Hey Israel, leave them kids alone...
TriumphantAngel
Posts: 1,760
all in all it's just another brick in the wall....
except it's not just any wall. it's part of the illegal ‘separation’ wall which has been built to isolate Palestinians.
the Palestinians get the stinky grey/black side while the Israelis get the pretty decorated side.
it's racist and it's illegal.
pull that shit down. assholes.
except it's not just any wall. it's part of the illegal ‘separation’ wall which has been built to isolate Palestinians.
the Palestinians get the stinky grey/black side while the Israelis get the pretty decorated side.
it's racist and it's illegal.
pull that shit down. assholes.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
It's ugly too...the "pretty decorated side" is worse, give me the gray.
there has not been a suicide bombing in years Yosi. hundreds and hundreds of Palestinians have been killed in just the last couple of years alone because of Israeli Terrorism.
but we've been over this a hundred times haven't we.
you can't imprison an entire population of peoples because of the actions of a few.
it's not right.
you must be able to see that. surely.
i wonder what would happen if like in germany a large group of oppressed people came together to tear down this wall? will they be allowed to do it, or will there be a violent reprisal in effort to maintain it?
there have been no suicide bombings in years, so the wall is unnecessary in that respect. the only reason it will be necessary in the future is if the israeli government does not change it's policies regarding the palestinians and the people that live there and they try to take matters into their own hands.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Israel has some of the most sophisticated weaponry in the world at its disposal and uses it without mercy. the Palestinians would be massacared.
it would be a slaughter. i kind of thought it would be, but i have this overwhelming image in my head of one day smashing it down with shovels and pick axes like they did in berlin.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Clearly, seeing it was not built on any 'border' but seriously encroaching on Palestinian land, taking away the livelihood of many, separating communities, etc. Among other things.....
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
In those places where the fence goes over the green line for any reason other than to offer protection to Israelis I would say that the placement is wrong and unjustifiable.
In the long term I agree with you. In the short term, however, Israel has to protect its citizens, and the fence serves that function. You can argue that in the interest of long term peace that Israel should take down the fence, but Israelis don't believe that there is any prospect for peace at this point regardless of what they do. I'm not sure that I agree with them, although I'm also not sure that I don't. But given their perspective I understand their desire for security in the absence of peace.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
There's blame enough to go around. Right now it doesn't seem that anyone (among the leadership of both sides) is really interested in doing the difficult things peace requires.
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'
put yourself in the shoes of the oppressed for 5 seconds. if i were the oppressed, i would expect a good faith gesture and a concession so that i know the oppressor is sincere. if i begin talks and the oppressor resumes things like;
1. stealing my land
2. expanding settlements that are illegal according to international law
3. making me swear loyalty to a state that is of his religion only,
which israel has done all 3 of these recently after talks began mind you, i think i would take that as him spitting in my face...and i would tell him to take his negotiations and go fuck himself.
but that is just me, and that is how i view this situation. i would not blame the palestinian leadership one bit if they did that. people can only take so much before they react...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
they stopped committing a crime, how is that a gesture of goodwill? they did what they were supposed to be doing all along, you can't take credit for that.
"i take care of my kids- you're supposed to you dumb motherfucker", as chris rock puts it.
That's not what the International Court of Justice found. They found that the wall was designed to keep many Palestinians on the Israeli side of the fence. So if the wall is designed to keep Palestinians out then how do explain the fact that it actually keeps many Palestinians in instead?
The wall cuts deep into Palestinian land and is just another tool in Israel's land grab.
The wall has been deemed illegal under international law.
Still, why let the facts get in the way?
'It's citizens'? Most of these settlers are flown straight into the occupied territories from America, or from places like Peru. They are flown in to the settlements for the sole purpose of annexing more Palestinian land.
The Nazis did the same thing when they shipped Germans into Poland and the Sudetenland to occupy the homes of Jews who had been recently evicted.
If you want to protect Israel's citizens then you can end the occupation, dismantle all the settlements and then fortify the internationaly recognized 1967 border.
You try and pretend that the settlements are built to protect Israel. This is clearly just nonsense. You don't protect people by placing them in harms way, on stolen land.
Opinion of the International Court of Justice
On 9 July 2004, the International Court of Justice, in The Hague, gave its advisory opinion on the question of the legality of the separation barrier being built by Israel. The opinion was given pursuant to the request of the UN General Assembly of 3 December 2004.
Israel refused to cooperate in the proceeding, contending that the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter. In a document that it submitted to the court, Israel argued that the question involved was political and not legal, and should be dealt with bilaterally, between it and the Palestinians. In a majority decision, the court denied Israel's argument. In a minority opinion, one of the judges held that the court did not have sufficient information to render an opinion on the question, and thus lacked the authority to hear it. Before dealing with the substantive matters, the court explained that its opinion related only to those sections of the separation barrier that were built, or will be built outside the Green Line [in the Occupied Territories].
The first main issue discussed in the opinion relates to the effects of the barrier on the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. The court "recorded" the promise made by Israel that the barrier was intended only as a temporary security measure. However, the court pointed out that there is a grave fear that the barrier's route would create "facts on the ground" that lead to the de facto annexation of the territory and determination of the future borders between Israel and a Palestinian state. The court believed that de facto annexation of parts of the West Bank by Israel would violate the right to Palestinian self-determination.
The second major issue involved the legality of the barrier in light of international humanitarian law. The court rejected Israel's argument that the Fourth Geneva Convention does not apply in the Occupied Territories because the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were never part of a sovereign state. On this point, the court held that, insofar as the territories fell into Israel's hands as a result of war with two states that are party to the Convention, the state must exercise control over the said territory in accordance with the provisions of the Convention.
Specifically, the court found that the separation barrier is intended to assist the settlements, the establishment of which violates Article 49 of the Convention. Also, the court pointed out that the restrictions placed on the local population located between the barrier and the Green Line are liable to lead to abandonment of the land, which also constitutes a violation of Article 49. In addition, the opinion stated that taking control of private land to build the barrier injured private property owners, and thus violated Articles 46 and 52 of the Hague Regulations of 1907 and of Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
The third major issue that the court dealt with involved the legality of the barrier under international human rights law. In this context, the court stated unequivocally, and contrary to the position held by Israel, that international human rights law applies in its entirety in occupied territory, along with humanitarian law. The court ruled that the separation barrier violates rights set forth in conventions to which Israel is party. The court mentioned the rights to freedom of movement and the right against invasion of privacy of home and family, which are enshrined in Articles 12 and 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the right to work, to an adequate standard of living, health, and education, which are enshrined in Articles 6, 11, 12, and 13 of the International covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights.
It should be mentioned that the opinion dealt briefly with Israel's argument that violation of these rights is justified under international law because they are intended for legitimate security purposes. The court stated that Israel has the right and duty to protect its citizens against violence, but its defensive actions must comply with international law. The brief discussion on the possible security justifications for the route of the barrier resulted, in part, from Israel's refusal to present its arguments to the court, and from its decision to suffice with a written statement contending the court lacked jurisdiction.
In its conclusion, the court stated that Israel must cease construction of the barrier, dismantle the parts of the barrier that were built inside the West Bank, revoke the orders issued relating to its construction, and compensate the Palestinians who suffered losses as a result of the barrier. The court also called on the international community to refrain from assisting in maintaining the unlawful situation that has arisen following construction of the barrier, and to take legal measures to cease Israel's violations and to ensure enforcement of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
so why are they still building and expanding the barrier?
This is how Israel 'protects it's citizens':
It's seeking to 'protect it's citizens' by slowly but surely making sure there will be no Palestinians left anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean sea.
Kid of how the Nazis sought to protect themselves from the threat of the Jews in the 1930's. Terrorize them, evict them, and then steal their property.