List of villages destroyed by Israel in 1948-1949

Byrnzie

FiveB247x wrote:

Just because you can find articles and commentary that back your opinion, doesn't make your opinion correct.

Yes it does.
If I provide U.N reports and details of U.N resolutions then they are indisputable.
The same goes with Human rights reports o Israeli Human rights abuses from credible sources such as 'Human Rights Watch' and 'Amnesty International'.
They are correct because they are factual.

Byrnzie

Thecure wrote:

can you please let me know who this writer is and maybe put some reference to where we can find him on the web.

I typed the article by hand directly from his book 'The Case Against Israel'.

Byrnzie

SammyK14 wrote:

if the palestinians put down their weapons, there would be no more war...

if the israelis put down their weapons, there would be no more israel...

Not true.

And I notice that you make no mention of the occupation, as if that isn't the cruz of the matter. But then I suppose sounbites give you the ability to avoid mentioning what is relevant.

Byrnzie

bigdvs wrote:

heads up, contradictions to a bunch of assumptions made by outlaw and byrnzie in just the first 2/3 pages of this thread:


"In the 1830s Egypt conquered Palestine and made some minor improvements and many Egyptians, in particular soldiers, settled there. It was however during this period that the Jews of Safed were massacred in 1831 by Druzes. Safed was resettled with Kurds and Algerians. This was followed in 1837 by earthquakes in Safed and Tiberias. In 1838 Palestine was given back to the Turks. However, with the advent of early Zionism, just prior to the outbreak of World War I in 1914, the Jews had become a small majority in the central Judea region. Many were not Ottoman citizens and were expelled to Egypt at the time that war was declared."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Palestine#Ottoman_Period_1517-1917

(see I can use the wiki too)

So as early as 1830 muslims are slaughtering peaceful settled Jews. And rather then provide sanctuary for those that lived there, the empire tosses them all out of there homes in 1914. Seems like most of them just came back 30 years later and wanted what was there's in Judea back.

1. The first part of the paragraph you quoted reads: 'Jewish immigration to Palestine, particularly to the "four sacred cities" (Jerusalem, Safed, Tiberias and Hebron) which already had significant Jewish communities, increased particularly towards the end of Ottoman rule; Jews of European origin lived mostly off donations from off-country, while many Sephardic Jews found themselves a trade. Many Circassians and Bosnian Muslims were settled in the north of Palestine by the Ottomans in the early 19th Century...'
2. The Druze aren't Palestinians.
3. The Druze aren't Muslims.
4. Palestinians lived in peace with Jews for hundreds of years.
5. What sanctuary did Jews need in 1914?
6. No part of the land belonged to Jews. It belonged to the Ottoman Empire 'who ruled the area through local pontentates', having a minimal influence on the daily lives of the Arab inhabitants.
7. What does any of this have to do with the illegal Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and even of the illegitimacy of the Zionist enterprise in the early part of the 20th century and the ethnic cleansing that resulted?

And you haven't made any 'contradictions to a bunch of assumptions' by myself or Outlaw because no assumptions were made by either one of us.
Still, nice try.

Byrnzie

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

Well you've basically proved my point so I thank you.

Firstly, can you explain to me what 'point' you had?
And secondly, can you explain how his Wickepedia quote re: 'Ottoman rule in the area of Palestine', proved your 'point'?

Byrnzie

I wonder if similar discussions as this took place during the death throes of the Apartheid regime? I mean, I know that the U.S continued to support the Apartheid regime right up to the end, so I wonder if - like the aplogists for Israel here - there were people who used similar arguments and tactics to support Apartheid; i.e, the tendency to try and complicate the issue with references to deepest, darkest history, supposedly ingrained ethnic hostility, and mysterious religious dogma that we can't ever hope to unravel?

I wonder if the apologists for Apartheid also attempted to claim that the whites had a legitimate right to the area and that therefore the crimes of Apartheid were justified?

Byrnzie

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

What about the point that the Jews always had a connections to the land?

Michael Neumann:
'In the case of a Jewish claim to Palestine, the claims are themselves dubious. Here it is not necessary to have decided on a truth, which may elude researchers forever. It is enough to show that there is serious controversy, and that is easily done. One account of recent findings can be found in 'The Bible Unearthed: Archeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the origin of It's sacred Texts'. It's authors are Israel Finkelstein, director of an archeological institute at Tel Aviv Uuniversity, and Neil Asher Silberman, director of a Belgian archeological institute and a contributing editor to 'Archeology' magazine. These writers display no political agenda and repeat to the point of saturation their admiration and respect for the Bible. Asher and Silberman introduce their work with the claim that:

"The historical sage contained in the Bible - from Abraham's encounter with God and his journey to Canaan, to Moses's delverance of the children of Israe from bondage, to the rise and fall of the Kingdom of Israel and Judah - was not a miraculous revelation, but a brilliant product of the human imagination."

This is the authors' exceedingly polite way of saying that the Biblical accounts are sometimes nonsense, sometimes deliberate lies, exaggerations, and distortions. The status of the Biblical Kingdom is particularly relevant to the Jewish claims to Palestine. One of Asher and Silberman's more devastating findings is that:

"The Biblical borders of the land of Israel as outlined in the book of Joshua had seemingly assumed a sacred inviolability...the Bible pictures a stormy but basically continuous Israelite occupation of the land of Israel all the way to the Assyrian conquest. But a reexamination of the archelogical evidence...points to a period of a few decades [in which Israel existed], between around 835-800B.C.E..."

In other words, they find that the "Great" Jewish Kingdom existed in something like their fabled extent for a tiny fraction of the period traditionally alleged. Even then, their boundaries nver came close to the "Greater Israel" of contemporary Jewish fundamentalism. The rest of the time. Judah and Israel are thought to have been, for the most part, very primitive entities, devoid of literate culture or substantial administrative structure, extending to only a small, landlocked part of what is now called Palestine. The great structures of the Biblical era are, all of them, attributed to Canaanite cultures. Moreover, the inhabitants of Biblical Israel and Judah seem to have, for most of the time and for the most part, practitioners of Canaanite religions rather than Judaism, or of various syncretic cults. These "Israelites" were not, that is, "Jewish" in one important sense of the term. The authors refer to the Biblical Kingdom at it existed as a "a multi-ethnic society." The idea that such a past could validate a Jewish historical claim to Palestine is simply ludicrous, even if it could be shown - which it cannot - that today's Jews are in some legal sense, heirs to the ancient Israelite Kingdoms.'

FiveB247x

Could the same exact be said about the fact of which group is actually entitled to the land of Palestine/Israel? Which is exactly why this entire issue is debated so much.

Lastly, I do not doubt some of the details in HRW or AI reports, but I because a report says a specific fact or detail of an order, does not mean you can automatically make a leap to equate that fact to encompass the entire issue - something you are doing. Anyone can post specific facts, stories or details to back their position or belief, and of course you will then say - look they're reiterating my belief or position in the dicussion. But it is you that take these instances and facts and make it into a larger agenda, story or purpose - not the place you're actually getting the facts from. Doing this is merely spinning reality to fit your mold, compared to just viewing reality as it is.

Byrnzie wrote:

I wonder if similar discussions as this took place during the death throes of the Apartheid regime? I mean, I know that the U.S continued to support the Apartheid regime right up to the end, so I wonder if - like the aplogists for Israel here - there were people who used similar arguments and tactics to support Apartheid; i.e, the tendency to try and complicate the issue with references to deepest, darkest history, supposedly ingrained ethnic hostility, and mysterious religious dogma that we can't ever hope to unravel?

I wonder if the apologists for Apartheid also attempted to claim that the whites had a legitimate right to the area and that therefore the crimes of Apartheid were justified?

Byrnzie

FiveB247x wrote:

Could the same exact be said about the fact of which group is actually entitled to the land of Palestine/Israel? Which is exactly why this entire issue is debated so much.

Lastly, I do not doubt some of the details in HRW or AI reports, but I because a report says a specific fact or detail of an order, does not mean you can automatically make a leap to equate that fact to encompass the entire issue - something you are doing. Anyone can post specific facts, stories or details to back their position or belief, and of course you will then say - look they're reiterating my belief or position in the dicussion. But it is you that take these instances and facts and make it into a larger agenda, story or purpose - not the place you're actually getting the facts from. Doing this is merely spinning reality to fit your mold, compared to just viewing reality as it is.

The international community and the U.N Security has deemed the occupation and the settlements to be illegal under international law. Human Rights Watch, Amnesty and the U.N accuse Israel of war crimes and breaching the Geneva convention.

These aren't my opnions, these are facts.

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/cur_sit/boyle.html

'The International Laws of Belligerent Occupation'

Francis A. Boyle is a professor of international law at the University of Chicago and a Defence Lawyer at the International Court of Justice. He received his Master’s Degree and PhD in Political Science, as well as his Doctor of Law from Harvard University. He is the author of numerous books including, The Future of International Law and American Foreign Policy, World Politics and International Law, Defending Civil Resistance Under International Law, and Palestine, Palestinians, and International Law.

by Professor Francis Boyle
Professor of International Law, University of Illinois

Belligerent occupation is governed by The Hague Regulations of 1907, as well as by the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and the customary laws of belligerent occupation. Security Council Resolution 1322 (2000), paragraph 3 continued: “Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and its responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in a Time of War of 12 August 1949;...” Again, the Security Council vote was 14 to 0, becoming obligatory international law.

The Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the West Bank, to the Gaza Strip, and to the entire City of Jerusalem, in order to protect the Palestinians living there. The Palestinian People living in this Palestinian Land are “protected persons” within the meaning of the Fourth Geneva Convention. All of their rights are sacred under international law.

There are 149 substantive articles of the Fourth Geneva Convention that protect the rights of every one of these Palestinians living in occupied Palestine. The Israeli Government is currently violating, and has since 1967 been violating, almost each and every one of these sacred rights of the Palestinian People recognized by the Fourth Geneva Convention. Indeed, violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention are war crimes.

So this is not a symmetrical situation. As matters of fact and of law, the gross and repeated violations of Palestinian rights by the Israeli army and Israeli settlers living illegally in occupied Palestine constitute war crimes. Conversely, the Palestinian People are defending themselves and their Land and their Homes against Israeli war crimes and Israeli war criminals, both military and civilian.
The U.N. Human Rights Commission

Indeed, it is far more serious than that. On 19 October 2000 a Special Session of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights adopted a Resolution set forth in U.N. Document E/CN.4/S-5/L.2/Rev. 1, “Condemning the provocative visit to al Aqsa Haram Sharif on 28 September 2000 by Ariel Sharon, the Likud party leader, which triggered the tragic events that followed in occupied East Jerusalem and the other occupied Palestinian territories, resulting in a high number of deaths and injuries among Palestinian civilians.” The U.N. Human Rights Commission then said it was “[g]ravely concerned” about several different types of atrocities inflicted by Israel upon the Palestinian People, which it denominated “war crimes, flagrant violations of international humanitarian law and crimes against humanity.”

In operative paragraph 1 of its 19 October 2000 Resolution, the U.N. Human Rights Commission then: “Strongly condemns the disproportionate and indiscriminate use of force in violation of international humanitarian law by the Israeli occupying Power against innocent and unarmed Palestinian civilians...including many children, in the occupied territories, which constitutes a war crime and a crime against humanity;...” And in paragraph 5 of its 19 October 2000 Resolution, the U.N. Human Rights Commission: “Also affirms that the deliberate and systematic killing of civilians and children by the Israeli occupying authorities constitutes a flagrant and grave violation of the right to life and also constitutes a crime against humanity;...” Article 68 of the United Nations Charter had expressly required the U.N.’s Economic and Social Council to “set up” this Commission “for the promotion of human rights.”
Israel’s War Crimes against Palestinians

We all have a general idea of what a war crime is, so I am not going to elaborate upon that term here. But there are different degrees of heinousness for war crimes. In particular are the more serious war crimes denominated “grave breaches” of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Since the start of the Al Aqsa Intifada, the world has seen those inflicted every day by Israel against the Palestinian People living in occupied Palestine: e.g., wilful killing of Palestinian civilians by the Israeli army and Israel’s illegal paramilitary settlers. These Israeli “grave breaches” of the Fourth Geneva Convention mandate universal prosecution for their perpetrators, whether military or civilian, as well as prosecution for their commanders, whether military or civilian, including Israel’s political leaders.
Israel’s Crimes Against Humanity against Palestinians

But I want to focus for a moment on Israel’s “crime against humanity” against the Palestinian People — as determined by the U.N. Human Rights Commission itself, set up pursuant to the requirements of the United Nations Charter. What is a “crime against humanity”? This concept goes all the way back to the Nuremberg Charter of 1945 for the trial of the major Nazi war criminals. And in the Nuremberg Charter of 1945, drafted by the United States Government, there was created and inserted a new type of international crime specifically intended to deal with the Nazi persecution of the Jewish People.

The paradigmatic example of a “crime against humanity” is what Hitler and the Nazis did to the Jewish People. This is where the concept of crime against humanity came from. And this is what the U.N. Human Rights Commission determined that Israel is currently doing to the Palestinian People: Crimes against humanity. Legally, just like what Hitler and the Nazis did to the Jews.
The Precursor to Genocide

Moreover, a crime against humanity is the direct historical and legal precursor to the international crime of genocide as defined by the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The theory here was that what Hitler and the Nazis did to the Jewish People required a special international treaty that would codify and universalise the Nuremberg concept of “crime against humanity.” And that treaty ultimately became the 1948 Genocide Convention.

In fairness, you will note that the U.N. Human Rights Commission did not go so far as to condemn Israel for committing genocide against the Palestinian People. But it has condemned Israel for committing crimes against humanity, which is the direct precursor to genocide. And I submit that if something is not done quite soon by the American People and the International Community to stop Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Palestinian People, it could very well degenerate into genocide, if Israel is not there already. And in this regard, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is what international lawyers call a genocidaire—one who has already committed genocide in the past.'

Byrnzie

FiveB247x wrote:

Lastly, I do not doubt some of the details in HRW or AI reports, but I because a report says a specific fact or detail of an order, does not mean you can automatically make a leap to equate that fact to encompass the entire issue - something you are doing. Anyone can post specific facts, stories or details to back their position or belief, and of course you will then say - look they're reiterating my belief or position in the dicussion. But it is you that take these instances and facts and make it into a larger agenda, story or purpose - not the place you're actually getting the facts from. Doing this is merely spinning reality to fit your mold, compared to just viewing reality as it is.

Actually, this post makes no sense to me. All I can gather from it is that you're criticising me for backing my arguments with facts. Seems like a pretty thin case you have there for supporting the occupation.

Byrnzie

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

It's not like they just chose Palestine by drawing out of a hat.

If you were being persecuted from your homes why not retreat to your holy land?

To your argument that the Jews bought up the land, well who sold it to them?

To your argument that the Holocaust wasn't the Palestinians problem, no one said it was but these people still needed a place to migrate to. The US was expensive to travel to, its not like everyone could afford travel expenses especially after having all of there wealth taken from them. I really think you are brushing off the fact that NO ONE wanted the Jewish Immigrants. They were murdered and unwelcome in there homes after the war was over. I don't think anyone should blame them for trying to find a new home in there holy land, especially when they had the support of the US.

So you're saying that because some Jews had bought property in Palestine that this justified the Zionist race war in Palestine and the dispossession of approx 1,000,000 people from their land and homes?

Also, how do you explain the fact that the Zionists were already attempting to establish an ethnic sovereign state in Palestine prior to the Nazi's coming to power in Germany?

(I won't even mention your comment about travel to America being too expensive).

Michael Neumann:
'The Zionists and their camp followers did not come simply to "find a homeland," certainly not in the sense that Flanders is the homeland of the Flemish, or Lappland of the Lapps. They did not come simply to "make a life in Palestine." They did not come to "redeem a people". All this could have been done elsewhere, as was pointed out at the time, and much of it was being done elsewhere by individual Jewish immigrants to America and other countries. The Zionists, and therefore all who settled under their auspices, came to found a soveriegn Jewish state.'


'Zionism was from the start an ill-considered and menacing experiment in ethnic nationalism. Neither history nor religion could justify it. The Jews had no claim to Palestine and no right to build a state there. Their growing need for refuge may have provided some limited, inadequate, short-term moral sustenance for the Zionist project, but it could not render that project legitimate. The mere fact of later suffering cannot retroactively convert a wrong into a right: my attempt to usurp your land does not become legitimate simply because I am wrongly beaten by someone else, far away, when my project is near completion. Nor did the well founded desperation of the Jews during the Nazi era provide any justification for Zionism; at most it provided an excuse. If someone is murdering my family in Germany, that does not entitle me to your house in Boston, or my "people" to your country. All Jews fleeing Hitler were indeed entitled to some refuge. One might even suppose that it was the obligation of the whole world, including the Palestinians, to do what they could to provide such refuge. But this is not the whole story.
For one thing, those with ample means to provide refuge, and those who are responsible for the need, have by far the greater share of responsibility. The Palestinians fell into neither category. Even more important, there is an enormous difference between providing refuge and providing a sovereign state. No amount of danger or suffering requires this, and indeed it may conflict with the demand for refuge. Simply to control one's own affairs isn't always the safest alternative. Arguably, for instance, the Jews were safer in the United States, where they are not sovereign, than they ever were in Israel. This is not only a fact but was always a reasonable expectation, so the need for refuge is also no basis for Zionism...

If there are any great lessons to be learned from the Nazi era , they are to watch out for fascism, racism, and ethnic nationalism. Supporting Israel hardly embodies these lessons.'

Byrnzie

FiveB247x wrote:

Lastly, I do not doubt some of the details in HRW or AI reports, but I because a report says a specific fact or detail of an order, does not mean you can automatically make a leap to equate that fact to encompass the entire issue - something you are doing. Anyone can post specific facts, stories or details to back their position or belief, and of course you will then say - look they're reiterating my belief or position in the dicussion. But it is you that take these instances and facts and make it into a larger agenda, story or purpose - not the place you're actually getting the facts from. Doing this is merely spinning reality to fit your mold, compared to just viewing reality as it is.

Do you mean specific facts such as the following?:

'Israel is the target of at least 65 UN Resolutions and the Palestinians are the target of none.

Aside from the core issues—refugees, Jerusalem, borders—the major themes reflected in the U.N. resolutions against Israel over the years are its unlawful attacks on its neighbors; its violations of the human rights of the Palestinians, including deportations, demolitions of homes and other collective punishments; its confiscation of Palestinian land; its establishment of illegal settlements; and its refusal to abide by the U.N. Charter and the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.'

FiveB247x

Your missing and mixing up my main point which I've state previously. I am not supporting occupation nor backing Palestinian reactions - I am saying if a peace is to occur, it will be as a result of non-violent measures. Palestinians controlling or stopping terror groups from attacking Israeli civillians or armies and Israel stopping from attacking Palestinians. You can reflect on the past wrong-doings of each side all you please and try and make your case why your side is just or correct, but in reality, that will not solve a damn thing. At some point in time, if people inside this conflict or those watching from afar, beginning looking ahead compared to looking backward, things can and would change. But if all you do is say, they did x, y and z, so we're just and the victims in this scenario, that doesn't accomplish anything. If you're seriously about a peace process with a two state solution, complaining about Israel isn't the only measure taken. Palestinians who want peace and want to end the terror groups for ruining their hopes need to step to the forefront and become the becon for their agenda. Israel, on the other hand, needs to meet them in the middle by pushing for international talks which will further a long term peace process (amongst many other specific changes to their policies and actions). Both sides are responsible for the future outcome, merely blaming the other half doesn't and won't fix the problem. That's my point. So post all you please about occupation, hrw, ai reports and similar cause none of it matters at alll if both don't make the necessary changes to find a permanent solution.

Byrnzie wrote:

Actually, this post makes no sense to me. All I can gather from it is that you're criticising me for backing my arguments with facts. Seems like a pretty thin case you have there for supporting the occupation.

Byrnzie

FiveB247x wrote:

If you're seriously about a peace process with a two state solution, complaining about Israel isn't the only measure taken. Palestinians who want peace and want to end the terror groups for ruining their hopes need to step to the forefront and become the becon for their agenda. Israel, on the other hand, needs to meet them in the middle by pushing for international talks which will further a long term peace process (amongst many other specific changes to their policies and actions).

The Palestinians support the international consensus, which is an Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories:

Norman Finkelstein:
'The broad consensus on the "final status" issues of borders, East Jerusalem, settlements, and refugees forms the bedrock of the two-state settlement to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict. As understood by the whole of the International community, apart from Israel and the United States (and this or that Pacific atoll), such a settlement calls for full Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian territories captured in the June 1967 war, the formation of an independent Palestinian state in these territories in exchange for recognition of Israel's right to live in peace and security with it's neighbours, and a resolution of the refugee question that acknowledges the Palestinian right of return. A December 2005 U.N General Assembly resolution listed these principles and components for a "peaceful settlement" of the conflict: "inadmissability of the aquisition of territory by war"; "illegality of the Israeli settlements in the territory occupied since 1967 and of Israeli actions aimed at changing the status of Jerusalem"; "right of all states in the region to live in peace within secure and internationally recognized borders"; "two-State solution of Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security within recognized borders, based on the pre-1967 borders"; "withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967"; "realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, primarily the right to self-determination and the right to their independent state"; "resolving the problem of Palestine refugees in conformity with...resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948." The resolution passed 156-6 (Australia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, United States), with 9 abstentions. According to U.S Ambassador to the U.N John Bolton, the General Assembly's overwhelming approval of this and related resolutions on the Israel-Palestine conflict showed "why many people say the U.N is not really useful in solving actual problems." Truly it is cause for perplexity why the world won't follow the useful lead of the United States and Palau.'

Byrnzie

Byrnzie wrote:

The Palestinians support the international consensus, which is an Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories:

Norman Finkelstein:
'The broad consensus on the "final status" issues of borders, East Jerusalem, settlements, and refugees forms the bedrock of the two-state settlement to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict. As understood by the whole of the International community, apart from Israel and the United States (and this or that Pacific atoll), such a settlement calls for full Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian territories captured in the June 1967 war, the formation of an independent Palestinian state in these territories in exchange for recognition of Israel's right to live in peace and security with it's neighbours, and a resolution of the refugee question that acknowledges the Palestinian right of return. A December 2005 U.N General Assembly resolution listed these principles and components for a "peaceful settlement" of the conflict: "inadmissability of the aquisition of territory by war"; "illegality of the Israeli settlements in the territory occupied since 1967 and of Israeli actions aimed at changing the status of Jerusalem"; "right of all states in the region to live in peace within secure and internationally recognized borders"; "two-State solution of Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security within recognized borders, based on the pre-1967 borders"; "withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967"; "realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, primarily the right to self-determination and the right to their independent state"; "resolving the problem of Palestine refugees in conformity with...resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948." The resolution passed 156-6 (Australia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, United States), with 9 abstentions. According to U.S Ambassador to the U.N John Bolton, the General Assembly's overwhelming approval of this and related resolutions on the Israel-Palestine conflict showed "why many people say the U.N is not really useful in solving actual problems." Truly it is cause for perplexity why the world won't follow the useful lead of the United States and Palau.'

Oh no! I'm using facts to support my argument! Shit!

fuck

Byrnzie summed up the points nicely, but I will throw in:

FiveB247x wrote:

Your missing and mixing up my main point which I've state previously. I am not supporting occupation nor backing Palestinian reactions - I am saying if a peace is to occur, it will be as a result of non-violent measures. Palestinians controlling or stopping terror groups from attacking Israeli civillians or armies and Israel stopping from attacking Palestinians. You can reflect on the past wrong-doings of each side all you please and try and make your case why your side is just or correct, but in reality, that will not solve a damn thing. At some point in time, if people inside this conflict or those watching from afar, beginning looking ahead compared to looking backward, things can and would change. But if all you do is say, they did x, y and z, so we're just and the victims in this scenario, that doesn't accomplish anything. If you're seriously about a peace process with a two state solution, complaining about Israel isn't the only measure taken. Palestinians who want peace and want to end the terror groups for ruining their hopes need to step to the forefront and become the becon for their agenda. Israel, on the other hand, needs to meet them in the middle by pushing for international talks which will further a long term peace process (amongst many other specific changes to their policies and actions). Both sides are responsible for the future outcome, merely blaming the other half doesn't and won't fix the problem. That's my point. So post all you please about occupation, hrw, ai reports and similar cause none of it matters at alll if both don't make the necessary changes to find a permanent solution.

I really don't understand your point here. Your point is to forget the past and move to a better future? And then you talk about being REALISTIC? This is a conflict that goes as far back as 100 years... there is no FORGETTING. the Palestinians LOST THEIR HOMES, 1 million of its people became refugees, so many thousands dead, and you think it's that simple to just forget about "whose fault it is" (as you try to put it).... it's not as simple as that....

The Israelis need to be held responsible, many of them should be tried in court (like Olmert will be soon) and they should move back to the pre-67 borders HAPPILY. In my opinion, the fact that Hamas would be willing to talk if Israel moved back to those borders is already a concession the Palestinians are making. Israel stole every bit of land it has now (except for.. 6%?) and they'd be lucky to have a country side-by-side with Palestine in general... the Palestinians have given up enough, it's time for the Israelis to come forward...

MrBrian

Palestine had peace movements, but those movements were disbanded by israel...years b4 the first kid strapped a bomb to his chest.

The Palestinians were pushed into a corner. they are still being pushed.

Byrnzie

Sunday, 20 July 2008 22:53 UK

Israel probes 'detainee shooting'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7516477.stm

'Israel says it has launched an inquiry after an Israeli human rights group released footage that appears to show a soldier shoot a Palestinian detainee.

The video is blurred when the gun fires, but the Palestinian man says a rubber bullet hit his left big toe and he was treated by an army medic.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) called the incident "grave" and in "direct contradiction" of the army's values.

Rights group B'Tselem said the incident occurred on 7 July in the West Bank.

B'Tselem said the video clip showed a soldier firing a rubber-coated steel bullet, from close range, at a handcuffed and blindfolded Palestinian detainee.

It said the shooting took place in the presence of a lieutenant colonel, who was holding the Palestinian man's arm when the shot was fired.

A 14-year-old girl reportedly filmed the incident from the window of her home in the town of Nilin, which has been the scene of violent protests against Israel's West Bank barrier.

B'Tselem said it received the tape on Sunday and forwarded a copy to the Military Police Investigation Unit, demanding an inquiry.

The Palestinian, Ashraf Abu Rahman, was quoted by local media as saying: "During the demonstration the soldiers caught me, arrested me - and after a few moments I heard shots and felt a fire in my body. I was afraid and didn't know what it was."

"I closed my eyes and I don't remember anything. It felt like my leg was gone," the 27-year-old said.

In a statement quoted by the Jerusalem Post, the IDF said: "Military law forbids inflicting harm on detainees and obligates soldiers to show them respect and ensure their safety."

The IDF said that, in accordance with its policy, the footage had been reviewed by a senior official, and an investigation was under way.

The Israeli government says the West Bank barrier is a security measure to stop suicide bombers, but critics say the structure is a calculated effort to annex occupied land.

Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza Strip in the 1967 war. It has settled hundreds of thousands of Israelis in the West Bank and keeps a large military presence there.'

Byrnzie

177 Palestinian Prisoners Killed Since 1967

International Press Center of the PNA
March 29, 2005

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/cur_sit/prisoners-killed.html
'GAZA, Palestine, March 29, 2005 (IPC+WAFA)—Figures released by the Prisoner and Ex-Prisoner Ministry showed that 177 Palestinian detainees were killed inside Israeli jails since 1967.

The Planning and Statistics Department of the Ministry said, in a statistical report, 69 Palestinian prisoners (39%) were killed due to being subjected to severe torture whilst 37 prisoners (20.9%) died due to the lack of medical health care.

The report also revealed that 71 prisoners (40.1%) were willfully killed after the arrest – in cold blooded murder. 57 of these prisoners (32.2%) were from the southern provinces and 120 (67.8%) from the northern provinces and other localities.

Among the killed prisoners, 72 (40.7%) were slain in the period between 1967 until the flare up of the al Aqsa Intifada I on 8 Dec 1987, including 39 who were tortured to death, 17 died due to the lack of necessary medication and 19 were willfully killed after arrest.

Mr. Abed Al Nasser Ferwana, director of the Planning and Statistics Department of the Ministry said that 42 of the killed prisoners were killed within the first Intifada, making up 23.7% of the total number of Palestinian prisoners killed. Among them 23 had been tortured to death, 11 died due to a lack of heath care, and 9 were willfully killed. He added that 18 of those prisoners killed were from the Gaza Strip while the 24 others were from the west bank and other areas.

The report documented that the number of the prisoners killed tangibly decreased during the period between the middle of 1994 until 28 Sep, 2000, as the number of the prisoners killed inside Israeli jails was 8, making up only 4.5% of the total. During this time, 2 died due to the withholding of medical treatment, and 6 were tormented to death. No records of willful killing after arrest were registered.

Following the eruption of the current Intifada, the number of Palestinian prisoners killed inside the Israeli jails soared. Between 29 Sep 2000 and 28 March 2005, the number reached 55, making up 31.1% of the total 177 prisoners killed, including 10 in the Gaza Strip and 45 in the west bank and Jerusalem, among them were 26 Palestinian prisoners killed during the second year of Al Aqsa Intifada, the report revealed.

The report also explained that the prisoners are being killed at a higher rate now than during the first Intifada. It pointed out that the percentage killed in the six-year first Intifada was 23.7% (42 martyrs), while the percentage during nearly four years of Al Aqsa Intifada has already reached 55 (31.1%).

The number of those prisoners that were killed due to severe torture in the first Intifada was larger during the Al Aqsa Intifada. The number of the prisoners killed willfully and liquidated was also rose, reaching 47.

The report explained that the rise in the number of prisoners killed was due mainly to the state-sponsored policy of assassination practiced by Israel throughout Al Aqsa Intifada.'

FiveB247x

Posting articles and backing failed plans doesn't create a peace. Continuing down a failed road won't change a thing. You don't seem to acknowledge that fact. If you have unrealistic expecatations of the other half (something both sides do), you'll get failed results - which is why we see the conflict to continue in the manner it has.