Hamas wouldn't exist without Israeli aggresion, imo.
I think it would persist even if Israeli aggression did stop, but admittedly that's speculation. Either way, one side is highly unlikely to stop the violence unilaterally, even though that's just what Carter suggested to Hamas.
I think it would persist even if Israeli aggression did stop, but admittedly that's speculation. Either way, one side is highly unlikely to stop the violence unilaterally, even though that's just what Carter suggested to Hamas.
Interesting. I'm all for a cease to the violence, as I'm sure most of the people involved are as well.
Do I have to spell it out every time for you guys? There is a difference between military responses to terrorism and deliberately targeting civilians, and Israel does less of the latter than Hamas does. That being said, heavy-handed military reprisals on poor Palestinian neighborhoods does nothing to help Israel and an awful lot to help Hamas, a point that the Israels cannot or will not grasp. So yes. .. Israel reactions need to change, as much as the terrorism does.
'Israel has in the past consistently rejected ceasefire offers by Palestinian militants, saying it refuses to do deals of any kind with what it describes as terrorist organisations'.
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/cur_sit/
The “Intifada”
Living under such hardship and humiliation, in the year 2000 the Palestinian population began an uprising against Israeli rule called the “Intifada.” This term – rarely translated in the American media – is simply the Arabic word for uprising or rebellion – literally, it means “shaking off.” The American Revolutionary War, for example, would be called the American intifada against Britain.
This is the second such uprising. The first began in 1986 and ended in 1993 when the peace negotiations offered hopes of justice. (Sadly, in the following years these hopes were crushed after Israel, rather than withdrawing from the West Bank and Gaza, as promised, actually doubled its expansion in these areas.)
During this first uprising, which consisted largely of Palestinians throwing stones at Israeli troops (very few Palestinians had weapons), Palestinians were killed at a rate approximately 7-10 times that of Israelis.
One of the ways Israeli forces attempted to put down this rebellion was through the “break the bones” policy, implemented by Yitzhak Rabin, in which people who had been throwing stones – often youths – were held down and their arms broken. On the first day of this policy alone, one hospital in Gaza treated 200 People for fractures.1
Today’s uprising – termed the “Second Intifada” – was sparked when an Israeli general, Ariel Sharon, known for his slaughter of Palestinian civilians throughout his career, visited a Jerusalem holy site, accompanied by over a thousand armed Israeli soldiers. When some Palestinian youths threw stones, Israeli soldiers responded with live gunfire, killing 5 the first day, and 10 the second.
This uprising has now continued for over five years, as Israel periodically mounts massive invasions into Palestinian communities, using tanks, helicopter gunships, and F-16 fighter jets. Palestinian fighters resisting these forces possess rifles and homemade mortars and rockets. A minute fraction strap explosives onto their own bodies and attempt to deliver their bombs in person; often they kill only themselves.
While the large majority of Palestinians oppose suicide bombings, many feel that armed resistance has become necessary – much as Americans supported war after the attack at Pearl Harbor. Nevertheless, only a small portion take an active part in the resistance, despite the fact that virtually all support its aim: to create a nation free from foreign oppression.
Most Palestinians attempt – with greater or lesser success – to go on with their lives, raise their children, attend school, go to work, celebrate festivals, organize weddings, raise their crops, provide for their families – all the things that preoccupy people around the world.
As Israel constructs a wall around them, however, prevents them at checkpoints from traveling from town to town, destroys their crops, prevents children from traveling to schools and the sick and injured from getting to the hospitals, it is becoming increasingly difficult to live even an approximation of a normal life.
Most Palestinians feel that the Israeli government’s intention is to drive them off the land, and there is a great deal of evidence that this is the goal of many Israeli leaders.
At the same time, however, there is a small but determined minority of Israelis, joined by citizens from throughout the world, who are coming to the Palestinian Territories to oppose Israeli occupation. These “internationals,” as they are often called, take part in peaceful marches, attempt to help Palestinian farmers harvest their crops despite Israeli military closures, live in refugee camps in the hope that their presence will prevent Israeli invasions and shelling, and walk children to school.
They are sometimes beaten, shot, and killed.
Some Israeli soldiers are refusing to serve in the West Bank or Gaza, stating: “We shall not continue to fight beyond the 1967 borders in order to dominate, expel, starve and humiliate an entire people.”
Meanwhile, the semblance of Palestinian autonomy continues. Elections held in January, 2005, resulted in new Palestinian leadership that will govern under occupation and will attempt to negotiate eventual Palestinian liberation. Yet even this election demonstrated Israel’s power, as various Palestinian candidates were arrested, detained, and sometimes beaten by Israeli forces. This aspect, however, like so much else, was rarely reported by the American media.
I have clearly laid out the differences between self-defense and terrorism. If they are the same thing in your mind, fine.
I agree with this fella...
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article4690.shtml When he comes to the options available to Palestinians for countering Israel's race-war, Neumann is brutally consistent: there are none, save violence. This part of his argument will be unacceptable to the fainthearted, but it is up to them to refute it. He does not content himself with dismissing passive resistance as an option in the Palestinian context, but denies that it has worked in any context where the powerless faced the unscrupulously powerful. Gandhi "cannot be said to have won independence for India", Martin Luther King's civil rights movement had the backing of the US establishment, indeed "was practically a federal government project", and South Africa's ANC "was never a nonviolent movement but a movement that decided, on occasion, to use nonviolent tactics".
As for "terrorism", which he defines as "random violence against non-combatants", he distinguishes it from "collateral damage" with the assertion that the latter "involves knowingly killing innocent civilians" while "Terrorism involves intentionally killing innocent civilians", concluding that "the moral difference is too academic even for an academic." Why, then, is "terrorism" considered to be particularly morally repugnant, while "collateral damage" tends to be taken in our moral stride?
"Imagine trying to make such a claim. You say: 'To achieve my objectives, I would certainly drop bombs with the knowledge that they would blow the arms off some children. But to achieve those same objectives, I would not plant or set off a bomb on the ground with the knowledge that it would have that same effect. After all, I have planes to do that, I don't need to plant bombs.' As a claim of moral superiority, this needs a little work."
The Palestinians, he repeats, are without options. Israel has all the options, principally that of unilateral withdrawal from the Occupied Territories, but refuses to use them. Hence he refuses "to pronounce judgment on Palestinian terrorism."
Well, I wasn't ignoring your post at all, unless you define ignoring as not prefacing every single thing I say with the caveat "But please refer to Byrnzie's earlier post".
At no point did I state that everything Israel does is reactionary ... But attacks on Hamas, like I DID say, are such. Shoot a rocket into Israel, get a Hellfire missile in return.
O.k. Fair enough. Although your previous posts did point at Israeli terror being simply the reactions of a party under attack. This is the standard position of most mainstream media in Britain and the U.S - that Israel is the innocent victim. This just isn't the case, as anybody who looks at the facts can see.
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0210unres.html United Nations Security Council Resolutions Currently Being Violated by Countries Other than Iraq
By Stephen Zunes
October 2, 2002
(updated February 28, 2003)
Resolution 252 (1968) Israel
Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind measures that change the legal status of Jerusalem, including the expropriation of land and properties thereon.
262 (1968) Israel
Calls upon Israel to pay compensation to Lebanon for destruction of airliners at Beirut International Airport.
267 (1969) Israel
Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem.
271 (1969) Israel
Reiterates calls to rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem and calls on Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying powers.
298 (1971) Israel
Reiterates demand that Israel rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem.
446 (1979) Israel
Calls upon Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying powers, to rescind previous measures that violate these relevant provisions, and "in particular, not to transport parts of its civilian population into the occupied Arab territories."
452 (1979) Israel
Calls on the government of Israel to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction, and planning of settlements in the Arab territories, occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem.
465 (1980) Israel
Reiterates previous resolutions on Israel's settlements policy.
471 (1980) Israel
Demands prosecution of those involved in assassination attempts of West Bank leaders and compensation for damages; reiterates demands to abide by Fourth Geneva Convention.
484 (1980) Israel
Reiterates request that Israel abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
487 (1981) Israel
Calls upon Israel to place its nuclear facilities under the safeguard of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency.
497 (1981) Israel
Demands that Israel rescind its decision to impose its domestic laws in the occupied Syrian Golan region.
573 (1985) Israel
Calls on Israel to pay compensation for human and material losses from its attack against Tunisia and to refrain from all such attacks or threats of attacks against other nations.
592 (1986) Israel
Insists Israel abide by the Fourth Geneva Conventions in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories.
605 (1987) Israel
"Calls once more upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide immediately and scrupulously by the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Times of War, and to desist forthwith from its policies and practices that are in violations of the provisions of the Convention."
607 (1986) Israel
Reiterates calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention and to cease its practice of deportations from occupied Arab territories.
608 (1988) Israel
Reiterates call for Israel to cease its deportations.
636 (1989) Israel
Reiterates call for Israel to cease its deportations.
641 (1989) Israel
Reiterates previous resolutions calling on Israel to desist in its deportations.
672 (1990) Israel
Reiterates calls for Israel to abide by provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Arab territories.
673 (1990) Israel
Insists that Israel come into compliance with resolution 672.
681 (1990) Israel
Reiterates call on Israel to abide by Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Arab territories.
694 (1991) Israel
Reiterates that Israel "must refrain from deporting any Palestinian civilian from the occupied territories and ensure the safe and immediate return of all those deported."
726 (1992) Israel
Reiterates calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention and to cease its practice of deportations from occupied Arab territories.
799 (1992) Israel
"Reaffirms applicability of Fourth Geneva Convention…to all Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, and affirms that deportation of civilians constitutes a contravention of its obligations under the Convention."
904 (1994) Israel
Calls upon Israel, as the occupying power, "to take and implement measures, inter alia, confiscation of arms, with the aim of preventing illegal acts of violence by settlers."
1073 (1996) Israel
"Calls on the safety and security of Palestinian civilians to be ensured."
1322 (2000) Israel
Calls upon Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying power.
1402 (2002) Israel
Calls for Israel to withdraw from Palestinian cities.
1403 (2002) Israel
Demands that Israel go through with "the implementation of its resolution 1402, without delay."
1405 (2002) Israel
Calls for UN inspectors to investigate civilian deaths during an Israeli assault on the Jenin refugee camp.
1435 (2002) Israel
Calls on Israel to withdraw to positions of September 2000 and end its military activities in and around Ramallah, including the destruction of security and civilian infrastructure.
http://www.geocities.com/savepalestinenow/internationallaw/studyguides/sgil3i.htm
'Israeli Violations of International Law - (9) Israel has violated 28 resolutions of the United Nations Security Council (which are legally binding on member-nations), and almost 100 resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly (which are not binding, but represent the will and understanding of the international community). And Israel is now in violation of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 2004, condemning the separation wall Israel is building throughout the occupied West Bank. ISRAELI VIOLATION: HISTORY & THEORY
The Charter of the United Nations describes the mission of the UN to protect world peace, and the human rights and self-determination of its inhabitants, and to foster cooperation amongst all nations to the benefit of everyone..
The Charter assigns implementation of this mission primarily to the Security Council, in cooperation with the General Assembly and the other four organs of the UN.
The UN Security Council has passed a large number of resolutions condemning Israel for its actions in the Middle East and against the Palestinian people and surrounding nations. The General Assembly has passed over 100 resolutions condemning Israeli actions and policies. In addition, the International Court of Justice has ruled that the wall that Israel is building through the occupied Palestinian territories substantially violates the human rights of the Palestinian people and needs to be torn down immediately, and the people affected must be compensated for their losses.
Israel has ignored all of the resolutions of the Security Council, which is a violation of the Charter, and by extension, international law. And it has also ignored all of the resolutions of the General Assembly and the Advisory Opinion of the International Court.
In addition, it is important to note that in support of Israel, the United States has exercised its veto power in the Security Council to cancel out many other resolutions that were otherwise passed unanimously or by the vaste majority of its members'.
O.k. Fair enough. Although your previous posts did point at Israeli terror being simply the reactions of a party under attack. This is the standard position of most mainstream media in Britain and the U.S - that Israel is the innocent victim. This just isn't the case, as anybody who looks at the facts can see.
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0210unres.html
United Nations Security Council Resolutions Currently Being Violated by Countries Other than Iraq
By Stephen Zunes
October 2, 2002
(updated February 28, 2003)
Resolution 252 (1968) Israel
Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind measures that change the legal status of Jerusalem, including the expropriation of land and properties thereon.
262 (1968) Israel
Calls upon Israel to pay compensation to Lebanon for destruction of airliners at Beirut International Airport.
267 (1969) Israel
Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem.
271 (1969) Israel
Reiterates calls to rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem and calls on Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying powers.
298 (1971) Israel
Reiterates demand that Israel rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem.
446 (1979) Israel
Calls upon Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying powers, to rescind previous measures that violate these relevant provisions, and "in particular, not to transport parts of its civilian population into the occupied Arab territories."
452 (1979) Israel
Calls on the government of Israel to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction, and planning of settlements in the Arab territories, occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem.
465 (1980) Israel
Reiterates previous resolutions on Israel's settlements policy.
471 (1980) Israel
Demands prosecution of those involved in assassination attempts of West Bank leaders and compensation for damages; reiterates demands to abide by Fourth Geneva Convention.
484 (1980) Israel
Reiterates request that Israel abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
487 (1981) Israel
Calls upon Israel to place its nuclear facilities under the safeguard of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency.
497 (1981) Israel
Demands that Israel rescind its decision to impose its domestic laws in the occupied Syrian Golan region.
573 (1985) Israel
Calls on Israel to pay compensation for human and material losses from its attack against Tunisia and to refrain from all such attacks or threats of attacks against other nations.
592 (1986) Israel
Insists Israel abide by the Fourth Geneva Conventions in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories.
605 (1987) Israel
"Calls once more upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide immediately and scrupulously by the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Times of War, and to desist forthwith from its policies and practices that are in violations of the provisions of the Convention."
607 (1986) Israel
Reiterates calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention and to cease its practice of deportations from occupied Arab territories.
608 (1988) Israel
Reiterates call for Israel to cease its deportations.
636 (1989) Israel
Reiterates call for Israel to cease its deportations.
641 (1989) Israel
Reiterates previous resolutions calling on Israel to desist in its deportations.
672 (1990) Israel
Reiterates calls for Israel to abide by provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Arab territories.
673 (1990) Israel
Insists that Israel come into compliance with resolution 672.
681 (1990) Israel
Reiterates call on Israel to abide by Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Arab territories.
694 (1991) Israel
Reiterates that Israel "must refrain from deporting any Palestinian civilian from the occupied territories and ensure the safe and immediate return of all those deported."
726 (1992) Israel
Reiterates calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention and to cease its practice of deportations from occupied Arab territories.
799 (1992) Israel
"Reaffirms applicability of Fourth Geneva Convention…to all Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, and affirms that deportation of civilians constitutes a contravention of its obligations under the Convention."
904 (1994) Israel
Calls upon Israel, as the occupying power, "to take and implement measures, inter alia, confiscation of arms, with the aim of preventing illegal acts of violence by settlers."
1073 (1996) Israel
"Calls on the safety and security of Palestinian civilians to be ensured."
1322 (2000) Israel
Calls upon Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying power.
1402 (2002) Israel
Calls for Israel to withdraw from Palestinian cities.
1403 (2002) Israel
Demands that Israel go through with "the implementation of its resolution 1402, without delay."
1405 (2002) Israel
Calls for UN inspectors to investigate civilian deaths during an Israeli assault on the Jenin refugee camp.
1435 (2002) Israel
Calls on Israel to withdraw to positions of September 2000 and end its military activities in and around Ramallah, including the destruction of security and civilian infrastructure.
The Nazis also thought that they were choosing survival. The German public was led to believe that Germany was under attack from the Jews - remember the burning of the Reichstag?
Israel could have survived perfectly well within the 1967 borders. Survival doesn't constitute invading and occupying your neighbours land and then spending 60 years terorising them, bulldozing their homes and stealing more and more of their land.
Edit: Check out the anchorwoman at the start of this program. "...the sensitive issue of human rights as part of Israel's struggle to defend it's security, and in many cases it's very existence". I wonder cases she can be refering to? Sounds like she feels that on many occasions Israel has felt it;s very existence has been threatened. Can anyone here give me an example of when Israel's very existence has been threatened? I must have been on holiday when that happened.
Dershowitz interestingly uses the analogy of the bombing of Nazi Germany by the British to excuse Israel's 'collective punishment' of the Palestinian people. He seems not to realise that Nazi Germany was being punished for the crime of occupation that Israel has been commiting these past 60 years. I wonder he therefore feels that a collective punishment of the Israeli people is now justified?
1) UN resolutions against Israel are typically a big joke. Many of them are harassing gestures from Arab nations, and many of them are not taken seriously for a reason.
I don't know .... Making these big lists is about as helpful as whipping out our cocks and seeing who measures up, when in reality both sides are pretty guilty of this particular crime.
1) UN resolutions against Israel are typically a big joke. Many of them are harassing gestures from Arab nations, and many of them are not taken seriously for a reason.
I don't know .... Making these big lists is about as helpful as whipping out our cocks and seeing who measures up, when in reality both sides are pretty guilty of this particular crime.
For what? A big ol' list of "see, of course I'm right"? You guys will win any battle of Google searches, I assure you. I don't think large amounts of links have done anything to undermine my logic here, though. People aren't touching my arguments, they are just posting a bunch of links.
Nah, that article refers to at least 16 ceasefires broken by the Palestinians ... I'm am sure one could find more, if one tried hard enough. At the end of the day, though, what does that prove?
For what? A big ol' list of "see, of course I'm right"? You guys will win any battle of Google searches, I assure you. I don't think large amounts of links have done anything to undermine my logic here, though. People aren't touching my arguments, they are just posting a bunch of links.
Whatever your bias, facts tend to be to the point.
Nah, that article refers to at least 16 ceasefires broken by the Palestinians ... I'm am sure one could find more, if one tried hard enough. At the end of the day, though, what does that prove?
true. But it does all point to Israel being the aggressor. Which holds meaning.
eh, you were railing about lists and how they hold no meaning, I was just stating that they tend to hold some truth.
Indeed ... Its just that in this case, one could claim that the Palestinians are the whole problem and find lists to support that (equally wrong) argument, too.
Indeed ... Its just that in this case, one could claim that the Palestinians are the whole problem and find lists to support that (equally wrong) argument, too.
very true.
Think we can agree that violence is not the answer, for either side.
Think we can agree that violence is not the answer, for either side.
100% ... I used to be a lot more Israel-centric in my thinking about this issue, given my revulsion for Islamic fundamentalism. I recognize now that the issue was never as simple as "Palestine = terrorism = bad", but my overall stance is still that Israel has at least one valid point in all this, namely that deliberate attacks on civilians are not a viable political solution to the issue. Where Israel went horribly wrong is in its use of the whole "we must protect ourselves" rationale for expanding the country's borders, into territories that are not theirs. The Palestinians need a state? Let them have a state ... Return to pre-1967 borders, and let the Palestinians do their thing. The second thing they did (and do) horribly wrong was the bombing of Lebanon. A bit of a different issue, but another example of excessive use of military force when its not helpful and outright immoral. I can see Byrnzie's point re. collateral damage .. After a certain point, the two concepts (collateral damage and terrorism) do blur together. I don't agree with that writer's crackpot conclusion (see that link Byrnzie posted) that because Israel's actions are wrong, Palestinian terrorism is justified. That's a weak argument, and I'd question that writer's own moral upbringing, quite frankly. Two wrongs make a right if you're the Allies crushing Germany with the treaty of Versailles, post-WWI (thus setting the stage for WW-II, basically), or if you're George Bush arguing that the best defense is a good offense (into countries that have nothing to do with Bin Laden) ... Or if you are a Palestine apologist who is as black-and-white in his thinking as those ultra-Orthodox rabbis are ...
100% ... I used to be a lot more Israel-centric in my thinking about this issue, given my revulsion for Islamic fundamentalism. I recognize now that the issue was never as simple as "Palestine = terrorism = bad", but my overall stance is still that Israel has at least one valid point in all this, namely that deliberate attacks on civilians are not a viable political solution to the issue. Where Israel went horribly wrong is in its use of the whole "we must protect ourselves" rationale for expanding the country's borders, into territories that are not theirs. The Palestinians need a state? Let them have a state ... Return to pre-1967 borders, and let the Palestinians do their thing. The second thing they did (and do) horribly wrong was the bombing of Lebanon. A bit of a different issue, but another example of excessive use of military force when its not helpful and outright immoral. I can see Byrnzie's point re. collateral damage .. After a certain point, the two concepts (collateral damage and terrorism) do blur together. I don't agree with that writer's crackpot conclusion (see that link Byrnzie posted) that because Israel's actions are wrong, Palestinian terrorism is justified. That's a weak argument, and I'd question that writer's own moral upbringing, quite frankly. Two wrongs make a right if you're the Allies crushing Germany with the treaty of Versailles, post-WWI (thus setting the stage for WW-II, basically), or if you're George Bush arguing that the best defense is a good offense (into countries that have nothing to do with Bin Laden) ... Or if you are a Palestine apologist who is as black-and-white in his thinking as those ultra-Orthodox rabbis are ...
1) UN resolutions against Israel are typically a big joke. Many of them are harassing gestures from Arab nations, and many of them are not taken seriously for a reason.
Again, what you're saying has no relation to the facts. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html
Take a look at the section on the right side of the page under 'vote'. I think you'll see an interesting pattern regarding the U.S.
I don't know .... Making these big lists is about as helpful as whipping out our cocks and seeing who measures up, when in reality both sides are pretty guilty of this particular crime.
As for the link you provided, I can't see any list of ceasefires broken by Palestinians, just a load of lies and racism, such as the following:
'We are all familiar with the 1993 Oslo peace process. In the seven years of that activity, Israel delivered to the Arabs everything that it promised, but the Arabs did not keep a single one of the commitments they had made. Terrorism continued, and the incitement to violence and hatred continued in the Palestinian schools, mosques, media, and political rhetoric.
In 2000, under the pressure and influence of President Bill Clinton, and in a desperate attempt to achieve a final peace under the Oslo umbrella, the Camp David Summit was held, where Israel's Labor Prime Minister Barak made an egregious offer, giving the Palestinians almost everything they outrageously demanded. But even that wasn't good enough for Arafat, who rejected it and returned to Ramallah to plot, organize and launch the current uprising'.
This was the forerunner to the road map, which was formally tabled by the Quartet three months ago, on April 30. The Palestinian authority, created under the Oslo agreements, said it would accept the road map. Israel, determined not to reward terrorism, tabled 14 reservations, and after being promised by President Bush that the reservations would be given serious and sympathetic consideration as the process moved along, agreed to follow the map.
The road map is flawed further by its reference [to] UN Resolution 242 [which] provides that Israel withdraw from territories occupied by it in the 1967 war, consistent with peace and militarily defensible and secure borders. It does not say "all the territories", or even "the territories". It just says "territories". [Israel] gave back all of the Sinai to Egypt, and that constituted 92% of "all the territories." One can argue that that is quite enough…
“It’s liberation [from Palestinian violence] that we are determined to secure, not merely a paper-thin cease fire. Murderers who take 90-day vacations are still murderers. Israel’s fight is our fight. And so shall it be until the last terrorist on Earth is in a cell or a cemetery.’’—U.S. House Majority Leader Tom Delay, currently in Israel, calling on Palestinians to disarm their terror organizations. (Fox News, July 30)
And the lying hypocrite shoots himself in the foot with the following reference to the road map:
'The road map is divided into three phases, the second being contingent on the first being complete, and the third being contingent on the second being complete… Phase One [consists of the following steps]:
1. President Bush's speech of June 24/02 was adopted as the cornerstone philosophy.
2. The Palestinians are to immediately implement an unconditional cessation of violence.
3. The Palestinians are to immediately end the incitement to hatred and the celebration of homicide bombers.
4. The Palestinians will draft a new constitution providing for free, fair and democratic elections and government.
5.Israel is to take steps to normalize Palestinian life.
6. Israel will withdraw from Palestinian areas occupied after September 28, 2000 as and when security is provided by Palestinians.
7. Israel issues an unequivocal statement affirming its commitment to a two-state vision for Palestine.
8. The Palestinians declare an unequivocal end to violence and terrorism and undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks on Israelis [including] confiscation of illegal weapons and the consolidation of security authority…
9. The Arab states are to cut off public and private funding and all other forms of support for groups supporting and engaging in violence and terror. And, all donations to the Palestinian authority be properly accounted for and used for proper purposes.
10. Israel will dismantle unauthorized settlements and freeze all settlement activity.
11. Israel agrees to take measures to improve the humanitarian situation, lifting curfews, removing check-points and easing restrictions on movement.
With hindsight we know that Israel continued to attack the Palestinians and continued it's illegal settlement building activities.
As for the link you provided, I can't see any list of ceasefires broken by Palestinians, just a load of lies and racism, such as the following:
'We are all familiar with the 1993 Oslo peace process. In the seven years of that activity, Israel delivered to the Arabs everything that it promised, but the Arabs did not keep a single one of the commitments they had made. Terrorism continued, and the incitement to violence and hatred continued in the Palestinian schools, mosques, media, and political rhetoric.
In 2000, under the pressure and influence of President Bill Clinton, and in a desperate attempt to achieve a final peace under the Oslo umbrella, the Camp David Summit was held, where Israel's Labor Prime Minister Barak made an egregious offer, giving the Palestinians almost everything they outrageously demanded. But even that wasn't good enough for Arafat, who rejected it and returned to Ramallah to plot, organize and launch the current uprising'.
Show me a map of the Oslo 'peace' accords. Why anyone would accept that is hard to believe.
but my overall stance is still that Israel has at least one valid point in all this, namely that deliberate attacks on civilians are not a viable political solution to the issue.
So then how do you account for the thousands of Palestinian civilians murdered by Israel?
100% ... I used to be a lot more Israel-centric in my thinking about this issue, given my revulsion for Islamic fundamentalism. I recognize now that the issue was never as simple as "Palestine = terrorism = bad", but my overall stance is still that Israel has at least one valid point in all this, namely that deliberate attacks on civilians are not a viable political solution to the issue. Where Israel went horribly wrong is in its use of the whole "we must protect ourselves" rationale for expanding the country's borders, into territories that are not theirs. The Palestinians need a state? Let them have a state ... Return to pre-1967 borders, and let the Palestinians do their thing. The second thing they did (and do) horribly wrong was the bombing of Lebanon. A bit of a different issue, but another example of excessive use of military force when its not helpful and outright immoral. I can see Byrnzie's point re. collateral damage .. After a certain point, the two concepts (collateral damage and terrorism) do blur together. I don't agree with that writer's crackpot conclusion (see that link Byrnzie posted) that because Israel's actions are wrong, Palestinian terrorism is justified. That's a weak argument, and I'd question that writer's own moral upbringing, quite frankly. Two wrongs make a right if you're the Allies crushing Germany with the treaty of Versailles, post-WWI (thus setting the stage for WW-II, basically), or if you're George Bush arguing that the best defense is a good offense (into countries that have nothing to do with Bin Laden) ... Or if you are a Palestine apologist who is as black-and-white in his thinking as those ultra-Orthodox rabbis are ...
Your whole post simply boils down to the distinction you choose to make between 'Israel's actions' and 'Palestinian terrorism'.
Here's something for you to consider...'Israel's actions' are terrorism.
Indeed ... Its just that in this case, one could claim that the Palestinians are the whole problem and find lists to support that (equally wrong) argument, too.
I would love you to provide lists, or anything else for that matter, that support the claim that 'the Palestinians are the whole problem'.
Your whole post simply boils down to the distinction you choose to make between 'Israel's actions' and 'Palestinian terrorism'.
Here's something for you to consider...'Israel's actions' are terrorism.
The irony of course is that the state of Israel came about through the terrorist activities of Zionist activists against the British in Palestine, as it was called at the time. They were also fighting for their own land and state.
Your whole post simply boils down to the distinction you choose to make between 'Israel's actions' and 'Palestinian terrorism'.
Here's something for you to consider...'Israel's actions' are terrorism.
sounds to me like he already agreed with you in his post, as he referred to your notion of counter-offensive blurring with terrorism (ie suggesting that Israels use of violence is no less terrorism than Palestines.
Being Irish ive always found the Palestinian border issue fascinating and infuriating.
sounds to me like he already agreed with you in his post, as he referred to your notion of counter-offensive blurring with terrorism (ie suggesting that Israels use of violence is no less terrorism than Palestines.
Being Irish ive always found the Palestinian border issue fascinating and infuriating.
The point re Pre-67 is very good imo
This dude and Commy are actually reading my posts, Byrnzie. Are you taking notes?
Comments
I think it would persist even if Israeli aggression did stop, but admittedly that's speculation. Either way, one side is highly unlikely to stop the violence unilaterally, even though that's just what Carter suggested to Hamas.
24 November 2006
Israel rejects ceasefire proposal
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6179588.stm
'Israel has in the past consistently rejected ceasefire offers by Palestinian militants, saying it refuses to do deals of any kind with what it describes as terrorist organisations'.
Friday April 25 2008
Israel rejects Gaza ceasefire
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/25/israelandthepalestinians?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/cur_sit/
The “Intifada”
Living under such hardship and humiliation, in the year 2000 the Palestinian population began an uprising against Israeli rule called the “Intifada.” This term – rarely translated in the American media – is simply the Arabic word for uprising or rebellion – literally, it means “shaking off.” The American Revolutionary War, for example, would be called the American intifada against Britain.
This is the second such uprising. The first began in 1986 and ended in 1993 when the peace negotiations offered hopes of justice. (Sadly, in the following years these hopes were crushed after Israel, rather than withdrawing from the West Bank and Gaza, as promised, actually doubled its expansion in these areas.)
During this first uprising, which consisted largely of Palestinians throwing stones at Israeli troops (very few Palestinians had weapons), Palestinians were killed at a rate approximately 7-10 times that of Israelis.
One of the ways Israeli forces attempted to put down this rebellion was through the “break the bones” policy, implemented by Yitzhak Rabin, in which people who had been throwing stones – often youths – were held down and their arms broken. On the first day of this policy alone, one hospital in Gaza treated 200 People for fractures.1
Today’s uprising – termed the “Second Intifada” – was sparked when an Israeli general, Ariel Sharon, known for his slaughter of Palestinian civilians throughout his career, visited a Jerusalem holy site, accompanied by over a thousand armed Israeli soldiers. When some Palestinian youths threw stones, Israeli soldiers responded with live gunfire, killing 5 the first day, and 10 the second.
This uprising has now continued for over five years, as Israel periodically mounts massive invasions into Palestinian communities, using tanks, helicopter gunships, and F-16 fighter jets. Palestinian fighters resisting these forces possess rifles and homemade mortars and rockets. A minute fraction strap explosives onto their own bodies and attempt to deliver their bombs in person; often they kill only themselves.
While the large majority of Palestinians oppose suicide bombings, many feel that armed resistance has become necessary – much as Americans supported war after the attack at Pearl Harbor. Nevertheless, only a small portion take an active part in the resistance, despite the fact that virtually all support its aim: to create a nation free from foreign oppression.
Most Palestinians attempt – with greater or lesser success – to go on with their lives, raise their children, attend school, go to work, celebrate festivals, organize weddings, raise their crops, provide for their families – all the things that preoccupy people around the world.
As Israel constructs a wall around them, however, prevents them at checkpoints from traveling from town to town, destroys their crops, prevents children from traveling to schools and the sick and injured from getting to the hospitals, it is becoming increasingly difficult to live even an approximation of a normal life.
Most Palestinians feel that the Israeli government’s intention is to drive them off the land, and there is a great deal of evidence that this is the goal of many Israeli leaders.
At the same time, however, there is a small but determined minority of Israelis, joined by citizens from throughout the world, who are coming to the Palestinian Territories to oppose Israeli occupation. These “internationals,” as they are often called, take part in peaceful marches, attempt to help Palestinian farmers harvest their crops despite Israeli military closures, live in refugee camps in the hope that their presence will prevent Israeli invasions and shelling, and walk children to school.
They are sometimes beaten, shot, and killed.
Some Israeli soldiers are refusing to serve in the West Bank or Gaza, stating: “We shall not continue to fight beyond the 1967 borders in order to dominate, expel, starve and humiliate an entire people.”
Meanwhile, the semblance of Palestinian autonomy continues. Elections held in January, 2005, resulted in new Palestinian leadership that will govern under occupation and will attempt to negotiate eventual Palestinian liberation. Yet even this election demonstrated Israel’s power, as various Palestinian candidates were arrested, detained, and sometimes beaten by Israeli forces. This aspect, however, like so much else, was rarely reported by the American media.
I agree with this fella...
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article4690.shtml
When he comes to the options available to Palestinians for countering Israel's race-war, Neumann is brutally consistent: there are none, save violence. This part of his argument will be unacceptable to the fainthearted, but it is up to them to refute it. He does not content himself with dismissing passive resistance as an option in the Palestinian context, but denies that it has worked in any context where the powerless faced the unscrupulously powerful. Gandhi "cannot be said to have won independence for India", Martin Luther King's civil rights movement had the backing of the US establishment, indeed "was practically a federal government project", and South Africa's ANC "was never a nonviolent movement but a movement that decided, on occasion, to use nonviolent tactics".
As for "terrorism", which he defines as "random violence against non-combatants", he distinguishes it from "collateral damage" with the assertion that the latter "involves knowingly killing innocent civilians" while "Terrorism involves intentionally killing innocent civilians", concluding that "the moral difference is too academic even for an academic." Why, then, is "terrorism" considered to be particularly morally repugnant, while "collateral damage" tends to be taken in our moral stride?
"Imagine trying to make such a claim. You say: 'To achieve my objectives, I would certainly drop bombs with the knowledge that they would blow the arms off some children. But to achieve those same objectives, I would not plant or set off a bomb on the ground with the knowledge that it would have that same effect. After all, I have planes to do that, I don't need to plant bombs.' As a claim of moral superiority, this needs a little work."
The Palestinians, he repeats, are without options. Israel has all the options, principally that of unilateral withdrawal from the Occupied Territories, but refuses to use them. Hence he refuses "to pronounce judgment on Palestinian terrorism."
O.k. Fair enough. Although your previous posts did point at Israeli terror being simply the reactions of a party under attack. This is the standard position of most mainstream media in Britain and the U.S - that Israel is the innocent victim. This just isn't the case, as anybody who looks at the facts can see.
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0210unres.html
United Nations Security Council Resolutions Currently Being Violated by Countries Other than Iraq
By Stephen Zunes
October 2, 2002
(updated February 28, 2003)
Resolution 252 (1968) Israel
Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind measures that change the legal status of Jerusalem, including the expropriation of land and properties thereon.
262 (1968) Israel
Calls upon Israel to pay compensation to Lebanon for destruction of airliners at Beirut International Airport.
267 (1969) Israel
Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem.
271 (1969) Israel
Reiterates calls to rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem and calls on Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying powers.
298 (1971) Israel
Reiterates demand that Israel rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem.
446 (1979) Israel
Calls upon Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying powers, to rescind previous measures that violate these relevant provisions, and "in particular, not to transport parts of its civilian population into the occupied Arab territories."
452 (1979) Israel
Calls on the government of Israel to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction, and planning of settlements in the Arab territories, occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem.
465 (1980) Israel
Reiterates previous resolutions on Israel's settlements policy.
471 (1980) Israel
Demands prosecution of those involved in assassination attempts of West Bank leaders and compensation for damages; reiterates demands to abide by Fourth Geneva Convention.
484 (1980) Israel
Reiterates request that Israel abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
487 (1981) Israel
Calls upon Israel to place its nuclear facilities under the safeguard of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency.
497 (1981) Israel
Demands that Israel rescind its decision to impose its domestic laws in the occupied Syrian Golan region.
573 (1985) Israel
Calls on Israel to pay compensation for human and material losses from its attack against Tunisia and to refrain from all such attacks or threats of attacks against other nations.
592 (1986) Israel
Insists Israel abide by the Fourth Geneva Conventions in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories.
605 (1987) Israel
"Calls once more upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide immediately and scrupulously by the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Times of War, and to desist forthwith from its policies and practices that are in violations of the provisions of the Convention."
607 (1986) Israel
Reiterates calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention and to cease its practice of deportations from occupied Arab territories.
608 (1988) Israel
Reiterates call for Israel to cease its deportations.
636 (1989) Israel
Reiterates call for Israel to cease its deportations.
641 (1989) Israel
Reiterates previous resolutions calling on Israel to desist in its deportations.
672 (1990) Israel
Reiterates calls for Israel to abide by provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Arab territories.
673 (1990) Israel
Insists that Israel come into compliance with resolution 672.
681 (1990) Israel
Reiterates call on Israel to abide by Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Arab territories.
694 (1991) Israel
Reiterates that Israel "must refrain from deporting any Palestinian civilian from the occupied territories and ensure the safe and immediate return of all those deported."
726 (1992) Israel
Reiterates calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention and to cease its practice of deportations from occupied Arab territories.
799 (1992) Israel
"Reaffirms applicability of Fourth Geneva Convention…to all Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, and affirms that deportation of civilians constitutes a contravention of its obligations under the Convention."
904 (1994) Israel
Calls upon Israel, as the occupying power, "to take and implement measures, inter alia, confiscation of arms, with the aim of preventing illegal acts of violence by settlers."
1073 (1996) Israel
"Calls on the safety and security of Palestinian civilians to be ensured."
1322 (2000) Israel
Calls upon Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying power.
1402 (2002) Israel
Calls for Israel to withdraw from Palestinian cities.
1403 (2002) Israel
Demands that Israel go through with "the implementation of its resolution 1402, without delay."
1405 (2002) Israel
Calls for UN inspectors to investigate civilian deaths during an Israeli assault on the Jenin refugee camp.
1435 (2002) Israel
Calls on Israel to withdraw to positions of September 2000 and end its military activities in and around Ramallah, including the destruction of security and civilian infrastructure.
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/un.html
Israel is the target of at least 65 UN Resolutions and the Palestinians are the target of none.
http://www.geocities.com/savepalestinenow/internationallaw/studyguides/sgil3i.htm
'Israeli Violations of International Law - (9) Israel has violated 28 resolutions of the United Nations Security Council (which are legally binding on member-nations), and almost 100 resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly (which are not binding, but represent the will and understanding of the international community). And Israel is now in violation of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 2004, condemning the separation wall Israel is building throughout the occupied West Bank. ISRAELI VIOLATION: HISTORY & THEORY
The Charter of the United Nations describes the mission of the UN to protect world peace, and the human rights and self-determination of its inhabitants, and to foster cooperation amongst all nations to the benefit of everyone..
The Charter assigns implementation of this mission primarily to the Security Council, in cooperation with the General Assembly and the other four organs of the UN.
The UN Security Council has passed a large number of resolutions condemning Israel for its actions in the Middle East and against the Palestinian people and surrounding nations. The General Assembly has passed over 100 resolutions condemning Israeli actions and policies. In addition, the International Court of Justice has ruled that the wall that Israel is building through the occupied Palestinian territories substantially violates the human rights of the Palestinian people and needs to be torn down immediately, and the people affected must be compensated for their losses.
Israel has ignored all of the resolutions of the Security Council, which is a violation of the Charter, and by extension, international law. And it has also ignored all of the resolutions of the General Assembly and the Advisory Opinion of the International Court.
In addition, it is important to note that in support of Israel, the United States has exercised its veto power in the Security Council to cancel out many other resolutions that were otherwise passed unanimously or by the vaste majority of its members'.
The Nazis also thought that they were choosing survival. The German public was led to believe that Germany was under attack from the Jews - remember the burning of the Reichstag?
Israel could have survived perfectly well within the 1967 borders. Survival doesn't constitute invading and occupying your neighbours land and then spending 60 years terorising them, bulldozing their homes and stealing more and more of their land.
I suppose you agree with this fella??
Dershowitz: we shouldn't criticise Israeli war crimes.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=WmPqEdbE5Gs&feature=related
Edit: Check out the anchorwoman at the start of this program. "...the sensitive issue of human rights as part of Israel's struggle to defend it's security, and in many cases it's very existence". I wonder cases she can be refering to? Sounds like she feels that on many occasions Israel has felt it;s very existence has been threatened. Can anyone here give me an example of when Israel's very existence has been threatened? I must have been on holiday when that happened.
Dershowitz interestingly uses the analogy of the bombing of Nazi Germany by the British to excuse Israel's 'collective punishment' of the Palestinian people. He seems not to realise that Nazi Germany was being punished for the crime of occupation that Israel has been commiting these past 60 years. I wonder he therefore feels that a collective punishment of the Israeli people is now justified?
1) UN resolutions against Israel are typically a big joke. Many of them are harassing gestures from Arab nations, and many of them are not taken seriously for a reason.
2) One can post a giant list of ceasefires broken by Israel. And here's a giant list of ceasefires broken by Palestinians. This piece lays it out:
http://www.isranet.org/isranetbriefings/Permanent-2003/Permanent-July-2003.htm
I don't know .... Making these big lists is about as helpful as whipping out our cocks and seeing who measures up, when in reality both sides are pretty guilty of this particular crime.
Seems Israel has the bigger list.
For what? A big ol' list of "see, of course I'm right"? You guys will win any battle of Google searches, I assure you. I don't think large amounts of links have done anything to undermine my logic here, though. People aren't touching my arguments, they are just posting a bunch of links.
Nah, that article refers to at least 16 ceasefires broken by the Palestinians ... I'm am sure one could find more, if one tried hard enough. At the end of the day, though, what does that prove?
Not sure what your point is ...
Indeed ... Its just that in this case, one could claim that the Palestinians are the whole problem and find lists to support that (equally wrong) argument, too.
Think we can agree that violence is not the answer, for either side.
100% ... I used to be a lot more Israel-centric in my thinking about this issue, given my revulsion for Islamic fundamentalism. I recognize now that the issue was never as simple as "Palestine = terrorism = bad", but my overall stance is still that Israel has at least one valid point in all this, namely that deliberate attacks on civilians are not a viable political solution to the issue. Where Israel went horribly wrong is in its use of the whole "we must protect ourselves" rationale for expanding the country's borders, into territories that are not theirs. The Palestinians need a state? Let them have a state ... Return to pre-1967 borders, and let the Palestinians do their thing. The second thing they did (and do) horribly wrong was the bombing of Lebanon. A bit of a different issue, but another example of excessive use of military force when its not helpful and outright immoral. I can see Byrnzie's point re. collateral damage .. After a certain point, the two concepts (collateral damage and terrorism) do blur together. I don't agree with that writer's crackpot conclusion (see that link Byrnzie posted) that because Israel's actions are wrong, Palestinian terrorism is justified. That's a weak argument, and I'd question that writer's own moral upbringing, quite frankly. Two wrongs make a right if you're the Allies crushing Germany with the treaty of Versailles, post-WWI (thus setting the stage for WW-II, basically), or if you're George Bush arguing that the best defense is a good offense (into countries that have nothing to do with Bin Laden) ... Or if you are a Palestine apologist who is as black-and-white in his thinking as those ultra-Orthodox rabbis are ...
Very well said, very apt.
Great post.
Again, what you're saying has no relation to the facts.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html
Take a look at the section on the right side of the page under 'vote'. I think you'll see an interesting pattern regarding the U.S.
As for the link you provided, I can't see any list of ceasefires broken by Palestinians, just a load of lies and racism, such as the following:
'We are all familiar with the 1993 Oslo peace process. In the seven years of that activity, Israel delivered to the Arabs everything that it promised, but the Arabs did not keep a single one of the commitments they had made. Terrorism continued, and the incitement to violence and hatred continued in the Palestinian schools, mosques, media, and political rhetoric.
In 2000, under the pressure and influence of President Bill Clinton, and in a desperate attempt to achieve a final peace under the Oslo umbrella, the Camp David Summit was held, where Israel's Labor Prime Minister Barak made an egregious offer, giving the Palestinians almost everything they outrageously demanded. But even that wasn't good enough for Arafat, who rejected it and returned to Ramallah to plot, organize and launch the current uprising'.
This was the forerunner to the road map, which was formally tabled by the Quartet three months ago, on April 30. The Palestinian authority, created under the Oslo agreements, said it would accept the road map. Israel, determined not to reward terrorism, tabled 14 reservations, and after being promised by President Bush that the reservations would be given serious and sympathetic consideration as the process moved along, agreed to follow the map.
The road map is flawed further by its reference [to] UN Resolution 242 [which] provides that Israel withdraw from territories occupied by it in the 1967 war, consistent with peace and militarily defensible and secure borders. It does not say "all the territories", or even "the territories". It just says "territories". [Israel] gave back all of the Sinai to Egypt, and that constituted 92% of "all the territories." One can argue that that is quite enough…
“It’s liberation [from Palestinian violence] that we are determined to secure, not merely a paper-thin cease fire. Murderers who take 90-day vacations are still murderers. Israel’s fight is our fight. And so shall it be until the last terrorist on Earth is in a cell or a cemetery.’’—U.S. House Majority Leader Tom Delay, currently in Israel, calling on Palestinians to disarm their terror organizations. (Fox News, July 30)
And the lying hypocrite shoots himself in the foot with the following reference to the road map:
'The road map is divided into three phases, the second being contingent on the first being complete, and the third being contingent on the second being complete… Phase One [consists of the following steps]:
1. President Bush's speech of June 24/02 was adopted as the cornerstone philosophy.
2. The Palestinians are to immediately implement an unconditional cessation of violence.
3. The Palestinians are to immediately end the incitement to hatred and the celebration of homicide bombers.
4. The Palestinians will draft a new constitution providing for free, fair and democratic elections and government.
5.Israel is to take steps to normalize Palestinian life.
6. Israel will withdraw from Palestinian areas occupied after September 28, 2000 as and when security is provided by Palestinians.
7. Israel issues an unequivocal statement affirming its commitment to a two-state vision for Palestine.
8. The Palestinians declare an unequivocal end to violence and terrorism and undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks on Israelis [including] confiscation of illegal weapons and the consolidation of security authority…
9. The Arab states are to cut off public and private funding and all other forms of support for groups supporting and engaging in violence and terror. And, all donations to the Palestinian authority be properly accounted for and used for proper purposes.
10. Israel will dismantle unauthorized settlements and freeze all settlement activity.
11. Israel agrees to take measures to improve the humanitarian situation, lifting curfews, removing check-points and easing restrictions on movement.
With hindsight we know that Israel continued to attack the Palestinians and continued it's illegal settlement building activities.
So then how do you account for the thousands of Palestinian civilians murdered by Israel?
http://parc.virtualactivism.net/resources/biblio/oslo1995.gif
Your whole post simply boils down to the distinction you choose to make between 'Israel's actions' and 'Palestinian terrorism'.
Here's something for you to consider...'Israel's actions' are terrorism.
I would love you to provide lists, or anything else for that matter, that support the claim that 'the Palestinians are the whole problem'.
The irony of course is that the state of Israel came about through the terrorist activities of Zionist activists against the British in Palestine, as it was called at the time. They were also fighting for their own land and state.
sounds to me like he already agreed with you in his post, as he referred to your notion of counter-offensive blurring with terrorism (ie suggesting that Israels use of violence is no less terrorism than Palestines.
Being Irish ive always found the Palestinian border issue fascinating and infuriating.
The point re Pre-67 is very good imo
This dude and Commy are actually reading my posts, Byrnzie. Are you taking notes?