed by a de facto occupation, and assertion of authority, over the territory. Furthermore, all other States are enjoined to withhold recognition of the territorial expansion resulting from the threat or use of force.
[Antonio Cassese International Law, 2nd Edition 5.2.1 and also 3.3]




Secondly, "From the beginning of the international community States have evolved two principal methods for creating legally binding rules: treaties and custom. Article 38.1 b of the ICJ Statute lists among the sources of law upon which the Court can draw, 'international custom, as evidence of general practice accepted as law'. " [Antonio Cassese, International Law 2nd Edition, 8.2.1] Or you can check the ICJ Statute for that specific Article yourself, if you still don't believe the Custom exists and is a major part of international law.

Custom is made up on two elements: state (or 'general') practice and opinio juris.

Edit: Sorry, it's this book http://search.barnesandnoble.com/International-Law/Antonio-Cassese/e/9780199259397 - a pretty base run through on International Law.

This sounds very accurate, and I concurr.

You should have quoted the statute though, as that carries more weight than the opinions and interpretations of Antonio Cassese ;)

You see, ius cogens has grown over the past half century - that's what it means by "disagreements". It's constantly growing to include more 'crimes' that are universally reviled. Piracy, Torture, Slavery, Wars of aggression and wars of territorial aggrandisement have never been successfully argued to be outside ius cogens. Unless you can find me a case where a State has won a case allowing them to keep territory they grabbed in war (offensive or defensive)?

Two words: South Vietnam.






Territory belonging to a State (or to which a 'people' entitled to self determination' may legitimately make a claim) may not be 'the object of acquisition by another State resulting from the threat or the use of force' (1970 Declaration on Friendly Relations, Principle I, S10; in Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall (at SS87 and 117), the ICJ held that the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by the threat or use of force is provided for in a rule of customary law.*note: there is no reference to who is the aggressor - merely the use of force* This means that conquest does not transfer a legal title of sovereignty, even if it is followed by a de facto occupation, and assertion of authority, over the territory. Furthermore, all other States are enjoined to withhold recognition of the territorial expansion resulting from the threat or use of force.
[Antonio Cassese International Law, 2nd Edition 5.2.1 and also 3.3]

Your note notwithstanding, aggression IS implied in the statute. It does NOT say that territory may not be acquired by force. It says that territory "may not be the OBJECT of acquisition by force". Israel's wars with her neighbours were not attempts to territorially aggrandize; that was a side effect of self defense, and self defense is ALWAYS held to be legal war.


Secondly, "From the beginning of the international community States have evolved two principal methods for creating legally binding rules: treaties and custom. Article 38.1 b of the ICJ Statute lists among the sources of law upon which the Court can draw, 'international custom, as evidence of general practice accepted as law'. " [Antonio Cassese, International Law 2nd Edition, 8.2.1] Or you can check the ICJ Statute for that specific Article yourself, if you still don't believe the Custom exists and is a major part of international law.

Custom is made up on two elements: state (or 'general') practice and opinio juris.

Edit: Sorry, it's this book http://search.barnesandnoble.com/International-Law/Antonio-Cassese/e/9780199259397 - a pretty base run through on International Law.

Thank you for the book reference - I'll have to try and get myself a copy.

However, the ICJ is a perfect example of why there ISN'T international Law and Custom. It is an attempt to impose the former - but there are states, notably the US, which explicitly DENY the ICJ any jurisdiction over their citizenry. This makes the ICJ merely another result of a treaty. It may consider customs and judicial opinions in it's deliberations, but it has no power to enforce such on unwilling states, which are perfectly within their rights to deny the existence of any such custom.

What is not written down, cannot be enforced. What cannot be enforced, does not exist.

Two words: South Vietnam.

So that would be the case of South Vietnam vs....?


Your note notwithstanding, aggression IS implied in the statute.
Where is it implied? And I'm assuming you mean the 1970 Declaration and not the ICJ Statute?

It does NOT say that territory may not be acquired by force. It says that territory "may not be the OBJECT of acquisition by force".
Yeh, it says it can't be the goal of war. You are now seemingly forgetting that state sovereignty still comes into play when the conflict ends. If another State is occupying land within the other State's recognised territory - then it's occupation/annexation/aggrandizement.

Israel's wars with her neighbours were not attempts to territorially aggrandize;
Right.... it just 'happens' they got more land out of it. Sure that's a fine precedent then - pick a fight with a weaker neighbour, ensure they fire the first shot and not you - claim "Self-defense" and annex the land. Yeh, I can kinda see why that isn't in international law.

that was a side effect of self defense, and self defense is ALWAYS held to be legal war.
I never said it wasn't.


However, the ICJ is a perfect example of why there ISN'T international Law and Custom. It is an attempt to impose the former - but there are states, notably the US, which explicitly DENY the ICJ any jurisdiction over their citizenry. This makes the ICJ merely another result of a treaty. It may consider customs and judicial opinions in it's deliberations, but it has no power to enforce such on unwilling states, which are perfectly within their rights to deny the existence of any such custom.
You don't know what the ICJ is, do you.

What is not written down, cannot be enforced. What cannot be enforced, does not exist.
Go read a book or two on international law.

Some Palestinians did that, true.
The OFFICIAL LEADERSHIP did that.
Some Italians did that, too.
As a result, Italy fell under occupation and was forced to surrender territory permanently; many Italians lost their homes and never got them back. Italy quickly reacquired its sovereignty because-- Italians did not continue fighting the lost war.
Some Austrians did that, too[QUOTE=Risottia;14525134]
Austria was occupied for over a decade, even though they'd stopped fighting; starting a war of aggression and losing it can have very dire consequences.
[QUOTE=Nodinia;14525427]Of course most days are spent building rockets, writing "Colonise Us Or Else" on the sides and firing at them at Israel, in case they start slacking....

Yep, that's what they do most days. They don't actually write "Colonise Us or Else"-- BUT THEY MIGHT AS WELL, because there will be no support in the United States for Palestinian independence until they stop their shit.

So that would be the case of South Vietnam vs....?

So, if no one takes it to court, it's all right? Then Israel has nothing to answer for.



Where is it implied? And I'm assuming you mean the 1970 Declaration and not the ICJ Statute?


Yeh, it says it can't be the goal of war. You are now seemingly forgetting that state sovereignty still comes into play when the conflict ends. If another State is occupying land within the other State's recognised territory - then it's occupation/annexation/aggrandizement.

Which isn't prohibited. Read your own quote.


Right.... it just 'happens' they got more land out of it. Sure that's a fine precedent then - pick a fight with a weaker neighbour, ensure they fire the first shot and not you - claim "Self-defense" and annex the land. Yeh, I can kinda see why that isn't in international law.

Such would not be self-defense. Just as we do not accept the manufactured "attacks" on Germany by the Poles, or upon the Japanese garrison in Manchukuo.



You don't know what the ICJ is, do you.

The International Court of Justice. What's your point?


Go read a book or two on international law.

No. Prove your case.

Yep, that's what they do most days. They don't actually write "Colonise Us or Else"-- BUT THEY MIGHT AS WELL, because there will be no support in the United States for Palestinian independence until they stop their shit.

Because there are no farmers, no shopkeepers, no smiths, nobody trying to make a living in Palestine. They're all Hamas militants right? Can't have anyone peaceable in your little view, because then you'd have to fret about innocent blood. Better that every single person in there is a cardboard enemy so you can justify any crime, any atrocity, isn't it?

... (and there were also a UK and a USA Nazi party, iirc...)
Yeah the BUF really wasn't popular because our general populace isn't a bunch of retarded peasants.

The OFFICIAL LEADERSHIP did that.
Ehm. If I recall correctly, the Palestinians had NO OFFICIAL AUTONOMOUS LEADERSHIP at the time of WW2, being under a British mandate... unless you're claiming that the British government ordered the Palestinians to join the SS.



As a result, Italy fell under occupation and was forced to surrender territory permanently; many Italians lost their homes and never got them back. Italy quickly reacquired its sovereignty because-- Italians did not continue fighting the lost war.

Ehm. Italy lost territory as result of having lost the war: NOT as result of collaborating with the genocide of Jews. (Italian war criminals never get tried, afaik).

Austria was occupied for over a decade, even though they'd stopped fighting; starting a war of aggression and losing it can have very dire consequences.

Still Austrians have their land.

Anyway, they were occupied, again, because they lost the war. Not because they collaborated with the genocide of Jews. Thank you for adding new strength to my point.

And I see that you've forgotten to answer about France and Ukraine.

Ehm. If I recall correctly, the Palestinians had NO OFFICIAL AUTONOMOUS LEADERSHIP at the time of WW2, being under a British mandate... unless you're claiming that the British government ordered the Palestinians to join the SS.

The British ran elections, which they did not interfere in, and granted wide autonomy to the leadership the Palestinians chose: until Amin Husseini allied with Nazi Germany, when he was banished from the country (along with some radical Jewish leaders, just to make everything look even-handed).

The British ran elections, which they did not interfere in, and granted wide autonomy to the leadership the Palestinians chose: until Amin Husseini allied with Nazi Germany, when he was banished from the country (along with some radical Jewish leaders, just to make everything look even-handed).

So let's see if I have this right. There was official autonomous leadership, until they went to the British Empire's enemy, and were promptly kicked out. That makes the actions that happened during the time period following that the actions of the official autonomous leadership how exactly? They can hardly be official anymore.

Because there are no farmers, no shopkeepers, no smiths, nobody trying to make a living in Palestine. They're all Hamas militants right? Can't have anyone peaceable in your little view, because then you'd have to fret about innocent blood. Better that every single person in there is a cardboard enemy so you can justify any crime, any atrocity, isn't it?

Silly NAS, don't you know those ebil mozlemz are an insectoid hivemind species related to Bugs, Tyrannids ands Xenos with a telepathic link to Osama Bin Laden? They're all militant terrorists.

Because there are no farmers, no shopkeepers, no smiths, nobody trying to make a living in Palestine. They're all Hamas militants right?

Sadly, that is pretty close to the truth, yes. Palestine is filled to the brim with unemployed youths who have no serious shot at a career there- and there is nothing to do but hurt Israelis or be bored stiff.

Making it possible for the kids to have a future or some long-term interest in preserving the region would go a long way to ensure peace.

The British ran elections, which they did not interfere in, and granted wide autonomy to the leadership the Palestinians chose: until Amin Husseini allied with Nazi Germany, when he was banished from the country (along with some radical Jewish leaders, just to make everything look even-handed).

So, my point looks valid: the palestinian autonomy... wasn't autonomous; as proven by the fact that the elected "leader" got banished from the country.

By the way, one wonders why the "radical jewish leaders" got expelled, too. Maybe because they were killing too many Palestinians, could it be?


I don't think there's a single point in this whole bloody Israel-vs-Palestine story when you can say "this one side is guilty and the other side is innocent".

Sadly, that is pretty close to the truth, yes. Palestine is filled to the brim with unemployed youths who have no serious shot at a career there- and there is nothing to do but hurt Israelis or be bored stiff.


Maybe you're mixing up the whole Palestine with just the Gaza Strip. The West Bank is a bit different, afaik.

(also your "hurt Israelis or be bored stiff" looks a bit on the oversimplification side of it, but meh)

The British ran elections, which they did not interfere in,


Dear o dear. I've nothing against people sticking to the same old tune, but I do prefer if they are more than slightly aqquainted with the notes....

Elections were then held, and of the four candidates running for the office of Mufti, al-Husayni received the least number of votes, the first three being Nashashibi candidates. Nevertheless, Samuel was anxious to keep a balance between the al-Husaynis and their rival clan the Nashashibis.[26] A year earlier the British had replaced Musa al-Husayni as Mayor of Jerusalem with Ragheb al-Nashashibi. They then moved to secure for the Husayni clan a compensatory function of prestige by appointing one of them to the position of mufti, prevailing upon the Nashashibi front-runner, Sheikh Hussam ad-Din Jarallah, to withdraw. This automatically promoted Amin al-Husayni to third position, which, under Ottoman law, allowed him to qualify, and Samuel then chose him as Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, the title being invented by Samuel.[27] The position came with a life tenure.[5][28]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husayni
(My underline etc)

I'm reasonably sure I pointed out this before, but will give you the benefit of the doubt.

until Amin Husseini allied with Nazi Germany, when he was banished from the country (along with some radical Jewish leaders, just to make everything look even-handed).

Really? And here I thought it had something to do with them being terrorist pricks and mucking up the British occupation. Geesh, the things you learn from biased people on the interwebz.

Has Isreal ever apologised for The King David Hotel bombing

So, if no one takes it to court, it's all right? Then Israel has nothing to answer for.
One: I asked for a case. You didn't provide one. If you want ot talk about South Vietnam, you can talk about the ignoring of UN mandated elections, and the uprising of a South Vietnamese rebel group that took power (aided by a neighbour).
Two: Israel has been censured by international law - and has to answer to it - but it doesn't. It's government has also been shown to ignore it's own Supreme Court decisions and domestic law.


Such would not be self-defense. Just as we do not accept the manufactured "attacks" on Germany by the Poles, or upon the Japanese garrison in Manchukuo.
The Nazi-German government used self-defense as it's jusitifcation. We don't accept them, like we do not accept conflicts where the winners hold land outside of their internationally recognised borders - no matter who started it.


The International Court of Justice. What's your point?
My point is: you don't know what it is and I'll show you why:

However, the ICJ is a perfect example of why there ISN'T international Law and Custom. It is an attempt to impose the former - but there are states, notably the US, which explicitly DENY the ICJ any jurisdiction
The US does not deny the ICJ any jurisdiction - at all. Whatsoever. The ICJ has global jurisdiction. It gains it's legal jursidiction from the Charter of the United Nations. All states that are members of the United Nations are party to the Charter, therefore the ICJ has jurisdiction over all States, including the US. Off the top of my head, that's Articles 35 and 36 of the ICJ Statute.

over their citizenry.
The ICJ has nothing to do with citizenry. The ICJ is a State vs. State court only. No individual citizens takes cases to the ICJ. That is Article 34.1 of the ICJ Statute.

This makes the ICJ merely another result of a treaty.
The ICJ is the successor to the PCIJ which was been around since the League of Nations. The PCIJ charter is almost a direct successor to the PCA (Permanent Court of Arbitration) which existed from the Hague Peace Conference 1899. In other words, the evolution and progressive development of international law gave rise to the current institution that is the ICJ - not a specific Treaty. Even if it was a specific treaty, a court of arbitration is merely there to intrepret the law, treaty or customary, at the request of States.

It may consider customs and judicial opinions in it's deliberations, but it has no power to enforce such on unwilling states,
There are no unwilling states. It is a matter of dispute settlement. As such, yes it does have the power to enforce it's decisions. Secondly, the Court decides if it has jurisdiction, not the parties. (Article 36.6). The ICJ's decisions and advisory opinions carry the weight and legitimacy of binding law, as they have global jurisdiction and their Statute is part and parcel of the UN Charter.

which are perfectly within their rights to deny the existence of any such custom.
It is not for the party to decide whether or not the custom exists. That is the job of the ICJ. The sources of law that the Court must apply are: international treaties and conventions in force; international custom; the general principles of law; and judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists - this last line is taken directly from their own site.




No. Prove your case.
Prove my case that Customary Law not only exists, but is a key component of International Law? Yeh, I've done that. You think because something is not codified, then there is no law. That's simply not the case. I suggest you read up a bit of Customary International law. Pick up any book on International Law - Custom will be a pretty big section of that book.

ICJ Statute: http://www.icj-cij.org/documents/index.php?p1=4&p2=2&p3=0

*snip*

Unless I very much misunderstand Dododecapod's argument, it's based on one rather simple fact. Without enforcement sufficient to back up any of the international accords and agreements, they're all so much wastepaper. And realistically, there isn't anyone out there who has the power to be global judiciary and cop while insufficient greed to act only in their own interests.

Unless I very much misunderstand Dododecapod's argument, it's based on one rather simple fact. Without enforcement sufficient to back up any of the international accords and agreements, they're all so much wastepaper. And realistically, there isn't anyone out there who has the power to be global judiciary and cop while insufficient greed to act only in their own interests.

Well, the thing about the ICJ is that it gets it's power of enforcement from the UNSC. It passes it's decisions to them, which (due to the nature of a UNSC resolution) become binding. If a member veto's an ICJ ruling, this does not mean that the law is wrong, nor is said to 'not exist' - merely (and this is where the true fault comes in) that the political nature of the UNSC fails to adhere to the legal nature of it's Charter. So you have a legal decision backed up by the ability of enforcement by the UNSC.

If Dododecapod's argument is that enforcement means "armed enforcement" then that's one thing - but not in the legal enforcement sense. It is not a Court that hands down criminal sentences like the ICTY or even the ICC - now that is where I think Dododecapod was confusing the ICJ with the ICC. Very, very, very rarely is an ICJ decision 'ignored' - I can just about think of one (outside of Israel). If Dododecapod's argument is that "there is no law because there is no Treaty", then that's just horseshit.

Edit: Just one final thing, democratic societies should not have to be 'forced' to obey international law (especially human rights or basic ius cogens). They should be respecting it out of the very essence of their society's fabric. Normally, law is enforced on non democratic states. This harks back to my initial point that a state calling itself a democratic society, should never be in breach of ius cogens anyway.

/fin. I'm gone.

On the average, it strikes me that we're making here the SAME ERROR that leads to the continuation of the war between Palestinians and Israelis.

The error is that we still blame living individuals for:
-what their fathers and forefathers and ancestors did, where they lived etc.
-what their fellow countrymen, both living and dead, do or did.

We should stop doing that. Responsibility should be individual and not inheritable.

It turns out I was getting the ICJ mixed up with the ICC. However, the US WITHDREW from compulsory jurisdiction from the ICJ in 1986, so yes the ICJ IS just another result of a treaty.

You keep screaming "Custom!" but the fact is, there is no custom. Just treaties. Your precious Ius Cogens is imposed by the Vienna Convention. The ICJ is imposed by UN Charter. All of these are treaties, no matter how broad, and subject to sovereign states rebuttal. And there is no international Law, because there is no method of enforcement.

At any rate, you have comprehensively failed to show the initial point: your assertion that Israel was occupying the land it took in defensive war illegally. Even your quote, if read clearly, supports my assertion that land taken in defensive war is legally annexable under the current international status quo.

Oh, and finally, you clearly know nothing about the occupation and annexation of South Vietnam in 1975. There was no uprising then - the attack was, in fact, a massive conventional assault by mechanized infantry and armour.

At any rate, you have comprehensively failed to show the initial point: your assertion that Israel was occupying the land it took in defensive war illegally. Even your quote, if read clearly, supports my assertion that land taken in defensive war is legally annexable under the current international status quo..

Its clearly indicated in the preface to UN resolution 242 that annexation by force is inadmissible.

This conflict is most probably one that will last for a long time, until all the parties involved will accept their mistake. To which I have a few points to make.
My first point is that I don't know why nobody made the link between the elections coming up in Israel and there sudden urge to show how grand the will of the government is. Just in novembre and beginning of decembre, the polls where putting the Likud (a conservative party that would prefer little bit less conversation and a little bit more action) in advance to win the general elections. Something that the Kadima party, in power, wouldn't like to see. The Kadima party, until now, kept a more peaceful approach to the problem. But as everybody know, the conflict escalated, without new reason. Why should the conflict be so important now, I think everybody see where i'm going, is just a political scheme for the Kadima to keep its majority in the Knesset.
Such political scheme should be denounced. A party is willing to go against it's agenda just to win votes is hypocritical and corrupted. I would never be a supporter of the Likud, but the Kadima lost my support too now.
To continue my critic on how Israel is handing the situation right now. The evacuation of Gaza was impossible for civilians. The blocus made on Gaza is one of the strictest ever seen. The infant mortality rate is horrifyingly high. A child who has a problem at birth has almost no chance to reach a hospital. Of course, it is also the fault of Egypt, who doesn't want to see the problem of the Hamas coming to their country. Egypt has already a " problem" with their Muslim Brotherhood, but it is not an excuse not to help a population in need.
My third critic on Israel is that their handling of the situation will never resolve the conflict, but will most certainly deteriorate it. Putting a population in such a state will only result to anger towards the oppressor. There is no victory possible, this has been an evidence for the last 20 years.
As for the Hamas, they are entirely profiting from the situation Israel puts them in. With a population angry at a State that doesn't try to understand their need, it is easy to recruit desperate soldiers. Also, with a violent conflict, the Fatah looks inadequate to answer the need of the Palestinians and the Hamas of course will show how unsupportive the Fatah is, since the Fatah is unwilling to take up the weapons. The Hamas represent the real rebellion against the oppressor, not mentionning they have no chance for victory either. I don't know to what extent the Hamas is aware that without conflict, it can't really represent anything, except a religious opposition to the laic Fatah. But we can observe that in most middle-east countries, this opposition between national religious parties and laic parties are source of violence too.
I don't know, my only hope rely on time and the evolution of minds. I don't consider any actions of the parties really guilty, because they all act for their priviledges. But they are all guilty of not considering entirely the position of the other.

Has Isreal ever apologised for The King David Hotel bombing
No, and those responsible for it are now the second-largest party in Israeli politics.

Its clearly indicated in the preface to UN resolution 242 that annexation by force is inadmissible.

Ah, finally a piece that covers the ground. Excellent.

However, this piece merely emphasizes that the acquisition of territory through war is "inadmissible" (an odd term. Inadmissible to what? To what can it not be admitted?). Is this a position of philosophical resolve (and thus mere rhetoric) or does it reference an actual segment of the UN charter or some other treaty, and thus be a supportable positon from which to attack the occupation?

It turns out I was getting the ICJ mixed up with the ICC. However, the US WITHDREW from compulsory jurisdiction from the ICJ in 1986, so yes the ICJ IS just another result of a treaty.
Nope. The United States Secretary of State deposited with the Secretary-General of the UN on 6 April 1984, that the provisio would last for two years. This expired in 1986. This was of course because the ICJ threw out the US claim that it [the ICJ] did not have jurisdiction over the Nicaragua Case. The US knew it was going to lose the case, and so attempted to neutralise the ICJ. But as you already know, the party doesn't decide if the Court has jurisdiction - the Court decides. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&k=66&case=70&code=nus&p3=4
[The ICJ found that the US was in breach of the 1956 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation with Nicaragua - by amongst other things - mining Nicaraguan harbours. Article 2 of the 1956 Treaty states: "Any dispute between the Parties as to the interpretation or application of the present Treaty, not satisfactorily adjusted by diplomacy, shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice, unless the Parties agree to settlement by some other pacific means.] The Court doesn't have compulsory jurisdiction - and in this case, it didn't need to because the Treaty the US broke, stated the dispute mechanism was through the Court. That's why the Court said it had jurisdiction - because the US said it did in the Treaty.


You keep screaming "Custom!" but the fact is, there is no custom. Just treaties.
Fail. I've already linked to, and quoted in an earlier post the existence of customary international law. I'm not addressing this again because I do not feel it necessary to repeat myself and also it appears you are willfully ignoring the well established and well agreed factual existence and practice of customary international law.


Oh, and finally, you clearly know nothing about the occupation and annexation of South Vietnam in 1975. There was no uprising then - the attack was, in fact, a massive conventional assault by mechanized infantry and armour.
No uprising by a South Vietnamese rebel group in 1956 supported by a neighbouring state? The Vietcong/minh didn't exist?

The Vietnamese did not regard themselves as being "two" states. There was only Vietnam, a portion of which was being occupied by puppets of a foreign power.

You keep screaming "Custom!" but the fact is, there is no custom. Just treaties.

Actually, there is such a thing as custom. That more and more customary international law is being codified doesn't change the fact.

And the US legal system, for one, disagrees with you. Take a look at Abdullahi v Pfizer (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/054863p.pdf), for example.

On January 30, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reinstated a lawsuit claiming that a pharmaceutical company violated international law when a team of its doctors provided emergency medical aid to children in Nigeria suffering from meningitis. The plaintiffs contend that they were provided a unproven drug without being fully informed of the potential risks of their treatment. The decision to reinstate the suit was a setback for WLF, which filed a brief urging that the trial court’s dismissal be affirmed. WLF argued that the suit was unauthorized in the absence of evidence that there is a universally recognized, obligatory, and well-defined international norm prohibiting “medical experimentation” in the absence of informed consent. WLF had urged the court to reject claims that such suits are authorized by the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), a 1789 law that lay dormant for nearly 200 years before activists began seeking to invoke it in the past several decades.

The appeals court panel voted 2-1 to reinstate the suit. The majority rejected WLF's argument that an alleged failure to provide patients with informed consent is not actionable under the ATS because it does not rise to the level of a universally condemned violation of international law. WLF argued that suits under the ATS are limited to allegations akin to genocide, war crimes, or slave trading. The appeals court disagreed and held that there is a "firmly established" norm of international law that deems "medical experimentation" to be on a par with the most serious of international law violations. However, the court was unable to provide a single prior instance in which action had been taken against private parties under remotely similar circumstances.
Link (http://www.wlf.org/Litigating/casedetail.asp?detail=430)

No uprising by a South Vietnamese rebel group in 1956 supported by a neighbouring state? The Vietcong/minh didn't exist?

Reread my post. I said they didn't exist in 1975 - it's irrelevant that they existed in 1956. The vietcong/minh effectively ceased to exist post the Tet Offensive - while a wonderful political move, it was a military disaster, and the Cong/Minh never recovered.

There was no uprising in South Vietnam in 1975. North Vietnam took the nation in a very well deployed and planned military invasion.

All the Palistinian authorities need are better targeting systems and better missles. Rather than sending thousands of random missles into Israel, the Palastinian authority would be able to directly target army/navy/air force bases. I'm sure this would be more acceptable.
They should be given aircraft capable of dropping leaflets to warn Israelis that legitimate targets (radical religious schools/temples, houses of anti Palistinian legislators, military/political/propaganda institutions) will be attacked and warning civilians to stay away from them. I'm sure this too would be acceptable to most Israelis.
And I'm sure Israel will denounce and expell any Israelite who proposes, oh say, to disenfranchise Israeli Arabs.They certainly wouldn't give such a radical the balance of power in the national government!!!
... or is there a double standard?
In 1967 I supported Israel - yes, I'm that old. Now I find it a corrupt, pathetic mockery of the state it once was.

Benjamin Netanyahu, the leader of the right-of-centre Likud party, has been asked to form Israel's next government.

Mr Netanyahu said Israel faced "great challenges" including the global economic crisis and what he said was Iran's wish to obtain nuclear weapons.

He said he would try to form a unity government with his political rivals.

But Tzipi Livni, leader of the centrist Kadima, has suggested she would rather be in opposition than join a government led by Mr Netanyahu.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7901486.stm

Well, it could well all go to fuckery now.....

All the Palistinian authorities need are better targeting systems and better missles. Rather than sending thousands of random missles into Israel, the Palastinian authority would be able to directly target army/navy/air force bases. I'm sure this would be more acceptable.
They should be given aircraft capable of dropping leaflets to warn Israelis that legitimate targets (radical religious schools/temples, houses of anti Palistinian legislators, military/political/propaganda institutions) will be attacked and warning civilians to stay away from them. I'm sure this too would be acceptable to most Israelis.
And I'm sure Israel will denounce and expell any Israelite who proposes, oh say, to disenfranchise Israeli Arabs.They certainly wouldn't give such a radical the balance of power in the national government!!!
... or is there a double standard?

Your post is made of win.

North Vietnam took the nation in a very well deployed and planned military invasion.
That's sort of like saying that the North took over the Confederacy in 1865 in a well planned invasion.
From the Vietnamese point of view there had never been two nations in the first place.

That's sort of like saying that the North took over the Confederacy in 1865 in a well planned invasion.
From the Vietnamese point of view there had never been two nations in the first place.

Funny, I work with a lot of vietnamese immigrants who fled that invasion-and they seem to think there WERE two nations, two cultures, etc. etc.

Weird, that...

Funny, I work with a lot of vietnamese immigrants who fled that invasion-and they seem to think there WERE two nations, two cultures, etc. etc.

Weird, that...

Very, as they weren't seperated that long. Also the Yanks never allowed a referendum on whether they could reunite with the north, which would imply they feared a certain result.