Rachel Corrie

yosi

Pepe Silvia wrote:

badbrains wrote:

Military points of intrest- Palestinian school full of children? Israeli bus with mostly idf soldiers? I can't pick which one.

according to Israel since Hamas is also the government pretty much everything and everyone is an extension of Hamas, therefor killing hundreds of police officers is justified

Actually killing police officers is justified because most police officers in Palestinian areas moonlight as members of armed militias, or at least that has been the case for almost two decades now. I'm not sure why this would have changed all of a sudden. That said I can understand the argument that the police officers should have been considered non-combatants.

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

Well, when I was living there in 2002, it happened pretty much every week, sometimes every day. That was up until the point when Israel reinvaded the areas of the West Bank they had ceded to the PA during Oslo in an attempt to end the terror. Over the ensuing years, through a constant military presence, roadblocks, and by building the security fence, Israel has managed to eliminate suicide bombings almost completely. Which is not to say that people aren't trying to carry out terrorist bombings, only that Israel, through admittedly draconian measures, is now able to stop them.

Except that this isn't true, as you know. The Palestinian leadership made a decision to halt the suicide bombings, as they deemed them to be counter-productive.

Oh, and the wall is illegal and constitutes a crime against humanity. So why are you defending it?

yosi

Byrnzie wrote:

yosi wrote:

Well, when I was living there in 2002, it happened pretty much every week, sometimes every day. That was up until the point when Israel reinvaded the areas of the West Bank they had ceded to the PA during Oslo in an attempt to end the terror. Over the ensuing years, through a constant military presence, roadblocks, and by building the security fence, Israel has managed to eliminate suicide bombings almost completely. Which is not to say that people aren't trying to carry out terrorist bombings, only that Israel, through admittedly draconian measures, is now able to stop them.

Except that this isn't true, as you know. The Palestinian leadership made a decision to halt the suicide bombings, as they deemed them to be counter-productive.

Oh, and the wall is illegal and constitutes a crime against humanity. So why are you defending it?

Again you presume to know what I know, which is dumb, because we've never actually spoken and you're halfway around the world. The wall is in fact a fence for most of its length, it was built for security reasons, it can be moved and taken down should the need arise, the Israeli Supreme Court has repeatedly made the army move the fence when it was clear that security could be provided with less damage done to local Palestinians by placing the fence differently. I defend it because it is not permanent, and because it saves lives. In my moral reckoning life is of paramount importance, so a fence that saves lives is morally defensible.

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

Actually killing police officers is justified because most police officers in Palestinian areas moonlight as members of armed militias, or at least that has been the case for almost two decades now. I'm not sure why this would have changed all of a sudden. That said I can understand the argument that the police officers should have been considered non-combatants.

Not according to the Goldstone Report it isn't:

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hr ... -12-48.pdf

The Gaza authorities state that overall 248 policemen were killed by the Israeli armed forces during the military operations. The study by the Orient Research Group Ltd. identifies 345 men allegedly belonging to the Gaza internal security forces killed by Israeli attacks during the military operations. It identifies 240 of the 345 alleged members of the internal security forces as members of the police. This is very close to the number provided by the Gaza authorities.284

Conclusion

430. The Mission will now draw conclusions with regard to each of these grounds potentially
justifying the attacks against the police.

431. First, as already noted above, the Mission finds that there is insufficient information to
conclude that the Gaza police as a whole had been “incorporated” into the armed forces of the
Gaza authorities. Accordingly, the policemen killed cannot be considered to have been
combatants by virtue of their membership in the police.

432. Second, the Mission finds that the policemen killed on 27 December 2008 cannot be said
to have been taking a direct part in hostilities. Thus, they did not lose their civilian immunity
from direct attack as civilians on this ground.291

433. Third, the Mission examined whether the attacks on the police stations could be justified
on the basis that there were, allegedly, members of Palestinian armed groups among the
policemen. The question would thus be one of proportionality. The principle of proportionality is
reflected in Additional Protocol I, which prohibits launching attacks “which may be expected to
cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a
combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military
advantage anticipated.”292

434. The Mission has earlier accepted that there may be individual members of the Gaza
police that were at the same time members of al-Qassam Brigades or other Palestinian armed
groups and thus combatants. Even if the Israeli armed forces had reliable information that some
individual members of the police were also members of armed groups, this did not deprive the
whole police force of its status as a civilian law-enforcement agency.293

435. From the facts available to it, the Mission finds that the deliberate killing of 99 members
of the police at the police headquarters and three police stations294 during the first minutes of the
military operations, while they were engaged in civilian tasks inside civilian police facilities,
constitutes an attack which failed to strike an acceptable balance between the direct military
advantage anticipated (i.e. the killing of those policemen who may have been members of
Palestinian armed groups) and the loss of civilian life (i.e. the other policemen killed and
members of the public who would inevitably have been present or in the vicinity). The attacks on
the Arafat City police headquarters and the Abbas Street police station, al-Tuffah police station


436. From the facts available to it, the Mission further believes that there has been a violation
of the inherent right to life of those members of the police killed in the attacks of 27 December
2007 who were not members of armed groups by depriving them arbitrarily of their life in
violation of article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

badbrains

Yosi, u said lifes of paramount importance, my question to u is...who's lives?? Israelis or Palestinians?? I know, ur going to say both....cuz ur a rightious human being who happens to be a Zionist. But yet ur beliefs are so un-Zionist like....from I believe them to be. But then, what do I know??? I know, ur going to say I know nothing.

yosi

badbrains wrote:

Yosi, u said lifes of paramount importance, my question to u is...who's lives?? Israelis or Palestinians?? I know, ur going to say both....cuz ur a rightious human being who happens to be a Zionist. But yet ur beliefs are so un-Zionist like....from I believe them to be. But then, what do I know??? I know, ur going to say I know nothing.

No, that isn't what I was going to say at all. I'm just curious where you formed your belief about what "zionists" believe? Cause I'm right here, a flesh and blood zionist, telling you what I believe. So you can either get it from the source, or you can get it from someone with nothing but negative things to say about zionism. I'm telling you as someone that actually is a zionist, grew up in a zionist house, has lots of zionist friends, that our ideology is about us, its about Jewish nationalism, and it has nothing to do hurting or oppressing anyone. I'm not saying that in practical application no one has gotten hurt. Obviously they have. I'm just telling you that from my very much insider perspective, what you call zionism bears absolutely no resemblance to the zionism I believe in, or that all of the other zionists I know believe in.

Pepe Silvia

yosi wrote:

they can give up violence, and they can stop calling for Israel to either be destroyed or to commit demographic suicide through the right of return.

and they have

when they call for a stop to suicide attacks nothing changes

when they protest non violently nothing changes

excuse, after excuse. just stop being a bully in the region, stop stealing 80% of the water, stop expanding settlements on land that isn't yours

since they claim Hamas is a terrorist organization and you say the Lehi were also a terrorist organization, although the IDF has a Lehi Ribbon given "for military service towards the establishment of the State of Israel"....

so, you are saying killing police are ok because they would be militants for Hamas and Hamas are terrorists, just like the Lehi, even though they were given full amnesty....so, when the Lehi had someone elected to the Israeli government it would be perfectly justified to attack Israel and kill their police officers, right??

yosi

Pepe Silvia wrote:

yosi wrote:

they can give up violence, and they can stop calling for Israel to either be destroyed or to commit demographic suicide through the right of return.

and they have

when they call for a stop to suicide attacks nothing changes

when they protest non violently nothing changes

excuse, after excuse. just stop being a bully in the region, stop stealing 80% of the water, stop expanding settlements on land that isn't yours

since they claim Hamas is a terrorist organization and you say the Lehi were also a terrorist organization, although the IDF has a Lehi Ribbon given "for military service towards the establishment of the State of Israel"....

so, you are saying killing police are ok because they would be militants for Hamas and Hamas are terrorists, just like the Lehi, even though they were given full amnesty....so, when the Lehi had someone elected to the Israeli government it would be perfectly justified to attack Israel and kill their police officers, right??

Come on, slow down, we've gone over this already, stop to think about the ground we've already covered. Former members of Lehi were elected or appointed to government positions, and at the time they hadn't been involved in terrorism for some time. And I'm not saying that the police are targets because they are part of a Hamas government system, I'm saying the police are targets because in many instances the very people who make up the police force are the same people who make up the rocket teams and militias that are combatants against Israel. And if Hamas stopped supporting and carrying out acts of terrorism I wouldn't have any problem with their involvement in the Palestinian government. Can we please move this discussion forward productively instead of just going around in circles.

Pepe Silvia

yosi wrote:

Pepe Silvia wrote:

yosi wrote:

they can give up violence, and they can stop calling for Israel to either be destroyed or to commit demographic suicide through the right of return.

and they have

when they call for a stop to suicide attacks nothing changes

when they protest non violently nothing changes

excuse, after excuse. just stop being a bully in the region, stop stealing 80% of the water, stop expanding settlements on land that isn't yours

since they claim Hamas is a terrorist organization and you say the Lehi were also a terrorist organization, although the IDF has a Lehi Ribbon given "for military service towards the establishment of the State of Israel"....

so, you are saying killing police are ok because they would be militants for Hamas and Hamas are terrorists, just like the Lehi, even though they were given full amnesty....so, when the Lehi had someone elected to the Israeli government it would be perfectly justified to attack Israel and kill their police officers, right??

Come on, slow down, we've gone over this already, stop to think about the ground we've already covered. Former members of Lehi were elected or appointed to government positions, and at the time they hadn't been involved in terrorism for some time. And I'm not saying that the police are targets because they are part of a Hamas government system, I'm saying the police are targets because in many instances the very people who make up the police force are the same people who make up the rocket teams and militias that are combatants against Israel. And if Hamas stopped supporting and carrying out acts of terrorism I wouldn't have any problem with their involvement in the Palestinian government. Can we please move this discussion forward productively instead of just going around in circles.

and how do you know many of the police are the ones shooting rockets?

just as you know the IDF squad leader that said their orders were everyone in Gaza was a target is lying because he is mad?

Pepe Silvia

yosi wrote:

Former members of Lehi were elected or appointed to government positions, and at the time they hadn't been involved in terrorism for some time.

i guess we have differing definitions of 'for some time'....

The conflict between Lehi and mainstream Jewish and subsequently Israeli organizations came to an end when Lehi was formally dissolved and integrated into the Israeli Defense Forces on May 31, 1948, its leaders getting amnesty from prosecution or reprisals as part of the integration.

Some left-wing members of the Lehi founded a political party called the Fighters' List with the jailed Yellin-Mor as its head. The party took part in the elections in January 1949 and won one seat.


that's barely over 6 months!!!! maybe it is to you but to me 6 months isn't that long of a time to disassociate yourself from terrorism. they didn't have support but they got amnesty and were elected part of the government, right

and what did the Lehi do the year before being elected??


Lehi was one of groups involved in massacres of Arabs according to Israeli historian Benny Morris, see List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.

i also found this interesting

In 1940, Lehi proposed intervening in World War II on the side of Nazi Germany. It offered assistance in "transferring" the Jews of Europe, in return for Germany's help in expelling Britain from Mandate Palestine. Late in 1940, Lehi representative Naftali Lubenchik was sent to Beirut where he met the German official Werner Otto von Hentig. Lubenchik told von Hentig that Lehi had not yet revealed its full power and that they were capable of organizing a whole range of anti-British operations.

On January 11, 1941 a letter by Lehi, which would be later referred to as the Ankara document, was sent from Vice Admiral Ralf von der Marwitz, the German Naval attaché in Ankara, depicting an offer to "actively take part in the war on Germany's side" in return for German support for "the establishment of the historic Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, bound by a treaty with the German Reich."[28][29] There are three possibilities as to how the offer reached the German Naval attaché in Ankara. One is that en route to Germany, von Hentig was delayed in Ankara and delivered his version of the offer orally to von der Marwitz and von der Marwitz wrote the letter using his words. The second is that Colombani (a general in French intelligence) invented the offer because of personal rivalry between himself and other Vichy officials: this rivalry is known from a paragraph in von der Marwitz' letter, "Colombani is of the opinion that his return to France is a consequence of co-operation of Conti with Minister Pierroton," or, third, that Colombani wanted the offer to fail: he had co-operated with the Mufti of Jerusalem in Lebanon in 1938-1939 and was also the one who took him in his car through Syria to the Iraqi border in 1939.

yosi

Come on, slow down, we've gone over this already, stop to think about the ground we've already covered. Former members of Lehi were elected or appointed to government positions, and at the time they hadn't been involved in terrorism for some time. And I'm not saying that the police are targets because they are part of a Hamas government system, I'm saying the police are targets because in many instances the very people who make up the police force are the same people who make up the rocket teams and militias that are combatants against Israel. And if Hamas stopped supporting and carrying out acts of terrorism I wouldn't have any problem with their involvement in the Palestinian government. Can we please move this discussion forward productively instead of just going around in circles.[/quote]


and how do you know many of the police are the ones shooting rockets?

just as you know the IDF squad leader that said their orders were everyone in Gaza was a target is lying because he is mad?[/quote]

You're conflating me with somebody else. I never said anything about any IDF squad leader. As for the police, I don't know for sure, and I've already said in an earlier post that it is possible that the police should not have been considered combatants. I'm just telling you that a decade of experience fighting in these areas has taught Israel that the police forces almost always enter the fight as combatants, so I can understand why Israel, based on its repeated experience, would consider the police forces to be combatants from the outset.

badbrains

Yosi, I am a circassion living in America. My people have I believe 2 villages in Israel. Koffer kaman I believe is how u spell it. I've talked to people from the villages and they pretty much tell me whatever I ask them. From what I know, if ur government keeps up this genocide, very soon they will have no idf to control. Soldiers are starting to wake up and realize the agenda. And they're geting fed up. I know a lot more about thisconflict then u think I do. Just cause I dnt live in the region doesn't mean shit. I mean u lived there and I think u dnt know shit. Like I said, ur a great talker. I know how ur propaganda machine works. I'd love to one day talk to u in person cuz typing is hard to get my points across. I will say this loud and clear, I have NO problem with the rightious Jewish people of Israel. My problem is with the Zionist running ur country. I am not anti-sematic I am anti-Zionist. Zionism is no religion it is a political movement. Dnt dare call me anti-sematic cause I am not. I know damn well what that word means. It has nothing to do with being anti-Jewish. A semit is someone from that region. Not jewsih, Arab, alien, whatever. People use that word to loosely. So if I have no problem with Arabs of that region or Jews in general in that region I am not anti-sematic. I will say without hesitation I am anti-Zionist and what ur leaders are doing in inhuman. How can god loving god fearing people do what ur regime is doing? I'll tell u how. The god u used to believe is now fear. Fear is your only god. It's not just u and ur people, it's everywhere. In America,Israel, Iraq, everywhere. And where is the real god?? He's looking down on humanity and wondering where he went wrong...

yosi

badbrains wrote:

Yosi, I am a circassion living in America. My people have I believe 2 villages in Israel. Koffer kaman I believe is how u spell it. I've talked to people from the villages and they pretty much tell me whatever I ask them. From what I know, if ur government keeps up this genocide, very soon they will have no idf to control. Soldiers are starting to wake up and realize the agenda. And they're geting fed up. I know a lot more about thisconflict then u think I do. Just cause I dnt live in the region doesn't mean shit. I mean u lived there and I think u dnt know shit. Like I said, ur a great talker. I know how ur propaganda machine works. I'd love to one day talk to u in person cuz typing is hard to get my points across. I will say this loud and clear, I have NO problem with the rightious Jewish people of Israel. My problem is with the Zionist running ur country. I am not anti-sematic I am anti-Zionist. Zionism is no religion it is a political movement. Dnt dare call me anti-sematic cause I am not. I know damn well what that word means. It has nothing to do with being anti-Jewish. A semit is someone from that region. Not jewsih, Arab, alien, whatever. People use that word to loosely. So if I have no problem with Arabs of that region or Jews in general in that region I am not anti-sematic. I will say without hesitation I am anti-Zionist and what ur leaders are doing in inhuman. How can god loving god fearing people do what ur regime is doing? I'll tell u how. The god u used to believe is now fear. Fear is your only god. It's not just u and ur people, it's everywhere. In America,Israel, Iraq, everywhere. And where is the real god?? He's looking down on humanity and wondering where he went wrong...

I'm pretty certain I didn't say you were an anti-semite. What I feel generally, and this is not directed only at you, is that many people use the term zionism to mean whatever they dislike about Israel. So you think that Israel is murdering palestinians and stealing land and water, so zionism is about murdering palestinians and stealing land and water. To me that's absurd, because zionism has nothing to do with any of that. now you can say different, but i think it's pretty funny for someone to tell me what my own ideology is about. It's like me telling you that you have no idea what being circassion is about. Now if we accept that zionism is what it is, namely the Jewish desire for self-determination in our homeland, then at that point I would consider anyone who accepts the general principle of national self-determination but claims to be anti-zionist to be espousing an anti-semitic position because it is denying Jews the same rights granted to everyone else. Finally, while you're technically right about the linguistic roots of the term anti-semitism, in actual historical practice I'm pretty sure the phrase has only ever been applied to the Jews.

fuck

yosi wrote:

Suicide bombing is entirely counter-productive if the goal is to end the occupation. All it does is make Israelis feel insecure, and that the only way to protect themselves is to have their army try to control the Palestinians (which has worked very well in a practicle sense, since bombing have been virtually eliminated since Israel reoccupied the West Bank and built the security fence). I don't mean to say that the occupation is a good thing, but Israelis will have a hard time ending the occupation so long as they think that terrorism will increase as a result. My suggestion, and I know this will never happen, just stop all violence against Israelis. If you stop all violence, and credibly police extremists, maybe you can convince enough Israelis that there is a real peace partner on the Palestinian side for them to push their government to end the occupation.

No.

Occupation, segregation, apartheid, and massacres is entirely counter-productive if the goal is "peace and security." All it does is make Palestinians feel insecure, and that the only way to protect themselves is through guerrilla tactics that are as unappealing to the Palestinians as they are to us (though they are the ones in the desperate situation). I'm not trying to insinuate a support for such attackss, but Palestinians will have a hard time ending these attacks so long as they KNOW that Israeli occupation, segregation, apartheid, and massacres will only continue, just as they have always been a large part of this conflict since before suicide bombings ever came into play. My suggestion, and I know this will never happen, just end the occupation. If you end the occupation, and stop the massacres against Palestinian civilians, maybe you can convince the Palestinians that there is a real peace partner on the Israeli side.

fuck

Pepe Silvia wrote:

yosi wrote:

Suicide bombing is entirely counter-productive if the goal is to end the occupation. All it does is make Israelis feel insecure, and that the only way to protect themselves is to have their army try to control the Palestinians (which has worked very well in a practicle sense, since bombing have been virtually eliminated since Israel reoccupied the West Bank and built the security fence). I don't mean to say that the occupation is a good thing, but Israelis will have a hard time ending the occupation so long as they think that terrorism will increase as a result. My suggestion, and I know this will never happen, just stop all violence against Israelis. If you stop all violence, and credibly police extremists, maybe you can convince enough Israelis that there is a real peace partner on the Palestinian side for them to push their government to end the occupation.

even when they protest nonviolently Israel locks them up without charge and/or trial

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=121003&start=0

not to mention the countless leaders Israel has assassinated

fuck

yosi wrote:

Or better yet, it might just convince the Israelis that lifting security sanctions on the Palestinians won't result in Israelis being blown up on buses.

there hasn't been a suicide bombing in years and that's not because of the wall you're building, so give this argument a rest. on the other hand, hundreds of palestinians have been killed due to Israeli terrorism in just the last year.

fuck

rebornFixer wrote:

I don't know how many times I need to explain myself ... Timelines DO NOT MATTER at this point. Please explain to me how "hey-nanna-boo-boo, they started it first" is going to solve the problem now. Even assuming that one side is entirely at fault in terms of "starting it", how is any solution that involves only one side renouncing violence going to work? I'm all ears. To be honest though, one or two sentence responses that essentially amount to "you're wrong" are really irritating, and if that's all you got, don't bother.

where do you guys come up with these arbitrary rules like "timelines don't matter"? what are you talking about, of course they do, it's history. ignoring the history of this conflict makes absolute no sense. when is a suitable year to start discussing this issue? yosi likes to mention the year 2002 a lot. is 2002 not too far back? i mean shit 8 years ago is a fuck long time for some people.

yosi, you like to use 2002 to talk about how much terror was striking through Israel, etc etc. do you know how many 2002's the Palestinians have had? Decades of it. let's stop ignoring history.

fuck

yosi wrote:

Ok, so the difference is that the bombers who get on buses are trying to kill civilians. I have yet to meet a single Israeli soldier, and I know, and am friends with many, who has told me that the policy of the IDF is to kill civilians on purpose.

the encyclopedia of yosi is more credible than UN reports. wonderful.

Clearly, since then Israel has become much more careless in its actions, and I in no way support this. But, from everything I know firsthand about Israel and the IDF, they do not target civilians on purpose. I believe someone else said this earlier, but a measure of disregard for "collateral damage" (which is by the way a term I detest) is not the same as willful targeting of civilians, which is exactly what Palestinian terrorism is all about.

launching missiles into one of the most densely-populated places on earth means you're targeting civilians.

gimmesometruth27

_outlaw wrote:

rebornFixer wrote:

I don't know how many times I need to explain myself ... Timelines DO NOT MATTER at this point. Please explain to me how "hey-nanna-boo-boo, they started it first" is going to solve the problem now. Even assuming that one side is entirely at fault in terms of "starting it", how is any solution that involves only one side renouncing violence going to work? I'm all ears. To be honest though, one or two sentence responses that essentially amount to "you're wrong" are really irritating, and if that's all you got, don't bother.

where do you guys come up with these arbitrary rules like "timelines don't matter"? what are you talking about, of course they do, it's history. ignoring the history of this conflict makes absolute no sense. when is a suitable year to start discussing this issue? yosi likes to mention the year 2002 a lot. is 2002 not too far back? i mean shit 8 years ago is a fuck long time for some people.

yosi, you like to use 2002 to talk about how much terror was striking through Israel, etc etc. do you know how many 2002's the Palestinians have had? Decades of it. let's stop ignoring history.

exactly...i agree with you outlaw...i have read through all of the pages of these isreal/palestine threads. how can anybody want to discount the time lines?

what is past is prologue, and if you ignore the past it will be repeated...

Pepe Silvia

_outlaw wrote:

yosi wrote:

Or better yet, it might just convince the Israelis that lifting security sanctions on the Palestinians won't result in Israelis being blown up on buses.

there hasn't been a suicide bombing in years and that's not because of the wall you're building, so give this argument a rest. on the other hand, hundreds of palestinians have been killed due to Israeli terrorism in just the last year.

what i don't get is he says if Palestinians didn't blow Israeli's up on buses they would lift the sanctions. i show him according to the Israeli government in 2007 there was only 1 suicide bombing (and it wasn't in a bus) where 3 people died....1 bomb in an entire year, while Israel murders over 650 Palestinians and then *** the next year *** they start the catastrophic blockade and sanctions and the reaction is the draconian security measure paid off...wtf!?