I cant stand all this anti-Israeli propaganda you guys are spreading around here.
It truly makes me sick to my stomach. Stop spewing out articles by anti-Israel authors and automatically assume it is fact.
Theres a difference between disagreeing with Israel's policies and actions, and actually comparing them to Nazis and South African Apartheid.
Israel isn't ethnically cleaning anyone, there is no genocide, there is no massmurder.
Clearly innocent lives on both sides have been killed, and this makes me sick. But you will NEVER see an Israeli strap a bomb onto his/her chest and blowup a civilian bus containing Palestinian people.
Yes, IDF attacks have gone wrong, but not only at the expense of innocent palestinian lives, but at the expense of some Israeli soldiers lives. Its never the intention of the IDF to go out and brutally murder a group of innocent people. They intend to kill Hamas militants.
From a historical point of view, the area known as Palestine before Israel was controlled by numerous empires (look it up) with Britain controlling it last. NEVER was there a country called Palestine. Britain spit the area known as Palestine into 2 parts. The larger part known as TransJordan, which then became Jordan. In a sense, "Palestinian" people live in Jordan...
As for the people who lived in the Israeli portion of the former British owned 'Palestine': many of them stayed, and that is why 20 percent of Israel is made up of Arab Israeli. Many were exiled, yet some left by choice.
Now clearly not all left on their own accord, after believing false promises, but certainly many did.
If Israel forced out all Arabs by gunpoint in 1948, why were so many left within the country? Why didn't they expel them all?
As we all know, when Israel accepted the borders and the Arabs didn't, the surrounding Arab nations felt it was appropriate to attack Israel from all sides, but not to take in all of the Palestinian refugees!
If you think these refugees were mistreated by Israel, then surely you'd they were grossly mistreated by surrounding Arab nations.
Palestinian civilians have been treated terribly. Of course they have seen aggression from the IDF, but their own government is what is really bringing down their potential. Led by the corrupt PLO and Yasser Arafat for so long, their nation has gone nowhere. It is a shame that he and his government could not lead the people in the right direction.
Peace was available after the signing of the Oslo Accords in the early 90s, but the Palestinian side was far from holding up their end of the bargain. Israel wasnt perfect either, but the Palestinian authority truly screwed up. Then the Intifada broke out, and suicide bombings happened in large numbers.
Even though radical Islam might take up a tiny percentage of the Palestinian people, it still makes a powerful effect on the entire situation. Yes, Hamas was recently elected, but their is no denying they are a terrorist organization that wishes to destroy Israel. How can you make peace with a group like that?
Israel might be too aggressive, or flat out wrong in this whole conflict. However, their overall goal is certainly not to destroy another group of people. Hamas does have this intention.
I just wish the Palestinians had moderate authority figures, who could usher in peace with their neighbours, not corrupt or terrorist government organizations.
Another difference I've noticed during this conflict is the reaction to killings and attacks. While this may be a tiny portion of the population, there were still ACTUAL PARADES in the streets of Gaza when the 8 Yeshiva students were killed in Israel recently by a Palestinian terrorist. When the IDF kills Palestinians, Israelis don't parade in the streets.
Can you see a difference between the two cultures. (most palestinians arent like this of course, thats not what im trying to say).
Now, I know a few of you are going to reply to this message by copying and pasting anti-Isaeli author's words about the situation. I'd really like you guys to respond in your words.
Explain to me how you actually think Israel acts like Nazis, how Palestinians are always right and never wrong, what Israel should have done in '48 and 67 and 73 besides defend itself, as well as why you think Israel gave up the Sinai region back to Egypt for a peace treaty and how this reflects Israel's intentions for peace.
Wow, your post was a breath of fresh air. You made quite a bit of sense, but unfortunately, the ones obsessed with the downfall of Israel in this forum will fail to see the truth/logic in your words. When it comes to this conflict, extreme loathing often clouds ones' better judgment.
Wow, your post was a breath of fresh air. You made quite a bit of sense, but unfortunately, the ones obsessed with the downfall of Israel in this forum will fail to see the truth/logic in your words. When it comes to this conflict, extreme loathing often clouds ones' better judgment.
Bravo!
I'm sorry but I just haven't seen these 'we want the downfall of Israel' posts. Maybe you're confusing here with another message board.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Can you honestly say that the Palestinians, Egyptians, Jordanians, Syrians and Iranians greeted the Israelis with open arms in 1947 and never threatened them prior to 1967?
Before 1947 wasn't Palestine under British control? After 1947 and before 1967 wasn't Gaza under Egyptian rule and Judea and Samaria under Jordanian rule which both of those countries now have peace treaties with Israel?
There was no rational justification for any of these countries greeting the carve-up of their land with open arms. You wouldn't have accepted it. The person sittng next to you wouldn't have accepted it. Why should the Palestinians have been expected to react any differently?
As for your second paragraph, again it's irrelevant.
I cant stand all this anti-Israeli propaganda you guys are spreading around here.
It truly makes me sick to my stomach. Stop spewing out articles by anti-Israel authors and automatically assume it is fact.
Hello Lazymoon! You weren't away for long were you!
Right then, let me explain it for you: being against the unjust and illegal Zionist occupation doesn't make someone 'anti-Israel'. It's a shame that certain people need this pointed out to them.
Theres a difference between disagreeing with Israel's policies and actions, and actually comparing them to Nazis and South African Apartheid.
The situation in the occupied territories is exactly like that of the Apartheid bantustans in South Africa. Maybe you explain to me how it's any different?
Clearly innocent lives on both sides have been killed, and this makes me sick. But you will NEVER see an Israeli strap a bomb onto his/her chest and blowup a civilian bus containing Palestinian people.
You don't need to strap a bomb to your chest when you have the second largest fleet of F16's in the world.
Yes, IDF attacks have gone wrong, but not only at the expense of innocent palestinian lives, but at the expense of some Israeli soldiers lives. Its never the intention of the IDF to go out and brutally murder a group of innocent people. They intend to kill Hamas militants.
'I can't imagine anyone who considers himself a human being can do this' http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jul/28/israel
'On Friday a four-year-old Palestinian boy was shot dead by a soldier - the most recent child victim of the Israeli army. Chris McGreal investigates a shocking series of deaths.'
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/child_41304.html
'The Israeli occupation army and paramilitary Jewish settlers have killed 545 Palestinian children and minors since the outbreak of the al-Aqsa Intifada in September 2000.
Among these victims, 266 children were 14 or younger while the ages of the remaining 279 ranged from 15 to 18. Moreover, as many as 20,000 Palestinian children were injured, with nearly 1500 sustaining life-long disabilities.
The total number of Palestinians killed by Israel during the current Intifada is around 2700, the vast majority of them civilians.'
'Palestinian children pay price of Israel's Summer Rain offensive' http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/sep/07/israel
Rights group says 197 civilians have been killed in military operation, including 48 minors
The Guardian, Thursday September 7 2006
Lebanon:
UN officer reported Israeli war crimes before deadly bombing: widow http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2008/02/06/ot-von-kruedener-080206.html
'A United Nations military observer sent e-mails home to Canada reporting that Israel was bombing schools and waging "a campaign of terror against the Lebanese people" shortly before he was killed by an Israeli bomb in Lebanon, said his widow.'
From a historical point of view, the area known as Palestine before Israel was controlled by numerous empires (look it up) with Britain controlling it last. NEVER was there a country called Palestine. Britain spit the area known as Palestine into 2 parts. The larger part known as TransJordan, which then became Jordan. In a sense, "Palestinian" people live in Jordan....
The above comment is a lie.
'It is often said that the Palestinians were not a people. The most notorious example of this vague ploy is a 1999 remark by the then Prime Minister of Israel, Golda Meir:
"It was not as though there was a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them. They did not exist"
The need to debate Meir's contention is obviated by, among many other sources, the impressive work of Baruch Kimmerling and Joel S Migdsal, 'The Palestinian people: A History'. They provide authoritative and utterly convincing evidence that yes, there was indeed a Palestinian people. Even without opening the book, one might wonder how there could be a Palestine - the term appears throughout Zionist literature - without Palestinians, or what possessed the British to refer to "Representatives of the Palestinian people" in 1939. But the persistance of Meirs type of argument suggests that we should consider whether it is even worth debating these matters.
When it is siad that the Palestinians are not a people, or were not a people when the Zionists settled in Palestine, there are limits to how much words can wash away. This much seems beyond dispute: before the Zionists came, there was a bunch of people who lived in the area. Whether they were called Palestinians, whether the area was called Palestine, whether the people who lived in this area considered themselves a people, Palestinian or otherwise, are all questions without the slightest importance when assessing Zionism. There was no United States of America before the American revolution, so, of course, no one could consider himself an American in the sense of being a citizen of a place called the United States Of America. No one suggests that, for this reason, these revolutionaries somehow had less legitinacy for not being identifiable in this fashion. No one suggests they were any less entitle reject subjugation by the British. What people are called, whether there is a name for the area in which they make their home, whether they have some sort of national self-consciousness - none of this has any bearing on whether they must accept, not merely settlers in the general vicinity, not merely setlers who intend to become predominant in the region, but settlers who propose to install themselves as soveriegns over that area. And today the identity of Palestine or the Palestinians has absolutely no bearing on whether Israelis should control the territory they occupy or the people within it.'
Michael Neumann - The Case against Israel.
As for the people who lived in the Israeli portion of the former British owned 'Palestine': many of them stayed, and that is why 20 percent of Israel is made up of Arab Israeli. Many were exiled, yet some left by choice.
Many were exiled? Yeah, approximately 900,000 were forcibly evicted from their homes by the Zionist's race war.
As we all know, when Israel accepted the borders and the Arabs didn't, the surrounding Arab nations felt it was appropriate to attack Israel from all sides, but not to take in all of the Palestinian refugees!
If you think these refugees were mistreated by Israel, then surely you'd they were grossly mistreated by surrounding Arab nations.
There's a reason the borders were rejected, but you choose to ignore that.
Your second point simply makes no sense.
Peace was available after the signing of the Oslo Accords in the early 90s, but the Palestinian side was far from holding up their end of the bargain. Israel wasnt perfect either, but the Palestinian authority truly screwed up. Then the Intifada broke out, and suicide bombings happened in large numbers.
How about explaining exactly what was on offer during the Oslo accords? I provided a map on this thread a few days ago which detailed exactly what was on offer. I suggest you take a look at it and maybe you'll see why it was rejected.
Perhaps you can also explain just why the intifada broke out? Or is that something else you choose to gloss over?
Even though radical Islam might take up a tiny percentage of the Palestinian people, it still makes a powerful effect on the entire situation. Yes, Hamas was recently elected, but their is no denying they are a terrorist organization that wishes to destroy Israel. How can you make peace with a group like that?
Simple. You withdraw from the occupied territories and begin abiding by international law and the will of the international community - excluding the U.S - for a two-state solution along the pre 1967 border.
Israel might be too aggressive, or flat out wrong in this whole conflict. However, their overall goal is certainly not to destroy another group of people.?
Yes it is. I suggest you look at the history of Zionism and it's intentions. Here's a few quotes:
"The acceptance of partition does not commit us to renounce Transjordan; one does not demand from anybody to give up his vision. We shall accept a state in the boundaries fixed today. But the boundaries of Zionist aspirations are the concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them." David Ben-Gurion, in 1936, quoted in Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."
"The main danger which Israel, as a 'Jewish state', poses to its own people, to other Jews and .to its neighbors, is its ideologically motivated pursuit of territorial expansion and the inevitable series of wars resulting from this aim...No Zionist politician has ever repudiated Ben-Gurion's idea that Israeli policies must be based (within the limits of practical considerations) on the restoration of Biblical borders as the borders of the Jewish state." Israeli professor, Israel Shahak, "Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of 3000 Years."
In Israeli Prime Minister Moshe Sharatt's personal diaries, there is an excerpt from May of 1955 in which he quotes Moshe Dayan as follows: "[Israel] must see the sword as the main, if not the only, instrument with which to keep its morale high and to retain its moral tension. Toward this end it may, no - it must - invent dangers, and to do this it must adopt the method of provocation-and-revenge...And above all - let us hope for a new war with the Arab countries, so that we may finally get rid of our troubles and acquire our space." Quoted in Livia Rokach, "Israel's Sacred Terrorism."
Another difference I've noticed during this conflict is the reaction to killings and attacks. While this may be a tiny portion of the population, there were still ACTUAL PARADES in the streets of Gaza when the 8 Yeshiva students were killed in Israel recently by a Palestinian terrorist. When the IDF kills Palestinians, Israelis don't parade in the streets.
Now, I know a few of you are going to reply to this message by copying and pasting anti-Isaeli author's words about the situation. I'd really like you guys to respond in your words.
We've already been over this Lazymoon. You asked me before to desist from backing up what I say with evidence and source material. This would obviously suit your needs because then you could continue spouting these unsubstantiated statements, half truths and just outright lies and people would have no way of checking their accuracy or validity. So, I'll repeat what I told you before: No.
Wow, your post was a breath of fresh air. You made quite a bit of sense, but unfortunately, the ones obsessed with the downfall of Israel in this forum will fail to see the truth/logic in your words. When it comes to this conflict, extreme loathing often clouds ones' better judgment.
Bravo!
Still afraid to answer my question on the Israeli thread? Oh and I provided the link to it on I think the previous page here... it's a pretty simple question and you should have no difficulty with it
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
There was no rational justification for any of these countries greeting the carve-up of their land with open arms. You wouldn't have accepted it. The person sittng next to you wouldn't have accepted it. Why should the Palestinians have been expected to react any differently?
As for your second paragraph, again it's irrelevant.
Of course but there was no rational justification for the mistreatment of the European Jews that continued after WWII that forced them to flee to Palestine in the first place! Why don't you ask your own government why it continued the brutality and mistreatment of the Jews that created this problem? Why weren't the European Jews given a nice safe place to go to in Europe? Britain objected to the immigration of the European Jews to Palestine after WWII so why didn't they secure a safe place for them in Britain? Why because they were not welcome there, in Europe and then not in Palestine. See the Jews are victims and those victims created another victim the Palestinians.
As for my second paragraph that you said was irrelevant, actually it is relevant because the Palestinians have had to deal with many occupiers over the years, which adds to their plight of freedom.
"...believe in lies...to get by...it's divine...whoa...oh, you know what its like..."
Still afraid to answer my question on the Israeli thread? Oh and I provided the link to it on I think the previous page here... it's a pretty simple question and you should have no difficulty with it
I cant stand all this anti-Israeli propaganda you guys are spreading around here.
It truly makes me sick to my stomach. Stop spewing out articles by anti-Israel authors and automatically assume it is fact.
Theres a difference between disagreeing with Israel's policies and actions, and actually comparing them to Nazis and South African Apartheid.
Israel isn't ethnically cleaning anyone, there is no genocide, there is no massmurder.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Of course but there was no rational justification for the mistreatment of the European Jews that continued after WWII that forced them to flee to Palestine in the first place! Why don't you ask your own government why it continued the brutality and mistreatment of the Jews that created this problem? Why weren't the European Jews given a nice safe place to go to in Europe? Britain objected to the immigration of the European Jews to Palestine after WWII so why didn't they secure a safe place for them in Britain? Why because they were not welcome there, in Europe and then not in Palestine. See the Jews are victims and those victims created another victim the Palestinians.
I have no idea what you are trying to say in this post.
Even if the Jews had nowhere to go after World War II, how would that justify them going to Palestine and taking control over another people?
Lebanon:
UN officer reported Israeli war crimes before deadly bombing: widow http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2008/02/06/ot-von-kruedener-080206.html
'A United Nations military observer sent e-mails home to Canada reporting that Israel was bombing schools and waging "a campaign of terror against the Lebanese people" shortly before he was killed by an Israeli bomb in Lebanon, said his widow.'.
According to Amnesty International (AI): Hizbullah did attack Israel first. Of course they started by attacking an Israeli army patrol but Israel retaliated and killed many civilians. Hizbullah also killed civilians but Israel killed more.
However per your statements in above posts, the killing of Israeli civilians by the Palestinians is justifiable and they have the right to protect themselves. If you believe that and you are unbiased than you would also agree that the Israelis have the right to protect themselves and do same? As for me, I disagree with Israelis killing civilians just as much as Palestinians...and including the US. It's wrong!
In July a major military conflict erupted between Israeli forces and Hizbullah forces based in Lebanon after Hizbullah fighters crossed into Israel and attacked an army patrol. By the time a ceasefire was agreed 34 days later, Israeli attacks had killed more than 1,000 civilians in Lebanon, displaced around a million people, and destroyed thousands of homes and much of Lebanon’s civilian infrastructure. Hizbullah launched missiles into civilian areas of Israel, causing the deaths of 43 civilians, displacing many thousands of people from their homes in northern Israel and damaging hundreds of buildings.
...
Following the end of the hostilities, and after conducting further research and discussions with officials, AI issued two briefings covering aspects of the conflict. In August it published Israel/Lebanon: Deliberate destruction or “collateral damage”? Israeli attacks against civilian infrastructure (AI Index: MDE 18/007/2006). AI found that Israeli forces had committed indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks, pursuing a strategy that appeared intended to punish the people of Lebanon and their government for not turning against Hizbullah, as well as harming Hizbullah’s military capability.
In September, AI published Israel/Lebanon: Under fire – Hizbullah’s attacks on northern Israel(AI Index: MDE 02/025/2006). This concluded that Hizbullah had committed serious violations of international humanitarian law, including war crimes. Its rocket attacks amounted to deliberate attacks on civilians and civilian objects, and indiscriminate attacks. The attacks also violated other rules of international humanitarian law, including the prohibition of reprisal attacks on the civilian population.
In November, AI published Israel/Lebanon: Out of all proportion – civilians bear the brunt of the war (AI Index: MDE 02/033/2006). This covered further aspects of the conduct and consequences of Israeli military actions in Lebanon. It analysed patterns of Israeli attacks and a number of specific incidents in which civilians were killed in Lebanon. It highlighted the impact on civilian life of other Israeli attacks, including the legacy of the widespread cluster bomb bombardment of south Lebanon by Israeli forces in the last days of the war. It also summarized AI’s conclusions with regard to the overall conduct of both Israeli forces and Hizbullah fighters.
AI called for the UN to set up an international commission empowered to investigate the evidence of violations of international law by both Hizbullah and Israel, and to make provision for reparations for the victims. AI also called for an arms embargo on both sides, and an immediate moratorium on the use of cluster weapons. It urged all parties involved in the conflict to investigate alleged violations of international human rights law and ensure reparation for the victims.
...
"...believe in lies...to get by...it's divine...whoa...oh, you know what its like..."
Theres a difference between disagreeing with Israel's policies and actions, and actually comparing them to Nazis and South African Apartheid.
care to explain how there's a difference?
Clearly innocent lives on both sides have been killed
some more than others.... in fact, one side has about 5x (if not more) the casualties of the other... care to guess who?
and this makes me sick. But you will NEVER see an Israeli strap a bomb onto his/her chest and blowup a civilian bus containing Palestinian people.
give the Palestinians billions of dollars for military spending and you'll certainly NEVER see a Palestinian strap a bomb onto his/her chest and blowup a civilian bus containing Israeli people.
As for the people who lived in the Israeli portion of the former British owned 'Palestine': many of them stayed, and that is why 20 percent of Israel is made up of Arab Israeli. Many were exiled, yet some left by choice.
some didn't leave by 'choice'. most were exiled, some left from fear... just like how many Jews fled Germany during WWII.
As we all know, when Israel accepted the borders and the Arabs didn't, the surrounding Arab nations felt it was appropriate to attack Israel from all sides, but not to take in all of the Palestinian refugees!
If you think these refugees were mistreated by Israel, then surely you'd they were grossly mistreated by surrounding Arab nations.
how is that relevant at all?
Even though radical Islam might take up a tiny percentage of the Palestinian people, it still makes a powerful effect on the entire situation. Yes, Hamas was recently elected, but their is no denying they are a terrorist organization that wishes to destroy Israel. How can you make peace with a group like that?
If Israel truly wanted peace, they could easily have it. All they'd have to do is get rid of the illegal settlements and move back to the 67 borders like Hamas said they should... then peace could be achieved. but Israel refuses to renounce violence and speak with Hamas.
Israel might be too aggressive, or flat out wrong in this whole conflict. However, their overall goal is certainly not to destroy another group of people. Hamas does have this intention.
No, they don't. Hamas' intention is to get their land back. If they could do that without harming a single Israeli, you think they wouldn't do it?
I just wish the Palestinians had moderate authority figures, who could usher in peace with their neighbours, not corrupt or terrorist government organizations.
yeah, and Israel certainly has no corrupt government officials or organizations...
Hamas being called 'corrupt' simply makes no sense and you bring no source or anything to back it up.
Now, I know a few of you are going to reply to this message by copying and pasting anti-Isaeli author's words about the situation. I'd really like you guys to respond in your words.
I know who this was directed at, and Byrnzie definitely responds using his own words several times. However, when he's making a point that needs proof, he'll use a source. it's simple. didn't you go to college?
what Israel should have done in '48 and 67 and 73 besides defend itself
but Israel didn't defend itself. Israel started these wars.
as well as why you think Israel gave up the Sinai region back to Egypt for a peace treaty and how this reflects Israel's intentions for peace.
How does that reflect their intentions for peace? If they can give up land for peace, why can't they move back to the 67 borders? It's certainly possible, so don't try to say they can't.
Byrnzie had asked me how the Israelis are victims.
I believe both sides are victims and he believes only the Palestinians are victims.
I think his point is how are they victims IN THIS CONFLICT.... the problem is people always bring World War II into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as if it is relevant to the Israelis' brutal occupation over the Palestinians.
Of course but there was no rational justification for the mistreatment of the European Jews that continued after WWII that forced them to flee to Palestine in the first place! Why don't you ask your own government why it continued the brutality and mistreatment of the Jews that created this problem? Why weren't the European Jews given a nice safe place to go to in Europe? Britain objected to the immigration of the European Jews to Palestine after WWII so why didn't they secure a safe place for them in Britain? Why because they were not welcome there, in Europe and then not in Palestine. See the Jews are victims and those victims created another victim the Palestinians.
As for my second paragraph that you said was irrelevant, actually it is relevant because the Palestinians have had to deal with many occupiers over the years, which adds to their plight of freedom.
You talk about Jews as if they're a homogenous entity. I think you're mistaking Jews for Zionists.
You talk about Jews as if they're a homogenous entity. I think you're mistaking Jews for Zionists.
No that maybe you
I was thinking isn't the international community at large (including the US) during that time responsible for this conflict considering no one stepped up willingly to take in all of the displaced European Jews? Instead they passed the problem onto the Palestinians creating a much larger problem.
"...believe in lies...to get by...it's divine...whoa...oh, you know what its like..."
I think his point is how are they victims IN THIS CONFLICT.... the problem is people always bring World War II into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as if it is relevant to the Israelis' brutal occupation over the Palestinians.
All I can suggest is to read our posts to figure out how we got to that point in our debate that has been going on for days lol.
The Israeli Palestinian conflict started as a result of the UN dividing Palestine in 1947 giving a portion of the Palestinians land to the Jews so that the displaced unwanted European Jews had a place to go to. Rightfully the Palestinians were not happy as they did not agree to it and was forced into it. This also upsets the surrounding Arab countries. Threats are made to Israel and the conflict begins.
"...believe in lies...to get by...it's divine...whoa...oh, you know what its like..."
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
I cant stand all this anti-Israeli propaganda you guys are spreading around here.
And exactly what propaganda would that be?
The propaganda of wanting Israel to be held accountable and responsible for their actions?
The propaganda of telling it like it is, by pointing out that Israel are not innocent little fawns in this conflict and have in fact just as often been the overly-aggressive catalysts of occupation and violence?
You're confusing the clear message of people calling for Israel to be held to the same standards and accountability as Palestine; with people taking Palestine's side in this conflict. There's a very clear and obvious distinction, if you take the time to understand and realize what people are saying.
No one is anti-Israel. Everyone in this thread who are stating the attrocities and actions of Israel, are simply submitting both sides of the story; in hopes we can get past this ridiculous notion that Israel are poor, little, innocent victims in all of this.....just protecting themselves. As well as illustrating Israel's over-the-top aggression in occupation and expansion.
It's about realizing that at this point in time and history, both sides have commited so many attrocities........so many innocent murders; that neither side have the advantage in claiming innocence or playing the victim.
Clearly innocent lives on both sides have been killed, and this makes me sick. But you will NEVER see an Israeli strap a bomb onto his/her chest and blowup a civilian bus containing Palestinian people.
Yeah. But launching missles into schools, homes and markets and bulldozing people's homes (and people) sure as hell kills a lot of innocent people. So what's the difference?
Seriously, there is a lot of propaganda from both sides. But make no mistake, Israel and Jews all over the world spend an enormous amount of time spinning and bullshitting. The propaganda from Jews is monumental.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I see a flaw in a lot of some of the poster's logic.
For example, let's say Hamas or Hezbollah initiates an attack against Israel, fires a missile and kills two Israeli Civilians.
In this situation, what should Israel do. (focus on this particular situation, not the entire historical conflict.)
Israel, like any nation, will retaliate. You can't fire a missile into a country and expect no consequences.
It just so happens that Israel has a very large and powerful army, unlike its Hamas or Hezbollah counterparts.
Its the size of Israel's army in comparison to Hamas' militant capabilities which has led to more Palestinians killed. I know on the surface this sounds horrible, but think about it: Don't blame Israel for having a more powerful military force than Hamas. Israeli attacks are no worse than the Hamas attacks. Actually, Hamas's intentions behind their attacks are always to kill innocent lives. IDF intends to kill specific Hamas militants, and unfortuntaly for everyone there are too many collateral damages.
A lot of you were saying, that if Hamas had billions to spend on military, they woudlnt need to strab bombs to their chests and blow up busses. That is the stupidest comment I've heard. This just proves how you are villifying Israel for the sake of being more powerful! Sometime my friends, the underdog isnt always right! Considering Hamas' history, and intention to kill innocent people, as well as their charter which describes the destruction of Israel, if Hamas had billions to spend on military I guess their attacks would be just as devastating as the ones you claim Israel makes. But of course, they dont have those resources, so Israel is the evil military powerhouse and Hamas is just the noble underdog looking for peace.
Also, one of you disputed a point I made before about corruption in Palestinian leadership. I meant that the PLO was corrupt and that Hamas was a terrorist organization. Palestinians in the election could choose from those two. I did not mean that Hamas was corrupt.
Hmmm, maybe those billions could have been spent on improving the lives of Palestinians, and invested in education and social programs. Believe me, it's not just the Israel conflict which has caused the demise of the people living in the Gaza region.
STOP STEALING FUCKING LAND AND MURDERING PEOPLE IN THE PROCESS!!!
see? ....very easy first step towards a solution.
That was easy to realize.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I see a flaw in a lot of some of the poster's logic.
Your post is completely flawed. You ask us to focus on one specific instance, which just happens to be a rocket attack against Israel - how many of these attacks have actually killed anyone? You can probably count the number on one hand.
focus on this particular situation, not the entire historical conflict.
Why? Why should we? You ask the people on the board to refrain from providing links to support what they say. Now you're asking us to ignore the history, and the wider picture, as they relate to this issue.
Well, my answer is "No".
Also, one of you disputed a point I made before about corruption in Palestinian leadership. I meant that the PLO was corrupt and that Hamas was a terrorist organization. Palestinians in the election could choose from those two. I did not mean that Hamas was corrupt.
Hamas's intentions behind their attacks are always to kill innocent lives. IDF intends to kill specific Hamas militants, and unfortuntaly for everyone there are too many collateral damages.
I provided a list of links above which detail how the IDF has routinely and deliberately targeted civilians. Continue to ignore them if you like.
And as for trying to justify 'collateral damage' I'm afraid you're not convincing me for starters.
Don't blame Israel for having a more powerful military force than Hamas.
You really think this is what it all boils down to?
Have you actually read any of the posts on this thread?
Regarding your comments about terrorism Michael Neumann makes a valid point: http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article4690.shtml '..Neumann is even prepared to concede that "'the occupation itself', in the narrowest sense of the word, was no great crime." Indeed he believes that the 1967 war, which "liberated" the West Bank from Jordanian tutelage, gave Israel "a chance to make handsome amends for the crimes on which it was built...Israel could have sponsored...the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state..." Instead, largely spearheaded by the USA, the settlements made a bad situation infinitely worse, and it is the settlements and the brutal military regime instituted to defend them that bear the brunt of Neumann's often eloquent disgust.
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."
I see a flaw in a lot of some of the poster's logic.
Oddly enough, your logic is completely biased and one-sided as you request everyone show empathy for Israel, it's plight and it's people. Yet in your arguments you show no empathy for the Palestine people and use the very same logic that you find disgusting; to justify and excuse all things Israel.
A lot of you were saying, that if Hamas had billions to spend on military, they woudlnt need to strab bombs to their chests and blow up busses. That is the stupidest comment I've heard.
It was you who made the initial comment, earlier, remember?
" Clearly innocent lives on both sides have been killed, and this makes me sick. But you will NEVER see an Israeli strap a bomb onto his/her chest and blowup a civilian bus containing Palestinian people. "
So you excuse and justify Israel for having the money and resources to amass a huge military. But you demonize and condemn the Palestinians for NOT having the money and resources to amass a huge military.
Furthermore, you insinuate the Palestinians have no right to defend themselves, in whatever manner at their disposal; based on their lack of a huge military.
What was that you were saying about stupid?:rolleyes:
Clearly the distinction here is this.........
I am debating from a position that both sides are equally at fault and guilty of the same kind of attrocities. And neither should be painted as innocent or victims. The true innocent and victims are the civilians from both sides who have nothing to do with this conflict; but are routinely killed because they are caught in the crossfire.
You are arguing exclusively in defense of Israel and have an extremely biased and discriminatory poit of view; in that defense.
Just trying to pound some obvious common sense into glue...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Oddly enough, your logic is completely biased and one-sided as you request everyone show empathy for Israel, it's plight and it's people. Yet in your arguments you show no empathy for the Palestine people and use the very same logic that you find disgusting; to justify and excuse all things Israel.
You mean, like the consequences of Israel invading, occupying and expanding further into Palestine territory?
Or is it that in your mind, the Jews have some kind of entitlement to do these things and not expect consequences?
It was you who made the initial comment, earlier, remember?
" Clearly innocent lives on both sides have been killed, and this makes me sick. But you will NEVER see an Israeli strap a bomb onto his/her chest and blowup a civilian bus containing Palestinian people. "
So you excuse and justify Israel for having the money and resources to amass a huge military. But you demonize and condemn the Palestinians for NOT having the money and resources to amass a huge military.
Furthermore, you insinuate the Palestinians have no right to defend themselves, in whatever manner at their disposal; based on their lack of a huge military.
What was that you were saying about stupid?:rolleyes:
Clearly the distinction here is this.........
I am debating from a position that both sides are equally at fault and guilty of the same kind of attrocities. And neither should be painted as innocent or victims. The true innocent and victims are the civilians from both sides who have nothing to do with this conflict; but are routinely killed because they are caught in the crossfire.
You are arguing exclusively in defense of Israel and have an extremely biased and discriminatory poit of view; in that defense.
Stupid you say? Stupid I say, too. Very stupid.
I believe suicide bombing in the name of radical islam is disgusting and plain wrong. Everyone here does.
I think Israel has the right to defend itself. I also think considering that their defense forces are more powerful/funded than and Hamas militants, I believe Israel has responsiblity to show restraint when carrying out their attacks. Sometimes they have, and sometimes they havent.
I dont like it here when people view an Israeli retaliation to a Hamas militant attack, which yields more deaths, as brutal murder and wrong. Both sides in this case exhibited force, it just so happens that the IDF is stronger.
I also don't like when there is celebration amongst Palestinians (even if its a small percentage) when a terrorist/militant/whatever you wanna call them, kills Israeli civilians.
However, I really do identify with a lot of what you are saying. While we may not agree on everything, you seem to have an understanding of the situation, and you pointed out the most important thing: 'the true innocent victims are the civilians from both sides who have nothign to do with this conflict; but are routinely killed because they are caught in the crossfire.'
Majority of both Israelis and Palestinians just want to live their own lives in peace, raise their children and enjoy life. Its a damn shame when civilians on both sides get caught up in the crossfire.
It's not like Israel isn't interested in peace. Israel has peace with Egypt. Israel has peace with Jordan. There are even reports of talks with Syria. Bottom line is that Israel can make peace with its Arab neighbors, including the Palestinians.
I believe suicide bombing in the name of radical islam is disgusting and plain wrong.
The Palestinian resistance to the illegal occupation - which you so consistently choose to ignore - has nothing to do with radical islam. And even if it did, it would still be irrelevant with regards to the legitimacy of their struggle.
By the way, nice way of ignoring/avoiding everything I posted above.
It's not like Israel isn't interested in peace....Bottom line is that Israel can make peace with its Arab neighbors, including the Palestinians.
If Israel wanted peace it could begin abiding by international law and withdraw to the 1967 borders. So why does it continue building illegal settlements?
Comments
Wow, your post was a breath of fresh air. You made quite a bit of sense, but unfortunately, the ones obsessed with the downfall of Israel in this forum will fail to see the truth/logic in your words. When it comes to this conflict, extreme loathing often clouds ones' better judgment.
Bravo!
www.wm3.org
Ron Paul 2012
I'm sorry but I just haven't seen these 'we want the downfall of Israel' posts. Maybe you're confusing here with another message board.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
There was no rational justification for any of these countries greeting the carve-up of their land with open arms. You wouldn't have accepted it. The person sittng next to you wouldn't have accepted it. Why should the Palestinians have been expected to react any differently?
As for your second paragraph, again it's irrelevant.
Hello Lazymoon! You weren't away for long were you!
Right then, let me explain it for you: being against the unjust and illegal Zionist occupation doesn't make someone 'anti-Israel'. It's a shame that certain people need this pointed out to them.
The situation in the occupied territories is exactly like that of the Apartheid bantustans in South Africa. Maybe you explain to me how it's any different?
This comment is so absurd it doesn't deserve a response.
You don't need to strap a bomb to your chest when you have the second largest fleet of F16's in the world.
You're wrong.
Israel accused of war crimes
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5276626.stm
Israel targets civilians and UN personnel with impunity
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/dec2002/isra-d12.shtml
'I can't imagine anyone who considers himself a human being can do this'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jul/28/israel
'On Friday a four-year-old Palestinian boy was shot dead by a soldier - the most recent child victim of the Israeli army. Chris McGreal investigates a shocking series of deaths.'
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/child_41304.html
'The Israeli occupation army and paramilitary Jewish settlers have killed 545 Palestinian children and minors since the outbreak of the al-Aqsa Intifada in September 2000.
Among these victims, 266 children were 14 or younger while the ages of the remaining 279 ranged from 15 to 18. Moreover, as many as 20,000 Palestinian children were injured, with nearly 1500 sustaining life-long disabilities.
The total number of Palestinians killed by Israel during the current Intifada is around 2700, the vast majority of them civilians.'
'Palestinian children pay price of Israel's Summer Rain offensive'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/sep/07/israel
Rights group says 197 civilians have been killed in military operation, including 48 minors
The Guardian, Thursday September 7 2006
Lebanon:
UN officer reported Israeli war crimes before deadly bombing: widow
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2008/02/06/ot-von-kruedener-080206.html
'A United Nations military observer sent e-mails home to Canada reporting that Israel was bombing schools and waging "a campaign of terror against the Lebanese people" shortly before he was killed by an Israeli bomb in Lebanon, said his widow.'
The above comment is a lie.
'It is often said that the Palestinians were not a people. The most notorious example of this vague ploy is a 1999 remark by the then Prime Minister of Israel, Golda Meir:
"It was not as though there was a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them. They did not exist"
The need to debate Meir's contention is obviated by, among many other sources, the impressive work of Baruch Kimmerling and Joel S Migdsal, 'The Palestinian people: A History'. They provide authoritative and utterly convincing evidence that yes, there was indeed a Palestinian people. Even without opening the book, one might wonder how there could be a Palestine - the term appears throughout Zionist literature - without Palestinians, or what possessed the British to refer to "Representatives of the Palestinian people" in 1939. But the persistance of Meirs type of argument suggests that we should consider whether it is even worth debating these matters.
When it is siad that the Palestinians are not a people, or were not a people when the Zionists settled in Palestine, there are limits to how much words can wash away. This much seems beyond dispute: before the Zionists came, there was a bunch of people who lived in the area. Whether they were called Palestinians, whether the area was called Palestine, whether the people who lived in this area considered themselves a people, Palestinian or otherwise, are all questions without the slightest importance when assessing Zionism. There was no United States of America before the American revolution, so, of course, no one could consider himself an American in the sense of being a citizen of a place called the United States Of America. No one suggests that, for this reason, these revolutionaries somehow had less legitinacy for not being identifiable in this fashion. No one suggests they were any less entitle reject subjugation by the British. What people are called, whether there is a name for the area in which they make their home, whether they have some sort of national self-consciousness - none of this has any bearing on whether they must accept, not merely settlers in the general vicinity, not merely setlers who intend to become predominant in the region, but settlers who propose to install themselves as soveriegns over that area. And today the identity of Palestine or the Palestinians has absolutely no bearing on whether Israelis should control the territory they occupy or the people within it.'
Michael Neumann - The Case against Israel.
Many were exiled? Yeah, approximately 900,000 were forcibly evicted from their homes by the Zionist's race war.
There's a reason the borders were rejected, but you choose to ignore that.
Your second point simply makes no sense.
How about explaining exactly what was on offer during the Oslo accords? I provided a map on this thread a few days ago which detailed exactly what was on offer. I suggest you take a look at it and maybe you'll see why it was rejected.
Perhaps you can also explain just why the intifada broke out? Or is that something else you choose to gloss over?
Simple. You withdraw from the occupied territories and begin abiding by international law and the will of the international community - excluding the U.S - for a two-state solution along the pre 1967 border.
Yes it is. I suggest you look at the history of Zionism and it's intentions. Here's a few quotes:
"The acceptance of partition does not commit us to renounce Transjordan; one does not demand from anybody to give up his vision. We shall accept a state in the boundaries fixed today. But the boundaries of Zionist aspirations are the concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them." David Ben-Gurion, in 1936, quoted in Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."
"The main danger which Israel, as a 'Jewish state', poses to its own people, to other Jews and .to its neighbors, is its ideologically motivated pursuit of territorial expansion and the inevitable series of wars resulting from this aim...No Zionist politician has ever repudiated Ben-Gurion's idea that Israeli policies must be based (within the limits of practical considerations) on the restoration of Biblical borders as the borders of the Jewish state." Israeli professor, Israel Shahak, "Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of 3000 Years."
In Israeli Prime Minister Moshe Sharatt's personal diaries, there is an excerpt from May of 1955 in which he quotes Moshe Dayan as follows: "[Israel] must see the sword as the main, if not the only, instrument with which to keep its morale high and to retain its moral tension. Toward this end it may, no - it must - invent dangers, and to do this it must adopt the method of provocation-and-revenge...And above all - let us hope for a new war with the Arab countries, so that we may finally get rid of our troubles and acquire our space." Quoted in Livia Rokach, "Israel's Sacred Terrorism."
The media sure is a wonderful thing.
We've already been over this Lazymoon. You asked me before to desist from backing up what I say with evidence and source material. This would obviously suit your needs because then you could continue spouting these unsubstantiated statements, half truths and just outright lies and people would have no way of checking their accuracy or validity. So, I'll repeat what I told you before: No.
It should have ceased settlement expansion and it should have prevented any further extension of the Zionists intended race war.
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Of course but there was no rational justification for the mistreatment of the European Jews that continued after WWII that forced them to flee to Palestine in the first place! Why don't you ask your own government why it continued the brutality and mistreatment of the Jews that created this problem? Why weren't the European Jews given a nice safe place to go to in Europe? Britain objected to the immigration of the European Jews to Palestine after WWII so why didn't they secure a safe place for them in Britain? Why because they were not welcome there, in Europe and then not in Palestine. See the Jews are victims and those victims created another victim the Palestinians.
As for my second paragraph that you said was irrelevant, actually it is relevant because the Palestinians have had to deal with many occupiers over the years, which adds to their plight of freedom.
Sorry sweetheart, couldn't find that link.
www.wm3.org
Ron Paul 2012
Simple. Stop stealing land, and doing satanic shit like this http://www.uruknet.de/?p=m44244&hd=&size=1&l=e
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=5474359&postcount=257
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
I answered the question over there, buttercup.
www.wm3.org
Ron Paul 2012
Even if the Jews had nowhere to go after World War II, how would that justify them going to Palestine and taking control over another people?
First, this is terrible!
http://thereport.amnesty.org/eng/A-year-in-campaigning/Civilians-under-fire
According to Amnesty International (AI): Hizbullah did attack Israel first. Of course they started by attacking an Israeli army patrol but Israel retaliated and killed many civilians. Hizbullah also killed civilians but Israel killed more.
However per your statements in above posts, the killing of Israeli civilians by the Palestinians is justifiable and they have the right to protect themselves. If you believe that and you are unbiased than you would also agree that the Israelis have the right to protect themselves and do same? As for me, I disagree with Israelis killing civilians just as much as Palestinians...and including the US. It's wrong!
In July a major military conflict erupted between Israeli forces and Hizbullah forces based in Lebanon after Hizbullah fighters crossed into Israel and attacked an army patrol. By the time a ceasefire was agreed 34 days later, Israeli attacks had killed more than 1,000 civilians in Lebanon, displaced around a million people, and destroyed thousands of homes and much of Lebanon’s civilian infrastructure. Hizbullah launched missiles into civilian areas of Israel, causing the deaths of 43 civilians, displacing many thousands of people from their homes in northern Israel and damaging hundreds of buildings.
...
Following the end of the hostilities, and after conducting further research and discussions with officials, AI issued two briefings covering aspects of the conflict. In August it published Israel/Lebanon: Deliberate destruction or “collateral damage”? Israeli attacks against civilian infrastructure (AI Index: MDE 18/007/2006). AI found that Israeli forces had committed indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks, pursuing a strategy that appeared intended to punish the people of Lebanon and their government for not turning against Hizbullah, as well as harming Hizbullah’s military capability.
In September, AI published Israel/Lebanon: Under fire – Hizbullah’s attacks on northern Israel(AI Index: MDE 02/025/2006). This concluded that Hizbullah had committed serious violations of international humanitarian law, including war crimes. Its rocket attacks amounted to deliberate attacks on civilians and civilian objects, and indiscriminate attacks. The attacks also violated other rules of international humanitarian law, including the prohibition of reprisal attacks on the civilian population.
In November, AI published Israel/Lebanon: Out of all proportion – civilians bear the brunt of the war (AI Index: MDE 02/033/2006). This covered further aspects of the conduct and consequences of Israeli military actions in Lebanon. It analysed patterns of Israeli attacks and a number of specific incidents in which civilians were killed in Lebanon. It highlighted the impact on civilian life of other Israeli attacks, including the legacy of the widespread cluster bomb bombardment of south Lebanon by Israeli forces in the last days of the war. It also summarized AI’s conclusions with regard to the overall conduct of both Israeli forces and Hizbullah fighters.
AI called for the UN to set up an international commission empowered to investigate the evidence of violations of international law by both Hizbullah and Israel, and to make provision for reparations for the victims. AI also called for an arms embargo on both sides, and an immediate moratorium on the use of cluster weapons. It urged all parties involved in the conflict to investigate alleged violations of international human rights law and ensure reparation for the victims.
...
some more than others.... in fact, one side has about 5x (if not more) the casualties of the other... care to guess who?
give the Palestinians billions of dollars for military spending and you'll certainly NEVER see a Palestinian strap a bomb onto his/her chest and blowup a civilian bus containing Israeli people.
some didn't leave by 'choice'. most were exiled, some left from fear... just like how many Jews fled Germany during WWII.
how is that relevant at all?
If Israel truly wanted peace, they could easily have it. All they'd have to do is get rid of the illegal settlements and move back to the 67 borders like Hamas said they should... then peace could be achieved. but Israel refuses to renounce violence and speak with Hamas.
No, they don't. Hamas' intention is to get their land back. If they could do that without harming a single Israeli, you think they wouldn't do it?
yeah, and Israel certainly has no corrupt government officials or organizations...
Hamas being called 'corrupt' simply makes no sense and you bring no source or anything to back it up.
I know who this was directed at, and Byrnzie definitely responds using his own words several times. However, when he's making a point that needs proof, he'll use a source. it's simple. didn't you go to college?
but Israel didn't defend itself. Israel started these wars.
How does that reflect their intentions for peace? If they can give up land for peace, why can't they move back to the 67 borders? It's certainly possible, so don't try to say they can't.
Byrnzie had asked me how the Israelis are victims.
I believe both sides are victims and he believes only the Palestinians are victims.
You talk about Jews as if they're a homogenous entity. I think you're mistaking Jews for Zionists.
No that maybe you
I was thinking isn't the international community at large (including the US) during that time responsible for this conflict considering no one stepped up willingly to take in all of the displaced European Jews? Instead they passed the problem onto the Palestinians creating a much larger problem.
All I can suggest is to read our posts to figure out how we got to that point in our debate that has been going on for days lol.
The Israeli Palestinian conflict started as a result of the UN dividing Palestine in 1947 giving a portion of the Palestinians land to the Jews so that the displaced unwanted European Jews had a place to go to. Rightfully the Palestinians were not happy as they did not agree to it and was forced into it. This also upsets the surrounding Arab countries. Threats are made to Israel and the conflict begins.
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
And exactly what propaganda would that be?
The propaganda of wanting Israel to be held accountable and responsible for their actions?
The propaganda of telling it like it is, by pointing out that Israel are not innocent little fawns in this conflict and have in fact just as often been the overly-aggressive catalysts of occupation and violence?
You're confusing the clear message of people calling for Israel to be held to the same standards and accountability as Palestine; with people taking Palestine's side in this conflict. There's a very clear and obvious distinction, if you take the time to understand and realize what people are saying.
No one is anti-Israel. Everyone in this thread who are stating the attrocities and actions of Israel, are simply submitting both sides of the story; in hopes we can get past this ridiculous notion that Israel are poor, little, innocent victims in all of this.....just protecting themselves. As well as illustrating Israel's over-the-top aggression in occupation and expansion.
It's about realizing that at this point in time and history, both sides have commited so many attrocities........so many innocent murders; that neither side have the advantage in claiming innocence or playing the victim.
Yeah. But launching missles into schools, homes and markets and bulldozing people's homes (and people) sure as hell kills a lot of innocent people. So what's the difference?
You know, like Rachel Corrie!
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/16/rafah.death/
http://ifamericansknew.com/cur_sit/corrie.html
Or how about Tom Hurndall who was killed by an Israeli sniper?
http://ifamericansknew.com/cur_sit/tomhurndall.html
You want to talk about propaganda? Look what an american jew wrote, here: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/6196
Seriously, there is a lot of propaganda from both sides. But make no mistake, Israel and Jews all over the world spend an enormous amount of time spinning and bullshitting. The propaganda from Jews is monumental.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
For example, let's say Hamas or Hezbollah initiates an attack against Israel, fires a missile and kills two Israeli Civilians.
In this situation, what should Israel do. (focus on this particular situation, not the entire historical conflict.)
Israel, like any nation, will retaliate. You can't fire a missile into a country and expect no consequences.
It just so happens that Israel has a very large and powerful army, unlike its Hamas or Hezbollah counterparts.
Its the size of Israel's army in comparison to Hamas' militant capabilities which has led to more Palestinians killed. I know on the surface this sounds horrible, but think about it: Don't blame Israel for having a more powerful military force than Hamas. Israeli attacks are no worse than the Hamas attacks. Actually, Hamas's intentions behind their attacks are always to kill innocent lives. IDF intends to kill specific Hamas militants, and unfortuntaly for everyone there are too many collateral damages.
A lot of you were saying, that if Hamas had billions to spend on military, they woudlnt need to strab bombs to their chests and blow up busses. That is the stupidest comment I've heard. This just proves how you are villifying Israel for the sake of being more powerful! Sometime my friends, the underdog isnt always right! Considering Hamas' history, and intention to kill innocent people, as well as their charter which describes the destruction of Israel, if Hamas had billions to spend on military I guess their attacks would be just as devastating as the ones you claim Israel makes. But of course, they dont have those resources, so Israel is the evil military powerhouse and Hamas is just the noble underdog looking for peace.
Also, one of you disputed a point I made before about corruption in Palestinian leadership. I meant that the PLO was corrupt and that Hamas was a terrorist organization. Palestinians in the election could choose from those two. I did not mean that Hamas was corrupt.
There is no disputing Arafat's corruption:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/07/60minutes/main582487.shtml
Hmmm, maybe those billions could have been spent on improving the lives of Palestinians, and invested in education and social programs. Believe me, it's not just the Israel conflict which has caused the demise of the people living in the Gaza region.
STOP STEALING FUCKING LAND AND MURDERING PEOPLE IN THE PROCESS!!!
see? ....very easy first step towards a solution.
That was easy to realize.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Your post is completely flawed. You ask us to focus on one specific instance, which just happens to be a rocket attack against Israel - how many of these attacks have actually killed anyone? You can probably count the number on one hand.
Why? Why should we? You ask the people on the board to refrain from providing links to support what they say. Now you're asking us to ignore the history, and the wider picture, as they relate to this issue.
Well, my answer is "No".
There's also no diputing Olmerts Corruption..
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080518/twl-uk-israel-olmert-bd5ae06.html
Or Ariel Sharon's corruption...
http://www.masada2000.org/Corruption.html
In fact you could say that the whole rotten edifice is corrupt...
Israel faces corruption 'epidemic'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6276071.stm
Political Corruption in Israel
http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery09282006.html
In Israel, the odor of corruption
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/26/news/corrupt.php
I provided a list of links above which detail how the IDF has routinely and deliberately targeted civilians. Continue to ignore them if you like.
And as for trying to justify 'collateral damage' I'm afraid you're not convincing me for starters.
You really think this is what it all boils down to?
Have you actually read any of the posts on this thread?
Regarding your comments about terrorism Michael Neumann makes a valid point:
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article4690.shtml
'..Neumann is even prepared to concede that "'the occupation itself', in the narrowest sense of the word, was no great crime." Indeed he believes that the 1967 war, which "liberated" the West Bank from Jordanian tutelage, gave Israel "a chance to make handsome amends for the crimes on which it was built...Israel could have sponsored...the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state..." Instead, largely spearheaded by the USA, the settlements made a bad situation infinitely worse, and it is the settlements and the brutal military regime instituted to defend them that bear the brunt of Neumann's often eloquent disgust.
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."
Oddly enough, your logic is completely biased and one-sided as you request everyone show empathy for Israel, it's plight and it's people. Yet in your arguments you show no empathy for the Palestine people and use the very same logic that you find disgusting; to justify and excuse all things Israel.
You mean, like the consequences of Israel invading, occupying and expanding further into Palestine territory?
Or is it that in your mind, the Jews have some kind of entitlement to do these things and not expect consequences?
It was you who made the initial comment, earlier, remember?
" Clearly innocent lives on both sides have been killed, and this makes me sick. But you will NEVER see an Israeli strap a bomb onto his/her chest and blowup a civilian bus containing Palestinian people. "
So you excuse and justify Israel for having the money and resources to amass a huge military. But you demonize and condemn the Palestinians for NOT having the money and resources to amass a huge military.
Furthermore, you insinuate the Palestinians have no right to defend themselves, in whatever manner at their disposal; based on their lack of a huge military.
What was that you were saying about stupid?:rolleyes:
Clearly the distinction here is this.........
I am debating from a position that both sides are equally at fault and guilty of the same kind of attrocities. And neither should be painted as innocent or victims. The true innocent and victims are the civilians from both sides who have nothing to do with this conflict; but are routinely killed because they are caught in the crossfire.
You are arguing exclusively in defense of Israel and have an extremely biased and discriminatory poit of view; in that defense.
Stupid you say? Stupid I say, too. Very stupid.
It's my pleasure, my Irish coffee
www.wm3.org
Ron Paul 2012
You're a hostile character. Relax, pal.
www.wm3.org
Ron Paul 2012
Just trying to pound some obvious common sense into glue...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I believe suicide bombing in the name of radical islam is disgusting and plain wrong. Everyone here does.
I think Israel has the right to defend itself. I also think considering that their defense forces are more powerful/funded than and Hamas militants, I believe Israel has responsiblity to show restraint when carrying out their attacks. Sometimes they have, and sometimes they havent.
I dont like it here when people view an Israeli retaliation to a Hamas militant attack, which yields more deaths, as brutal murder and wrong. Both sides in this case exhibited force, it just so happens that the IDF is stronger.
I also don't like when there is celebration amongst Palestinians (even if its a small percentage) when a terrorist/militant/whatever you wanna call them, kills Israeli civilians.
However, I really do identify with a lot of what you are saying. While we may not agree on everything, you seem to have an understanding of the situation, and you pointed out the most important thing: 'the true innocent victims are the civilians from both sides who have nothign to do with this conflict; but are routinely killed because they are caught in the crossfire.'
Majority of both Israelis and Palestinians just want to live their own lives in peace, raise their children and enjoy life. Its a damn shame when civilians on both sides get caught up in the crossfire.
It's not like Israel isn't interested in peace. Israel has peace with Egypt. Israel has peace with Jordan. There are even reports of talks with Syria. Bottom line is that Israel can make peace with its Arab neighbors, including the Palestinians.
The Palestinian resistance to the illegal occupation - which you so consistently choose to ignore - has nothing to do with radical islam. And even if it did, it would still be irrelevant with regards to the legitimacy of their struggle.
By the way, nice way of ignoring/avoiding everything I posted above.
If Israel wanted peace it could begin abiding by international law and withdraw to the 1967 borders. So why does it continue building illegal settlements?