An occupation that creates children willing to die

[Violet_Crumble]

by Leah Tsemel
December 03, 2003

(Leah Tsemel is an Israeli lawyer working in Jerusalem. This is an edited version of her talk on childhood and human rights at the Giorgio Cini Foundation in Venice)

MY PARENTS left Europe just before the Holocaust and they lost most of their family members in it. They came to that part of the world which today is called Israel, and used to be called Palestine, to promise me a better life and the security of a state of our own. After almost 60 years I cannot say that they succeeded; on the contrary. It seems that my parents and others who wanted to build the state of Israel did not understand that it is impossible to build a new future on the relics of oppression.

I've been defending Palestinians in Israeli courts for some 30 years and despite my efforts have still not succeeded in making judges, whether in military tribunals or the Supreme Court of Justice, understand this basic truth. The situation deteriorates and last year, as in all of the past 25 years, I took two or three steps backwards for every one forwards.

The well-known Israeli author David Grossman has written about the laundering of language by the Israeli occupation. "Occupation" became in Hebrew "release" or "salvation". "Colonising" became "peaceful settling". "Killing" became "targeting". The Palestinians responded to these euphemisms by radicalising their language. My clients used to come to my office in Jerusalem and talk about soldiers or settlers; today they talk about al-yahud - the Jews. "The Jews took my ID card", "the Jews hit me", "the Jews destroyed this or that". This terrifies me. If the state of Israel becomes identified with all the Jews in the world and all the Jews in the world are seen as soldiers and settlers, we need to be very careful.

A Palestinian child who today says al-yahud, meaning the Jews, meaning the people in uniform, will become a fanatic and develop a nationalist fanaticism alongside youthful religious fanaticism. But a similar, perhaps worse, religious fanaticism is emerging on the Jewish side. The young generation of Jews in Israel want to banish Arabs. We see Hebrew slogans on the walls of Israeli cities saying "Arabs out of the country" or "Death to the Arabs". We are reaching the stage where the Israeli government openly debates what to do with Yasser Arafat, the elected president of the Palestinians: shall we kill him? deport him? call for the election of another, more convenient president for Palestinians, weak enough to give us whatever we want?

The main victims of occupation and oppression are children. In Israel the old British Mandate laws, dating from before independence, are still in force. These are laws of oppression enabling any occupying power to impose collect ive punishments. Recently I lost a case. I had tried to prevent the destruction of the house of a young man, a Palestinian suicide bomber who had killed himself and eight others near a military camp outside Tel Aviv. According to British Mandate law, the home of the perpetrator of a terrorist attack should be destroyed. When I called the family to tell them I'd lost, the bomber's mother said: "I knew I had no hope. We have already evacuated the house."

http://zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=22&ItemID=4607

[bluesoul]

1. Good article

Even within Israel there are many people that do make a difference...

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bluesoul]

3. Self hating?!? LOL

Just when I think I have read the most ridiculous things, you Jim top them all! Now I really do wonder...

[Violet_Crumble]

9. Thanks for setting us all straight on that, Jim...

Of course any Israeli who points out that children are the real victims in this conflict and who dares not to agree with the Peace Prime-Minister, Sharon, must surely be self-hating filth!! Sorry, but it's not hard to sniff out the rotten stench of filth, and it sure ain't the woman who wrote the article...

Violet...

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Muddleoftheroad]

4. Talk about blaming the victim

Blame Israel because the Palestinians now HATE all the Jews. Blame Israel when poor innocent families celebrate the murders done by suicide bombers.

Talk about wrongheaded.

We have lawyers like that in this nation, you see them on TV late at night.

[Violet_Crumble]

5. Blaming the victim...

If you think blaming the victim is wrong-headed, then why do you blame the Palestinians for resisting the occupation? After all, if you want to play the blame game, there's no-one to blame for the occupation itself other than Israel...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

8. Both Israel AND the Palestinians are the victims

The Arab world refused to accept partition and set this all in motion. The UN DECLARED partition and refused to enforce it. That combo effort set this all in motion.

Since then, however, the Palestinians have earned their share of blame for their own circumstances.

[Violet_Crumble]

11. GA Resolutions are non-binding...

Why on earth would anyone think the UN could or should enforce a GA resolution?? And 'all this' was set in motion way before the partition, btw....

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

13. Not much later the UN showed nerve in Korea

So, yes, it is reasonable to assume if you are creating two nations in hostile circumstances, you better back it up with force.

[Violet_Crumble]

14. Yes, because that was a binding SC Resolution...

You do understand the difference between binding and non-binding resolutions, don't you? And the only reason the resolution on Korea got through was that the USSR was boycotting the SC at the time...

You wanted the UN to intervene militarily in 1948? But that would have left Israel without the territory it took during that war. If you wanted the UN to intervene then, do you support UN intervention now in what I've been told many times is still the same war? If not, what's the difference between then and now?

Violet...

[edzontar]

24. I would trend to support UN intervention now....

In the form of a very well-armed peace-keeping force that would keep Israeli forces out of all PA controlled areas, use force to prevent terrorist attacks, and help to oversee and supervise the dismatlemnet of the settlements and the establishment of a strng Palestinian civil authority.

[Muddleoftheroad]

27. They have to be invited in

Or they will end up fighting Israeli troops and I don't think anyone wants that.

That said, why would Israel agree? Why replace trained and experienced soldiers who are used to protecting Israeli civilians from terror with bluehats who don't wish to be there?

So let me ask you, if Quebec decided to secede from Canada, would you support UN intervention to force Canada to acquiesce?

How about if Mexico demanded Texas and California back and some Hispanics in the U.S. wanted it too, would you then advocate for UN intervention?

[edzontar]

32. I don't know about that other hypothetical stuff...

But since the UN was instrumental in setting this mess into motion in the first place, it seems appropriate to me that they should move now to help resolve the outstanding issues...

The PA has said it would welcome UN involvement...the GOI has opposed it.

My own suspicion is that the GOI opposes this because it would get int he way of their land-grabbing efforts, but if someone here has another INFORMED explanation, I would love to know what that is.

[Muddleoftheroad]

37. Not hypothetical

Clearly Israel is more qualified to protect its citizens. It has 55 years of experience and is motivated. The UN troops would be inexperienced, out of their depth and less motivated because they would not be protecting their loved ones.

So, no it won't happen.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Muddleoftheroad]

69. Ah, hyperbole, thy name is Ed

Ed you know full well I have criticized Sharon before.

Hell, I have said numerous times I don't even like the path of the Peace Fence, but I still prefer it over the lack of such a security measure.

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[edzontar]

110. Thanks again.

Now I know that you are not interested in dialogue.

[GabysPoppy]

62. Please explain Mr. Ed

"But since the UN was instrumental in setting this mess into motion in the first place,"

Are you referring to the creation of the State of Israel?

I don't want to seem to be placing words in your mouth

[edzontar]

79. Not the creation of Israel per se....

I understand the compelling reasons that motivated the foundation of Israel.

More importantly, I recognize the historical fact of Israel's foundation, and do not question for a moment its right to exist in secure borders, and hopefully at peace with its neighbors.

But I think the UN vears some responsibility for the mess that followed the partitiion mandate, since not all parties impacted were agreeable to the plan.


It would have been wiser, I think, in retropsect, for the process to have proceeded more slowly, and for UN forces to have been present to assure that all the proper steps had beem taken regarding negotiation and peaceful institution of the mandate.


So what I would like to see is the UN beceoming involved again, this time not as a dictator of terms, but as an agent to ensure the maintenance of security and to help establish a stable and solid basis for a negotiated settlement.

[Resistance]

246. That's pretty much what everyone wants

The international forces securing peace ... everyone except Israel and the U.S. of course.

[Jackie97]

63. Israeli troops are not gods, they just think that they are.

They can be defeated by several in the UN if they have to be.

If enough pressure can be built, then the US will stop giving aid to Israel, which is what makes their army so great to begin with.

"That said, why would Israel agree? Why replace trained and experienced soldiers who are used to protecting Israeli civilians from terror with bluehats who don't wish to be there?"

Because IDF is not suceeding in bringing peace to the region. I think that after a while of FAILURE on the part of IDF and the Israeli government, some or many Israelis might want them to come in; not that they should have a choice when Palestinians are in danger of having genocide done to them.

"So let me ask you, if Quebec decided to secede from Canada, would you support UN intervention to force Canada to acquiesce?"

If English speaking Canada decided to try to occupy Quebec, kill resisters, and basically try to keep Quebec a part of Canada by force, then I would support UN intervention.

"How about if Mexico demanded Texas and California back and some Hispanics in the U.S. wanted it too, would you then advocate for UN intervention?"

If the majority of people in those states wanted to break off from the US, and the US was occupying them with violent force, then yes. I would support UN intervention.

People act like the fight against Israeli imperialism is unique, but it's not.

[Gimel]

107. PA land

Now it seems like you have forgotten several things here. The peace process with a Palestinian State as the goal has been underway for 20 years (since Madrid). Areas A and B were given over to the PA control and administration. No Israeli entered A or he/she was murdered. Palestinians entered Israel rather freely and committed mass murder. The PA did not arrest anyone responsible, even though the groups responsible broadcast their claim for credit.

Your examples of Mexico and Canada do not illustrate this aspect. Israel had every right to enter the areas to arrest the militants. Military occupation is for this purpose alone. The Peace Fence will act as a barrier in the future so that the IDF will not have to risk the lives of hundreds of young Israelis in order to defeat terrorism.

[Violet_Crumble]

151. Kind of like vampires in a Stephen King book, eh?

Okay, so can you point me to some information that shows that Israel invited the UN to intervene in 1948?


Violet...

[Resistance]

244. so many ignored requests for information

why d'you bother Violet?

[Gimel]

55. Need for intervention

The "use of force to prevent terrorist attacks" is the part easiest to say, but impossible to do in any other way. A UN force would set up road-blocks, perhaps, search for terrorist hideouts, perhaps, arrest leaders, perhaps and also use targeted killings in which innocent people would die. And I bet they wouldn't stop one terror attack.

[edzontar]

59. Who knows? They also might prevent many attacks...

It would not happen overnight...it would be a tough job, no question about it.

But the present situation is going nowhere, I think it is safe to say, and I am getting a little tired of reading attacks on people (the the Geneva participants, Pres. Carter, et al) who are trying to bring peace to the people of the region from people who make no constructive suggestions of their own.

(I don't necessarily mean you, Gimel)

The status quo is clearly not sustainable--how can we get past the circular blame-game and try to put forward some plausible, constructive suggestions?

To do otherwise merely serves the interest of the terrorists and fanatics on both sides.

[Muddleoftheroad]

70. Again, not in Israel's best interests

And since they are the ones in charge at the scene, it is a fantasy.

[Gimel]

72. Can't give up

True, progress is slow. As US mediators such as George Tenet have commented, progress on the Israel-Palestinian situation comes in inches not miles, sometimes one step forward and five back, but we must keep trying. There is no other way.

Looking back over the past few years, we see that progress towards setting up the groundwork, from the Madrid conference to the various peace proposals, is starting to bare fruit.

New discussions and proposals are underway. If they are really in earnest, we may be on the brink of a new era in the IP conflict.

The Peace Fence has done its part to awaken the need for cooperation from the PA in fighting terrorism.

[edzontar]

125. The only good your " Peace Fence" is likely to bring

Is the eventual all of Mr. Sharon's dishonest and ill-intentioned regime.

Even Bush is having trouble supporting THAT policy.

[Gimel]

205. Oh yes

Here we are again. No country is better than any country. As long as it's Israel.

"Even Bush" supports the Peace Fence, but prefers it to be close to the Greenline. US Ambassador Kurtzer and Bush have confirmed this recently.

[Resistance]

206. "prefers it to be close to the Greenline"

is a polite way of acknowledging the further theft of land.

[Jackie97]

58. Amen!

I feel like UN involvement is the only way at this point. Otherwise, attacks against Israelis will keep going on, and the Israeli government is about to get away with genocide through the "security fence".

[Muddleoftheroad]

28. That is a technicality

The UN knew what it was doing. It threw Israel, and, by accident, the Palestinians to the dogs. I doubt they thought Israel would survive, but that gave them a clear conscience.

[GabysPoppy]

29. Take some advice from my late grandmother

The only good thing about beating your head against the wall is that it feels good when you stop.

[Jackie97]

65. That's great advice.

I think I'll stop banging my head up against the wall with the pro-Israeli policy people for a while. Thanks. Smirk.

[Darranar]

30. No, it is not at all a technicality...

GA resolutions are not binding, and even many SC resolutions are not enforced.

You're saying that the UN should enforce a non-binding GA resolution when I doubt you believe that the UN should enforce several of the binding SC resolutions concerning Israel.

[Muddleoftheroad]

31. I am saying

That the UN set this ALL in motion, knew EXACTLY what it was doing and now is upset that it didn't work out quite the way it hoped.

[Darranar]

34. I most certainly hope they didn't want this!

The UN wanted a peaceful partition. That was contrary to the Arab wishes at the time. If they wanted to destroy Israel, why did they partition the area in the first place?

[edzontar]

41. Exactly....logic dictates that since the UN endorsed the thing...

In the first place, it should play a role in fixing the mess that resulted.

[Muddleoftheroad]

68. No, the UN wanted the Israel question to go away

They clearly didn't want or expect a peaceful solution. No one on the planet at the time expected peace to result.

The UN simply threw Israel to the wolves fully expecting the wolves to gobble it up.

[Darranar]

71. So why did they create Israel in the first place?

[Muddleoftheroad]

75. Why do you think?

They "addressed" the question of Israel knowing full well Israel would be attacked and likely overwhelmed. What do YOU think they wanted?

[bluesoul]

77. Excuse me

but that is pure BS... :crazy:

[Jack Rabbit]

78. That's a fascinating theory

Can you find anything credible to support it?

[Muddleoftheroad]

88. Per your request

My New York Times pre-1990 search isn't working, so let's just go over a little about the UN.

Following years of conflict in Palestine and the Holocaust, the UN moved to create a solution to the "Jewish problem."

SIGNS OF TROUBLE

As the UN first began to address the problem in April of 1947, five Arab nations -- Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Syria – tried to negotiate a deal to get the British mandate in Palestine ended immediately and independence for the area declared. Since Arabs outnumbers Jews in the whole area combined, that would have meant another Arab state. But the effort failed.

The UN formed UNSCOP – the UN Special Committee On Palestine and began trying to sort out the problem, visiting Jewish refugee camps in Europe and nations in the Mideast. The Jewish people worked wholeheartedly with the UN, the Arab nations refused to participate.

As a result of that work, the committee came up with two plans – one a federal state of Palestine (the Arab plan) and the partition plan.

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/palestine/ch1.pdf

If you look at the text of the 1947 partition, they knew the situation was volatile:

"Considers that the present situation in Palestine is one which is likely to impair the general welfare and friendly relations among nations;"

OK, it had been volatile and now it was volatile. To that mix all they added was a vote for partition, along with a commission, a request for everyone to behave and a small budget of $2,000,000 to make it all happen.

When the vote came, 13 nations voted against, including all of the regional Arab/Muslim nations in the UN -- Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey and Yemen.

“The adoption of resolution 181 (II) was followed by outbreaks of violence in Palestine. As the situation deteriorated, the Security Council called for a special session of the General Assembly, which then met from 16 April to 14 May 1948. On 17 April, the Security Council called for the cessation of all military and paramilitary activities in Palestine, and on 23 April it established the Truce Commission to supervise and help bring about a ceasefire. For its part, the General Assembly relieved the Palestine Commission of its responsibilities and decided to appoint a mediator charged with promoting a peaceful settlement in cooperation with the Truce Commission. On 20 May, Count Folke Bernadotte, President of the Swedish Red Cross, was chosen as United Nations Mediator.”

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/palestine/ch2.pdf

OK, so prior to Israel declaring statehood on May 14 and the subsequent Arab attacks on May 15, the UN knew there was a huge problem yet all they did was establish a commission? It is clear they knew there was going to be war.

In fact, on March 5, the Security Council issued a resolution calling for both sides to, “take all possible action to prevent or reduce such disorders which are occurring now in Palestine.”

On April 1, its next resolution called for an immediate truce, but still no troops or serious intervention. On April 17, they made a similar, but more detailed request of both sides. On April 23, they established a Truce Commission.

Never has a large organization hemmed and hawed more and done less.

That leaves us with only a few options:

· They knew there would be war and didn’t care who won – Possible, but unlikely. They knew the Arabs had vastly superior numbers, militaries, etc. To express no opinion in the conflict was to express an opinion.
· They thought Israel would win – If so, then we should go to Vegas with these guys. To say that is unlikely is an understatement. And, if they had sided with Israel, they would have been more aggressive sending in a mediator prior to combat (like months before) and not waiting nearly a week after the conflict became a war.
· They thought the Arabs would win – Of course they did. Why not?

Now, once the war broke out, the UN arranged two truces. The first failed, so the second included the threat:

“At its third regular session, on 11 December 1948, the General On 15 July 1948, the Security Council decided in a resolution that the situation in Palestine constituted a threat to the peace. It ordered a ceasefire and declared that failure to comply would be construed as a breach of the peace requiring immediate consideration of enforcement measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.”

Note, Chapter VII makes the following provision, “Article 41: The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.”

So, even in July 1948, the UN was willing to use force to end this conflict, how come they didn’t just stop it to begin with?

[Darranar]

91. If they hated Israel so much...

why didn't they simply follow the advice of the Arab states?

[Muddleoftheroad]

96. Good marketing

It looked so much better that way.

[Jack Rabbit]

101. If you want to believe that, go ahead

However, as you see below, that's why I'm not buying it.

[Jack Rabbit]

94. I appreciate your effort

Your orignal post (number 68) reads:

(T)he UN wanted the Israel question to go away.
They clearly didn't want or expect a peaceful solution. No one on the planet at the time expected peace to result.
The UN simply threw Israel to the wolves fully expecting the wolves to gobble it up.

What I read into that is a notion that the UN was guilty of willful malfeasance. My apologies if I read something into it that I should not have. Nevertheless, as you may know, I'm a pretty hard sell when it comes to elaborate conspiracy theories. This may not qualify as an elaborate conspiracy theory, but I'm inclined to reject it for the same reasons.

There is nothing in here that would support willful malfeasance. The UN may have been guilty of errors in judgment. Some of these mistakes were honest and some based on wishful thinking for which somebody should have known better.

If the UN did not want Israel to come into existence, it had the power to stop it. They did not. Why go through an elaborate charade that would cost lives and money when saying "no" would have been easier?

What we see here is the UN acting as it too often does. It attempted to act as a neutral mediator when the situation called for something stronger than half measures and hesitation. It called for truces, only to have those calls ignored. As a body, it tried very hard not to take sides; nevertheless, it was almost impossible not to take sides. Any decision made would upset somebody, and did.

Also, we see in this story the UN's characteristic reluctance to use force when force is called for to stop hostilities. This wasn't the last time the UN failed to step into a conflict as soon as it should have. Nevertheless, in order to commit peacekeeping troops, the UN must have something more than a simple consensus. It must also have member states willing to put troops in harm's way. It's a cumbersome process.

The UN is not a perfect world body. There can be no such thing. Certainly, there is room for improvement in its working. Peacekeeping by committee is what it does. That doesn't always work. It didn't lead to a quick resolution of the conflict in this case.

Nevertheless, your case for malfeasance is based on speculation:

· They knew there would be war and didn’t care who won – Possible, but unlikely. They knew the Arabs had vastly superior numbers, militaries, etc. To express no opinion in the conflict was to express an opinion.
· They thought Israel would win – If so, then we should go to Vegas with these guys. To say that is unlikely is an understatement. And, if they had sided with Israel, they would have been more aggressive sending in a mediator prior to combat (like months before) and not waiting nearly a week after the conflict became a war.
· They thought the Arabs would win – Of course they did. Why not?

I don't buy it.

[Muddleoftheroad]

111. Let's analyze the UN

But first off, since you doubt they are guilty of, "willful malfeasance," let's define terms for the audience at home.

From my friend, dictionary.com: "Malfeasance -- Misconduct or wrongdoing, especially by a public official."

To further clarify, misconduct has three basic definitions: "1. A) Behavior not conforming to prevailing standards or laws; impropriety.
1. B) The act or an instance of adultery.
2. Dishonest or bad management, especially by persons entrusted or engaged to act on another's behalf.
3. Deliberate wrongdoing, especially by government or military officials."

OK, I think we can rule out 1. B, though of course I would argue that the UN certainly screwed both the Israelis and the Palestinians, it was not adultery.

Now, you are reluctant to buy into some grand conspiracy theory. So am I. This is not a conspiracy theory, it's just the facts.

In 1947, the UN was made up of 57 nations. That was up six from the original 51 as Afghanistan, Iceland, Sweden, Thailand, Pakistan, and Yemen were added.

Among the 57 members, we have a wide range of nations including a few clearly Western (Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, Sweden, the UK and the U.S), a few clearly Communist (China, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Russian Federation, Ukraine, Yugoslavia), nd a decent-sized Arab or Muslim bloc (Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syrian Arab Republic, Turkey and Yemen.) Add to that a bunch of other nations in South America, Africa and elsewhere. (I don't want to get too bogged down in my divisions here, so don't over analyze my groupings, please.)

My point is that the West, while having a sizeable voting bloc, clearly does not have full control of the UN by any means at this point. So you can't paint this as a pro-Western organization by any stretch of the imagination. As such, it can't be assumed it was acting in Israel's best interests.

Now, I think we all know the UN is a political organization. It is perhaps the most elaborate example of such. Not only do national politics come into play, but international ones as well. Clearly, the UN was under a great deal of pressure to solve the Palestine dilemma.

On one hand, you had the Arab world that wanted Palestine as one nation. But to do so, the UN had to piss off the West and look bad denying a homeland to the Jewish people.

On the other hand, the Jewish people wanted a homeland, but to give them one and enforce it would piss off the Arab world.

The UN, in its Solomonic best, cut the baby in half. But, for those of us biblically minded, we know that can't work and the baby can't survive that way. They knew this as well. These were, after all, the great lights of their nations and representatives to the UN. We are not talking Jerry Springer Show extras.

In effect, they knew the situation would work itself out. Of course, they also knew they were pitting a new nation with virtually no resources against several existing nations with militaries trained and armed by the British.

Again, it would work out. But no rational betting man was putting his chips on Israel. These were rational men. They too had to understand that Israel had little chance.

So, we are back to our defintinions.

They were public officials, so did they commit misconduct?

"1. Behavior not conforming to prevailing standards or laws; impropriety."

Clearly, they were the law, so they acted in accordance with it.

"2. Dishonest or bad management, especially by persons entrusted or engaged to act on another's behalf."

Clearly, as well, they at least exhibited horrendous management. They were entrusted to sort out this mess and, instead, simply let the British leave and let a war happen. Not exactly leadership. So they violated this one quite well.

"3. Deliberate wrongdoing, especially by government or military officials."

This one is academic since we have already made it clear they violated the second definition, but they did what they did. They voted on it. They dithered. Clearly, for no small part of the UN, what they did was quite deliberate. Were all members equally guilty on this case? I would say no, but enough were.

There you have it. Guilty as charged.

[Violet_Crumble]

112. Yr wrong, Muddle...

They were entrusted to sort out this mess and, instead, simply let the British leave and let a war happen. Not exactly leadership. So they violated this one quite well.

The British handed over the mandate to the UN. They had zero power over whether or not the British left and in fact with the Zionist attacks on the British at the time, it's no surprise they left when they did. You are seriously saying that the UN should have forced the British to stay? What purpose would that have served? It was within the power of the UN to force the British not to leave?

No offence intended, but before you try to analyse the UN in future, I'd strongly recommend you gain some knowledge over the organisation, its role and history. You clearly put some time into that post of yrs, and it'd be really impressive if you added extra knowledge into what you posted about the UN...


Violet...

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jack Rabbit]

118. Your wrong, Muddle

No sale.

The UN is a cumbersome organization that needs improvement. Peacekeeping by committee is not the best way to do peacekeeping, but it is a great way to try to keep eveybody placated. That is how the works, and not always too well.

There is nothing in your posts but speculation. No sale. Try another customer.

[Muddleoftheroad]

119. Misconduct is clear

Whether you agree it was willful or not, if you claim there was no misconduct then you are a lost cause on this one.

By that definition, * has not committed misconduct either.

Oy.

[Jack Rabbit]

120. No sale

You began with the following assertion:

The UN simply threw Israel to the wolves fully expecting the wolves to gobble it up.

Willful malfeasance (my term, admittedly) is a bit kind. Your assertion, however, suggests downright hostility to the concept of a Zionism and that the UN was deliberately trying to sabotage its own efforts to give birth to a Jewish state in the Levant. It suggest something sinister, not merely inept. You even add to the sense that this is a sinister plot by asserting that the charade was just for "good marketing." Bad management is not what your trying to prove here. Dishonest, perhaps, but you haven't shown that. You haven't even come close.

The UN is an abstraction. It doesn't do or say anything except through individuals authorized to act or speak on its behalf. Throughout your dissertation, you simply accuse "the UN" of conniving to make certain that the Jewish is stillborn. Somebody made of flesh and blood has to be responsible for this plot. Yet in two lengthy posts, you name only one individual: the UN mediator. Even there, his name is entered incidentally. You don't suggest that Count Bernadotte was guilty of anything. He is named once and forgotten. Start with your five W's. Who, what, when, where, why. You've provided a what (conflict resulting from the declaration of Jewish state in 1947), some speculation as to why, but no whos, whens or wheres.

You are asserting something the proving of which is probably beyond the scope of a simple post in a discussion forum. Maybe you need to write a book.

You asserted that "the UN" threw Israel to the wolves fully expecting the wolves to gobble it up. You didn't prove it.

No sale.

[Muddleoftheroad]

155. Proven

Just because you aren't buying, it is still clear the UN was selling. I think the going rate for that job is 30 pieces of silver.

Whether you like the idea that the UN did this willfully or not, you have to accept that they committed misconduct by not intervening in a situation they knew was going to be a war. A war, both sides can clearly argue was caused by the UN action.

What's funny is that you think there needs to be a cabal for there to be a plot. There doesn't. These were smart men. They all knew what was going to happen (War, for those of you who have not been following) and they knew the likely result of such a war.

That is not hypothetical. They knew there was violence. They knew the violence was getting worse. They knew the Arab world wasn't going to accept partition. And they knew when the British were going to leave.

In short, they knew a lot. And did...nothing.

That is misconduct. And, quite obviously, it was willful.

[Jack Rabbit]

156. Not proven

EDITED for typing

Please provide names, dates, specific events.

You have shown that mistakes were made. We know that. You have shown that these mistakes led to war. We know that.

Your definition of "misconduct" is entirely too broad. If one were to use it, then one would have to conclude that any diplomatic failure in history constitutes misconduct. That's ridiculous.

No sale.

[bluesoul]

157. That's funny

We're supposed believe conspiracies against Israel as though the UN wanted to destroy them yet the same said about the other side is lunacy. You're into conspiracies Muddle lately?

[Paschall]

190. Muddle, please read the UN Charter again

"The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions..."

The UN never uses force to end a conflict. It has no power to do so. Its peacekeepers do however have the right to use force in self-defense.

But since you're on the subject, maybe you should realize that no UN forces were armed (for self-defense) until 1956. And the first such force was set up to create a buffer between Israel and Egypt after the 1956 war. Similar armed forces were sent to the Middle East in 1967, 1974, and 1978. And of course there were UN observers in the Mideast in 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973.

http://www.nobel.se/peace/laureates/1988/un-history.html

[brainshrub]

122. Where did you get that idea?

You're telling me that the UN expected this happen? That they wanted Israel to be destroyed?

Whatever.

[edzontar]

134. I just don't belive any of this stuff from my friend Muddle

I think the UN did a piss-poor job in setting this all up, and the Brits too, but the idea that it was some kind of secret plot to kill Jews makes no sense at all.

[brainshrub]

138. I agree

It's as nutty as all the Jewish Conspiracy theorists who claim that the world is run by a cabal of Zionist-bankers.

[Muddleoftheroad]

147. Not secret

Just an easy way out.

They knowing created a situation that led to war and did nothing to stop it. That qualfies as the misconduct I was asked about.

[edzontar]

179. Misconduct, certainly, but certainly not any kind of "plot"

Such as you describe.

[forgethell]

22. When you say "occupation"

what, exactly, do you mean? the land occuppied in 1967? Or the whole of Israel? The latter is what the Palestinians mean. So why would the israleis consent to their own destruction as a state? And what do you think will be the fate of the Jewish people if the Palestinians actually do manage to take over Israel? Does the fate of non-Muslims in other Arab lands resonate? Does the word "genocide" mean anything to you?

Just Curious.

Merry Christmas.

[Violet_Crumble]

23. The West Bank and Gaza Strip...

I'm very surprised that so many people who appear to think they're knowledgable on the I/P conflict are so confused as to what the Occupied Territories are. So, do you think that the West Bank and Gaza are part of Israel and Israel has every right to take that land?

No offense, but you have no idea what the Palestinians mean and should really refrain from speaking on behalf of them. Plus, yr wrong...

Does the word 'genocide' mean anything to me? Too right it does. It's a word abused by folk who fling it round with great abandon when it has no place in the I/P conflict at all. So, if you want to be taken seriously, don't abuse the term...

Violet...

[forgethell]

89. I know what the "Occupied Territories" are.

I also know what the spokesmen and leaders of the Palestinian people SAY that they want. Which is the destruction of Israel. So, this is why I asked what YOU meant. It is amazing to me that people who claim to be compassionate can look the genocide of the Israeli people in the ey and fail to blink. Because that is what will happen if Israel is destroyed.

[Violet_Crumble]

100. Then why ask?

Good. You know what the Occupied Territories are. I'm not sure why you wasted my time by pretending you didn't, but I don't mind helping people out who are honestly confused and looking for help. No, yr misrepresenting what the spokesmen and leaders of the Palestinian people want, though I can't see that even if they didn't recognise Israels right to exist, that it's any worse than someone who supports that silly 'Greater Israel' idea that includes the Occupied Territories. I notice you ignored my question, so I'll take yr dit-dits around the words occupied territories to mean that you don't support a two-state solution and don't believe the West Bank and Gaza Strip are occupied, and you believe that Israel has a right to that territory. If you believe otherwise, feel free to clear that up...

Probably it's amazing to you because you don't understand the definition of the word genocide. There is no genocide occuring in this conflict. If you disagree, try pointing out why you think it is. If yr referring to a possibility of future genocide, then to be blunt, there appears to be much more likelihood of the Palestinian people becoming victims of genocide rather than Israelis. Anyone who trots out the 'when Israel is destroyed line' as though it's any real possibility has a strange view of the conflict and can never explain in any sort of logical and rational way how it would be possible to destroy a state like Israel while has a very powerful military and nuclear weapons. The only even slightly possible threat to Israel that's foreseeable in the future is one that would come internally where Israel would disintegrate from within in a slow and rather nonspectacular manner. There's little likelihood of that happening either, though...


Violet...

[Jack Rabbit]

102. The destruction of Israel

The only people who consider that a possibility are the Islamists in the Palestinian Territories. Even they attribute this possibility in part to devine intervention, something in which I place no faith.

The Islamists are a big problem, but their influence will wain when peace brings benefits to the Palestinian people.

As for the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians from Greater Israel, I've expressed elswhere the reasons why this isn't going to happen. Nor do I believe continued repression is a possibility. I have faith that the Israeli people will prefer freedom and democracy in their part of the Levant to the repression and violence necessary in order to rule all of it.

[Violet_Crumble]

109. We agree on that....

When it comes to the possibility of a forced transfer of the Palestinian population, while I think Sharon would be more than willing to carry out such a plan, I suspect it's knowing what the reaction of the Israeli population would be that makes something like that an impossibility. Sure there's the extremists who wish Sharon would do it, but I think they're a overly vocal minority, and that combined with what world reaction would be makes it something that won't happen, but no credit goes to Sharon for that in my opinion. I think most Israelis would be seeing through Sharon by now and realising that he's brought them the exact opposite of the peace he promised, and once he's gone and taken Arafat with him, hopefully a solution to the conflict won't be far off...

Violet...

[forgethell]

106. I asked because I wanted to know

what you thought that it was. there seems to be a lot of common misunderstanding on this subject. People use euphemisms to disguise the ugliness of what they are doing and/or advocating.

Genocide? Yes, I mean when the Arabs rule the land, the Jews will disappear. I admit that there have been some bad things done by the Israelis to the Arabs, but they are pefectly willing to let them live in peace if they will stop the murder and bloodshed. they will not because it would be a surrender, and their culture of "honor" can't take it. If the Israelis surrender, yes, they will all die, IMO.

Anyway, I don't see the Israeli suicide bombers. Don't trot out the tired old chestnut that they are fighting the only way they have. If that is all they've got, then they are doing nothing effective, hence it is nothing but murder.

I probably have been following this issue longer than you've been alive, so I think that I know as much about it as you do. I simply have a different take on what it all means.

[Violet_Crumble]

108. Huh?

When people talk about the occupation, they're referring to the Occupied Territories, which is the West Bank and Gaza. There seems to be a level of deliberate misunderstanding from those who wish to make false claims that people who oppose the occupation want to 'destroy' Israel. But yr complaining about people who would rather see a Palestinian state that encompasses all of Israel rings very shallow and reeks of double standards when you support an Israel that encompasses all of the Occupied Territories (in case yr confused again, that's the West Bank and Gaza Strip). I think people who support either thing are extremist hate-mongers who have no concern at all for Israelis and Palestinians. So, don't you dare talk about ugliness when you support a mirror version of that exact same ugliness...

Genocide? Yes, I mean when the Arabs rule the land, the Jews will disappear.

When?? Explain something here. When will this be happening, and more importantly HOW will this happen when Israel is the most powerful military state in that region and possesses nuclear weapons? And you should keep in mind that when you speak of Israel, yr speaking of a state that has a large number of citizens who aren't Jewish. Or don't they matter?

Anyway, I don't see the Israeli suicide bombers. Don't trot out the tired old chestnut that they are fighting the only way they have.

Have you been looking the other way and missed the Israeli troops who kill innocent Palestinian children? Or the Israeli settlers who murder Palestinian civilians? Or does a killing only matter to you if it's a suicide bombing and the victim is Israeli? And please don't insinuate that I support suicide bombings. I don't, and I've made that very clear in posts in the past and feel no need to have to repeat myself in every post...

I probably have been following this issue longer than you've been alive, so I think that I know as much about it as you do.

Well, sonny. I don't know about that. I'm probably turning 76 next year, and I have a specially made geriatric keyboard that I use in between knitting bedsocks for my 90 great-grandchildren. So if you've been following this issue longer than I've been alive, and in yr mid 80's to early 90's, single and male, let's do lunch because at our age there ain't too many of us old geezers left!! ;)


Violet...

[Name removed]

130. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

143. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Gimel]

180. Glad to hear

that you've finally arrived at that opinon, VC.

[Violet_Crumble]

181. About the term genocide?

As you'd be aware from me pointing out the abuse of the term when in the past you've tried to claim that dismantling the settlements would be genocide, my opinion hasn't changed at all...


Violet...

[Gimel]

208. Qualified

As you appear to have forgotten, the ill-fated ICI redefined the term for their own pruposes, to include the condept of "transfer". So in the context alone, I refered to the term genocide.

[Gimel]

212. Correction and referral

I meant of course "ICC as posted by JRabit in one of his excellent posts above. The term was broadened by the ICC.

[Violet_Crumble]

228. Thanks for the referral...

Because of my ultra-slow connection, I'd been avoiding this thread once it got so big, but if there are posts here from Mr Rabbit concerning matters like the ICC and international law, I thank you for letting me know about them, because I've got a real interest in these specific discussions and have always found Mr Rabbit's posts on them to be really top-shelf stuff and on top of that agree with most if not all of what he has to say on the topics. I'll go have a look now...


Violet...

[Violet_Crumble]

227. But yr not referring to transfer, Gimel...

What you are trying to refer to as genocide is the removal by Israel of Israeli settlers who have been encouraged by the GOI to move outside of Israel and into territory that Israel's occupying. The ICC (which btw, isn't 'ill-fated' at all) most definately did NOT define to that as genocide. How could they when the Geneva Conventions specifically ban the moving of segments of an occupying power into territory it occupies?

Violet...

[Gimel]

230. Because

that is not what happened.

[Violet_Crumble]

235. Could you be a bit more specific?

What exactly is not what happened?

Violet...

[MojoKrunch]

39. Why is it that people can only see either/or?

Didn't the Jews co-exist peacefully with the Muslims in pre-Inquisition Spain?

Didn't the Jews who have lived in and around Jerusalem from before the Zionist invasions co-exist peacefully with their Muslim neighbors?

Can the idea of an Israeli state exist knowing it must be done on the backs of the Palestinian people?

Why can there not be the possibility of a peaceful co-existance?

A *true* power-sharing govt would be the first place to start.

Think about it.

Merry Winter Solstice.

Mojo

[edzontar]

43. Great post, Mojo....

I have seen the wonderful remains of the old Andalusian kingdom in Spain...synagogues, mosques, palaces, cities, bridges, and good plumbing...not to mention great art and poetry, and philosophy and scholarship of the highest order.

One day, I like to think, the benighted region of Palestine might itself be the site of its own multicultural renewal.

Have a great multi-holiday season.

Ed

[Jack Rabbit]

52. Welcome to the I/P Forum, MojoK

Yes, another world is possible, isn't it?

[MojoKrunch]

66. Just Mojo, please, Mr. Rabbit. And thank you.

I've been in and out reading I/P for a while now and was reluctant to wade into the fray until now for some reason.
lol

Yes, another world is possible, isn't it?
Yes it is, but at least it is moderated.
For that I am thankful.

Mojo

[Jackie97]

86. Actually....

"Didn't the Jews who have lived in and around Jerusalem from before the Zionist invasions co-exist peacefully with their Muslim neighbors?"

Not always. There were actually clashes and pogroms. That brings up the whole question of why Zionists insisted on having a national home in Palestine when there were clearly other choices. Wasn’t the whole idea behind modern Zionism (as invented by Herzl) about protecting the Jews in an anti-Semitic world?

“Can the idea of an Israeli state exist knowing it must be done on the backs of the Palestinian people?”

Does having an Israeli state have to mean that it must be done on the backs of the Palestinian people? Israel’s declaration of Independence acknowledges Arabs as being equal citizens with equal rights. In theory, that’s how Israel is supposed to be. That’s just like how the United States is supposed to have equal rights in theory (but clearly doesn’t). The US’s history with racism is insane. They committed genocide against the Native Americans. Today, our form of law enforcement is constantly coming into black neighborhoods and finding little things to destroy African American’s lives with. Some of the things that I read about concerning black neighborhoods, how the government treats those neighborhoods, and law enforcement actually reminds me of Israeli occupation a little bit. Just do a google of the war on drugs to see what I’m talking about. Anyway, nobody ever suggests that the US has to cease to exist to achieve black equality and human rights. The idea in the US is to keep striving for equality for African Americans (whether if that’s done through peaceful means or through controversial forms of violence). I think that the same thing might be possible for Israel, even though they call themselves the Jewish state. I do think that a bi-national state might be a better way to achieve the goals of a Jewish home, a Palestinian home, and equal rights for everybody. I don’t think that the majority of Israelis or Palestinians think that way though. That’s the problem.

“Merry Winter Solstice.”

Happy Saturnalia.

[MojoKrunch]

93. Yule tidings.

I do think that a bi-national state might be a better way to achieve the goals of a Jewish home, a Palestinian home, and equal rights for everybody.
Yea, that or genocide.
The problem is which pigs are more equal than?

I don’t think that the majority of Israelis or Palestinians think that way though. That’s the problem.
My knowledge isn't up-to-date, but I'd agree at least in part.
It was quite a blow to my confidence in that the Israeli people wanted peace when they put the current hawk govt into power.

It is my opinion that given a fair accord, the Palestinian *people*, not necessarily their leaders, would agree.

But since the power lies in Israelis hands...

Mojo

[Jackie97]

98. The possibility of genocide.

That is pretty much what we're looking at unless the IDF is thrown out by force. I'm really getting annoyed lately with posters who ignore me when I place my concerns about genocide when it comes to that fence.

"It was quite a blow to my confidence in that the Israeli people wanted peace when they put the current hawk govt into power."

I won't condone what they did, but I think that they've been voting for Sharon out of fear because the second infidata had already started. I don't think it was because of the desire to take land from the Palestinians. Isn’t that why Americans supported two so called wars against terror propagated by Mr. Bush? Isn’t that why people keep calling for more law enforcement against crime and to build more prisons when they really need to concentrate on what causes crime in the first place? I think that it’s all about fear, and the need to immediately stop what is causing that fear.

“It is my opinion that given a fair accord, the Palestinian *people*, not necessarily their leaders, would agree.”

True, but I get a feeling that there are a lot of misunderstandings on both sides. Israelis come to the conclusion that the Palestinians don’t want peace. They often argue that a suicide bombing happens every time there’s a scheduled peace talk, showing that the Palestinians supposedly don’t want peace. They don’t seem to recognize that the group that organized that doesn’t necessarily speak for everybody. They also don’t seem to understand that the Palestinians don’t think that the peace talks will work out. It’s not going to come to an end unless peace talks are started up again and something actually gets worked out.

"But since the power lies in Israelis hands..."

That's why I keep advocating that the UN should come down and throw IDF out by force. People are arguing with me that they're too well controlled by the US to be willing to do that. However, I notice that the UN was willing to deny their blessing to war with Iraq to the US because Europeans were outraged about it. By contrast, the UN put their stamp of approval on genocidal sanctions against Iraq (which Europeans were not as outraged about because of a lack of media coverage). Many Europeans are really outraged with Israeli policy. Even Americans are starting to get angrier with the Israeli government lately. It is of my conclusion that if there is enough support by the European and some of the American people, then the UN might be willing to go down to the OT to throw the IDF by force, even if the US government doesn't like it. Once the UN came down there, they could train Palestinians who volunteer to be in an army and give them weapons to fight off any intruders. They could also work on bringing war criminals against the Palestinians to justice. They could also help Israel actually decrease terrorism by working with them to find people currently responsible for suicide attacks. They could stick around at least until a peace agreement is worked out. It's the only way I can think of to stop the Israeli government.

[Resistance]

207. I am also

in support of an international force in the region. In fact, come to think of it, so is everyone else - Palestinians, the UN, most of world opinion ... oh wait, everyone that is, except Israel and the U.S.

Figures. And it's the US and Israeli planners who will complain (lie) to the media about how much they are trying to make peace and if only the Palestinians would cooperate. What a bunch of pathetic liars.

[Gimel]

209. The fence is not

genocide or "ethnic cleansing". The deviations from the Green Line (in most cases about half a mile) are not so significant. Half the space needed to errect the barrier shold be within the Palestinian side, IMO.

Some have defined ethnic cleasing as genocide:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=26898&mesg_id=27010&page=

This does indeed NOT belong in the I/P conflict discussion.

[Jack Rabbit]

210. Genocide and ethnic cleansing

Most bodies of international law define the terms as distict. From the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court (1998), Article 6:

For the purpose of this Statute, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

• (a) Killing members of the group;
• (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
• (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
• (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
• (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The word "transfer" is used, but in terms of taking children away from their parents to others, not in terms of removing an entire group from a given area.

The term ethnic cleansing occurs neither in the Rome Statute nor the Geneva Conventions. It is of recent origin. Ironically, it appears to have been coined by former Yugoslavia President Slobodon Milosevic, the single individual most associated with the practice in modern times. He is now on trial in The Hague for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The Rome Statute makes the "deportation or forcible transfer of population" a crime against humanity (Article 7, paragraph 1(d)). Paragraph 2(d) of Article 7 elaborates some:

"Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law . . . .

This is what is generally understood by the term ethnic cleansing. One finds similar language in the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949):

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

Were the Israeli government to carry out the transfer of Palestinians from the Occupied Territories as advocated by Tourism Minister Benny Elon and other extremists, it would be a gross violation of international law. Any Israeli minister who were to carry out such a directive would be subject to indictment by an international tribunal. At present, we need only discuss this matter hypothetically. Let's hope we never have to discuss it as a practical matter.

In practice, ethnic cleansing and mass murder usually go hand-in-hand. While it would be theoretically possible for a case of ethnic cleansing to take place without bloodshed, it is almost inconceivable. In The Hague, Milosevic is charged with both genocide and forced transfer.

[Resistance]

241. deviations from the Green Line are insignificant?

Tell that to the families made homeless and are having their land blatantly stolen by the Prison Wall

[Gimel]

214. "equal citizens with equal rights"

The ideal is workable, but not cessation. That's what the U.S. civil war was about.

I think the majority of Israelis do want a bi-national state, but if that state is predicated on destroying Israel, then there would be no peace. Peace must be established before there is a Palestinian state.

[Jack Rabbit]

216. I'm afraid I don't understand

The ideal is workable, but not cessation. That's what the U.S. civil war was about.

How does the I/P conflict compare to the US civil war? There is no issue of secession. The Palestinians are not trying to form a seperate state from Israel. They are already seperate. They simply want to form a state in what is slready theirs by right.

I think the majority of Israelis do want a bi-national state, but if that state is predicated on destroying Israel, then there would be no peace. Peace must be established before there is a Palestinian state.

It is my understanding that that is incorrect, especially if we are speaking of a democratic state ("equal citizens with equal rights"). Such a state would not remain a Jewish state if the majority is Arab, as it soon would be.

If Israel wants to reamin Jewish and democratic, then Israelis must reject the right wing's designs on incorporating the West Bank and Gaza into Israel or regarding those territories as an "integral part of Israel", as Mr. Begin once called them (1977). The Israelis can't have it both ways.

[Gimel]

237. They do have to earn that right

They must be able to govern themselves and coexist with Israel. They need Israel, and althouhg Israel was dependent to a great extent on Palestinian labor, that is fast changing.

Of course things are moving, and you needn't lecture on the need for moving as rapidly as possible into a sustainable bi-state situation. This has been the undercurrent for several years, although some forces are trying to overturn that, notably, the terrorist groups war on Israel.

[Resistance]

243. are you in favor of a bi-national plan, Gimel?

[Jackie97]

84. The Israeli government is the one committing genocide.

The fence is slowing killing the Palestinians through starvation after all.

I'm not saying that I'm for the Palestinaians taking completely over. At the most, I'm for a bi-national state. However, it's inflammatory to say that the Palestinians are an evil bunch of monsters that would commit genocide against the Israelis if they got back the land that originally belonged to them.

[forgethell]

90. Certainly not all, even most of them

are not. Arafat, however, in my opinion, is in a dead heat with Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and that old war horse, Hitler as a murderous monster. Look, I'm sorry if I'm offending you guys, but, after the Jews are all dead, it's too late to say,"whoops, I was wrong".

Peace in the ME depends on the Palestinians giving up the "right" of return, and accepting Israel as currently constituted. Negotiations can then proceed on boundaries, time-tables, etc.

[bemildred]

103. You are much too generous.

Arafat is a piss-ant compared to any of those fellows you mention,
on any basis of comparison at all. A better comparison would be
Mussolini, Petain, or Quisling.

[drdon326]

6. .

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/031206/photos_wl_afp/031206105156_c4b0cc2i_photo0&e=11&ncid=708

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?g=events/wl/080601mideast&a=&tmpl=sl&ns=&l=&e=41&a=0&t=&prev=40

[Violet_Crumble]

7. Are you in the wrong thread?

What did that have to do with what this thread is about?

Violet...

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

15. Another link's been added since then..

Needless to say I don't think there's any purpose in anyone clicking on it, especially if they're like me and have a slow connection where everything takes forever to load...

Violet...

[drdon326]

17. I think the pictures....

tell the story.

[Violet_Crumble]

18. Tell what story, don?

The first one I clicked on had ZERO to do with the topic of this thread...

Violet...

[MojoKrunch]

19. Did you cheer for the heroes in Red Dawn?

You see terrorists because you empathyize with an occupying nation.

I see people fighting that occupation using any means possible.

What is truly sad here is that these people have seemingly dehumanized themselves to many in their struggle to be free.

Would you revile a man who cut off his own foot to escape a bear trap?

Israel, with Western European and American support, is the equivalent of a beartrap for the indigenous people of that land.
And they are willing to cut off their own foot to be free of it.

Mojo

[drdon326]

20. So...

you see what some people call terrorists, you prefer
to view them as freedom-fighters, is that right?

[MojoKrunch]

33. Is that code for "French Fighters"???

Damn, I forget when "freedom" is supposed to mean "French" or "feedom".

So you see what some people call terrorists, you prefer
to view them as freedom-fighters, is that right?
I see people fighting against an occupation.
Call them what you will, that doesn't change what is going on.

Mojo

[Muddleoftheroad]

35. Do "freedom fighters" blow up civilians in a pizza parlor?

I mean, using your definition of course.

[MojoKrunch]

42. In Schwarzenegger films they do.

What sort of country so brutally oppresses and occupies a people that those people are forced to blow up their oppressors in a pizza parlor or a bus to attempt to win their freedom?

Treat people in a brutal manner and you can expect a brutal response.

I mean, using your definition of course.
I'm thinking French Fighters would definitely blow up a pizza parlor but strictly for esthetic/culinary reasons.

Mojo

[edzontar]

46. See "The Battle of Algiers"....you won't feel like cheering..

This film presents a really wrenching and tragic depiction of a terrorist vs. occupier conflict.

[MojoKrunch]

48. Not me, Ed.

Cheering?
Never.
Holy moly.

"The Battle of Algiers"
Help me with your point here, Ed.
I'm not quite sure of what you are getting at.

This film presents a really wrenching and tragic depiction of a terrorist vs. occupier conflict.
Why would I need to watch a film when the I/P conflict has been front-page news for the past 50 years?

Mojo

[edzontar]

53. Dear Friend...it is a good film...better than Red Dawn

And I merely recommend it to you as worth seeing.

It was made in 1965 and deals with the Algerian uprising aganist the French in those years.

The tone is rather less black and white than the more..shall we say..limited perspective offered by Red Dawn.

Although I kind of like that silly film, as a curiosity of the Reagan era, and a guilty pleasure of course.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Muddleoftheroad]

76. No human is forced to blow up civilians in a pizza parlor

So either the terrorists aren't forced, or they aren't human.

Or both.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jack Rabbit]

83. I don't accept your argument

Tageting civilians is a war crime, whether its done by a regualr army or by guerrillas, whether the weapon is a rocket launched from a helicopter or plastic explosives strapped to the assailant. Blowing up people eating pizza is done because it is easy -- and cowardly and useless.

The violent deaths of all the shoppers in malls, commuters on buses and patrons in restaurants have done nothing to end the occupation. Not one death by suicide bombing has not prevented one Palestinian home from being bulldozed or one illegal settlement from being constructed. It has not lifted one hour of curfew anywhere.

Suicide attacks are an expression of hatred and anger and nothing else. Not all such attacks committed in the intifada has brought the Palestinian one step closer to liberation from Israeli occupation or relieved the suffering of one Palestinian.

[Jackie97]

85. Why Palestinians blow themselves to bits.

"Tageting civilians is a war crime, whether its done by a regualr army or by guerrillas, whether the weapon is a rocket launched from a helicopter or plastic explosives strapped to the assailant. Blowing up people eating pizza is done because it is easy -- and cowardly and useless."

I don't know what Mojo's views on this are, but I don't think that I read him saying that suicide bombings were not war crimes. I just read him saying why he thinks that suicide bombings happen, and what the best way is to stop them.

"The violent deaths of all the shoppers in malls, commuters on buses and patrons in restaurants have done nothing to end the occupation."

Agreed, but it's hard to fight in other ways. I would prefer direct fighting with the IDF. However, that's hard to do when they have the tanks and the better weapons. It's also hard to do when one can't even get close to them many of times. What the Palestinians need is their own army. They need other countries to give them weapons, and they need help in organizing their own army to run the IDF off of their land.

"Not one death by suicide bombing has not prevented one Palestinian home from being bulldozed or one illegal settlement from being constructed. It has not lifted one hour of curfew anywhere."

Agreed. I don't think that anybody had said that they do any good. What is being said is that many of the Palestinians feel like this is their only means of defense.

"Suicide attacks are an expression of hatred and anger and nothing else."

I'll agree that there's hatred and anger, but where does that come from? Could it come from Israel's deadly occupation? Palestinians are being taught to hate Jews for what they supposedly are. So are some of the Arab countries around them. Oddly enough, the anti-semites in the Arab countries around them don't hate the Jews in Israel badly enough to come into Israel and blow themselves up. No, the ones blowing themselves up in Israel are the ones being terribly oppressed by occupation.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jack Rabbit]

104. I still don't accept your argument

Perhaps the jihadists don't think there's any such thing as an Israeli civilian. They can explain that one to the judge, as they say. I know the difference. You know the difference.

For those who don't know the difference, try answering this question: Who is more likely to do immediate harm to a Palestinian? A cafe patron in Haifa or bulldozer in Nablaus? Now maybe you can ask why the resitance doesn't blow up the bulldozer -- with or without its driver. That is what a real freedom fighter would do. That might just prevent a Palestinian home from being demolished. Bombing a crowded cafe prevents nothing.

Little children will simply grow up to become new IDF soldiers.

If you'll pardon me for being upfront, that's revolting. It's akin to the "nits breed lice" excuse Colonel Covington gave when questioned about the Sand Creek massacre. It's also reminscent of something said by one of the Lebonese phalangists who participated in the Sabra and Shatila massacre: "We killed children because they would grow up to be terrorists; we killed pregnant women because they would give birth to terrorists."

Do I condone it?
No, of course not.
But I understand it.
If *I* were fighting for my life and the very existance of my people against a ruthless, oppressive regime, *I* would be just as ruthless.

I will agree that understanding anger and hatred does not imply approval of violent acts under the influence of such emotions. Nevertheless, that should not prevent us from condemning such acts as entirely unnecessary when other means are available. Nothing you said implies that ruthlessness needs to be expressed as attacks on civilian targets when striking military targets would prevent immediate harm to the Palestinian people.

I must also reject your contention that terrorism is necessary to focus attention on the plight of the Palestinians. Guerrilla war focused on targets that could actually do immediate harm to the people would also have brought attention to the conflict. It would even have done so better, since it would brought attention to the conflict without the outrage brought by murdering noncombatants.

Otherwise, you have pointed out, without saying it in as many words, that the Palestinians are outgunned. Therefore, they have wisely chosen to resist with guerrilla tactics, at least in the braod, general sense of that term. What is foolish is that they squander their resources on targets that don't prevent any harm to the people for who they are supposedly fighting. Insofar as those targets are also protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention, it is also criminal.

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jack Rabbit]

126. Okay, I'll condemn away

Targeting civilians is a war crime and I condemn it. If I didn't uphold the principle of international law, I wouldn't be able to condemn Israeli settlements, either. Or the collective punishment of Palestinians by Israelis.

We wouldn't be looking for a peaceful solution to the situation. We would be relying on brute strength to settle the situation. We all know who wins the battle of brute strength in this one. It would leave Israel standing, but not one in which Ben Gurion would want to live. But I digress.

It is not neceassary or even useful to hit "soft targets", to use your euphemism. It has prevented nothing. And yes, your justification for hitting such targets is revolting. It isn't even a good justification. It merely highlights the difference between war and slaughter.

Otherwise, you assert that terrorism gives Israelis something to think about. Yes, and what they think about is stopping terrorists. It has not lead to peace, but to more violence and repression that only feeds itself.

Of course, I don't think the jihadists are interrested in peace. They are the rightwing of Palestinian nationalism. Their vision is that of a single Arab state in an ehtnically cleansed Levant. It is the mirror of Benny Elon's dream.

The support the jihadists enjoy is a result of frustration, a misguided belief that terrorism is the only way to fight back. Regretfully, that is a belief you seem to share.

[Jackie97]

127. Another reason to condemn terrorism done to Israelis.

As a member of Amnesty International, I concern myself with protecting the rights of all humans, even those who are provoking the Palestinians with a vote in favor of Sharon. That's because we're talking about the majority of a nation's voters (and the rest of the nation). If I were not to renounce terrorism being done to the Israelis personally, then how could I renounce terrorism against Israelis legally? What if everybody in the world took this view? If terrorism against Israelis is not renounced legally, then Israelis would lose their right to life.

I know, what about the Palestinian's right to life? That's why I renounce the occupation too.

I would certainly agree that the violence done to the Israelis does not hold an candle to the violence and other forms of oppression done to the Palestinians. I would also say that peace is mostly in the hands of the Israelis, but I think that the legal human right to life should should be defended for people who are not currently in the IDF or the Israeli government.

I know. Many pro-Palestinians don't view things this way. I do though. I just don't see how an Israeli's human right to life can be defended if suicide bombings are not renounced. That doesn't mean that I don't strongly understand those holding an opposing view to mine though, and I don't think that people should come to strong conclusions about the people who do have an opposing view.

[bluesoul]

129. I can only agree

with what Jackie said. From the first to the last point ;)

[MojoKrunch]

132. And from this perspective I agree completely.

But AI doesn't have an army and isn't supporting the state of Israel, is it?

If I were not to renounce terrorism being done to the Israelis personally, then how could I renounce terrorism against Israelis legally? What if everybody in the world took this view? If terrorism against Israelis is not renounced legally, then Israelis would lose their right to life.
No one is denying that Israelis killed by Palestinian terror groups is illegal.
But then aren't the terror groups themselves illegal?
And isn't the occupation and oppression of Palestinian people illegal?
It seems to me the lines get drawn somewhat arbitrarily.

I know, what about the Palestinian's right to life? That's why I renounce the occupation too.
Yes. And since the occupation is causing the terrorism...

I would also say that peace is mostly in the hands of the Israelis, but I think that the legal human right to life should should be defended for people who are not currently in the IDF or the Israeli government.
Hunh?
Why the distinction?
What makes the human beings in the IDF or Israeli govt exempt?

And just to be clear here, who do you consider "in the IDF"?
Are reservists and those serving their mandatory service "in"?

I know. Many pro-Palestinians don't view things this way. I do though.
For me this hasn't anything to do with being Pro anything but with justice and logic.

I simply see no point in castigating Palestinians while the occupation still exists.

Mojo

[Jackie97]

137. AI can't take a position on Israel.

"But AI doesn't have an army and isn't supporting the state of Israel, is it?"

AI's position is that it can't support the state of Israel or resist the existence of the state of Israel. Likewise, we (as a group) can not take a position for or against Palestine. All we can do is identify what the group considers to be human rights violations and pressure the appropriate people to stop doing them.

"No one is denying that Israelis killed by Palestinian terror groups is illegal."

It's not that I'm claiming that you're denying that it's illegal. I'm talking about the mindset of people. Let me use an analogy to identify what I think that the problem with not renouncing terrorism is. Suppose a murder has been committed. The murder victims are a woman and her husband (The couple represents the Israeli civilians). The killer is her minor daughter (The daughter represents a Palestinian suicide bomber). Now, suppose the background for this is that the daughter was being abused by the stepfather. The law kept saying that what the stepfather was doing wasn't legally considered to be abuse (due to either a lack of evidence or a vagueness in the child abuse laws). Meanwhile, the woman wouldn't leave her husband for her daughter's sake. The daughter couldn't take it anymore. In a last act of desperation, she shoots and kills her stepfather to stop the abuse. Unfortunately, she also kills her mother with an accidental shot. Now, let's put more analogies in here. The father represents IDF and the Israeli government. The mother represents the Isreali civilian that voted for Sharon and was allowing her husband to beat her daughter. This is sort of like the Palestinian who kills not so innocent civilians and non-civilians in a bombing. She may have had her reasons for not leaving him (like fear), but Israelis have their reasons for voting in Sharon (like fear).

Okay, the girl gets put on trial. She's in a state where they decide to try her as an adult. Now, suppose members on the jury hear this. Suppose you're a member of the jury, and you can't personally condemn her because she's the oppressed. If you don't personally think that what she did was wrong, then how can you vote in favor of her getting punished for it? Sure, you can think about what the law says on this issue, and how things are legally supposed to go. However, can you decide not to let your personal view cloud your judgment about whether the girl should be convicted? There's lots of people (including possibly myself) that might vote "Not guilty". That's all I'm saying. If one doesn't personally renounce terrorism, then why on earth would they renounce it legally? Unfortunately, the majority of the world thinks emotionally, not rationally.

"But then aren't the terror groups themselves illegal?"

If they're proven to be terrorist groups, yes.

"And isn't the occupation and oppression of Palestinian people illegal?"

Yes, that is why people are pushing to end the occupation and to bring war criminals up on charges.

"It seems to me the lines get drawn somewhat arbitrarily."

Maybe some people are drawing the line arbitrarily, but I don't think that I do. I don't think that many of the people here for Palestinian human rights do.

"Hunh?
Why the distinction?
What makes the human beings in the IDF or Israeli govt exempt?"

Okay, this is where I might be parting from human rights groups. I think that those who are currently in the military or the government are fair game in a war. They are the direct oppressors. Most people would agree that they're not civilians. War's a bitch, but people need to consider this stuff before they join the IDF or the Israeli government.

"And just to be clear here, who do you consider "in the IDF"?"

Who is on the police force? Is it just those working as cops now, or is it also those who have been cops in the past who might come back? Most would agree that it's the current cops.

People in the OT are in the IDF. People working comfortablyin the offices are in the IDF.

"Are reservists and those serving their mandatory service "in"?"

I mostly think about the issues of legality regarding this subject. I don't think so. I don't think that the majority of legal experts think so. Hamas might think so. Islamic Jihad might think so. The rest of the Palestinians in the OT (who mostly only know Israelis through IDF) might think so. It's understandable to see why somebody would attack Israelis based on the idea that they're actually in the military (because they're in the reserve or is scheduled to join later on). Perhaps their lack of understanding of how the world legally views this should be taken into consideration if they end up on trial. However, I don't think that the majority of legal experts share their opinion.

Sorry to bother you with a question, but I just saw a comment of yours and I wanted to place it hear instead of taking up space.

"Nah, this is part of the issue as well.
Israel can afford to "walk tall and carry a big stick" because they have massive financial support from the US.
Period."

What about the time before they started getting US financial support? They didn't have our financial support when they fought off all of those countries in the late forties.

[MojoKrunch]

141. Something pithy.

AI's position is that it can't support the state of Israel or resist the existence of the state of Israel. Likewise, we (as a group) can not take a position for or against Palestine. All we can do is identify what the group considers to be human rights violations and pressure the appropriate people to stop doing them.
And I absolutely appreciate AI's attempts.
I only wish they were more effective.

It's not that I'm claiming that you're denying that it's illegal. I'm talking about the mindset of people.
Does not Israel elect the people who make the laws?
Do they not live by rule of law?

What does the "mindset" have to do with anything?

To your analogy... the girl lives under the rule of law... IOW, murder is illegal barring certain accepted circumstances.
There is no overriding, binding rule of law governing the the I/P conflict and Israel won't even follow their own laws.
Until the UN steps in or Israel follows its own laws, there can be no valid attempt at justice.

IMO, a better analogy puts that little girl in jail where she is abused by her jailers who have all the power... is she "condemned" for fighting back against them using whatever means she has at her disposal?

If they're proven to be terrorist groups, yes.
So the Israeli's are using the activities of *illegal* groups to justify their actions towards the rest of Palestine.
Is that fair?
Is that just?
Should everyone continue to be punished because of the actions of an illegal few?

Yes, that is why people are pushing to end the occupation and to bring war criminals up on charges.
And what war criminals would those be?
The IDF?
The Israeli govt?
The Israeli people who elect the government and who comprise the IDF?

Maybe some people are drawing the line arbitrarily, but I don't think that I do.
The line of blame seems to move quite frequently according to personal beliefs.

I don't think that many of the people here for Palestinian human rights do.
You were willing to exempt the Israeli govt and IDF from "legal human right to life".
I find that odd.

Okay, this is where I might be parting from human rights groups. I think that those who are currently in the military or the government are fair game in a war. They are the direct oppressors. Most people would agree that they're not civilians. War's a bitch, but people need to consider this stuff before they join the IDF or the Israeli government.
And here is where I'll have to disagree with you.
Either human rights are universal or they are not.
Either the IDF and Israeli govt is treated like everyone else, or the concept of universal human rights is moot.

Who is on the police force?
Not a valid comparison.
The IDF is comprised of mandatory conscripts as well as career soldiers.
The government is elected *from the people*.

People in the OT are in the IDF. People working comfortably in the offices are in the IDF.
I'm sorry but this doesn't make much sense to me... yes, the current govt and IDF forces in the OT are visibly complicit in occupying and oppressing, but all of these people come directly from the general Israeli population... they are conscripts and elected officials, not some "other" ruling class.

I mostly think about the issues of legality regarding this subject. I don't think so. I don't think that the majority of legal experts think so.
Hunh?
So the only people "responsible" are career military and politicians?
How odd.
Which legal experts are you thinking of here?

Hamas might think so. Islamic Jihad might think so. The rest of the Palestinians in the OT (who mostly only know Israelis through IDF) might think so.
It seems probable to me that they think so.

It's understandable to see why somebody would attack Israelis based on the idea that they're actually in the military (because they're in the reserve or is scheduled to join later on). Perhaps their lack of understanding of how the world legally views this should be taken into consideration if they end up on trial. However, I don't think that the majority of legal experts share their opinion.
I'm pretty sure I don't agree with your legal experts if I'm reading this correctly.
A conscript in a helicopter shooting at a Palestinian apartment building to kill supposed Hamas terrorists is somehow not culpable for his actions because he was only following orders?
I don't buy it.
And the distinction may be based on legal culpability, which isn't really relevant to their human rights, is it?

Sorry to bother you with a question, but I just saw a comment of yours and I wanted to place it hear instead of taking up space.
No bother at all.
:)

What about the time before they started getting US financial support? They didn't have our financial support when they fought off all of those countries in the late forties.
Not officially from the government, no.
But answer me this... where did a fledgling nation get the finances and resources to put together a military capable of fighting off those other countries?
IOW, who paid?

Mojo

[Jackie97]

144. Yeah, I'm considering leaving AI.

"And I absolutely appreciate AI's attempts.
I only wish they were more effective."

So do I. I'm not sure if they're as effective as they could be and I'm starting to get a little bit too one sided. I'm starting to go from the MLK way of thinking to the Malcolm X way of thinking. I don't think that I can stay in AI much longer if I'm going to be like that.

"Does not Israel elect the people who make the laws?"

Yes.

"Do they not live by rule of law?"

No, they don't. At least their government doesn't. If they did, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

"What does the "mindset" have to do with anything?"

Mindset had to do with everything. Ideas for laws don't come out of the thin air. The idea that Palestinian suicide bombing should be illegal comes from the idea that Israelis should have human rights. The idea that killing one's parents (abusive or not) should be illegal comes from mindset. In the case of abuse, people's mindset might very well be changing. There might come a day when killing one's abusive parents is legally considered a legitimate form of self-defense (although I doubt that will happen). That's because more people are starting to think that a person shouldn't be punished for killing an abuser or even necessarily an accomplice (like the hypothetical mother in my analogy). Likewise, if so many mindsets say that Palestinians shouldn't be punished for killing civilians, then how could killing Israeli civilians possibly stay illegal over time? Okay, I'm digging myself in a hole here. It might be best if I stop.

"IMO, a better analogy puts that little girl in jail where she is abused by her jailers who have all the power... is she "condemned" for fighting back against them using whatever means she has at her disposal?"

If it was legally proven to be self-defense, then no. However, if she ends up killing bystanders in her self-defense, then it all gets legally sticky. Should somebody have a legal right to kill everybody around them if they are defending themself against only particular people in the crowd?

"So the Israeli's are using the activities of *illegal* groups to justify their actions towards the rest of Palestine.
Is that fair?
Is that just?
Should everyone continue to be punished because of the actions of an illegal few?"

No, no, and no. If I didn't agree on that, then I wouldn't argue in favor of the Palestinians, would I?

"And what war criminals would those be?
The IDF?
The Israeli govt?
The Israeli people who elect the government and who comprise the IDF?"

Normally, whether if a war is legal or not, the people who normally get put on trial are particular people. For instance, Bush might end up in trouble for lying about WMD's. The US people and the troops won't get in trouble. What troops will get in trouble are those who do an act similar to those of that we heard of in Vietnam. I would think that this works the same way.

"The line of blame seems to move quite frequently according to personal beliefs."

True, but you need to know that most people talking in favor of Palestinian rights to see Israel as driving the Palestinian attackers to what they do. I know that I do, and I've argued that. At the same time, being driven to something is normally not legal grounds to do something. For what it's worth, I do have more sympathy for the Palestinians. My sympathy isn't just one way though.

"You were willing to exempt the Israeli govt and IDF from "legal human right to life".
I find that odd."

Okay, this is one of my messups. What I'm trying to say is what you were saying elsewhere. Killing soldiers is part of war. I also think that killing those in the government (or trying to) is part of war. I don't think that somebody should go to jail for killing a soldier or somebody in the government on the opposite side in a war should be charged with a war crime. They're not civilians. Now, if a regular Israeli woman killed her boyfriend for cheating on her, then this is when I would think that the IDFer's right to life should be upheld. I shouldn't have said that they have no right to life. I should have said that it's limited in war.

"Not a valid comparison.
The IDF is comprised of mandatory conscripts as well as career soldiers.
The government is elected *from the people*."

I see what you're saying. They're still indirectly responsible for the oppression, but many would still agree that it's best to go after the ones directly responsible.

"Hunh?
So the only people "responsible" are career military and politicians?
How odd.
Which legal experts are you thinking of here?"

I'm going by my common sense legal reasoning. Yes, the citizens are indirectly responsible for things, but they're not normally considered to be part of the military unless it's current I don't think.

"And the distinction may be based on legal culpability, which isn't really relevant to their human rights, is it?"

No, but what is the rest of the world to do regarding how to reasonably sort this all out?

"Not officially from the government, no.
But answer me this... where did a fledgling nation get the finances and resources to put together a military capable of fighting off those other countries?
IOW, who paid?"

I don't really know. I would have thought it was funding from Zionist groups from all over the world, which might have came more from England and the US. Okaay.

I want to comment about what you said elsewhere about why settlers move into a war zone. From what I understand, it's because many of them are poor. They have a hard time surviving economically or can't survive at all unless they move out there. The Isreali government could give funding to help their poor out, but they don't want to. They want to push their poor out into the OT to grab land instead. These poor people are doing it for survival many of times. I'm not excusing their behavior, but I am explaining the possible source of it. I don't see this changing unless they are either thrown out by force or if more work is done to pressure Israel to support their poor and not push them into the OT. Oh, and I'm also including the Orthodox Jews out there. Many of them out in the OT are poor. I can post the information that I posted elsewhere about that if you want me to.

Oh, and from what I understand, many on the Coastal areas of NC are poor. They can't just leave if they want to.

Meanwhile, I have to go.

[Name removed]

174. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jackie97]

184. Sorry to take so long.

“Mindset is nothing unless you wish to live by rule of majority rather than rule of law.
Might makes right, but it doesn't make justice.”

Okay, you’re right. True, but what about all those times when laws and decisions were made based on mindset/majority? I’m not saying it’s right. I’m saying that mindset of majorities does influence things.

“The idea of human rights has not one thing to do with suicide bombings.”

What do you mean?

“She's in a jail surrounded by jailers... who is a bystander?”

Somebody who isn’t committing a crime against her. That prisoner’s human rights are not taken away because they broke a law and went to prison.

“Are you sure?”

Of course I’m sure. Look, I take some serious heat for defending the Palestinians in real life for a reason. It’s not because I want to hear myself talk. It’s because I think that collective punishment is disgusting.

“That is only because you can't jail an entire people.
The Nazi prison camps were typically located near small German towns... the villagers knew what was going on... perhaps not the specifics of the atrocities, but they knew.
You don't have to be the one who pulls the trigger to be an accomplice to a crime.
Sometimes all it takes is turning your head.”

Actually, the majority of concentration camps were in Poland, away from German sight. Germans saw Jews being deported, but I don’t think that they often saw them getting killed. Not that it’s okay to turn one’s head on a concentration camp, but can you honestly say that you would go out there with a shotgun and demand out of a strong army to set the Jews free? It didn’t work like that. Germans wanting to help the Jews had to do it in private.

“Except that law can't be so fuzzy.
And if there is to be a rule of law, this must go beyond personal beliefs.
Otherwise, what does it matter?”

Agreed. I’m just wondering if the majority of people will think beyond personal beliefs on this subject though.

“When has sympathizing ever solved such problems?”
Sympathy is a start that leads to action for many people.

“And I still disagree with this statement.
Such things are as arbitrary as Capital Punishment in the US.”

Look, all I’m saying is that I think that the Palestinians should have a right to fight back against the IDFers and the Israeli government. I know that you agree with the IDFer part. That’s all I’m really saying. Perhaps I’m not saying it right.

“How "indirect" are they in a democratic society?
This isn't hereditary royalty we're talking about here.
Israel has a duly elected, democratic govt, does it not?
If you oust the dove govt and put in a hawk govt, don't you consider the people directly responsible?
The govt and the IDF are merely expressions of the will of the people.
Not *all* of the people mind you.
But the majority who participated in their elections.
And I hold them just as responsible as the IDF Apache pilot who pulled the trigger, the general who gave that order and the minister who set that policy.”

I understand what you’re saying. When it comes to actions, they’re responsible. Ditto for voters in the US concerning their foreign policy. However, I’ve noticed that Americans support bad foreign policy out of ignorance about what is really going on. Likewise, that’s what Israelis and pro-Israeli policy people do. I realize that this is a different argument than what I started with. The truth is that I think that you’re right. The people are responsible for their actions. However, I don’t think that they’re as responsible as the government or the IDF because of ignorance. I realize that it’s not an excuse, but that’s the reality of an overly nationalistic country that engages in brainwashing its citizens into thinking that they’re right.

“But you cited "legal experts", did you not?
So unless you hold a law degree, your "common sense legal reasoning" isn't going to mean much... ya know?”

Fine, I don’t have time to put myself into a lot of books to find a needle in a haystack right now. Maybe I’ll try to get back to you this another time if that’s okay?

“Hold Israel responsible for its human rights violations and actions in occupying and oppressing the Palestinian people.

Seems to me those universal human rights have something to say about this as well, don't they?”

Yeah, they say to end the occupation.

“How did they get there?”

I actually talked about this in another thread. I’m not trying to drag you to it, but I just want to show you what I had pointed out on there. To make a long story short, many poor Israelis would rather risk getting killed than stay in unbareable poverty. Poverty does lead to crime and oppression, do you agree?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=36853&mesg_id=37247&page=

I’m not trying to get you to excuse the settlers, because I know that I don’t. However, I think it’s important to know what is the root cause of some of that.

“But I understand what you are saying... some *are* too poor to move.
Fine.”

Thank you.

“Then shouldn't it be the responsibility of the government to make the country safer for them?”

Yes, that’s exactly what I talk about in the other thread. I’m thinking that all of the oppressed Israelis of poverty need to combine with the oppressed Palestinians to demand that the Israeli government give them their human rights back. Unfortunately, the Capitalists in Israel have managed to turn the people against each other and not on them (Capitalists are good for doing that).

”Why would you continue a policy of occupation and oppression that *CREATES* terror bombings?”

I had said in the thread that it was to grab land. They exploit their poor citizens to grab land.

“Not when there are expensive US tanks and choppers to purchase, of course not.”

I can’t find the source now, but I actually read a while back that in order for Israel to get that funding from us, that they had to cut back on their own funding; meaning that there was a cutback in social programs. Of course, some of the poor responded by moving out in the OT, like the government wanted them to do.

”I find it ironic that we subsidize Israel and the Iraqi invasion while our own people scramble for funding.”

I think that more Americans are starting to see it that way. Unfortunately, Israelis keep blaming the infidata for all of their economic problems. From what I understand, they have a 10-12% unemployment rate, and the majority of them still insist on keeping up the occupation. You can’t tell me that their actions aren’t coming from fear and ignorance about what’s going on.

I understand what you’re saying. Hardly anybody is innocent in Israel because they vote. I would also think to a point that ignorance is not an excuse for certain actions. However, I still can’t help but think that there’s something wrong with your argument, although I don’t really know what it is at the moment. I just keep thinking that anybody considered to be a civilian by most of the world is not fair game. For example, polls show that the majority of Palestinians support suicide bombings. This argument gets used to excuse collective punishment of the Palestinians. Ditto for Israel. The majority of them support the occupation, and this gets used to excuse suicide bombings. I can’t help but slightly think that I shouldn’t hold Israelis to any standard that I wouldn’t hold Palestinians up to regarding current violence.

[Jackie97]

194. Interesting.

That post was up for hours before I responded to it in full. Then, somebody wanted it deleted. Interesting.

[Gimel]

211. Armed conflict

The main point is to stop the violence. If you are going to say that the Palestinian terror groups have a legitimate cause and can attack IDF or civilians in their territory (i.e. settlers) then you are going to see the conflict increase in intensity. If the settlers are attacked, they have the right to return fire, and counter attack even though they are not the IDF, as even the terror groups are not soldiers in the normal sense of the word. Then you have a war in the "territories".

The terrorists have been striking a great deal on the West of the Green Line. Most of the Israeli casualties are civilians who live in the cities attacked. That means that the terrorists prefer to stike inside Israel. Should the IDF refrain from trying to arrest the terrorists because they live among the Palestinian civilian population, and will not be found separate from it? In that case, you are saying that Israel does not have a right to self-defense, and that the Palestinians have a legitimate battle. So Israelis should be sitting ducks for them, and G-d forbid that they should build a wall to keep the terrorists out of their land.

Edited to correct typo.

[Jack Rabbit]

213. Critique of post 211 (Gimel)

Since MojoKrunch can't answer, I'll take on the task. You might like an answer from me better, anyway.

The main point is to stop the violence.

On this, everyone is agreed.

If you are going to say that the Palestinian terror groups have a legitimate cause and can attack IDF or civilians in their territory (i.e. settlers) then you are going to see the conflict increase in intensity. If the settlers are attacked, they have the right to return fire, and counter attack even though they are not the IDF, as even the terror groups are not soldiers in the normal sense of the word. Then you have a war in the "territories".

The term terror, as used here, is loaded. I prefer to use the term resistence, with the understanding that it may include acts of terror. In my responses to the late Mr. Mojo, I drew the distinction that terrorism is an attack on a civilian target and prohibited by the Fourth Geneva Convention. It can never be a legitimate act of resistance. On this, I'm sure you and I are agreed, Ms. Gimel.

On the other hand, an attack on IDF personnel is a legitimate act of resistance and not an act of terror. IDF personnel are uniformed and armed agents of the occupation. To deny that Palestinians have a right to attack the IDF is to deny that they have any right to resist the occupation of their land. That is simply absurd.

The settlers are a more complicated matter. First of all, in my humble opinion and in the opinion of most students of international law, the settlers have no right to be where they are. It is illegal for the occupying power to settle occupied territory. Second, they are armed, as your post implies. To what extent have the settlers become Israeli irregular fighters? If that is what they are, then how are they any less armed agents of occupation than the IDF? If so, how are they different from a Palestinian guerrilla? Other than one group is imposing occupation and the other is resisting it, I don't see one. However, maybe there's something I don't see and you can point out to me. It's a good point for discussion.

As you say, attacks on settlements would intesify the conflict in the territories. That is better than in a conflict in Israel proper. After all, the desired final outcome of this mess is to have Palestinians respect the territorial integrity of the Jewish state (something suicide bombings inside the Green Line don't do), as well as for Israel to respect the territorial integrity of the land of the Palestinians (something the settlements don't do). The conflict then becomes about whether and when the occupation of the Territories ends, not whether or not Israel is driven into the sea (an unobtainable goal in any case and, therefore, one that is a waste of time for the Palestinian extremists to pursue).

A conflict confined to the Territories would at least seem to put an end to the question of whether Israel has a right to exist within her internationally recognized borders.

The terrorists have been striking a great deal on the West of the Green Line. Most of the Israeli casualties are civilians who live in the cities attacked. That means that the terrorists prefer to stike inside Israel. Should the IDF refrain from trying to arrest the terrorists because they live among the Palestinian civilian population, and will not be found separate from it? In that case, you are saying that Israel does not have a right to self-defense, and that the Palestinians have a legitimate battle.

At least nothing I've said would contradict the notion that Israel has a right to self-defense. Of course, I also believe that the Palestinians have a legitimate battle. However, that legitimate battle is to end the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, not to end the existence of Israel.

So Israelis should be sitting ducks for them, and G-d forbid that they should build a wall to keep the terrorists out of their land.

A wall is a perfectly good and legitimate means of defense. However, in hundreds of post on the subject, I remain in the dark as to how a wall built on the Green Line would be any less effective to that end than a wall that cuts through the Palestinian Territories and accomplishes a de facto annexation of Palestinian land.

[Gimel]

215. Some further points in reply

The term terror, as used here, is loaded. I prefer to use the term resistence

It certainly might depend on whether you think the terrorist groups, including Hamas have a legitimate battle. I think thay do not, especially since the PA is, at least in word, opposed to their attacks on Isreli citizens.

Let us recall, that there were no IDF operations in the PA areas before April of 2002, and had not been for 2-3 years time, that areas A were given over to complete Palestinian control and administration, and B to Palestinian administration but allowing for Israeli patrol. Israel had in fact redeplyed from the Palestinian areas following Oslo accords, and very much in keeping with the time-table provided by Oslo.

The Hamas and Islamic Jihad are labeled as terror groups by US, England, France and perhaps other EU countries. I don't think it's a suprise to anyone that they are terror groups. If they restricted or even attempted to restrict their attacks to IDF soldiers who were in the territories, and the PA was engaged in a conflict, I would agree. However, the PA has claimed since 1994, that they were interested in Peace. Due to the horrendous attacks on Israeli citizens in '96 and '97 there can be no doubt that their goal is to prevent a peace effort, and, as they publicly state, continue their conflict in order to destroy the state of Israel, irregradless of the peace process. It is the peace they wish to destroy. They are terrorist groups. Until they are disarmed and dismantled, there will be no peace.


I drew the distinction that terrorism is an attack on a civilian target

A group which attacks civilians and occasionally attacks military targets cannot be called a legitimate resistance group. They cannot be terrorists for a few months, and then one day be Resistance because they shoot a soldier in the back. They are still terrorists.


the settlers have no right to be where they are

We agree that there is as of now, no Palestinian state. Jews have lived on the Palestinian areas for thousands of years (for example Hebron and Kirath Arba). It is not that Jews have no right to this land. It is the Palestinians who have decided their own parameters, without agreements having been reached. The settlers are armed in self defense, but the settlements are families, that is including children who are not armed. Defenseless civilians, have been targeted. You may not like where they live. You may think it's illegal for them to be there, but you don't have the right to kill women and children who are traveling to work or home.

A conflict confined to the Territories would at least seem to put an end to the question of whether Israel has a right to exist within her internationally recognized borders.

This "question" is of course already a fact and recognized by everyone but the terrorist groups. As they will not recognize Israel, the limiting the conflict to the terreories is merely a hypothetical exercize. If it were a battle between the settlements and the terror groups, it would be a slaughter. I don't think the Hamas and IJ are particularly interested in that as it would be too easy a mark and would not accomplish their goal of destroying Israel. In fact, by striking in Israel ( by wihich they send their human bombs through Israeli defenses) violates the separation of the peoples. They wish to draw the IDF into the territories. They want the world to say "look at what the evil Jews are doing" They run into private homes, in crowded areas so they can say "look at how the Jews kill innocent people".

Isreal did not start The Operation Defensive Shield until April of 2002. How many attacks had been perpetrated inside Israel and how many Israeli civilians were killed by that time?

I count 211 deaths in this list from Nov 2001 until April 2002.

(note that Ariel Sharon was elected Prime Minister on Feb 6, 2001, and took office on March 7, 2001. With 6 powerful attcks killing 18 and wounding hundreds in two months preceeding the elections, there was no doubt in Israelis mind that Israel was under attack by terrorists. You call the Resistance fighters, but the attacks were primarily on civilians. My opinion therefore is somewhat different than yours. )

Beginning in Nov 2000:

Nov 2, 2000 - Ayelet Shahar Levy, 28, and Hanan Levy, 33, were killed in a car bomb explosion near the Mahane Yehuda market in Jerusalem. 10 people were injured. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack.

Nov 20, 2000 - A roadside bomb exploded at 7:30 in the morning alongside a bus carrying children from Kfar Darom to school in Gush Katif. Miriam Amitai, 35, and Gavriel Biton, 34, were killed and 9 others, including 5 children, were injured, 5 of them seriously.

Nov 22, 2000 - Shoshanna Reis, 21, of Hadera, and Meir Bahrame, 35, of Givat Olga, were killed, and 60 wounded when a powerful car bomb was denotated alongside a passing bus on Hadera's main street, when the area was packed with shoppers and people driving home from work.

Dec 22, 2000 - Three soldiers were injured in a suicide bomb attack at the Mehola Junction roadside cafe in the northern Jordan Valley. The terrorist, who detonated a belt of explosives strapped to him, was killed in the blast.

Jan 1, 2001 - A car bomb exploded near a bus stop in the shopping district in the center of Netanya. About 60 people were injured, most lightly. One unidentified person, apparently one of the terrorists involved in the bombing, died of severe burns. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.

Feb 8, 2001 - A powerful car bomb exploded at 4:40 PM in the ultra-Orthodox neighborhood of Beit Yisrael in Jerusalem, causing mild injuries to four people.

Feb 14, 2001 - Eight people were killed and 25 injured when a bus driven by a Palestinian terrorist plowed into a group of soldiers and civilians waiting at a bus stop near Holon, south of Tel-Aviv.

Mar 1, 2001 - One person was killed and 9 injured when a terrorist detonated a bomb in a Tel Aviv to Tiberias service taxi at the Mei Ami junction in Wadi Ara.

Mar 4, 2001 - Three people were killed and at least 60 injured in a suicide bombing in downtown Netanya.

Mar 27, 2001 - A car bomb exploded at 7:40 in the morning in the Talpiot industrial/commercial zone in Jerusalem. Seven people were injured, one moderately. The Islamic Jihad has claimed responsibility for the attack.

Mar 27, 2001 - 28 people were injured, two seriously, in a suicide bombing directed against a northbound No. 6 bus at the French Hill junction in Jerusalem. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.

Mar 28, 2001 - Two teenagers were killed and four injured, one critically, in a suicide bombing at the Mifgash Hashalom ("peace stop") gas station several hundred meters from an IDF roadblock near the entrance to Kalkilya, east of Kfar Saba. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.

Apr 22, 2001 - A terrorist detonated a powerful bomb he was carrying near a group of people waiting at a bus stop on the corner of Weizman and Tchernichovsky streets in Kfar Sava. One person was killed and about 60 injured in the blast, two severely. The terrorist was also killed in the explosion, for which Hamas claimed responsibility.

Apr 23, 2001 - Eight people were lightly hurt in a car bombing in Or Yehuda, a few kilometers north of Ben-Gurion Airport, which senior police officers said could only be described as a "miracle" in an area packed with pre-Independence Day shoppers.

Apr 29, 2001 - A car bomb blew up close to a school bus travelling near the West Bank city of Nablus. There were no injuries in the attack. The body of the suicide bomber was found in the car. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.

May 18, 2001 - A Palestinian suicide bomber wearing an explosive vest detonated himself outside the Hasharon Shopping Mall in the seaside city of Netanya. Five civilians were killed and over 100 wounded in the attack. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.

May 25, 2001 - 65 people were injured in a car bombing in the Hadera central bus station. The two terrorists were apparently killed in the explosion. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.

May 27, 2001 - A car bomb exploded in the center of Jerusalem shortly after midnight. There were no injuries. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine claimed responsibility.
A bomb exploded at 9:00 in the morning near the intersection of the capital's main Jaffa Road and Heshin Street. The bomb included several mortar shells, some of which were propelled hundreds of meters from the site of the explosion. 30 people were injured, most suffering from shock. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.

May 30, 2001 - A car bomb exploded shortly before 16:00 outside a school in Netanya while a number of students were still in the building studying for matriculation exams. Eight people were injured, suffering from shock and hearing impairment. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.

June 1, 2001 - 21 people were killed and 120 wounded when a suicide bomber blew himself up outside a disco near Tel Aviv's Dolphinarium along the seafront promenade just before midnight on Friday, June 1, while standing in a large group of teenagers waiting to enter the disco.

June 22, 2001 - Sgt. Aviv Iszak, 19, of Kfar Saba, and Sgt. Ofir Kit, 19, of Jerusalem, were killed near Dugit in the Gaza Strip as a jeep with yellow Israeli license plates, supposedly stuck in the sand, blew up as they approached. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.

July 2, 2001 - Two separate bombs exploded at about 8:20 Monday morning in cars in the Tel-Aviv suburb of Yehud. Six pedestrians were lightly injured. Police sources say the bombs were probably set by terrorists. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a radical PLO faction, claimed responsibility.

July 9, 2001 - A Palestinian suicide bomber was killed in a car-bombing attack near the Kissufim crossing point in the southern Gaza Strip, causing no other casualties. Disaster was averted as the bomb exploded without hitting any other vehicles. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.

July 16, 2001 - Cpl. Hanit Arami, 19, and St.Sgt. Avi Ben Harush, 20, both of Zichron Yaakov, were killed and 11 wounded - 3 seriously - when a bomb exploded in a suicide terrorist attack at a bus stop near the train station in Binyamina, halfway between Netanya and Haifa, at about 19:30 Monday evening. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack.

Aug 8, 2001 - A suicide bomber was killed when he detonated his car bomb, lightly wounding one soldier, at a roadblock near the B'kaot moshav in the northern Jordan Valley shortly after 9:00. One soldier was lightly wounded.

Aug 9, 2001 - 15 people were killed, including 7 children, and about 130 injured in a suicide bombing at the Sbarro pizzeria on the corner of King George Street and Jaffa Road in the center of Jerusalem. Hamas and the Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack.

Aug 12, 2001 - 21 people were injured in a suicide bombing in the Wall Street Cafe in the center of Kiryat Motzkin at 17:30. The terrorist was killed. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack.

Aug 21, 2001 - A bomb placed under a car exploded at 14:15 near the Russian Compound in downtown Jerusalem; one woman was treated for shock. A second, very large unexploded bomb was discovered inside the car and dismantled.

Sept 4, 2001 - 20 people were injured when a suicide terrorist exploded a powerful charge on Hanevi'im Street near Bikur Holim hospital in central Jerusalem shortly before 8:00 AM. The terrorist, disguised as a Jew in ultra-orthodox clothing, aroused the suspicion of passersby due to the large backpack he was wearing. As two Border Police officers approached the man, he detonated his shrapnel-packed bomb. Both officers were wounded - one critically. The terrorist was killed in the blast. Hamas claimed responsibility.

Sept 9, 2001 - Three people were killed and some 90 injured, most lightly, in a suicide bombing near the Nahariya train station in northern Israel. The terrorist, killed in the blast, waited nearby until the train arrived from Tel-Aviv and people were exiting the station, and then exploded the bomb he was carrying. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.

Sept 9, 2001 - A car bomb exploded at the Beit Lid junction near Netanya, injuring 17 people. One person killed in the explosion is believed to be the terrorist bomber.

Oct 1, 2001 - A large car bomb exploded in the Talpiot neighborhood of Jerusalem. Several people were lightly injured.

Oct 7, 2001 - Yair Mordechai, 43, of Kibbutz Sheluhot was killed when a Palestinian suicide terrorist affiliated with the Islamic Jihad detonated a large bomb strapped to his body near the entrance of the kibbutz in the Beit She'an Valley.

Nov 26, 2001 - A Palestinian suicide bomber killed himself and lightly wounded two Border Policemen at the Erez crossing point in the Gaza Strip. The bomber joined workers waiting to be cleared for entry into Israel. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.

Nov 29, 2001 - Three people were killed and nine others were wounded in a suicide bombing on an Egged 823 bus en route from Nazereth to Tel Aviv near the city of Hadera. The Islamic Jihad and Fatah claimed responsibility for the attack.

Dec 1, 2001 - 11 people were killed and about 180 injured when explosive devices were detonated by two suicide bombers close to 11:30 P.M. Saturday night on Ben Yehuda Street, the pedestrian mall in the center of Jerusalem. A car bomb exploded nearby 20 minutes later. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.

Dec 2, 2001 - 15 people were killed and 40 injured, several critically, in a suicide bombing on an Egged bus No. 16 in Haifa shortly after 12:00. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.

Dec 5, 2001 - A suicide bomber exploded a powerful bomb shortly after 7:30 AM on King David Street in Jerusalem. A number of people waiting at a nearby bus stop were lightly injured. The terrorist was killed in the blast. Police are investigating whether the bomb, packed with nails and shrapnel, went off prematurely. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.

Dec 9, 2001 - A suicide bomber exploded a powerful bomb near a bus stop at the Checkpost Junction in Haifa shortly after 7:30 AM. About 30 people were injured, most lightly and suffering from shock. A second explosive device was found and detonated nearby. The terrorist was killed.

Dec 12, 2001 - Four people traveling in two cars were lightly wounded in an attack at 18:00 PM by two suicide bombers near the Gaza Strip community of Neve Dekalim.

Jan 25, 2002 - 25 people were wounded when a Palestinian suicide bomber detonated explosives outside a cafe on a pedestrian mall near Tel Aviv's old central bus station at 11:15 AM on Friday.

Jan 27, 2002 - Pinhas Tokatli, 81, of Jerusalem was killed and over 150 people were wounded, four seriously, in a suicide bombing on Jaffa Road, in the center of Jerusalem, shortly before 12:30. The female terrorist, identified as a Fatah member, was armed with more than 10 kilos of explosives.

Feb 16, 2002 - Two teenagers were killed and about 30 people were wounded, six seriously, when a suicide bomber blew himself up on Saturday night at a pizzeria in the shopping mall in Karnei Shomron in Samaria. A third person subsequently died of his injuries. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine claimed responsibility for the attack.

Feb 18, 2002 - Policeman Ahmed Mazarib, 32, of the Bedouin village Beit Zarzir in the Galilee, was killed by a suicide bomber whom he had stopped for questioning on the Ma'ale Adumim-Jerusalem road. The terrorist succeeded in detonating the bomb in his car. The Fatah al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades claimed responsibility for the attack.

Feb 27, 2002 - A Palestinian suicide bomber blew herself up at the Maccabim roadblock on the Jerusalem-Modi'in highway Wednesday night, injuring three policemen.

Mar 2, 2002 - Ten people were killed and over 50 were injured, 4 critically, in a suicide bombing at 19:15 on Saturday evening near a yeshiva in the ultra-Orthodox Beit Yisrael neighborhood in the center of Jerusalem where people had gathered for a bar-mitzva celebration. The terrorist detonated the bomb next to a group of women waiting with their baby carriages for their husbands to leave the nearby synagogue. The Fatah Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade took responsibility for the attack.

Mar 5, 2002 - Maharatu Tagana, 85, of Upper Nazareth was killed and a large number of people injured, most lightly, when a suicide bomber exploded in an Egged No. 823 bus as it entered the Afula central bus station. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack.

Mar 7, 2002 - A suicide bomber blew himself up in the lobby of a hotel in the commericial center on the outskirts of Ariel in Samaria. 15 people were injured, one seriously. The PFLP claimed responsibility for the attack.

Mar 9, 2002 - 11 people were killed and 54 injured, 10 of them seriously, when a suicide bomber exploded at 22:30 PM Saturday night in the crowded Moment cafe at the corner of Aza and Ben-Maimon streets in the Rehavia neighborhood in the center of Jerusalem. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.

Mar 17, 2002 - A suicide bomber exploded himself near an Egged bus no. 22 at the French Hill junction in northern Jerusalem. 25 people were lightly injured.

Mar 20, 2002 - Seven people, four of them soldiers, were killed and about 30 wounded, several seriously, in a suicide bombing of an Egged bus No. 823 traveling from Tel Aviv to Nazareth at the Musmus junction on Highway 65 (Wadi Ara) near Afula. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack.

Mar 21, 2002 - Three people were killed and 86 injured, 3 of them seriously, in a suicide bombing on King George Street in the center of Jerusalem. The terrorist detonated the bomb, packed with metal spikes and nails, in the center of a crowd of shoppers. The Fatah al-Aqsa Brigades claimed responsibility for the attack.

Mar 27, 2002 - 30 people were killed and 140 injured - 20 seriously - in a suicide bombing in the Park Hotel in the coastal city of Netanya, in the midst of the Passover holiday seder with 250 guests. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack. The terrorist was a member of Hamas from Tulkarem, on the list of wanted terrorists Israel had requested be arrested.

Mar 29, 2002 - Two people were killed and 28 injured, two seriously when a female suicide bomber blew herself up in the Kiryat Yovel supermarket in Jerusalem. The Fatah Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades claimed responsibility for the attack.

Mar 30, 2002 - One person was killed and about 30 people were injured in a suicide bombing in a cafe on the corner of Allenby and Bialik streets in Tel-Aviv. The Fatah Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades claimed responsibility for the attack.

Mar 31, 2002 - 15 people were killed and over 40 injured in a suicide bombing in Haifa, in the Matza restaurant of the gas station near the Grand Canyon shopping mall. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.

Mar 31, 2002 - An MDA paramedic was very seriously injured along with three other people at 17:00 Sunday afternoon in a suicide bombing at the emergency medical center in Efrat, in the Gush Etzion bloc south of Jerusalem.

Apr 1, 2002 - A police officer was killed in Jerusalem when a Palestinian suicide bomber heading toward the city center blew himself up in his car after being stopped at a roadblock. The Fatah al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades claimed responsibility for the attack.

Apr 10, 2002 - Eight people were killed and 22 injured in a suicide bombing on Egged bus #960, en route from Haifa to Jerusalem, which exploded near Kibbutz Yagur, east of Haifa. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.

Apr 12, 2002 - Six people were killed and 104 wounded when a woman suicide bomber detonated a powerful charge at a bus stop on Jaffa road at the entrance to Jerusalem's Mahane Yehuda open-air market. The Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades claimed responsibility for the attack.


<snip>
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0i5d0

I remain in the dark as to how a wall built on the Green Line would be any less effective to that end than a wall that cuts through the Palestinian Territories

Origonal plans were to build on the Green Line wherever possible. Without surveying the area, or even knowing where the Green Line is located (no previous barrier or demarcation) that is difficult to determine. I once lived near the Green Line (in Dec of 1980) but only as a visitor for about 3 months. It is really a line on a map, not on the ground. Since the PA was opposed to this fence from the beginning, and only now have conceded that Israel has the right to build on the Green Line, this "internationally recognized boarder" has suddenly taken on great importance.

I am waiting to hear what the Hague has to say about it.

[bluesoul]

217. You are in surprise for what Hague will have to say

International law is very clear and the fact that the OT is NOT Israeli land..

[Jack Rabbit]

218. I must respectfully dissent on several points

My disagreement with you is on three specific points. These are the distinction between a terrorism (an act) and the terrorist (a person), on the status of the Palestinian Territories and on the Wall.

The Status of the Palestinian Territories.

Concerning the status of the Territories, let's make this clear: although there is no Palestinian state, there are Palestinian Territories, also known as the West Bank and Gaza. They are not part of the modern state of Israel and never have been. Israel's border is the Green Line. This was determined by the 1949 armistice. The Palestinian Territories are occupied by Israel, no different than the Sinai between 1967 and 1979. No one seriously considered the Sinai to be part of Israel. No one should consider the West Bank or Gaza to be, either.

As the occupier, the Israelis have certain obligations. Among these is to respect the sovereignty of the occupied land so as to be prepared to withdraw at such time as a peace agreement can be reached. I will grant you that in thirty-six years of occupation, that has not come about in the case of the Palestinian Territories. As far as I am concerned, the Israelis may occupy the Palestinian Territories until the cows come home or until such time as a peace agreement is reached, whichever comes first. Meanwhile, the length of the occupation in no way abrogates Israel's responsibility to respect the sovereignty of the territories. To that end, international law categorically prohibits the occupying power from settling, colonizing, transferring parts of its own population or whatever term one wishes to use for it the occupied territory. The settlements are illegal.

I respect your sentiment that Jews have lived on that land for thousands of years and should have the right to live there. I hope that a Palestinian government, when one is finally established in Palestine, will permit Jews to live there freely and practice their religion and celebrate their heritage. Jews should have a right to live anywhere in the world as Jews. However, Israelis have no right to live beyond the borders of Israel as Israelis. That is a different matter. That is what we are talking about. It is not a question of cultural heritage. It is a question of national sovereignty.

The distinction between a terrorist and terrorism

The residents of an occupied territory have a right to resist occupation. That means they can form irregular militias in an attempt to drive the occupation force from their land. That means, at the very least, they get to strike military targets. A uniformed, armed soldier is about the most unambiguously military target imaginable. If guerrillas fire at a patrol of soldiers on occupation duty, it is a legitimate act of resistance, not terrorism.

Now, it is possible that some of the guerrillas who have just struck the occupying force have also engaged in targeting civilians inside the occupying power's border. Okay, that makes them war criminals, or, if you prefer, terrorists. However, that still does not make the attacking soldiers on patrol a terrorist act.

Not everything a terrorist does is terrorism. When a driver goes for a Sunday spin in his automobile, it is not a terrorist act; that is true even if the driver is Osama bin Laden. No matter who does the shooting, when Palestinian gunmen fire on IDF personnel in the Occupied Territories, it is not terrorism.

The Wall

Your post did not answer my objections. Regardless of who objected to the construction of the Wall or why up to now, regardless of what the original plans, the question remains: Is a wall built on the Green Line (i.e., Israel's border) any less effective in stopping a terrorist attack than one built inside Palestinian Territory? If not, why is the Wall built where it is?

The contention that no one quite knows where the Green Line is not a valid objection. If one doesn't know, get out a map and call in a team of surveyors. That's really no excuse.

[Gimel]

231. Reply to dissent - rebuttal

Thank you for taking time to discuss in detail.

Whether or not the "territories" are "part of Israel" in the sense that the rest of the Israeli state is does not change much in fact. They were part of the Israeli administration and as such, were effectively under the de facto state of Israel until the Oslo agreements were implemented. Withdrawal of "redeployment" from these areas began in 1996, and implemented the Peace Process, despite ongoing terrorist attacks on Israeli citizens and civilians living in the OT.

If the attacks are at boarder patrol police or soldiers, then you might call them militias. However, there is little distinction made, and in fact they view all Israelis as their target. Therefore, I will continue to call them terrorist groups, as does most of the world, except for the Palestinians and their allies.

As I stated previously, some of the settlements existed before the Jordanian occupation of the land, and by returning to their homes, the settlers were not transferring population or colonizing. It is even recorded in the Bible that Abraham bought the burial place for Sarah his wife (not a matriarch for the Arabs). Jacob and Leah are also buried there (son of Sarah and Abraham and his wife). The surrounding area was also purchased, and Kirath Arba is mentioned in scripture as well as a Jewish settlement. Hebron has been Jewish for 3 millennia at least. Now the Palestinians are trying to force out all Jews through violence and propaganda. I can't see any way you can call this an illegal settlement.

the same goes for Jordan River settlements such as Jericho. However, much of that area has been turned over to the Palestinians.

As for "respect the sovereignty of the occupied land", the land had no sovereignty to respect. It was occupied by Jordan, and not as a separate state, had no government or infrastructure of any kind. Many of the Palestinians today are actually Jordanians. There might even be a case for Jordan having colonized and transferred part of it's population to the area. Certainly, the Turkish Empire and the British Mandate, was not divided into Jordan, Lebanon and Palestine and Israel. Therefore, the creation of a Palestinian state is entirely post Israel.

As for the wall, being inside the Green line in order to prevent terrorist attacks on Jewish communities, yes, I think that is the main reason for any deviations that occur. Further considerations might be the natural features encoutered, rocky terrain, hills and valleys, etc. The armistice line is hardly takes into consideration natural human developments, and of course, settlements adjacent to it are a major consideration.

[Jack Rabbit]

238. Counter

Thank you also for your thoughtful rebuttal.

Nothing changes the fact that Israel is an occupying power in the West Bank and Gaza and should treat that land as foreign territory. The fact that there has never been a Palestinian state declared in that territory does make this territory up for grabs. Jordan was wrong to annex the West Bank and Israel is wrong to treat it as anything other than an occupied foreign country. The Fourth Geneva Convention, including the prohibition of settling occupied territory, applies to Israel's governance of the West Bank and Gaza.

The idea that the creation of a Palestinian state is entirely post-Israel is a matter of dispute. The UN partition clearly intended two states west of the Jordan. That the state of Jordan annexed one of these states is often regarded as violation of international law in itself. That being the case, any annexation of this land or any part of it by Israel, de facto or de jure, should also be regarded as illegal. There is no legal use for the West Bank and Gaza but to be a Palestinian state. If one were decalred today, it wouldn't make the slightest difference in the legal matters facing Israel in the Territories.

We should also bear in mind that we are now discussing the modern state of Israel, not any Biblical kingdom. That Hebron might have a historical connection to Abraham and Sarah is entirely irrelevant to any discussion as to whether Israel has any sovereignty over Hebron today. She does not. Hebron lies beyond the modern state of Israel.

As for the Wall, it should have been built closer to the Green Line. Nothing in your post refutes that. Giving the placement of the settlements any consideration as to where to build the Wall is hardly valid. The settlements are, as is the Wall itself when built where it is being built, an illegal confiscation of Palestinian territory.

[bluesoul]

239. Couldn't agree more!

Mr Jack Rabbit :toast:

[Jackie97]

226. Oh, I expect settlers to strike back.....

but I expect Palestinians to strike them to begin with for giving the first strike of expanding Israel's hold over the land. Sometimes, it was expanded with the strike of mowing over Palestinian neighborhoods and replacing them with Jewish ones.

I'm not going to say that either Israeli settlers or Palestinian long time residences are in the right for fighting. I will say that I expect it to happen though. Expecting Palestinians not to fight Israeli settlers slowly running them out of their homes is like expecting the sun not to rise up. If the Israeli settlers wish to not be attacked, then they need to decide not to settle there to begin with. Don't move off into a war zone on purpose, and then claim victimhood from the people who you're taking land from.

Perhaps if they would build their fence before the Green line and bring the settlers back into Israel, then they might have the pleasure of less attacks and less condemnation from the world. In fact, if all settlements were dismantled NOW and not being added to, then the Palestinians and the rest of the world might actually take the Israeli government serious when they say that they want peace. Really, how could you expect me to see Israel as the main victim when the ethnic cleansing is happening in the West Bank and Gaza strip?

[Gimel]

150. Right to life

I would certainly agree that the violence done to the Israelis does not hold an candle to the violence and other forms of oppression done to the Palestinians. I would also say that peace is mostly in the hands of the Israelis, but I think that the legal human right to life should should be defended for people who are not currently in the IDF or the Israeli government.

What about the Right to Life for members of terrorist organizations? If Israeli IDF soldiers and members of the GOI don't have a right to live, in your view, what about Hamas and IJ members? What about those who support their attacks on Israeli civilians?

[Jackie97]

154. That's a tough question.

First, I took back what I said just slightly. I was saying that IDFers don't have a right to life in war. If their girlfriend or somebody personally kills them, then their right to life is still upheld. I just don't think it should be upheld when Palestinians are defending themselves against them in WAR.

As for the militant groups, that's a tough one. On one hand, I want to say that it is fair to kill them in war (just not their family and everybody else that IDF normally kills with them). OTOH, I think that these militant groups are technically considered to be civilians.

People supporting the bombings are still civilians because it's just an opinion, and no active participation is taking place.

[Jack Rabbit]

160. Let me try to understand/clarify

An IDF soldier on patrol in the OT is a legitimate target for Paeletinian guerrillas. If you're saying that, I agree. That doesn't mean that we don't also have a human being who will be missed by those who love him. Nevertheless, he's doing his duty and so are the Palestinian guerrillas doing theirs.

To assert that a uniformed soldier is not a legitimate target is to assert that Palestinians have no right to resist the occupation of their land.

That is quite different from justifying striking at patrons in a restaurant or commuters on a bus. That is a war crime.

[bluesoul]

161. Agreed

As is a war crime when the IDF bombs a highly populated civilian area where they can see numerous civilians just for getting one supposed terrorist.

[Jack Rabbit]

165. I agree with that as well

I will add the caveat that a possible defense would be that there was no other way to apprehend the target. However, it would be unusual to launch a successful defense based on that.

Even given the realities of guerrilla warfare, more care can be taken than has been taken in this conflict.

[GabysPoppy]

162. What about trying to "clarify" the last two paragraphs

I'm still trying but without any success

[Jackie97]

172. GabysPoppy.

Who are you talking to exactly?

[GabysPoppy]

182. I guess he didn't want to either

[GabysPoppy]

177. Jack Rabbit

[Jack Rabbit]

185. What is not clear about it?

Under the laws of war, a combatant is a legitimate target unless he lays down his arms and surrenders.

Noncombatants are not legitimate targets.

There seems to be some confusion about that on this thread. I hope, my good sir, that clears up the matter.

[GabysPoppy]

187. This is what I wanted clarified

"OTOH, I think that these militant groups are technically considered to be civilians."

I am having a bit of trouble with that statement.

[Jack Rabbit]

188. Ask Jackie

She said that, not me.

I would disagree with her. A guerrilla fighter is a combatant.

[GabysPoppy]

189. I only asked you

because you tried to explain her post originally. Your post # 160.

Sorry for putting you in the middle.

[Jackie97]

191. The militant groups aren't technically an army.

Therefore, I think that they might still be technically civilians; not that I feel sorry for one when they get killed. I just feel sorry for the ten or twenty people that IDF often takes out to kill one person.

[GabysPoppy]

192. I feel sorry for them too,

at least those people who don't shield those terrorists deliberatly.

[Jackie97]

193. Hmmmm.

Suppose your father was a terrorist. You may agree that he should be on the streets, but would you stand there for his assassination? I don't know too many people who would do that.

[GabysPoppy]

195. Your analogies amaze me

What kind of a father (were he a terrorist) put his children in the line of fire? But then again if he were a terrorist, that would never enter his mind anyway.

If apples were oranges they wouldn't be red or green I guess.

[Jackie97]

196. Kids almost always love their parents, no matter what.

It's very rare for an abuse victim to want to be taken away from their parents or to want to put them in jail when *they* are the victim. Of course they'll be that way if somebody else if the victim.

In any case, the terrorist probably figures that there's a good chance that IDF will kill their kids regardless.

[GabysPoppy]

197. We are not talking about the motivation of the kids

We are talking about the father's motivation to USE HIS kids as shields.

That is hardly the traits of a paternal nature.

Why are you having trouble seeing this?

[Jackie97]

201. I don't support what terrorists do with their kids....

but I tend to see the idea that in the OT, that a person might think that IDF will kill their kid anyway. Why can't you see that idea?

For the record, groups like Hamas are known for trying to keep their kids out of trouble. They use other people's kids most of the time for their dirty work. I just thought I would mention that.

[GabysPoppy]

202. Clue me in please

Is that better or worse?

In case you have any doubt what I am referring to, I will put your statement in quotes for you.

"For the record, groups like Hamas are known for trying to keep their kids out of trouble. They use other people's kids most of the time for their dirty work. I just thought I would mention that."

And if you still up for it. Please explain your first paragraph also.

If this terrorist "thinks" the IDF will shoot his kid, it is understandable to use him as a human shield. If you understand, and I know you don't support that, so help me with this understanding because in 150 years I will never understand this line of thinking.

[Jackie97]

203. Why ask if you won't understand for 150 years?

"Is that better or worse?"

Neither, just factual. It's important to have our facts straight, right?

In case you have any doubt what I am referring to, I will put your statement in quotes for you.
"For the record, groups like Hamas are known for trying to keep their kids out of trouble. They use other people's kids most of the time for their dirty work. I just thought I would mention that."
And if you still up for it. Please explain your first paragraph also.

"If this terrorist "thinks" the IDF will shoot his kid, it is understandable to use him as a human shield. If you understand, and I know you don't support that, so help me with this understanding because in 150 years I will never understand this line of thinking."

One can understand why one did something and still not support it. For example, you might understand a grown-up who kills their abusive parents because they're emotionally hurt for life. That doesn't mean that you support it or think that it should be allowed. In order to get to the bottom of a problem, you have to find out what the problem is and understand it. That doesn't mean supporting supposed "solutions" to a problem. That means understandng it, so we can find some reasonable solutions then.

[MojoKrunch]

168. War crimes require a war, do they not?

No one has bothered to answer my question.
According to the Geneva Convention and International law, does a declared war exist between Israel and Palestine?

Mojo

[Jackie97]

173. Question.

Are the Geneva Convention and international law all that matters? I keep thinking that a lot of things considered to be war were not legally considered to be war.

Maybe this is where I'm wrong.

[MojoKrunch]

175. Ask the people who keep bringing them into the discussion.

I didn't.

I'm just pointing out that you can't evoke consensus "rules of war" when no actual "war" exists.

Are the Geneva Convention and international law all that matters? I keep thinking that a lot of things considered to be war were not legally considered to be war.
In matters of international law, I'm not sure how you could not.

Maybe this is where I'm wrong.
War happens.
Atrocities not associated with "typical" military activity happens.
The GC and international law are designed to help minimize those sorts of atrocities... the GC more directed at what militaries do to each other, IL with what militaries do to civilians(grow oversimplification, btw).
But neither of these things *control* war making.

The US can perpetuate all sorts of military atrocities by simply not declaring themselves "at war"... like Afghanistan and Iraq(see Gitmo and the "terrorists" housed therein).

Mojo

[Jack Rabbit]

186. No. The Geneva Convention applies to all armed conflicts

From the Fourth Geneva Convention, article 2 (emphasis added):

In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace-time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

[MojoKrunch]

131. I'm happy you are getting the condemnation out of your system.

Condemnation of an oppressed people defending themselves must serve some purpose.
Wanna clue me in as to what that is?
Condemn the Israeli oppression first.
Any terrorist activity after Israeli occupation and oppression ceases is most assuredly deserving of condemnation.
Until the, IMO, you're just blaming the victims of occupation and oppression who are fighting for their survival.

Targeting civilians is a war crime and I condemn it.
Is this a declared war as recognized by the Geneva Convention?
I missed that if it is.

If I didn't uphold the principle of international law, I wouldn't be able to condemn Israeli settlements, either. Or the collective punishment of Palestinians by Israelis.
Understandable.
And I've never said that I felt what the Palestinian terrorist do is *legal* did I?

The thing is... when you are faced with fighting for your survival are you worried about the "letter of the law" from a group that hasn't lifted one finger to help you?

I am glad that you believe in the principles of international law.
So do I.

But I also understand that what the Palestinian terror groups are doing isn't happening in a vacuum.

Fire... boiling water.

We wouldn't be looking for a peaceful solution to the situation. We would be relying on brute strength to settle the situation.
And why aren't "we" using brute strength?
The collective international community, I mean.
I'll tell ya why... because "we" all have our collective fingers in the pie.

We all know who wins the battle of brute strength in this one.
With or without US assistance?

It would leave Israel standing, but not one in which Ben Gurion would want to live. But I digress.
Nah, this is part of the issue as well.
Israel can afford to "walk tall and carry a big stick" because they have massive financial support from the US.
Period.

It is not neceassary or even useful to hit "soft targets", to use your euphemism.
Sigh... it is when this is all you've got the resources to hit.
They do bomb groups of soldiers as well, do they not?
Suicide bombs don't do much against M-1 battletanks and Apache attack choppers.

It has prevented nothing.
How do you know?
And if it hasn't, why hasn't it?
What sort of leaders put their people in that sort of constant danger?

And yes, your justification for hitting such targets is revolting. It isn't even a good justification.
"Good" according to who?
Someone who isn't being occupied and oppressed?
I'm thinking that Palestinians don't have the luxury of coming up with a "good justification".

It merely highlights the difference between war and slaughter.
Sigh...
War *is* slaughter, JR.
You are making arbitrary distinctions.

Otherwise, you assert that terrorism gives Israelis something to think about. Yes, and what they think about is stopping terrorists.
Funny they're like the US in that way, aren't they?
No one bothers to ask what makes the terrorists start in the first place.
I wonder what their answers would be?

It has not lead to peace, but to more violence and repression that only feeds itself.
I'm not saying this is a successful tactic or a tactic *I* would take.
All I'm saying is that I *understand* it and why they have chosen this route.
When you've pushed someone past their breaking point, quite obviously "civilized" rules of war no longer apply.

Of course, I don't think the jihadists are interrested in peace. They are the rightwing of Palestinian nationalism. Their vision is that of a single Arab state in an ehtnically cleansed Levant. It is the mirror of Benny Elon's dream.
Quite possibly... but I suspect that if Israel retreated from the Occupied Territories and created a power-sharing govt with the Palestinians, the *rest* of the Palestinian people would work to keep these folk in check.
Just my analysis, of course.
The Palestinian people might very well feel they've been pushed too far as well.
But that isn't what I'm hearing in general.

The support the jihadists enjoy is a result of frustration, a misguided belief that terrorism is the only way to fight back.
Now JR, why are you attempting to polarize the issue this way?
I would prefer if the terrorism stopped as well.
Did I not carefully explain just why this can't happen until *Israel* wants it to happen?

Regretfully, that is a belief you seem to share.
Heck, JR, you're not really calling me a terrorist sympathizer are you?

That would be disappointing.

Mojo

[Jack Rabbit]

135. Me? Sympathetic to the Israeli occupation?

That's going to draw some hackles around here.

If you believe that the distinction between war and slaughter is arbitrary, than I can see where you're come from. However, it isn't arbitrary. It's the difference between hitting "soft targets" and targets of military importance. No matter how you wish to frame it, blowing up people eating lunch in a cafe isn't an act of war. It's murder. Likewise, there are people on this board who take the position that it is an act of terrorism for Palestinian gunmen to attack Israeli soldiers on patrol. That isn't terrorism; that is an act of war.

Your attempt to understand why the Palestinians resort to such tactics is one thing. However, in your effort to undersatand you seem to have lost your ability to express any meaningful disapproval. I think we can understand why a jealous lover murders the mate who jilted him for someone else. That doesn't mean we approve of his act, or even consider it extenuating circumstances in sentencing. It is still something to condemn.

Also, as long as you're going to understand why the Palestinians resort to terrorism, you might also understand (without necessarily approving) why the Israelis react as they do. I see none of that in your posts, either. Is their fear and resentment not also worthy of understanding?

[MojoKrunch]

140. Blubbering quiety to myself.

Me? Sympathetic to the Israeli occupation?
Did I even imply such a thing?
If so, I apologize, I certainly didn't mean to.
In fact I quite understand that you do not.

That's going to draw some hackles around here.
Won't be the first time I've rubbed the kitty fur the wrong way.

If you believe that the distinction between war and slaughter is arbitrary, than I can see where you're come from.
I wish it weren't, but the reason for the Geneva Convention is precisely *because* war has become slaughter.
WWI cured everyone's notion that war was still something fought between "gentlemen" with rules and etiquette.
And the if nothing else, the last half of the 20th century provided us with far too many examples of such slaughter.

However, it isn't arbitrary. It's the difference between hitting "soft targets" and targets of military importance.
Answer this one question and I'll let it drop.
Is the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian people a declared war as defined by the GC and International law?

No matter how you wish to frame it, blowing up people eating lunch in a cafe isn't an act of war. It's murder.
Tell that to the innocent Iraqi's killed by US cruise missiles.
That wasn't a declared war either.

Likewise, there are people on this board who take the position that it is an act of terrorism for Palestinian gunmen to attack Israeli soldiers on patrol. That isn't terrorism; that is an act of war.
As defined by whom, exactly?

While it would be nice to believe that everyone who engaged in such conflicts ascribed to and followed the Geneva conventions, such rules to not describe reality.
They provide a framework for dealing with the aftermath of such conflicts.
The idea is that war be engaged between militaries only.
The reality is quite another thing entirely.

Your attempt to understand why the Palestinians resort to such tactics is one thing. However, in your effort to undersatand you seem to have lost your ability to express any meaningful disapproval.
Not at all.
It is simply that "approval" or "disapproval" is meaningless.
I "disapprove".
So what?

What I want to know is why it is important for me to "disapprove" of the survival tactics of victims of occupation and oppression?
What would you suggest they do?
Sit there quietly and let the Israeli's do whatever they want to do?
Would you sit quietly while I choked you to death waiting for the world to do something about it?
I would hope not.

Everyone seems terribly concerned with making certain that fingers are pointed at Palestinians, but seem to completely ignore that if the Israeli's weren't occupying and oppressing these people, there wouldn't *BE* terrorism in the first place.
Why?
Why?
Why?

I think we can understand why a jealous lover murders the mate who jilted him for someone else. That doesn't mean we approve of his act, or even consider it extenuating circumstances in sentencing. It is still something to condemn.
How about a woman who kills her abusive husband?
We "condemn" her for taking the law into her hands, but do we condemn her for ending the abuse?
Then who is the *law* in the I/P conflict?
Who must the appeal to justice be brought to for justice to be made?
When there is no rule of law, the law *is* taken in ones own hands.
Israel cannot even abide by its own Constitution.
Who must the Palestinians appeal to for justice?

Also, as long as you're going to understand why the Palestinians resort to terrorism, you might also understand (without necessarily approving) why the Israelis react as they do.
Why does an occupier put down resistance?
Why does a kidnapper keep his victim bound and gagged?
To maintain power and control of course.

I see none of that in your posts, either.
And you won't.
What is there to know about an oppressor?
They wish to maintain power.
What more *can* motivate them?

What motivated the Zionists to think they could simply move into someone else’s country and take what they wanted?

Is their fear and resentment not also worthy of understanding?
Again, since you don't bother to respond to some of my earlier questions like "What sort of people move their families *TO* a war zone" and "what sort of government lets their citizens go out to places that are so dangerous" you could maybe figure that out for yourself.

The coast of North Carolina gets hit by at least one good hurricane every year.
And every year people who live on the coast suffer damage to their homes.
No one is forcing them to live there.
They can move at any time.

Why would people move to and live in a war zone?
Why can’t the Israeli people elect a government that will follow its own Constitution?

Mojo

[Lurking Dem]

163. Pardon me

but you seem to have no understanding of intent and no concept of the difference between murder and homicide.

If someone is driving their car - maybe they're in a hurry or not paying enough attention or a hundred other human foibles - and they run over someone with their car that is homicide by definition and is investigated as a homicide.

If that investigation turns up intent - the person driving actually saw the pedestrian and aimed their car to strike them because they had been screwing their spouse, that is murder.

If, in an act of war, innocent civilians are killed it is tragic and seemingly senseless. If an investigation determines that it was done with malice aforethought, it is murder and a war crime.

If a terrorist straps explosives on his chest with the sole intent of blowing up 13 year old girls at a Bat Mitzvah, that is murder, not an "act of war".

[Jackie97]

164. An "act of war"......

Does not have to be something that's legal. The September 11'th attacks were considered to be an "act of war" by the government. That doesn't make it legal. Likewise, a suicide bombing in Israel actually is also an act of war. I'm not saying that it's okay, justified, etc. I'm saying that it is actually still an act of war.

[Jack Rabbit]

166. I agree with Lurking Dem's distinction

Unless you have a term that is not too cumbersome to denote an act of war that doesn't violate the Genenva Conventions, the Rome Statute or other international norms, then the dichotomy act of war/war crime seems a reasonable one in which to frame such a discussion.

[MojoKrunch]

170. Yes, acts of war must be legally declared.

The September 11'th attacks were considered to be an "act of war" by the government.
And yet Congress did not declare war against anyone, did they?
Why is that?
Didn't stop us from invading Afghanistan or Iraq, did it?

That doesn't make it legal. Likewise, a suicide bombing in Israel actually is also an act of war. I'm not saying that it's okay, justified, etc. I'm saying that it is actually still an act of war.
You can't evoke the Geneva Conventions and International law and then talk about how "acts of war" aren't necessarily legal.

Not logical.

Mojo

[MojoKrunch]

169. You are pardoned.

Pardon me but you seem to have no understanding of intent and no concept of the difference between murder and homicide.
You are wrong.
I am quite aware of the distinctions and the fact that such distinctions depend on the laws of the jurisdiction within which such crimes are committed.

If someone is driving their car - maybe they're in a hurry or not paying enough attention or a hundred other human foibles - and they run over someone with their car that is homicide by definition and is investigated as a homicide.
And they can be found guilty of anything from "involuntary manslaughter" to "murder", depending on circumstances.

And if the "someone run down" was a representative of an occupying, oppressive force who's representatives have killed and maimed your friends and family for decades?

If, in an act of war, innocent civilians are killed it is tragic and seemingly senseless.
"Tragic"?
"Seemingly"?
Holy moly.
When is the killing of innocent civilians *NOT* horribly tragic or somehow "sensible"?

If an investigation determines that it was done with malice aforethought, it is murder and a war crime.
Now these are some arbitrary distinctions!
How can you drop bombs on a people without malice aforethought?
'Splain that one, Lucy.
Please.

If a terrorist straps explosives on his chest with the sole intent of blowing up 13 year old girls at a Bat Mitzvah, that is murder, not an "act of war".
I don't believe I ever said it was an act of war... point one.
(I won't even go into the whole "name that logical fallacy" thing)
And point two, I think I quite clearly characterized terror bombings as illegal.
Perhaps it was early on and you missed it?

What do you call a family that moves to a place and a government that refuses to make that place safe for 13 year old girls at Bat Mitzvahs?
What do you call a government and the people who elect that government who insist on occupying and oppressing another people which creates the terror attacks in the first place.

If Israel wanted peace, the terror attacks would stop.

Mojo

[MojoKrunch]

128. Umm... help me here.

I checked that post twice.
Why was it deleted?

I'll just snip out the "offending" parts if you but point them out.
Thanks.

Mojo

[Jackie97]

133. I know what it probably was....

It's probably the stuff that made me want to laugh. I better not tell you though, or I'll be deleted. Your best bet is to get in touch with the moderator personally.

[MojoKrunch]

139. Can ya PM it to me?

Thanks.

Mojo

[GabysPoppy]

87. You want logical fallacies

"When one is under-armed one does not attack the strongest points of the enemies armor, one finds the chinks and seams."
INTERESTING VIEW OF HUMANITY YOU HAVE

"Biological histrionics aside, the idea that terrorist groups aren't being forced is laughable.
Do you honestly think they'd be doing this if they had other avenues?"
YES - THAT'S WHAT TERRORISTS DO

"I don't condone their violence, but I understand where it comes from."
CLASSIC STATEMENT
(Hey Ed, you were talking about BUTS I think)

I spoke to Austin Powers and told him where he lost his mojo.

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

113. You disagree with that statement?

Because I also don't condone terrorist attacks, but I do understand where it comes from, as should anyone who gives this issue some thought. I don't understand what problem you have with that statement. Care to expand?

why did I get the urge to type in upper-case all of a sudden? ;)

That last line of yrs made no sense, btw...

Violet...

[edzontar]

115. Yeah, BUTT......

Those aren't my words above, are they?

Hard to tell, when the thing has been DELETED, BUTTTTTT......I don''t think I personally would phrase things this way.

[MojoKrunch]

121. Yes, I want you to point out what you perceive are logical fallacies

if you can.

INTERESTING VIEW OF HUMANITY YOU HAVE
What is more interesting is that you perceive this as my "view of humanity".
Why is that?

YES - THAT'S WHAT TERRORISTS DOSays who? You?
Please.
Before they are terrorists these people are shopkeepers and construction workers... trying to go about their lives as best they can under the bootheel of oppression.

CLASSIC STATEMENT
So you'd prefer not understanding and letting others tell you what to think about the situation?
Why?

I spoke to Austin Powers and told him where he lost his mojo.
The Mojo is right here, baby.

And is the all caps you screaming at me or is this your way of being friendly?

Mojo

[brainshrub]

123. Yes, they do.

It ain't pretty. But neither is occupation.

An occupied people has no obligation to their oppressors.

Unless the oppressors are willing to kill or export every man, woman & child out of the region they should consider terrorism a business expense for occupation.

From a cold-hearted perspective, we Americans had the right idea when we stole the land from the Indians; We killed them all and the survivors got expelled. Once their spirit was crushed, the US govt gave them subsidies until they could get back on their feet. You don't see native-American suicide bombers today do you?

From a cold-hearted perspective, Israel is on the right path: The wall is designed to grab more land and break what is left of the PA. If the Palestinians are willing to bend-over far enough, perhaps Israel will let them own a casino and sell tax-free cigarettes.

[Muddleoftheroad]

21. Been a while since I've seen that

But all I recall are them killing soldiers. Maybe my memory is fading me, but if that's all they did, that's clearly resistance.

[MojoKrunch]

36. And if the USSR and the US shared the same land?

Would you still see "just soldiers" being attacked as American civillians were being indiscrimantly targeted to get to the "freedom fighters"?

Maybe my memory is fading me, but if that's all they did, that's clearly resistance.
I'd say that after a century of occupation, killing just soldiers is a distant memory.

Like I said... some folks empathize with the occupying forces.
Quite obvious.

Mojo

[Darranar]

38. That is junk...

they are NOT freedom fighters - they want the destruction of Israel and its inhabitants, and even if they did not the atrocious and despicable means they use would not be in any way acceptable.

Yes, I sympathize with the innocent Israel civilians being slaughtered by butchers from Hamas and Islamic Jihad! If you count those innocents as "occupying forces", then I DO sympathize with the occupying forces.

[edzontar]

44. Thanks, Darranar

In this season of multiple holidays, can't we all agree that the killing of innocents must stop, and devote ourselves to the cause of peace, security, and reconciliation?

[MojoKrunch]

47. Hyperbole and histrionics...

will never make your point more valid.

That is junk they are NOT freedom fighters
Did *I* say they were?
No, I did not.
Please, make certain you understand exactly what I write before you respond.
Thank.

- they want the destruction of Israel and its inhabitants,
Bullsh*t.
Pure, absolute, and utter tripe.
What they *WANT* is to stop being oppressed and occupied.
I've read the PLO charter, dude, I know what they *want*.
Yes, and I know what some of them say.
And I know enough about human nature to understand that individuals certainly hate the Israeli's more than enough for that they've suffered to wan the destruction of Israel and its inhabitants.
But invididuals don't make policy for groups.

and even if they did not the atrocious and despicable means they use would not be in any way acceptable.
You are confused if you believe I have said anything about finding the activity of such Palestinians acceptable.

What I am pointing out is that if you don't want to be counter-punched, don't punch someone in the first place.

Yes, I sympathize with the innocent Israel civilians being slaughtered by butchers from Hamas and Islamic Jihad!
How convenient that you completely ignore the reasons for the slaughter.
So what is your solution?
Kill off all the Palestinians?
Or just the "terrorists"?
But then how can you tell them apart?

If you count those innocents as "occupying forces", then I DO sympathize with the occupying forces.
I do indeed.
And yes, I can see that.

And in case you wonder why I can't possibly accept your position as valid, you've just pointed to why.

Who moves into a warzone, actively pushes the "front" into "enemy" territory and then proclaims themselves "innocents"?
Why Zionist Israelis, of course.

Feh.

Mojo

[Darranar]

60. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you...

I agree with you that oppression and occupation fuel Palestinian hatred of Israel and terrorism. My point is simply that the means Hamas and others use to stop that oppression and occupation are illegitimate and despicable, and deserve to be condemned in the strongest terms. I understand them, but I don't accept them.

There is no excuse for innocent Israelis being slaughtered. One atrocity does not excuse another; oppression does not excuse slaughter. Why they are being slaughtered is seperate from the fact that it is wholly wrong and against international law to slaughter them.

Sharon also SAYS that he is willing to make painful concessions. Sharon also SAYS that he is for a Palestinian state beyond a bantustan or a dependency. I don't believe him and I don't believe Hamas. It is hard to trust brutal war criminals, regardless of which side they're on.

[edzontar]

64. Indeed!!! Such clarity from so many on this snowy day...

I am off to lunch now--my congrats to you and so many others for some grerat posts today.

Later--Ed.

[Jack Rabbit]

74. Excellent, Mr. Darranar

Anybody who believes that there is no dark underbelly to the Palestinian resistance might have missed this thread.

The unfortunate truth is that the Palesinians have their Ahmed Yassins, just as the Israelis have their Benny Elons. Both envision a single, ethnically cleansed state at the end of the conflict. These are the people who must be marginalized for peace to come about. As things stand today, Arafat and Qurei feel compeled to meet with Yassin and Elon is a member of Sharon's cabinet.

Of course, I agree with you concerning Sharon. In his many years of public life, I cannot recall one time when he made any positive suggestion about peace. On the other hand, I can recall him opposing Oslo and urging Israeli settlers to grab every hilltop they can while they can. Anybody who thinks Sharon is a man of peace or even trustworthy has blind spots the size of basketballs.

[MojoKrunch]

82. Perhaps.

I agree with you that oppression and occupation fuel Palestinian hatred of Israel and terrorism.
Excellent.
You'd be amazed at how difficult this one admission is for some people.

My point is simply that the means Hamas and others use to stop that oppression and occupation are illegitimate and despicable, and deserve to be condemned in the strongest terms. I understand them, but I don't accept them.
And I agree.
But to focus on Palestinian terrorism is to miss the point entirely.

The fact of the matter is that without Israeli occupation there would be no terrorism.

There is no excuse for innocent Israelis being slaughtered.
There is no excuse for Palestinian land to be taken away from them and given to Israli's.
The thing of it is that this little crime happened 10+ decades ago.
The terrorism thing is relatively new.

I can't feel much sympathy for people who move their families to a country taken from occupied land and actively oppressing the people they took the land from.

Why does such stupidity get a free pass?

One atrocity does not excuse another; oppression does not excuse slaughter.
And I concur.
However, to alleviate the *REAL* reason for the slaughter is to point the finger at the people doing the oppressing.
Not the people dehumanizing themselves while mounting the only defense they can.

What the Palestinian people are doing to themselves should be pitied.

Why they are being slaughtered is seperate from the fact that it is wholly wrong and against international law to slaughter them.
Is it not wholly wrong and against internationl law and all morals and ethics to take a land away from its people and oppress them?

To continue my earlier analogy, the Israeli's simply need to remove their boot from the necks of the Palestinian people.

Sharon also SAYS that he is willing to make painful concessions. Sharon also SAYS that he is for a Palestinian state beyond a bantustan or a dependency. I don't believe him and I don't believe Hamas. It is hard to trust brutal war criminals, regardless of which side they're on.
Exactly.
But that solves nothing.

Israels *talk* about peace, they *talk* about freedom, the *talk* about democracy... talk is cheap.

Mojo

[Darranar]

92. Okay, I see what you're saying now...

We agree that a large number of Israel's actions in the West Bank and Gaza are unproductive and inhumanitarian.

However, it is not entirely Israel's fault. You say, and I concur, that the occupation and oppression fuel terrorism, and without them terrorism would be greatly reduced, if not eliminated.

However, if not for the terrorism, why would Ariel Sharon be Prime Minister? If not for the terrorism, why would the incursions and raids and extra-judicial assasinations take place? If not for the terrorism, would we have a brutal Israeli government led by a war criminal that calls peace negotiators traitors and refuses to halt the growth of illegal settlements?

If Likud or Hamas decided to stop, peace could be achieved through the reduction of the other's popular support. The fact that neither of them have attempted to do so is the main reason for the current conflict.

[MojoKrunch]

99. There is more than enough "fault" to go around by now.

Assigning blame seems pointless to me.

We agree that a large number of Israel's actions in the West Bank and Gaza are unproductive and inhumanitarian.
Absolutely.

However, it is not entirely Israel's fault.
That in and of itself is debatable.
The creation of the state of Israel can be laid at the foot of many of the worlds countries with the Zionists at the front of the line.
It didn't spring from the head of Zeus fully formed, you know.
There was complicity from the British early on, from the League of Nations around WWI and from the Allies after WWII.
Western European colonial mentality about the ME and US arrogance/paranoia were also to blame.

You say, and I concur, that the occupation and oppression fuel terrorism, and without them terrorism would be greatly reduced, if not eliminated.
And without the occupation and oppression almost all of the terrorism would cease.
Not *all* obviously, since many Palestinians hold grudges, but close enough.
Then the issue becomes one of strength of will of the Israeli people.
Can they stand up to the negative karmic energy stored within the Palestinian people?

However, if not for the terrorism, why would Ariel Sharon be Prime Minister?
Palestinian terrorism did not put Sharon in power.
The Israeli people did.
The Isreali people do not accept responsibility for their presence as an occupying, oppressing force.
IOW, they want their cake and eat it too.

If not for the terrorism, why would the incursions and raids and extra-judicial assasinations take place? If not for the terrorism, would we have a brutal Israeli government led by a war criminal that calls peace negotiators traitors and refuses to halt the growth of illegal settlements?
Such things are all carefully orchestrated political actions, not real issues.

Why can Isreal not live by the words and ideals of its own constitution?

If Likud or Hamas decided to stop, peace could be achieved through the reduction of the other's popular support.
I disagree.
One group stops and others form.
The oppression is still there to create new groups.
The oppression must cease for the terrorism to stop.
And no doubt it will be painful and deadly for the Isreali people.
But there will never be peace until they accept responsibility for the occupation and oppression of the Palestinian people.
And I don't just mean post-'67 war occupation.

The fact that neither of them have attempted to do so is the main reason for the current conflict.
This would only be correct if the balance of power were equal... like the Cold War and the nuclear MAD policy.
The balance of power between Isreal and Palestine is not equal and so there can never be a Paletinian first "withdrawal".

The image of a kettle of water on a burner comes to mind.
The water can't help but boil when heat is applied.
The heat is the IDF, the water, Hamas, et al.
The heat must be removed *first* and even then it will take a little while for the water too cool from a boil.

Mojo

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

142. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[edzontar]

145. Palestinians are descendants of age-old occupants of the region

From thousands and thousands of years ago...like the Jews, in fact.

Not all of them are Muslims, many are Christians.

And the fact of their religion does not make them any less ancient than the Jews, or the Egyptians, for that matter, who are also Christians and Muslims and likewise descend directly, along with many stains from Libyans, Nubians, Arabains, Greeks, etc., from the population ruled by the Pharaohs.

Like Egypt and Asia Minor (or Europe, for that matter), the Levant has seen many migrations and coming and goings, new religions and languages introduced, and the "gene pool" is very rich and complex indeed.

Short version: Both Israeli Jews and Palestinians of all religions have legitimate claims to live in this place.

Advice: Get a history book or two and read them.

[Name removed]

149. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MojoKrunch]

152. You blame the Zionists who invaded Palestine?

I doubt it.

Terrorists and the supporters of such.
Yea, curious how you don't blame the people who are the cause of the terrorism.
Funny that.

Not a broad swath, more like an understatement from the collection of your rants in this thread.
Oh my... now *I'm* ranting.
They warned me I/P was a bit of Bizarro World.
I see what they mean.

Funny, I don't see anywhere you talking about the Arabs taking responsibility for invading Israel numerous times or destroying the partition. That was their fault, not Israel's.
Limited historical knowledge is a terrible thing to see in action.
Why was it the Jews who lived on Palestinian land prior to the Zionist Invasion could live relatively peacefully amidst their Muslim neighbors and yet those same Zionists made this almost impossible afterwards?

Revisionist history can't be taken seriously.
I agree with Ed's recommendation you do more reading.

Oh, you are indeed a good example. You expect Israel to be the one to solve the problem that they did not create. You expect Israel to apologize for, of all things, just existing.
Israel did create the problem.
Israel maintains all the power.
Yes, I expect the Israeli people to do what is just, fair and proper.

Why can't they?

TFB.
Oh ouch.
What an amazingly morally bankrupt argument.
Is this your usual MO?

Israel exists on a solid foundation of history and democracy.
Black is white, war is peace... Yea, I've read Orwell too, Muddle.
Unfortunately for you, I'm one of those people who judge others by their actions and not their words.
The modern state of Israel happened because European Zionists with more money and influence than their Palestinian counterparts took advantage of post-Ottoman Empire anti-Muslim prejudice to establish a beachhead in and around Jerusalem for the express purpose of "gentrifying" the area based on some silly religious(and at the time heretical) notion that the place really "belonged" to them.
Ridiculous, but their tactics were quite obviously effective.

Perhaps the Arab world might even try emulating that.
Oohhh... bigotry rears its ugly head.
I hear the American Army is bringing "democracy" to them as you speak.
And here I was mostly hoping the Israeli people would elect leaders who knew some little something about personal responsibility.

So, Israel is slavery? Who is enslaved?
Oh my... did you really not get the simple parallel?
Did you really not get how you demeaned and demonized with that "get over it" jibe?
Will you stick to that story no matter what?

Actually, we ALL come from the same gene pool.
Sigh... sometimes I not too sure of that.

However, Israel belonged to the Jews and Jerusalem was its capital.
Someone was correct.
You really do need to learn some history.
Jerusalem belonged to *many* nations and cultures...
In fact, IIRC, it belonged to the Israelites for less time than it did the Egyptians, Muslims/Arabs and Babylonians.
All of whom are ancestors to the Palestinian people.
In fact a recent Discovery channel series on Jericho discovered that the Jews were really of the Canaanite culture but with a different religion.
And that they myth of Jericho was based on the exploits of a Canaanite general with a horn section and frequent seismic activity in the region.

Both are true yet again, thankfully.
On the backs of innocent Palestinian people.
Talk about showing true colors.

Youch.

Mojo

[Name removed]

158. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bluesoul]

159. The Palestinians

only want the land the belongs to them (OT, West Bank, Gaza, part of Jerusalem). Because you say they won't get it, doesn't mean they actually won't. International law and the partition which was agreed on after WW2 is their case. And they have a very good one...

[MojoKrunch]

167. Tens of thousands of people showing up univited?

Yea, that's called an invasion.
Sorry.

I do blame the folks who cause terror.
But you absolve the folks who cause the oppression that causes the terror.
Got it.
Thanks for clarifying.

The UN set this all in motion. I blame them.
Wow... you blame everyone *but* the Zionists.
Amazing.

I like your definition of living peaceably. You can live as long as you do exactly as we say and, if we don't like it, we can do whatever we want.
Was that *my* definition?
I don't think so.
Do you always so mischaracterize other peoples arguments?

But how then does that compare with your "Israeli's are in charge, oh well" mentality?
Not too good, I'd say.

I think you are clearly the one who needs to do more reading. Perhaps something other than EI, if you can drag yourself away from the TV.
Oh my how we project when we can't refute.
If wishes were fishes Muddle...

Like I said, you are a prime example of the reason this is a Forever War.
Yea, I got your insult the first time, Muddle.
Can't you come up with anything better?

The Palestinians want everything -- all the land, etc. -- even an apology.
Ah the stories we make ourselves believe to justify our positions.
The Palestinian people are not homogenous in what they want, Muddle.
Some extremist groups do want "everything", most, however, want the OT returned to them and some form of self-governance.

The *best* hope is a power-sharing govt between Israel and Palestine.

Unfortunately too many Israeli's see the world in simplistic black and white, either/or terms and they outnumber the ones who would want peace.
For now.

Yes, yours is an amazingly bankrupt argument rationalizing terror. I agree.
Oh Muddle, is this the best you can do?
Steal ideas from other people?

Pop quiz:
Rationalizing terror is worse than/better than/equal to rationalizing oppression?

Without laughing at loud at your view of history, suffice to say the Jewish people DID and DO have a claim on that territory.
Laugh all you want, Muddle.
It won't change the facts, bud.
And the fact is that Jews have no greater claim to Jerusalem or the surrounding land than Palestinian... and it could be effectively argued they have less claim.
But I don't expect you to acknowledge that, so laugh away.

It is not bigotry to point out that the Arab world is wildly undemocratic.
It is when we were talking about Palestine and Israel and you suddenly decry the lack of democracy in the rest of the Middle East as if this is somehow meaningful.
I understand that you can't see your own bigotry.

Or that they mistreat women. Or that they mistreat Jews. Or that they mistreat gays. Etc.
Yes, yes, you mean like how women/Jews/gay were/are so much better treated in other countries?
Women didn't have the right to vote in *this* democracy for longer than they did have it, Muddle.
I'm not going to defend Theocracies, but don't pretend that just a democracy cures all social ills.
Israel can't abide by its own laws... so much for "democracy" in action.

Just the facts.I shan't hold my breath waiting.

Now you get your history from TV and you tell ME to read. LOL.
Sigh... would you like the transcript of the show?
I don't "get my history" from TV, Muddle, but if you'd like to pretend, feel free.
It won't change the facts.

As for dragons, you are no dragon sir, and I doubt you even play one on TV.
Step closer little morsel and keep believing that.
;)

Mojo

[Muddleoftheroad]

171. I call it going home

Question, how do you define, "Zionists." Since I don't know what you mean by the word, I can't respond.

Actually, I wasn't insulting you. You are dogmatic in your belief that Israel is responsible for all the wrongs in the I/P situation. That belief will lead to forever war.

You mention occupied territories. What do you consider to be those territories? Do you stick with the notion, popular with many Palestinians, that ALL of Israel is occupied?

I mean since you stick to the one-state fantasy, it might be easy to infer that you want Palestinians to take over Israel as well. Is that your wish?

Israel is the leading democracy in the Middle East. That is a salient point in this debate. The Arab world, which supports the Palestinians and aids terror, has leadership not supportive of democracy.

Actually, women/gays/Jews ARE much better treated in many nations than they are in the Arab world. To say the Arab world is backward on those issues is an understatement.

[MojoKrunch]

176. Muddle backpedaling?

I call it going home
Good for you.
Now why did they have to try to take away the land from the people who's home it was already?

Question, how do you define, "Zionists." Since I don't know what you mean by the word, I can't respond.
The way it was used back in the 19th century by the people who wanted to move to what is now called Palestine.

Actually, I wasn't insulting you.
Keep believing that if it makes you feel better.
I don't care one way or the other as I'm not so easily distracted by such silliness.

You are dogmatic in your belief that Israel is responsible for all the wrongs in the I/P situation.
Never said it and I'd really appreciate it if you stopped mischaracterizing my position like that.
I hold the Zionists and those who hold that Zionist belief dear, responsible for their actions.
There are more than enough fingers pointing in as many different directions placing blame for the plethora or "wrongs" regarding the I/P situation for me to bother pointing one more.

There will never be peace until the Israeli people want peace.

That belief will lead to forever war.
Especially since people like you seem to think they are completely innocent victims.
The difference is that the Israeli's hold all the power in the I/P conflict.
Hard to elicit sympathy while you're putting boot heel to neck.

You mention occupied territories. What do you consider to be those territories?
For the sake of peace I understand that Gaza and West Bank are sufficiently described as occupied territories.

Do you stick with the notion, popular with many Palestinians, that ALL of Israel is occupied?
From a factual standpoint, how could it not be?
Are you trying to tell me that the land grabs under the British protectorate were all *legal*?
Hooboy, now that's a doozy.

I mean since you stick to the one-state fantasy, it might be easy to infer that you want Palestinians to take over Israel as well. Is that your wish?
If justice were to prevail, yes, all of the land should be returned to the Palestinian people.
However, I am pragmatist at heart and recognize the need to minimize the amount of suffering since there has been plenty to go around.
Displacing the Israeli people would solve nothing.

Instituting a power-sharing govt and recognizing Palestine as a sovereign nation would be a step in the right direction.
Why is such peace not a better solution than this mess?

Israel is the leading democracy in the Middle East. That is a salient point in this debate.
No it isn't, primarily because Israel is also the leading oppressor of Arabs/Muslims in the ME.
Glass houses and pointy stones and all that.
And Israel at times suffers from the exact same problems as the theocratic mindset of the rest of the ME.

The Arab world, which supports the Palestinians and aids terror, has leadership not supportive of democracy.
The Arab world has all sorts of things that make it different from the west.
Democracy isn't "best for everyone" just because it is the new "American export".
In time, the ME will undoubtedly embrace democratic ideas so long as they can be fit into their Muslim and historic traditions.
Muslims suffer from an abundance of mythos in a world dominated by logos.
This doesn't make them "wrong", it simply makes them different.
Any more than slavery in Colonial America made Americans "wrong".

Change and growth happen best in fertile soil.

Actually, women/gays/Jews ARE much better treated in many nations than they are in the Arab world.
Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.
The ME is simply a few hundred years behind the times.
You don't castigate the educationally underdeveloped because they can't read aloud with as much facility as you, do you?

To say the Arab world is backward on those issues is an understatement.
As backwards as Colonial America?
As backwards as McCarthyist America?
As backwards as LA Riots America?
As backwards as abortion clinic bombing America?
As backwards as Matthew Shepard killing America?

Pointy fingers make for silly weapons.

Mojo

[Muddleoftheroad]

183. Not at all

I only backpeddle when covering a receiver.

The Palestinians left during that war that their alleged friends started. Remember that one?

since you avoided defining "Zionists," care to try again. It certainly SEEMS like what you are saying is anyone who supports the Israel as the homeland for the Jewish people.

I just want to be clear, because terminology means a lot.

You are dogmatic in your belief that Israel is responsible for all the wrongs in the I/P situation.
Never said it and I'd really appreciate it if you stopped mischaracterizing my position like that.
I hold the Zionists and those who hold that Zionist belief dear, responsible for their actions.
There are more than enough fingers pointing in as many different directions placing blame for the plethora or "wrongs" regarding the I/P situation for me to bother pointing one more.

There will never be peace until the Israeli people want peace.

At least you came out and took the position of the terrorists that all of Israel is occupied. I'd put you on ignore, but I want to see what other silliness you espouse.

A power-sharing government doesn't work well when your enemies want to see you destroyed. Why not ask the other Arab nations about how they shared power with their Jewish subjects.

Israel is the only non-Arab nation in the Mideast. Actually, the leading oppressor of Muslims in the Mideast are the Muslim power elite, not Israel.

I love this, "Democracy isn't 'best for everyone.' " Which government form do you prefer, theocracy or monarchy?

So, we are now not allowed to point to the many, many flaws in the Muslim world because there have been and remain flaws in America? For all of its flaws, America is a vastly more free place than places like Saudi Arabia.

[edzontar]

178. Muddle..one line of yours here....

"You can live as long as you do exactly as we say and, if we don't like it, we can do whatever we want."

Seems to sum up YOUR position as far as the Palestinains are concerned to a T.

Can you see the irony?

[edzontar]

45. Red Dawn was a pretty stupid movie, my friend...

Not unenjoyable as such, I will admit, but its politics were insanely jingoistic, yes?

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[edzontar]

54. OK--I get your point...

A funny film to pick, I guess, maybe its a generational thing..I might be olkder than you, I suspect.

[edzontar]

25. You would...

nt

[Jackie97]

57. Talk about blaming the victim.....

Blame the Palestinians because the Israelis decided to commit ethnic cleansing on them. Yeah, really lovely.

[MojoKrunch]

12. Excellent job, Vi.

Amazing what an occupying force can do to a people, isn't it?

Mojo

[Violet_Crumble]

16. Glad you liked the article....

It is, isn't it?


Good to see you again :)

Violet...

[edzontar]

26. Fine article

Thanks Violet.

[Gimel]

114. Misleading title

the title is quite misleading. Sometimes sites do that to make the article fit with their slant.

[Violet_Crumble]

136. There was nothing misleading about it at all...

n/t

Violet...

[Gimel]

67. I think that

the author is trying hard not to blame Israel, or the Palestinian people. She works to represent the Palestinians in court, which is a professional service. It ought to be done.

Later in the article she says:

Hope comes from heroic Palestinian parents who still, despite the occupation, do not bring their children up to hate, do not allow their children to see all Israelis as demons, who speak about differences of opinion between Israelis; those who teach the children to judge people according to what they do and not according to what they are or where they come from.

I would like to tell such Palestinian parents to be patient,be optimistic. Mutual recognition is possible - we got the PLO recognised in the end. And today, unlike 35 years ago, there is a consensus all over the world that there will be a Palestinian state. Prepare the next generation because there is promise in the future.

I would like to remind Israeli parents fighting for peace that they have already won one war. Israeli mothers fighting in an organisation called The Four Mothers, after Biblical figures, helped to get the Israeli army withdrawn from Lebanon. Another organisation, Women in Black, has demonstrated against the occupation every week for 20 years. I tell them: they will win. Another group of women watch over roadblocks where atrocities have been committed. They say to soldiers and Palestinians: "We have no part in this racism; we are against it."

http://zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=22&ItemID=4607

This article talks about one person's view of the situation. It does not offer solutions. I don't think the author is taking one side or the other as defensive measures. She is for the human and legal rights, for the rights of the children to have a peaceful future. I agree with that.

[Jack Rabbit]

73. Excellent post, Ms. Gimel

Thank you.

[edzontar]

80. Well put, my friend...

An excellent post, and some thoughtful responses.

A good day on I/P, for once.

[Name removed]

146. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tinnypriv]

148. Funny, just saw an Israeli say just that

TV doc on Israeli nightlife.

I forget her name. Orit Segev I think - her brother was wounded in a bombing and she went to see the 'fence'. She said it would be creating a ghetto.

[Name removed]

153. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

198. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bluesoul]

199. Some just don't like

hearing the ugly truth...

[Name removed]

200. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Resistance]

204. thanks for posting.

much of this could be applied to the American occupation of Iraq.

[VT70]

219. What happened to free will?

It is beyond insulting for you to blame the deaths of the children in Israel, ON Israel.

[Darranar]

220. No, Israel is not to blame...

and I don't think many here have been saying that it IS to blame. However, the brutality of Israeli policy in the West Bank and Gaza DOES fuel hatred of Israel in the Occupied Territories. That is the point of the article.

[VT70]

221. Hmm

What about the brutality of the suicide bombers who kill innocent people? If you look at Israeli deaths versus Palestinian deaths, a larger percentage of the Israeli deaths are civilians, when compared to the Palestinian deaths. Can you explain that for me, Darranar?

[Darranar]

222. What about the brutality of suicide bombers?

What does that have to do with my post?

[VT70]

223. Because

Because you are leaving out important facts, and making it seem that Israel is 100% to blame for the problems there. Of coure the article doesn't focus on it, because the people who wrote the article just don't care.

[Darranar]

224. Am I supposed to attack the suicide bombings...

every time I attack Israeli policy?

This article was discussing the effects of Israeli policy on the Palestinians - not the entire conflict and who may be to blame for it.

Should every article discussing the horror and brutality of the suicide bombings also discuss the horror and brutality of Israeli policy in the Occupied Territories?

[Gimel]

229. Apparently so

from this side it would certainly seem so.

[bluesoul]

234. Not really

"larger percentage of the Israeli deaths are civilians, when compared to the Palestinian deaths"

Oh really? Not according to even Israeli statistics (BTSelem.org). Look up the numbers of Palestinians civilians killed and Israeli and the entire number of killed. You'll be for a surprise...

[Violet_Crumble]

236. Who are you talking to?

Me? Or the author of the article? My suggestion is that before you move beyond being insulted, that you read the entire article and then try again. If you were talking to the author of the article, yr wrong, because the article wasn't about blaming Israel for the deaths of Israeli children in Israel. Nor do I run round doing that....

Violet...

[reknewcomer]

225. Complete and total rubbish

The people that "create" children that are willing to blow themselves and other innocents up their parent and/or guardians. To blame Israel for the actions of others is to excuse and condone terrorism. The people teaching children to blow themselves up are to blame and only to blame.

[corporatewhore]

232. when children see their fathers jailed and tortured

their homes bulldozed tanks coming in and patrolling Their loved ones killed in massacers such as jenin a wall twice as high and six times as long as berlin being built around them and have no access to clean drinking water i could see why one in four children want to go and blowthemselves up taking others with them i am not saying it is justified but violence breeds violence.One of my friends who went to palestine with a peace group said she was scared in Tel Aviv that she would be blown up on a bus when she first started her trip but then at the end said she was more affraid of the idf.She also told me that it was just horrible to see the kids play because all their games where based on war or vviolence it is i believe from growing up in oppression

[corporatewhore]

233. I think that though in the end

everybody is responsible for their own actions
I think that if israel pullout of th west bank and gaza the situation would be better

[number6]

240. you are right ..

violence breeds violence

[Resistance]

242. which is

essentially the main point of the article, no?

[lotteandollie]

245. I agree with you.

It's going to get worse before it gets better. It might need to get a lot worse.