It's an interesting and tragic story. If the information about the children is correct then he would certainly seem to have been a courageous individual. I'm not sure that volunteering to be a human shield in the middle of a war zone (which I gather he did twice, in Iraq and then in Gaza) is the safest or most intelligent (at least in my opinion) way of advancing one's values, but it is certainly brave. I'm not sure if this has been mentioned but the soldier responsible for the shot that killed Mr. Hurndall was convicted of manslaughter along with a number of other crimes by an Israeli court, and is serving, I believe, an 11-year prison sentence in Israel. I also found the identity of the soldier responsible for the shooting to be of interest. The soldier, Idier Wahid Taysir Hayb, is a Bedouin, which is interesting (to me at least) insofar as it complicates the over-simplification of the conflict as being exclusively about "European" Israelis/Jews vs Arabs.
he was found guilty of manslaughter and obstruction of justice, not really 'a number of other chargers'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taysir_Hayb
Initially Hayb claimed he had shot at a man in military fatigues who was firing at soldiers. However photographic evidence clearly showed Hurndall was wearing a bright orange jacket denoting he was a foreigner. Hayb was an award-winning marksman and his rifle had a telescopic sight. He claimed to have aimed four inches from Hurndall's head, 'but he moved'. Hayb said a policy of shooting at unarmed civilians existed at the time.[1][2][3][5]
btw, those 4 sources are the bbc, guardian and observer
also, he went to jail for 8 years
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
at the time of the meeting, the Israeli army denied any wrong doing and lied about the circumstances surrounding his death, but Tom's family fought tirelessly for justice.
yeah, that seems to be standard protocol with them
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
First, I can't believe this thread is still going.
Second, I see that Byrnzie still hasn't actually addressed the issue raised, which is how a report based entirely on the testimony of Palestinians, without any testimony taken from Israelis, can possibly be thought to be fair and unbiased? Even if Goldstone himself didn't bring a bias to his work (an issue which I don't think any of us could possibly address intelligently) the Palestinians who gave their testimony certainly did, and given that the report reflects only their testimony it is virtually by definition biased. This is not to say that the report could not also be true in part or in whole, only that it cannot be assumed to be so since the report is inherantly flawed, and therefore untrustworthy as an objective source. The report is analogous to a trial where only the prosecution is given a chance to present evidence. Clearly, no trial in which the defense was not given an opportunity to make its case would be considered a "fair" trial, even if every word spoken by the prosecution were entirely true, which it is not at all clear is even the case here.
sorry but this is just pure bullshit. in your example it WOULD be fair because the defendant has waived his right to a defense
Israel refused to cooperate with the investigation, citing alleged anti-Israel bias in the UNHRC and the mission's one-sided founding resolution. Israel also stated that the mission would be unable to question Palestinian militants who fired rockets at Israel.[15][32][47] The team was deprived of access to military sources, and denied Gaza Strip entrance via Israel.[47]
Israel WAS given an opportunity to make its case but they declined, that is on them
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
That's beside the point. Regardless of the reasons why, the report reflects only one side's version of events. This is an inherant flaw. It means that the report does not deal with all the evidence. Feel free to criticize Israel for not wanting to cooperate with the UN (though given the UN's history on Israel I can't say that I blame them). The fact remains that the report is flawed. It would be like issuing a report on the causes of the First World War, but basing the findings only on German sources because the French wouldn't cooperate, or only on French sources because the Germans wouldn't cooperate, etc. In every case the result would still be an incomplete picture.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
That's beside the point. Regardless of the reasons why, the report reflects only one side's version of events. This is an inherant flaw. It means that the report does not deal with all the evidence. Feel free to criticize Israel for not wanting to cooperate with the UN (though given the UN's history on Israel I can't say that I blame them). The fact remains that the report is flawed. It would be like issuing a report on the causes of the First World War, but basing the findings only on German sources because the French wouldn't cooperate, or only on French sources because the Germans wouldn't cooperate, etc. In every case the result would still be an incomplete picture.
then what should happen? israel is against cooperating, they are against any sort of trial. they want to do simply nothing. just like when they admit 2 officers ordered white phosphorus rounds to bomb a UN building with over 700 refugees and destroying over a million dollars worth of aid and what did israel do about it? a fuckin post it note in their files :roll:
that's like me refusing to cooperate with a police investigation or at my grand jury hearing and then cry that they never got my side of the story when i had every chance to give it.
it's flawed because of who? who's actions created that flaw?
maybe they should man up and just go to the ICC and give their side. the reason they don't want to give their side is because they know they are guilty.
and you talk about the un's history on israel....how many sanctions or embargo's has the un placed on israel? 0
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
I get it. You believe that everything is Israel's fault. I'm not even going to try to convince you otherwise because I know it's pointless. And I won't offer answers to your questions. You wouldn't accept any of the answers I have to give. If you want to believe that Israel sends the IDF into Gaza from time to time with a blanket order to kill every living thing they see because the country is run by racist Nazis who just love killing Arabs...well it isn't fine, but I won't bother arguing with you. Just don't tell me that your position is "factual" because of a report that is patently incomplete, if not one-sided and biased.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Could you provide the link for this information? I ask because this information is pretty vague. What is "in accordance with the basic principle of the right of return and compensation" meant to imply in terms of practical outcomes?
You can simply Google 'Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine'.
As for the Palestinians right of return:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/c ... 38375.html Their right of return is clearly and unambiguously guaranteed by international law under the Geneva Conventions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The refugees have a claim to citizenship, financial settlement and, in some cases, return to former homes and property in what is today Israel. The government of Israel, however, opposes Palestinian immigration, in order to maintain the Jewish character of the state.
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194 Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible; Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation, and to maintain close relations with the Director of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees and, through him, with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations;
Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,
1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:
1. (a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
2. (b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;
2. Reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return;
3. Emphasizes that full respect for and the realization of these inalienable rights of the Palestinian people are indispensable for the solution of the question of Palestine;
4. Recognizes that the Palestinian people is a principal party in the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East;
5. Further recognizes the right of the Palestinian people to regain its rights by all means in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations;
6. Appeals to all States and international organizations to extend their support to the Palestinian people in its struggle to restore its rights, in accordance with the Charter;
7. Requests the Secretary-General to establish contacts with the Palestine Liberation Organization on all matters concerning the question of Palestine;
8. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its thirtieth session on the implementation of the present resolution;
9. Decides to include the item entitled "Question of Palestine" in the provisional agenda of its thirtieth session.
I get it. You believe that everything is Israel's fault. I'm not even going to try to convince you otherwise because I know it's pointless. And I won't offer answers to your questions. You wouldn't accept any of the answers I have to give. If you want to believe that Israel sends the IDF into Gaza from time to time with a blanket order to kill every living thing they see because the country is run by racist Nazis who just love killing Arabs...well it isn't fine, but I won't bother arguing with you. Just don't tell me that your position is "factual" because of a report that is patently incomplete, if not one-sided and biased.
hmmmm...yeah, not quite sure how you got that from my post.
you won't offer answers because i won't accept them, nice dodge.
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Not a dodge, Pepe, a weary recognition. These arguments are cyclical. We've been through all of this before, and we always end up exactly where we began. Sometimes I enjoy the argument even though I know it's pointless. Right now I don't have the energy for it.
Byrnzie, I will make this as plain as possible. Israel will never, ever agree to recognize a Palestinian right of return, because to do so is tantamount to declaring the end to the State of Israel. Compensation, yes, certainly, I think Israel would be willing to admit to its fair share of guilt and pay reparations to the refugees as part of a peace accord. But accepting the right of return is out of the question. Whether or not in principle the Palestinians have this right is, in reality, beside the point, and no number of UN resolutions will change that. If there is ever going to be peace the Palestinians will have to give up the demand for the right of return. Again, Israel will never agree to the right of return, and so long as the Palestinians refuse to compromise on this issue there won't be peace, if for no other reason then that Israel will, I think correctly, perceive that the Palestinians, in insisting on the right of return, would be staking a claim not just to a state in the West Bank and Gaza, but to Israel's territory as well. Simply put, I understand that you are standing on principle, but in this situation principle and reality are antithetical to each other. Either you can support peace in the reality we live in, or you can insist on principles to the detriment of peace. You cannot meaningfully do both. If you really care about what is best for the Palestinians, if you would really like to see an end to the occupation, an end to the settlements, an end to violence, which will only ever happen if a peace deal is struck, then you should really start rethinking your position.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
I'm amazed at what the palestinians have to do for the Israelis to give them a state. So basically what you are saying is that the Palestinians have to do ABCDEF-Z, then the Israelis will allow them to have a state of there own...I think it's funny that it's still up to Israel if the Palestinians ever get a state of there own. Actually pretty SAD. Just shows that international law has ZERO power and ZERO meaning. Fucken dumbass Arab leaders. You know what, I agree with yosi. Arab leaders don't want peace. If they wanted peace they would spend there money as does Israel and buy congress, buy senators, buy fucken all of DC. Aipac does, why not rich Arabs???? Cuz Arab leaders are dumb fucken idiots. There IQ's are a combined -27 if that high. They'd rather watch a fat belly dancer than solve world problems. And that's the fucken truth...all brainless fucks!
It's a peace process brother. Both sides need to compromise. This isn't about one side meeting the criteria of the other. It's about both sides making compromises so that they can meet in the middle. Anyways, you can't make a deal that establishes your own state and then say "that's great, this state is now mine, and your state is mine as well." If the Palestinians are going to come to a peace deal with Israel and establish a state for themselves they are going to have to stop making a claim to Israel as well, otherwise, overlooking the fact that no deal would be reached to begin with under such circumstances, peace would most likely be short lived.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
It's a peace process brother. Both sides need to compromise. This isn't about one side meeting the criteria of the other. It's about both sides making compromises so that they can meet in the middle. Anyways, you can't make a deal that establishes your own state and then say "that's great, this state is now mine, and your state is mine as well." If the Palestinians are going to come to a peace deal with Israel and establish a state for themselves they are going to have to stop making a claim to Israel as well, otherwise, overlooking the fact that no deal would be reached to begin with under such circumstances, peace would most likely be short lived.
Except this is all just more bullshit.
As I've shown above, international law is perfectly unambiguous. And Israel's rejection of the international consensus and of international law make Israel a dangerous, rogue state.
Byrnzie, I will make this as plain as possible. Israel will never, ever agree to recognize a Palestinian right of return, because to do so is tantamount to declaring the end to the State of Israel. Compensation, yes, certainly, I think Israel would be willing to admit to its fair share of guilt and pay reparations to the refugees as part of a peace accord. But accepting the right of return is out of the question. Whether or not in principle the Palestinians have this right is, in reality, beside the point, and no number of UN resolutions will change that. If there is ever going to be peace the Palestinians will have to give up the demand for the right of return. Again, Israel will never agree to the right of return, and so long as the Palestinians refuse to compromise on this issue there won't be peace, if for no other reason then that Israel will, I think correctly, perceive that the Palestinians, in insisting on the right of return, would be staking a claim not just to a state in the West Bank and Gaza, but to Israel's territory as well. Simply put, I understand that you are standing on principle, but in this situation principle and reality are antithetical to each other. Either you can support peace in the reality we live in, or you can insist on principles to the detriment of peace. You cannot meaningfully do both. If you really care about what is best for the Palestinians, if you would really like to see an end to the occupation, an end to the settlements, an end to violence, which will only ever happen if a peace deal is struck, then you should really start rethinking your position.
Israel should therefore be subjected to strict sanctions and boycotts such as those that toppled racist South Africa in the 1980's.
It's a peace process brother. Both sides need to compromise.
there is only one side occupying the other.
Israel is the only one with the power to bring about the two state solution. Hamas and the whole of the entire world has called for a two state solution on the 1967 borders which will halt all violence. Israel has so far refused, and they continually block all efforts of any hope of peace by not withdrawing to the 1967 borders.
perhaps if Israel stopped refusing to abide by international law, and recognize the rights of the Palestinians, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.
It's a peace process brother. Both sides need to compromise. This isn't about one side meeting the criteria of the other. It's about both sides making compromises so that they can meet in the middle. Anyways, you can't make a deal that establishes your own state and then say "that's great, this state is now mine, and your state is mine as well." If the Palestinians are going to come to a peace deal with Israel and establish a state for themselves they are going to have to stop making a claim to Israel as well, otherwise, overlooking the fact that no deal would be reached to begin with under such circumstances, peace would most likely be short lived.
Except this is all just more bullshit.
As I've shown above, international law is perfectly unambiguous. And Israel's rejection of the international consensus and of international law make Israel a dangerous, rogue state.
international law is perfectly unambiguous, to those that actually give a damn. yosi is not one of those.
I love it when you quote me out of context, Triumph. It warms my heart.
Byrnzie, thank you for finally giving an honest answer. You don't believe Israel has a right to exist, and your solution to the conflict is politicide. You are truly a caring person, and a realistic thinker.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
I love it when you quote me out of context, Triumph. It warms my heart.
Byrnzie, thank you for finally giving an honest answer. You don't believe Israel has a right to exist, and your solution to the conflict is politicide. You are truly a caring person, and a realistic thinker.
I've never said that Israel doesn't have a right to exist. Israel can still exist without having to be a racist, exclusivist state.
... if for no other reason then that Israel will, I think correctly, perceive that the Palestinians, in insisting on the right of return, would be staking a claim not just to a state in the West Bank and Gaza, but to Israel's territory as well.
Now we wouldn't want Palestinians claiming any jewish land would we? Or building on jewish land, would we? After all, that is just not a done thing. Hmmmmm... tables would be turned then, wouldn't they.
Yet again, you have shown that israel is a racist state!
Rachel Corrie chose to stand in front of a moving bulldozer, presumably to make her point. However valid her point was, there was probably a better way to make it. Sorry, but that's not the same thing as Israel bombing Lebanese or Palestinian civilians, who do not have a choice in the matter (unless maybe they choose to shelter militants). It may sound pretty crass, but I'll say it anyhow: If there is a heaven for principled but unintelligent activists, Rachel Corrie is there.
Actually, she stood in front of a bulldozer in order to try and prevent a families home from being destroyed illegally by an illegal occupying army. She was wearing a bright orange jacket and was clearly visible to the driver of the U.S supplied Caterpillar bulldozer. I don't see anything unintelligent about her actions. Do you also think that Tom Hurndall was a moron for trying to save the lives of some Palestinian children under Israeli gunfire? He was shot in the head and killed by an Israeli sniper.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Hurndall
'His father told a British inquest that, according to ISM and Palestinian witnesses, Hurndall had seen a group of children playing and had noticed that bullets were hitt'ng the ground between them. Several children had run away but some were "paralysed with fear"[6] and Hurndall went to help them. Hurndall's father told the inquest: “Tom went to take one girl out of the line of fire, which he did successfully, but when he went back, as he knelt down [to collect another], he was shot.”[2]'
Jocelyn Hurndall - The Guardian, Saturday 10 January 2004
The Israeli army shot my son, and the toll continues to rise
In the pensive hours of the night, I am struck by the varying values that mankind chooses to allot to life - as was my son Tom.
Earlier this month, I read with mixed feelings the news that local Palestinian militia had dynamited an Israeli defence force watchtower in the town of Rafah, in the Gaza Strip. It was from this watchtower, which has been responsible for untold misery to many innocent families in Rafah, that Tom was shot in the head last April. At the time he was trying to help Palestinian children to safety. He now lies in a vegetative state in a hospital in London with no hope of recovery.
This week we learned that the Israeli soldier who has been arrested for the shooting is alleged to have smoked cannabis with his battalion. As last year was drawing to a close, a phone call from the British Foreign Office informed me that, under interrogation, this soldier has confessed to shooting my son, knowing he was an unarmed civilian. He claimed that the shot was meant as a "deterrent". From what? From rescuing children? Had he been so conditioned that an act of humanity could only inspire in him such a violent reaction?
I felt no sense of relief then but, for the first time, allowed myself to feel increasing anger. The IDF's inability to differentiate between friend and foe, truth and untruth, and to see themselves as they are seen, is clear to all.
I read the observations recorded in Tom's Middle-East journals. They show a young man determined to be open-minded, to understand and, above all, to make a difference. He had come to understand, as we do now, the customary illegal, inhuman retribution exacted by the IDF from this particular watchtower on the local community, little realising how it was to leave him a thread away from death.
It seems that life is cheap in the occupied territories. Different value attached to life depends on whether the victim happens to be Israeli, international or Palestinian. This has been exemplified recently by the reaction of the Israeli public to the shooting of an Israeli peace activist, fresh out of his three-year military police service, demonstrating against the illegal "security" fence. Two days later an announcement was made that a military police inquiry was to be held into the shooting. Questions were raised in the Knesset. This is in stark contrast to the six months of campaigning that it took for an inquiry to be launched into the shooting of Tom.
There have been thousands of killings in Palestine since the intifada, with only a handful having the benefit of an investigation. Now, a three-week occupation of Nablus (the largest city in Palestine) has left a further 19 people dead and dozens of homes and buildings destroyed, leaving scores of innocent people homeless, all on a pretext of searching for a terror suspect.
When will those responsible accept that it is illegal to collectively and obsessively punish a whole community? Has the hard-nosed Sharon government made connections between the horror of the Holocaust and the current brutal incursions? Countless insightful Israelis, Palestinians and people the world over have done so. Is it surprising that Israel was voted the most dangerous threat to world peace in a recent European Union poll?
It hurts me to hear the deafening silence of our own government. How can there have been no statement of condemnation or condolence for the innocent victims of Israel's mindless violence from our own prime minister, Tony Blair? The silence was only broken when on Christmas day the United States president "strongly condemned" the actions of the suicide bombers responsible for killing four Israeli soldiers at a bus stop just outside Tel Aviv. Does this double standard not underline the lack of regard in which both the British and US governments hold Palestinian life?
So I have questions to ask of Tony Blair. Does he regard the children of Palestine as children of a lesser god? Does he accept that such inaction is tantamount to complicity in the process of destroying any peace initiative in the Middle East? Mr Blair, you know now that an Israeli soldier has confessed to shooting in cold blood an unarmed British citizen who was trying to shepherd children away to safety. When will you be ready to openly condemn these actions?
· Jocelyn Hurndall is on the committee of the Thomas Hurndall Foundation, which campaigns for justice for the Palestinian people
Tom Hurndall's murderer was released last week. his sentence was reduced.
Speaking to the UK Guardian's Rachel Shabi, Hurndall's mother, Jocelyn, said, "From the moment that Tom was shot, we said it wasn't about the soldier, who is a small part of the machinery, but about the responsibility of the Israeli army and its lack of accountability over civilian killings. To say that the soldier has reformed is to miss the point -- the British government needs to hold Israel accountable for its actions."
Both sides have done things wrong in the past. LOTS wrong, to each other. To polarize this and say one side is "100% right" is 100% wrong...
With the reports on either side, it is hard to know what's really going on on the ground...
:ugeek:
No it's not hard at all my friend, not hard at all! Perhaps the only difficult thing to explain would be the Zionist Agenda. Which can get complex.
But This idea that both sides are = to blame is wrong. We have one of the most brutal occupations, funded by America. Full blame goes to the USA and Israel.
I'm not going to blame an oppressed people for fighting back,
Comments
he was found guilty of manslaughter and obstruction of justice, not really 'a number of other chargers'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taysir_Hayb
Initially Hayb claimed he had shot at a man in military fatigues who was firing at soldiers. However photographic evidence clearly showed Hurndall was wearing a bright orange jacket denoting he was a foreigner. Hayb was an award-winning marksman and his rifle had a telescopic sight. He claimed to have aimed four inches from Hurndall's head, 'but he moved'. Hayb said a policy of shooting at unarmed civilians existed at the time.[1][2][3][5]
btw, those 4 sources are the bbc, guardian and observer
also, he went to jail for 8 years
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
yeah, that seems to be standard protocol with them
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
sorry but this is just pure bullshit. in your example it WOULD be fair because the defendant has waived his right to a defense
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldstone_ ... estigation
Israel refused to cooperate with the investigation, citing alleged anti-Israel bias in the UNHRC and the mission's one-sided founding resolution. Israel also stated that the mission would be unable to question Palestinian militants who fired rockets at Israel.[15][32][47] The team was deprived of access to military sources, and denied Gaza Strip entrance via Israel.[47]
Israel WAS given an opportunity to make its case but they declined, that is on them
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
then what should happen? israel is against cooperating, they are against any sort of trial. they want to do simply nothing. just like when they admit 2 officers ordered white phosphorus rounds to bomb a UN building with over 700 refugees and destroying over a million dollars worth of aid and what did israel do about it? a fuckin post it note in their files :roll:
that's like me refusing to cooperate with a police investigation or at my grand jury hearing and then cry that they never got my side of the story when i had every chance to give it.
it's flawed because of who? who's actions created that flaw?
maybe they should man up and just go to the ICC and give their side. the reason they don't want to give their side is because they know they are guilty.
and you talk about the un's history on israel....how many sanctions or embargo's has the un placed on israel? 0
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
You can simply Google 'Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine'.
As for the Palestinians right of return:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/c ... 38375.html
Their right of return is clearly and unambiguously guaranteed by international law under the Geneva Conventions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The refugees have a claim to citizenship, financial settlement and, in some cases, return to former homes and property in what is today Israel. The government of Israel, however, opposes Palestinian immigration, in order to maintain the Jewish character of the state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_General ... lution_194
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194
Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible; Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation, and to maintain close relations with the Director of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees and, through him, with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nat ... ution_3236
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3236
Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,
1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:
1. (a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
2. (b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;
2. Reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return;
3. Emphasizes that full respect for and the realization of these inalienable rights of the Palestinian people are indispensable for the solution of the question of Palestine;
4. Recognizes that the Palestinian people is a principal party in the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East;
5. Further recognizes the right of the Palestinian people to regain its rights by all means in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations;
6. Appeals to all States and international organizations to extend their support to the Palestinian people in its struggle to restore its rights, in accordance with the Charter;
7. Requests the Secretary-General to establish contacts with the Palestine Liberation Organization on all matters concerning the question of Palestine;
8. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its thirtieth session on the implementation of the present resolution;
9. Decides to include the item entitled "Question of Palestine" in the provisional agenda of its thirtieth session.
hmmmm...yeah, not quite sure how you got that from my post.
you won't offer answers because i won't accept them, nice dodge.
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Byrnzie, I will make this as plain as possible. Israel will never, ever agree to recognize a Palestinian right of return, because to do so is tantamount to declaring the end to the State of Israel. Compensation, yes, certainly, I think Israel would be willing to admit to its fair share of guilt and pay reparations to the refugees as part of a peace accord. But accepting the right of return is out of the question. Whether or not in principle the Palestinians have this right is, in reality, beside the point, and no number of UN resolutions will change that. If there is ever going to be peace the Palestinians will have to give up the demand for the right of return. Again, Israel will never agree to the right of return, and so long as the Palestinians refuse to compromise on this issue there won't be peace, if for no other reason then that Israel will, I think correctly, perceive that the Palestinians, in insisting on the right of return, would be staking a claim not just to a state in the West Bank and Gaza, but to Israel's territory as well. Simply put, I understand that you are standing on principle, but in this situation principle and reality are antithetical to each other. Either you can support peace in the reality we live in, or you can insist on principles to the detriment of peace. You cannot meaningfully do both. If you really care about what is best for the Palestinians, if you would really like to see an end to the occupation, an end to the settlements, an end to violence, which will only ever happen if a peace deal is struck, then you should really start rethinking your position.
Except this is all just more bullshit.
As I've shown above, international law is perfectly unambiguous. And Israel's rejection of the international consensus and of international law make Israel a dangerous, rogue state.
Israel should therefore be subjected to strict sanctions and boycotts such as those that toppled racist South Africa in the 1980's.
Israel is the only one with the power to bring about the two state solution. Hamas and the whole of the entire world has called for a two state solution on the 1967 borders which will halt all violence. Israel has so far refused, and they continually block all efforts of any hope of peace by not withdrawing to the 1967 borders.
perhaps if Israel stopped refusing to abide by international law, and recognize the rights of the Palestinians, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.
Byrnzie, thank you for finally giving an honest answer. You don't believe Israel has a right to exist, and your solution to the conflict is politicide. You are truly a caring person, and a realistic thinker.
I've never said that Israel doesn't have a right to exist. Israel can still exist without having to be a racist, exclusivist state.
Not about one side meeting the criteria of the other? It seems you are saying the palestinians MUST do so.
Your contradictions never cease to amaze me.
Now we wouldn't want Palestinians claiming any jewish land would we? Or building on jewish land, would we? After all, that is just not a done thing. Hmmmmm... tables would be turned then, wouldn't they.
Yet again, you have shown that israel is a racist state!
Speaking to the UK Guardian's Rachel Shabi, Hurndall's mother, Jocelyn, said, "From the moment that Tom was shot, we said it wasn't about the soldier, who is a small part of the machinery, but about the responsibility of the Israeli army and its lack of accountability over civilian killings. To say that the soldier has reformed is to miss the point -- the British government needs to hold Israel accountable for its actions."
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article11525.shtml
Both sides have done things wrong in the past. LOTS wrong, to each other. To polarize this and say one side is "100% right" is 100% wrong...
With the reports on either side, it is hard to know what's really going on on the ground...
:ugeek:
Here's what's going on on the ground:
No it's not hard at all my friend, not hard at all! Perhaps the only difficult thing to explain would be the Zionist Agenda. Which can get complex.
But This idea that both sides are = to blame is wrong. We have one of the most brutal occupations, funded by America. Full blame goes to the USA and Israel.
I'm not going to blame an oppressed people for fighting back,
OK. *shrug*
:ugeek: