O.k, for your benefit I'll repeat myself - as I also need to do by re-posting the same quotations - because you clearly miss the point, again and again, ad infinitum: Israel is a signatory to the U.N. Therefore it is obligated to adhere to the U.N charter. Alternatively, it could revert to barbarism of the type we witnessed in the 1930's and 1940's. It seems like you are in favour of such barbarism and lawlessness as long as it suits your own personal needs, although strangely, whenever anyone mentions 9/11 then you're the first one to begin barking about justice, and right and wrong.
I know you are very emotionally attached to this subject but please stop trying to insult me by saying I somehow support "barbarism and lawlessness" simply because I dont fall in line with everything you say.
you have used this tactic for years on this board and its probably one of the reasons you were banned. try to have a dicussion about this without saying such things.
A small number of Jews have lived in that area for thousands of years. What does this have to do with the Zionist goal of establishing ethnic sovereignty in the region?
Really? So the Muslim population living in America have a rightful claim to make the U.S an ethnic Arab sovereign state and to reduce the whites to the level of second class citizens?
no. Musliims have never ruled this land. now if you want to say Native American Indians have a right to this land I'd say yes. they have every right to rise up and go to war with America and try to get its land back. but they dont because they live in peace on reserved land set aside for them many years ago. they also would not live if they tried to forcefully take their land back. like I said, events like this have been happening since the beginning of mankind.
really? why? the people I mentioned, who you have immediately dismissed, all have ruled the land in question at some point in history. the history of the region is amazingly complex and long. you should study it sometime.
I know you are very emotionally attached to this subject but please stop trying to insult me by saying I somehow support "barbarism and lawlessness" simply because I dont fall in line with everything you say.
you have used this tactic for years on this board and its probably one of the reasons you were banned. try to have a dicussion about this without saying such things.
I think it's you that needs to study the history of the region: :ugeek:
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_early_ ... _arabs.php
'Arab invasions came after successive crises of overpopulation in the Arabian Peninsula beginning in the third millennium BC and ending with the Muslim conquests of the 7th century AD. These peoples spoke languages based on similar linguistic structures, and the modern Semitic languages of Arabic, Hebrew, and Amharic (the language of Ethiopia) maintain important similarities.
After the Roman conquest of Judea, the Nabataeans and others, "Palastina" became a province of the pagan Roman Empire and then of the Christian Byzantine Empire, and very briefly of the Zoroastrian Persian Empire. In 638 AD, an Arab-Muslim Caliph took Palastina away from the Byzantine Empire and made it part of an Arab-Muslim Empire. The Arabs, who had no name of their own for this region, adopted the Greco-Roman name Palastina, that they pronounced "Falastin".'
In 1099, Christian Crusaders from Europe conquered Palestine and took Jerusalem. After 1099, it was never again under Arab rule. The Christian Crusader kingdom lasted less than 100 years. Thereafter, Palestine was joined to Syria as a subject province first of the Egyptian Mameluks, and then of the Ottoman Turks, whose capital was in Istanbul.'
I know you are very emotionally attached to this subject but please stop trying to insult me by saying I somehow support "barbarism and lawlessness" simply because I dont fall in line with everything you say.
you have used this tactic for years on this board and its probably one of the reasons you were banned. try to have a dicussion about this without saying such things.
Jlew lecturing someone about correct behaviour on the pit. Hilarious!
laugh all you want, I still find your posts very insulting. you know what I'm talking about, you have done it for years. whenever someone doesnt agree with every word you say on this issue, they somehow support genocide and barabarism or whatever word you choose to pick that day.
Really? So the Muslim population living in America have a rightful claim to make the U.S an ethnic Arab sovereign state and to reduce the whites to the level of second class citizens?
like I said, events like this have been happening since the beginning of mankind.
And like I said, we're not talking about the beginning of mankind, we're talking about the present day. And it's quite obvious why you keep trying to muddy the water with references to ancient history and the dawn of civilization. Why don't you try sticking to the facts as they relate to the contemporary world instead?
like I said, events like this have been happening since the beginning of mankind.
And like I said, we're not talking about the beginning of mankind, we're talking about the present day. And it's quite obvious why you keep trying to muddy the water with references to ancient history and the dawn of civilization. Why don't you try sticking to the facts as they relate to the contemporary world instead?
because the history of the area in question is relevant today and to the parties involved. if you studied the history you would understand that.
like I said, events like this have been happening since the beginning of mankind.
And like I said, we're not talking about the beginning of mankind, we're talking about the present day. And it's quite obvious why you keep trying to muddy the water with references to ancient history and the dawn of civilization. Why don't you try sticking to the facts as they relate to the contemporary world instead?
because the history of the area in question is relevant today and to the parties involved. if you studied the history you would understand that.
according to you history started in 1967.
With regard to the occupied territories and to resolution 242, then 1967 is the origin of the current issue. Although you'd prefer to talk about what may or may not have happened 2000 years ago in the mists of history, because pulling that smokescreen over the issue suits your purpose.
With regard to the occupied territories and to resolution 242, then 1967 is the origin of the current issue. Although you'd prefer to talk about what may or may not have happened 2000 years ago in the mists of history, because pulling that smokescreen over the issue suits your purpose.
it doesnt suit my purpose. you know why? I have no purpose. all I can do is look at history of the land and conclude that a resolution by a UN body is not the end all-do all for a very complicated issue and place. I'm smart enough to realize that its going to take more then that.
With regard to the occupied territories and to resolution 242, then 1967 is the origin of the current issue. Although you'd prefer to talk about what may or may not have happened 2000 years ago in the mists of history, because pulling that smokescreen over the issue suits your purpose.
it doesnt suit my purpose. you know why? I have no purpose. all I can do is look at history of the land and conclude that a resolution by a UN body is not the end all-do all for a very complicated issue and place. I'm smart enough to realize that its going to take more then that.
But that's just it, it's not complicated. It's actually very simple, as the documentary record shows. Apologists for Israel's crimes simply like to pretend that it's complicated because it suits their purpose to do so. It's a common tactic that has now become all too transparent.
Edit: And we're not talking about the history of the Jewish people in the Middle East here. We're talking about Zionism. They are not the same thing. Many Jews around the world abhor Zionism and the goals of the Zionist leadership.
With regard to the occupied territories and to resolution 242, then 1967 is the origin of the current issue. Although you'd prefer to talk about what may or may not have happened 2000 years ago in the mists of history, because pulling that smokescreen over the issue suits your purpose.
it doesnt suit my purpose. you know why? I have no purpose. all I can do is look at history of the land and conclude that a resolution by a UN body is not the end all-do all for a very complicated issue and place. I'm smart enough to realize that its going to take more then that.
But that's just it, it's not complicated. It's actually very simple, as the documentary record shows. Apologists for Israel's crimes simply like to pretend that it's complicated because it suits their purpose to do so. It's a common tactic that has now become all too transparent.
Edit: And we're not talking about the history of the Jewish people in the Middle East here. We're talking about Zionism. They are not the same thing. Many Jews around the world abhor Zionism and the goals of the Zionist leadership.
lets add Apologists for Israel's crimes to the list of names to call people who dont agree with you.
so what do you call a Jewish person who wants to live within Israeli borders? do they only get the naughty word Zionist attached to them? how about the peaceful Jewish people that just want to live in the same land they've lived in for Eons?
these are rhetorical questions, dont bother answering.
you can ignore the 1000s of years of history all you want. its not going to solve anything. its the attitude of yours that keeps this problem going. "1967 borders or war" the choice is simple right?
so what do you call a Jewish person who wants to live within Israeli borders?
Depends on the individual.
Meanwhile:
According to the polls taken during the recent bombardment of Gaza 90% of the Israeli population supported the massacre. They cheered on and supported the massacre of '1,324 Gazans, of which "most" were civilians.[41] The PMoH stated that 437 children under the age of 16, 110 women, 123 elderly men, 14 medics, and four journalists were among those killed. The wounded include 1,890 children and 200 people in serious condition.' - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80 ... a_conflict
How would you describe such people?
Also:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? ... 6632376762 Poll: Israelis favor Arab transfer to Palestine
'A total of 76 percent of Israeli Jews give some degree of support to transferring Israeli Arabs to a future Palestinian state, a poll commissioned by the Knesset Channel revealed, Monday.
The poll, conducted over the Internet, included 668 adult Israeli Jews representing the entire political spectrum, cites a 3.7% margin of error.
The poll asked participants whether as part of an agreement to establish a Palestinian state there would be justification to demand that Arabs with Israeli citizenship relocate to Palestinian territory...'
so what do you call a Jewish person who wants to live within Israeli borders?
Depends on the individual.
Meanwhile:
According to the polls taken during the recent bombardment of Gaza 90% of the Israeli population supported the massacre. They cheered on and supported the massacre of '1,324 Gazans, of which "most" were civilians.[41] The PMoH stated that 437 children under the age of 16, 110 women, 123 elderly men, 14 medics, and four journalists were among those killed. The wounded include 1,890 children and 200 people in serious condition.' - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80 ... a_conflict
And you're pretending that Israel is interested in peace? Then why have they rejected every attempt at a peaceful settlement for the past 40 years?[/quote]
I'm not pretending Israel is interested in peace. they dont. my point is that this problem is not going to be solved by the 1967 borders. there is going to have to be compromising on both sides. this is something you refuse to accept and by doing so, you only continue to support the never ending cycle of violence.
my point is that this problem is not going to be solved by the 1967 borders. there is going to have to be compromising on both sides. this is something you refuse to accept and by doing so, you only continue to support the never ending cycle of violence.
The Palestinians have already compromised. They've had 80% of their land stolen from them. And yet they've even agreed to relinquish another 12% of the land left to them in the West bank. Is that not compromise enough for you?
International law calls for a full and immediate Israeli withdrawal to the June 1967 borders. It's pretty unambiguous.
Why is it so difficult for you to understand?
Here's another quote. You may have seen it already. I suggest you read it again:
Michael Neumann:
'It is sometimes alleged that complete withdrawal from the occupied territories is "impracticable" because the facts on the ground are too deeply entrenched: Israeli settlements are just too extensive and important to uproot. One can hardly take this seriously. If it was "practicable" for hundreds of thousands of stateless Palestinians to leave their homes, why is this impracticable for half as many Israeli citizens in far more comfortable and peaceful circumstances? Throughout modern history, from the waves of U.S immigration to the peaceful post-World War II population transfers, there have been far greater shifts than this movement of a few miles. In many cases, if the settlers prefer, they can simply return to their homes in the United States. "It's impracticable" seems here a stand-in for "Aw, gee, these towns are too nice to let the Arabs have them".
The significance of the withdrawal alternative is not that it represents a just solution. Arguably, justice would require much more than that - not only the abolition of Jewish sovereignty in Israel, but a full right of return, with compensation for the Palestinians, and the eviction of Jewish inhabitants occupying Palestinian property. But the existence of the withdrawal alternative effectively completes the case against Israel. It's willful and pointless rejection of that alternative places Israel decisively in the wrong. In the first place, Israel has a right of self defense, but it does not apply in the Occupied Territories. If the U.S invaded Jamaica and dotted it with settlements, neither the settlers nor the armed forces could invoke any right to defend themselves against the Jamaicans, any more than a robber who invaded your house. So it is with the Israeli's in the Occupied Territories. Their right of self-defense is their right to the least violent defensive alternative. Since withdrawal (perhaps followed by fortifying their own 1948 border) is by far their best and least violent defense, that is all they have a right to do.'
In reference to your picture, are you aware that armed service is compulsory in Israel?
Here's another quote:
Norman Finkestein - Beyond Chutzpah: 'When Israel attacked Lebanon in in June 1982 in order to "safeguard the occupation of the West bank" (Yehoshafat Harkabi's phrase), the popularity ratings of Defense Minister Ariel Sharon and Prime Minister Begin soared, while more than 80 percent of Israeli's held the invasion to be justified. When Israel's battering of Beirut in August 1982 reached new heights of savagery, more than half of Israeli's still supported the begin-Sharon government, while more than 80 percent still supported the invasion - which in the end, left up to twenty thousand Lebanese and Palestinians, almost all civilians, dead, and which the U.N General Assembly condemned by a vote of 143 to 2 (United States and Israel) for inflicting "severe damage on civilian Palestinians, including heavy losses of human lives, intolerable sufferings and massive material destruction." Only when the costs of the Lebanon aggression proved too onerous - initially, from the worldwide outcry against the Sabra and Shatila massacres and, later, from the escalating military casualties - did Israeli's turn against it. When Israel's violent repression of the first Intifada reached new heights of brutality in 1989, more than half of all Israeli's supported the deployment of yet "stronger measures" to quell the largely nonviolent civil revolt (only one in four supported any lessening of the repression), while "an overwhelming 72 percent...saw no contradiction between the army's handling of the uprising and 'the nation's democratic values.'"
Operation Defensive shield (March - April 2002), although wreaking devastation on Palestinian society and culminating in the commission by Israeli forces of "serious violations" of humanitarian law and "war crimes" in Jenin and Nablus, was supported by fully 90 percent of Israeli's.
Beyond the emotional support that Israeli's have lent to crimes of state, it bears emphasis that Israel relies on a citizen army to implement policy: the collective responsibility of the Israeli people accordingly runs much deeper than "moral complicity." Finally, Israel couldn't commit such crimes without unconditional political and economic support from the United States, and it's the likes of Dershowitz who, through shameless apologetics and brazen distortions, crucially facilitate this unconditional support. What if Dershowitz's home were subject to the "benign form of collective accountability" he urges for Palestinians?'
my point is that this problem is not going to be solved by the 1967 borders. there is going to have to be compromising on both sides. this is something you refuse to accept and by doing so, you only continue to support the never ending cycle of violence.
The Palestinians have already compromised. They've had 80% of their land stolen from them. And yet they've even agreed to relinquish another 12% of the land left to them in the West bank. Is that not compromise enough for you?
yea it is. Palestinians deserve alot of land back but going back to the 1967 borders simply wont happen. the 1967 borders would also call for Israel to give up Jerusalem as it's capital. that also is not going to happen...alot of that has to do with the history of the holy city, something you choose to ignore.
in 1967 a war was fought and land changed hands. remember? something thats happened since the beginning of mankind.
this doesnt mean I support Israel or whatever bullshit insults you want to throw at me. I'm just telling you the reality of the situation.
International law calls for a full and immediate Israeli withdrawal to the June 1967 borders. It's pretty unambiguous.
Why is it so difficult for you to understand?
its not hard for me to understand. its quite simple. but like I said, a simple UN resolution isn't the end all-do all like you seem to think it is. you seem to love the UN when it suits you. maybe you supported the US invading Iraq based on the almighty UN resolutions?
Here's another quote. You may have seen it already. I suggest you read it again:
Michael Neumann:
'It is sometimes alleged that complete withdrawal from the occupied territories is "impracticable" because the facts on the ground are too deeply entrenched: Israeli settlements are just too extensive and important to uproot. One can hardly take this seriously. If it was "practicable" for hundreds of thousands of stateless Palestinians to leave their homes, why is this impracticable for half as many Israeli citizens in far more comfortable and peaceful circumstances? Throughout modern history, from the waves of U.S immigration to the peaceful post-World War II population transfers, there have been far greater shifts than this movement of a few miles. In many cases, if the settlers prefer, they can simply return to their homes in the United States. "It's impracticable" seems here a stand-in for "Aw, gee, these towns are too nice to let the Arabs have them".
The significance of the withdrawal alternative is not that it represents a just solution. Arguably, justice would require much more than that - not only the abolition of Jewish sovereignty in Israel, but a full right of return, with compensation for the Palestinians, and the eviction of Jewish inhabitants occupying Palestinian property. But the existence of the withdrawal alternative effectively completes the case against Israel. It's willful and pointless rejection of that alternative places Israel decisively in the wrong. In the first place, Israel has a right of self defense, but it does not apply in the Occupied Territories. If the U.S invaded Jamaica and dotted it with settlements, neither the settlers nor the armed forces could invoke any right to defend themselves against the Jamaicans, any more than a robber who invaded your house. So it is with the Israeli's in the Occupied Territories. Their right of self-defense is their right to the least violent defensive alternative. Since withdrawal (perhaps followed by fortifying their own 1948 border) is by far their best and least violent defense, that is all they have a right to do.'
its really cute to compare the US and Jamaica to Palestine and Israel. its just ignorant. and sorry to say it but going back to 1967 borders is impractical and isn't going to happen. the compromise is going for BOTH sides to renounce violence and agree to acknowledge EACH others right to exist. then lines will have to be drawn in the sand. and due to a WAR that was fought, Jerusalem is at best going to be a shared capital and post 1967 borders will be a reality.
a simple UN resolution isn't the end all-do all like you seem to think it is. you seem to love the UN when it suits you. maybe you supported the US invading Iraq based on the almighty UN resolutions?
The U.N didn't authorize the invasion of Iraq. A second resolution was never passed, remember? You have a very short memory.
Also, you talk a lot about compromise.
Why are the Israeli's never asked to renounce violence? Why is it always only the Palestinians who are asked to make compromises?
In reference to your picture, are you aware that armed service is compulsory in Israel?
so that means its perfectly fine for those hamas soldiers to strap bombs to that 6 year old?
"well since Israel does it"
Israel doesn't need to. It has the world's 2nd largest fleet of F16's instead. It's recent massacre of 800 Gazan civilians showed the world just how moral and brave the Israeli's are.
a simple UN resolution isn't the end all-do all like you seem to think it is. you seem to love the UN when it suits you. maybe you supported the US invading Iraq based on the almighty UN resolutions?
The U.N didn't authorize the invasion of Iraq. A second resolution was never passed, remember? You have a very short memory.[/quote]
the invasion was explicitly authorized by Security Council Resolution 678 and thus complies with international law.[4] There is no debate that Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."
regardless, Iraq violated several UN resolutions. based on your logic, the Iraq was way beyond justified.
Also, you talk a lot about compromise.
Why are the Israeli's never asked to make compromises? Why is it always only the Palestinians who are asked to compromise?
what are you asking me for? I already told you I expect Israel to make many, if not most, of the compromising.
Israel doesn't need to. It has the world's 2nd largest fleet of F16's instead. It's recent massacre of 800 Gazan civilians showed the world just how moral and brave the Israeli's are.
With regard to the occupied territories and to resolution 242, then 1967 is the origin of the current issue. Although you'd prefer to talk about what may or may not have happened 2000 years ago in the mists of history, because pulling that smokescreen over the issue suits your purpose.
it doesnt suit my purpose. you know why? I have no purpose. all I can do is look at history of the land and conclude that a resolution by a UN body is not the end all-do all for a very complicated issue and place. I'm smart enough to realize that its going to take more then that.
Let me ask you a question: Why are illegal Jewish-only settlements still being built?
With regard to the occupied territories and to resolution 242, then 1967 is the origin of the current issue. Although you'd prefer to talk about what may or may not have happened 2000 years ago in the mists of history, because pulling that smokescreen over the issue suits your purpose.
it doesnt suit my purpose. you know why? I have no purpose. all I can do is look at history of the land and conclude that a resolution by a UN body is not the end all-do all for a very complicated issue and place. I'm smart enough to realize that its going to take more then that.
Let me ask you a question: Why are illegal Jewish-only settlements still being built?
Its funny how people keep referring to the argument about modern day Jews immigrating to Palestine being ancestrally bonded to Palestine. Yes because a white Russian Jew (who currently make up more than a million of Israel's population) clearly came from that land. Like there is no such thing as conversion from say Judiasm to Islam.
For all those who still think this "Jews were there 2000 years ago" argument is valid should read this.. it deals with an Israeli professor called Shlomo Sand..
Q: If the people was not exiled, are you saying that in fact the real descendants of the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Judah are the Palestinians?
A: "No population remains pure over a period of thousands of years. But the chances that the Palestinians are descendants of the ancient Judaic people are much greater than the chances that you or I are its descendents. The first Zionists, up until the Arab Revolt [1936-9], knew that there had been no exiling, and that the Palestinians were descended from the inhabitants of the land. They knew that farmers don't leave until they are expelled. Even Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, the second president of the State of Israel, wrote in 1929 that, 'the vast majority of the peasant farmers do not have their origins in the Arab conquerors, but rather, before then, in the Jewish farmers who were numerous and a majority in the building of the land.'"
Comments
I know you are very emotionally attached to this subject but please stop trying to insult me by saying I somehow support "barbarism and lawlessness" simply because I dont fall in line with everything you say.
you have used this tactic for years on this board and its probably one of the reasons you were banned. try to have a dicussion about this without saying such things.
no. Musliims have never ruled this land. now if you want to say Native American Indians have a right to this land I'd say yes. they have every right to rise up and go to war with America and try to get its land back. but they dont because they live in peace on reserved land set aside for them many years ago. they also would not live if they tried to forcefully take their land back. like I said, events like this have been happening since the beginning of mankind.
really? why? the people I mentioned, who you have immediately dismissed, all have ruled the land in question at some point in history. the history of the region is amazingly complex and long. you should study it sometime.
Weren't you given a lifetime ban?
I think it's you that needs to study the history of the region: :ugeek:
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_early_ ... _arabs.php
'Arab invasions came after successive crises of overpopulation in the Arabian Peninsula beginning in the third millennium BC and ending with the Muslim conquests of the 7th century AD. These peoples spoke languages based on similar linguistic structures, and the modern Semitic languages of Arabic, Hebrew, and Amharic (the language of Ethiopia) maintain important similarities.
After the Roman conquest of Judea, the Nabataeans and others, "Palastina" became a province of the pagan Roman Empire and then of the Christian Byzantine Empire, and very briefly of the Zoroastrian Persian Empire. In 638 AD, an Arab-Muslim Caliph took Palastina away from the Byzantine Empire and made it part of an Arab-Muslim Empire. The Arabs, who had no name of their own for this region, adopted the Greco-Roman name Palastina, that they pronounced "Falastin".'
In 1099, Christian Crusaders from Europe conquered Palestine and took Jerusalem. After 1099, it was never again under Arab rule. The Christian Crusader kingdom lasted less than 100 years. Thereafter, Palestine was joined to Syria as a subject province first of the Egyptian Mameluks, and then of the Ottoman Turks, whose capital was in Istanbul.'
laugh all you want, I still find your posts very insulting. you know what I'm talking about, you have done it for years. whenever someone doesnt agree with every word you say on this issue, they somehow support genocide and barabarism or whatever word you choose to pick that day.
I was talking about America :roll: as in the example you gave....
agree with Byzine or you support barbarism, lawlessness, Zionism, genocide, etc etc.
/end discussion.
And like I said, we're not talking about the beginning of mankind, we're talking about the present day. And it's quite obvious why you keep trying to muddy the water with references to ancient history and the dawn of civilization. Why don't you try sticking to the facts as they relate to the contemporary world instead?
because the history of the area in question is relevant today and to the parties involved. if you studied the history you would understand that.
according to you history started in 1967.
Your comment:
Therefore, let Israel get on with the job.
Doesn't much sound like you support the philosophy of 'might is right', now does it?
I said the land is disputed. that doesnt mean I support Israel. k?
With regard to the occupied territories and to resolution 242, then 1967 is the origin of the current issue. Although you'd prefer to talk about what may or may not have happened 2000 years ago in the mists of history, because pulling that smokescreen over the issue suits your purpose.
it doesnt suit my purpose. you know why? I have no purpose. all I can do is look at history of the land and conclude that a resolution by a UN body is not the end all-do all for a very complicated issue and place. I'm smart enough to realize that its going to take more then that.
But that's just it, it's not complicated. It's actually very simple, as the documentary record shows. Apologists for Israel's crimes simply like to pretend that it's complicated because it suits their purpose to do so. It's a common tactic that has now become all too transparent.
Edit: And we're not talking about the history of the Jewish people in the Middle East here. We're talking about Zionism. They are not the same thing. Many Jews around the world abhor Zionism and the goals of the Zionist leadership.
so what do you call a Jewish person who wants to live within Israeli borders? do they only get the naughty word Zionist attached to them? how about the peaceful Jewish people that just want to live in the same land they've lived in for Eons?
these are rhetorical questions, dont bother answering.
you can ignore the 1000s of years of history all you want. its not going to solve anything. its the attitude of yours that keeps this problem going. "1967 borders or war" the choice is simple right?
Depends on the individual.
Meanwhile:
According to the polls taken during the recent bombardment of Gaza 90% of the Israeli population supported the massacre. They cheered on and supported the massacre of '1,324 Gazans, of which "most" were civilians.[41] The PMoH stated that 437 children under the age of 16, 110 women, 123 elderly men, 14 medics, and four journalists were among those killed. The wounded include 1,890 children and 200 people in serious condition.' - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80 ... a_conflict
How would you describe such people?
Also:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? ... 6632376762
Poll: Israelis favor Arab transfer to Palestine
'A total of 76 percent of Israeli Jews give some degree of support to transferring Israeli Arabs to a future Palestinian state, a poll commissioned by the Knesset Channel revealed, Monday.
The poll, conducted over the Internet, included 668 adult Israeli Jews representing the entire political spectrum, cites a 3.7% margin of error.
The poll asked participants whether as part of an agreement to establish a Palestinian state there would be justification to demand that Arabs with Israeli citizenship relocate to Palestinian territory...'
And you're pretending that Israel is interested in peace? Then why have they rejected every attempt at a peaceful settlement for the past 40 years?
the same way I would describe these people
nauseating.
And you're pretending that Israel is interested in peace? Then why have they rejected every attempt at a peaceful settlement for the past 40 years?[/quote]
I'm not pretending Israel is interested in peace. they dont. my point is that this problem is not going to be solved by the 1967 borders. there is going to have to be compromising on both sides. this is something you refuse to accept and by doing so, you only continue to support the never ending cycle of violence.
The Palestinians have already compromised. They've had 80% of their land stolen from them. And yet they've even agreed to relinquish another 12% of the land left to them in the West bank. Is that not compromise enough for you?
International law calls for a full and immediate Israeli withdrawal to the June 1967 borders. It's pretty unambiguous.
Why is it so difficult for you to understand?
Here's another quote. You may have seen it already. I suggest you read it again:
Michael Neumann:
'It is sometimes alleged that complete withdrawal from the occupied territories is "impracticable" because the facts on the ground are too deeply entrenched: Israeli settlements are just too extensive and important to uproot. One can hardly take this seriously. If it was "practicable" for hundreds of thousands of stateless Palestinians to leave their homes, why is this impracticable for half as many Israeli citizens in far more comfortable and peaceful circumstances? Throughout modern history, from the waves of U.S immigration to the peaceful post-World War II population transfers, there have been far greater shifts than this movement of a few miles. In many cases, if the settlers prefer, they can simply return to their homes in the United States. "It's impracticable" seems here a stand-in for "Aw, gee, these towns are too nice to let the Arabs have them".
The significance of the withdrawal alternative is not that it represents a just solution. Arguably, justice would require much more than that - not only the abolition of Jewish sovereignty in Israel, but a full right of return, with compensation for the Palestinians, and the eviction of Jewish inhabitants occupying Palestinian property. But the existence of the withdrawal alternative effectively completes the case against Israel. It's willful and pointless rejection of that alternative places Israel decisively in the wrong. In the first place, Israel has a right of self defense, but it does not apply in the Occupied Territories. If the U.S invaded Jamaica and dotted it with settlements, neither the settlers nor the armed forces could invoke any right to defend themselves against the Jamaicans, any more than a robber who invaded your house. So it is with the Israeli's in the Occupied Territories. Their right of self-defense is their right to the least violent defensive alternative. Since withdrawal (perhaps followed by fortifying their own 1948 border) is by far their best and least violent defense, that is all they have a right to do.'
In reference to your picture, are you aware that armed service is compulsory in Israel?
Here's another quote:
Norman Finkestein - Beyond Chutzpah:
'When Israel attacked Lebanon in in June 1982 in order to "safeguard the occupation of the West bank" (Yehoshafat Harkabi's phrase), the popularity ratings of Defense Minister Ariel Sharon and Prime Minister Begin soared, while more than 80 percent of Israeli's held the invasion to be justified. When Israel's battering of Beirut in August 1982 reached new heights of savagery, more than half of Israeli's still supported the begin-Sharon government, while more than 80 percent still supported the invasion - which in the end, left up to twenty thousand Lebanese and Palestinians, almost all civilians, dead, and which the U.N General Assembly condemned by a vote of 143 to 2 (United States and Israel) for inflicting "severe damage on civilian Palestinians, including heavy losses of human lives, intolerable sufferings and massive material destruction." Only when the costs of the Lebanon aggression proved too onerous - initially, from the worldwide outcry against the Sabra and Shatila massacres and, later, from the escalating military casualties - did Israeli's turn against it.
When Israel's violent repression of the first Intifada reached new heights of brutality in 1989, more than half of all Israeli's supported the deployment of yet "stronger measures" to quell the largely nonviolent civil revolt (only one in four supported any lessening of the repression), while "an overwhelming 72 percent...saw no contradiction between the army's handling of the uprising and 'the nation's democratic values.'"
Operation Defensive shield (March - April 2002), although wreaking devastation on Palestinian society and culminating in the commission by Israeli forces of "serious violations" of humanitarian law and "war crimes" in Jenin and Nablus, was supported by fully 90 percent of Israeli's.
Beyond the emotional support that Israeli's have lent to crimes of state, it bears emphasis that Israel relies on a citizen army to implement policy: the collective responsibility of the Israeli people accordingly runs much deeper than "moral complicity." Finally, Israel couldn't commit such crimes without unconditional political and economic support from the United States, and it's the likes of Dershowitz who, through shameless apologetics and brazen distortions, crucially facilitate this unconditional support. What if Dershowitz's home were subject to the "benign form of collective accountability" he urges for Palestinians?'
Nauseating.
yea it is. Palestinians deserve alot of land back but going back to the 1967 borders simply wont happen. the 1967 borders would also call for Israel to give up Jerusalem as it's capital. that also is not going to happen...alot of that has to do with the history of the holy city, something you choose to ignore.
in 1967 a war was fought and land changed hands. remember? something thats happened since the beginning of mankind.
this doesnt mean I support Israel or whatever bullshit insults you want to throw at me. I'm just telling you the reality of the situation.
its not hard for me to understand. its quite simple. but like I said, a simple UN resolution isn't the end all-do all like you seem to think it is. you seem to love the UN when it suits you. maybe you supported the US invading Iraq based on the almighty UN resolutions?
its really cute to compare the US and Jamaica to Palestine and Israel. its just ignorant. and sorry to say it but going back to 1967 borders is impractical and isn't going to happen. the compromise is going for BOTH sides to renounce violence and agree to acknowledge EACH others right to exist. then lines will have to be drawn in the sand. and due to a WAR that was fought, Jerusalem is at best going to be a shared capital and post 1967 borders will be a reality.
so that means its perfectly fine for those hamas soldiers to strap bombs to that 6 year old?
"well since Israel does it"
No it wouldn't. 242 states that East Jerusalem belongs to the Palestinians, not the whole city.
The U.N didn't authorize the invasion of Iraq. A second resolution was never passed, remember? You have a very short memory.
Also, you talk a lot about compromise.
Why are the Israeli's never asked to renounce violence? Why is it always only the Palestinians who are asked to make compromises?
Israel doesn't need to. It has the world's 2nd largest fleet of F16's instead. It's recent massacre of 800 Gazan civilians showed the world just how moral and brave the Israeli's are.
great, like I said, the only solution would involve Israel having Jerusalem as its capital...at best, a shared capital.
The U.N didn't authorize the invasion of Iraq. A second resolution was never passed, remember? You have a very short memory.[/quote]
its a debatebale issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy ... on_of_Iraq
the invasion was explicitly authorized by Security Council Resolution 678 and thus complies with international law.[4] There is no debate that Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."
regardless, Iraq violated several UN resolutions. based on your logic, the Iraq was way beyond justified.
what are you asking me for? I already told you I expect Israel to make many, if not most, of the compromising.
broken record...
"well since Israel does it"
Hamas has said they agree to peace if the 1967 borders are recognized.
http://www.arabnews.com/?y=2008&page=4& ... §ion=0.
Most Arab countries also want this.
And so does Obama, apparently.
http://www.propeller.com/story/2008/11/ ... ders-deal/
The only obstacle to peace at the moment seems to be Israel.
one can only hope. we'll see how Obama handles this
Let me ask you a question: Why are illegal Jewish-only settlements still being built?
because they can
Do you have any regard for the rule of international law, or not?
probably why he's defending them.
For all those who still think this "Jews were there 2000 years ago" argument is valid should read this.. it deals with an Israeli professor called Shlomo Sand..
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/966952.html
a small excerpt..
Q: If the people was not exiled, are you saying that in fact the real descendants of the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Judah are the Palestinians?
A: "No population remains pure over a period of thousands of years. But the chances that the Palestinians are descendants of the ancient Judaic people are much greater than the chances that you or I are its descendents. The first Zionists, up until the Arab Revolt [1936-9], knew that there had been no exiling, and that the Palestinians were descended from the inhabitants of the land. They knew that farmers don't leave until they are expelled. Even Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, the second president of the State of Israel, wrote in 1929 that, 'the vast majority of the peasant farmers do not have their origins in the Arab conquerors, but rather, before then, in the Jewish farmers who were numerous and a majority in the building of the land.'"