what the fuck is wrong with you people. I'm not defending Israel. and why does it matter how I personally feel about international law? It makes no difference how I feel.
you asked me why the Jews are building settlements...my answer is because they can. not because they legally can but because the physically can. what answer are you looking for? maybe someone else will take your bait.
you asked me why the Jews are building settlements...my answer is because they can. not because they legally can but because the physically can. what answer are you looking for? maybe someone else will take your bait.
You mean my baiting you into giving an honest answer?
'Because they can' isn't an answer - it's horseshit.
You mean my baiting you into giving an honest answer?
'Because they can' isn't an answer - it's horseshit.
yet again, if we dont fall in line with the Byzine way of thinking its horseshit. Israel builds settlements because they feel they can...so they do. tell me, what answer or discussion are you looking for?
Land Grab: Israel's Settlement Policy in the West Bank
'The establishment of settlements on the West Bank violates international humanitarian law, which establishes the principles applying during war and occupation. Moreover, the settlements lead to the infringement of international human rights law.
International humanitarian law prohibits the occupying power to transfer citizens from its own territory to the occupied territory (Fourth Geneva Convention, article 49). The Hague Regulations prohibit the occupying power to undertake permanent changes in the occupied area, unless these are due to military needs in the narrow sense of the term, or unless they are undertaken for the benefit of the local population.
The establishment of the settlements leads to the violation of the rights of the Palestinians as enshrined in international human rights law. Among other violations, the settlements infringe the right to self-determination, equality, property, an adequate standard of living, and freedom of movement...
...Israel has created in the Occupied Territories a regime of separation based on discrimination, applying two separate systems of law in the same area and basing the rights of individuals on their nationality. This regime is the only one of its kind in the world, and is reminiscent of distasteful regimes from the past, such as the Apartheid regime in South Africa.
Under this regime, Israel has stolen hundreds of thousands of dunam of land from the Palestinians. Israel has used this land to establish dozens of settlements in the West Bank and to populate them with hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens. Israel prohibits the Palestinians as a group from entering and using these lands, and uses the settlements to justify numerous violations of the Palestinians' human rights, such as the right to housing, to earn a livelihood, and the right to freedom of movement. The drastic change that Israel has made in the map of the West Bank prevents any real possibility for the establishment of an independent, viable Palestinian state as part of the Palestinians' right to self-determination.
The settlers, on the contrary, benefit from all the rights available to Israeli citizens living within the Green Line, and in some cases are even granted additional rights. The great effort that Israel has invested in the settlement enterprise - in financial, legal and bureaucratic terms – has turned the settlements into civilian enclaves in an area under military rule, with the settlers being given priority status. To perpetuate this situation, which is a priori illegal, Israel has continuously breached the rights of the Palestinians.
Particularly evident is Israel's manipulative use of legal tools in order to give the settlement enterprise an impression of legality. When Jordanian legislation served Israel's goals, Israel adhered to this legislation, arguing that international law obliges it to respect the legislation in effect prior to the occupation; in practice, this legislation was used in a cynical and biased manner. On the other hand, when this legislation interfered with Israel's plans, it was changed in a cavalier manner through military legislation and Israel established new rules to serve its interests. In so doing, Israel trampled on numerous restrictions and prohibitions established in the international conventions to which it is party, and which were intended to limit infringement of human rights and to protect populations under occupation.
The settlements are unlawful, and their presence leads to the violation of human rights. Accordingly, B'Tselem demands that the Israeli government act to vacate all the settlements. This process must take place while respecting the human rights of the settlers, including payment of compensation.'
'The desire for control over all of historic Palestine has been shared by most Zionist leaders for over a century...
During the time of the British Mandate, David Ben Gurion viewed plans for a Jewish state in part of Palestine as merely a precursor to "the ingathering of the exiles in all of Palestine"...In a similar vein, Chaim Weizmann wrote of proposals to partition Palestine developed in the 1930s that, "In the course of time we shall expand to the whole country ... this is only an arrangement for the next 15-30 years" (see �Zionism and Its Impact,� by Ann M. Lesch). Thus, even when the early Zionist leadership expressed a grudging willingness to settle for less than the whole of Palestine for the state of Israel, their moves were part a strategy to obtain as much land as they could in anticipation of later expansion. They were not "compromising" in any real sense.
Another telling statement is that of Menachem Begin upon winning the 1977 Israeli election, when he proclaimed in reference to the territories occupied in 1967, "What occupied territories? These are liberated territories!" Later, even as Begin negotiated with Egyptian President Anwar Al-Sadat over the Sinai Peninsula, he staunchly refused to budge on the question of the West Bank and Gaza (and the Syrian Golan Heights), where settlements were already expanding. And let us not forget the now famous quotation by the former Israeli general and defense minister Moshe Dayan that Israel should make it clear to the Palestinians that "we have no solution, you shall continue to live like dogs, and whoever wishes may leave."
More recently, as the Oslo process slouched toward its violent end, the colonial expansion under both Labor and Likud Ministers � Rabin, Peres, Netanyahu, Barak, and Sharon � reached a fever pitch. Throughout the last century, the Zionist movement has made abundantly clear their designs on Palestine through these and countless other words and deeds.
Moreover, the Zionist leadership does not stand alone in its maximalist claims. Though a majority of Israelis voiced support for the "disengagement," the will to remove the colonies of the West Bank is drastically weaker. Expansionism in Israel arises from complex socio-political phenomena and has a long, tangled history. And however much some adherents of Zionism may object to control over the West Bank, we ignore the harsh realities of Zionism at our own risk...
One who supports an ideology of racism and militarist expansionism cannot ignore the suffering that results. Despite the protestations of the Zionist left that Zionism should be taken back to its pure, just roots, Zionism is a captive of its own tragic flaws. There is no such thing as a "just Zionism," just as there is no such thing as a "just white supremacism" or "just colonialism." A system that enshrines bigotry, that establishes one people as the chosen people of a state, whatever the putative justifications, cannot but discriminate and oppress.'
Why don't you just admit that you're completely clueless about the situation?
next time dont ask rhetorical questions and maybe you might be able to have a meaningful discussion. but I seriously doubt it. the last thing you are interested in is discussion. just personal insults with anyone who doesnt 110% agree with every word you say.
Why don't you just admit that you're completely clueless about the situation?
next time dont ask rhetorical questions and maybe you might be able to have a meaningful discussion. but I seriously doubt it. the last thing you are interested in is discussion. just personal insults with anyone who doesnt 110% agree with every word you say.
You didn't answer my question. Why are illegal Jewish-only settlements still being built?
You didn't answer my question. Why are illegal Jewish-only settlements still being built?
this is a rhetorical question, a baiting question. you need to ask the Jews why they are building settlements. what type of answer do you expect on a pearl jam message board?
You didn't answer my question. Why are illegal Jewish-only settlements still being built?
this is a rhetorical question, a baiting question. you need to ask the Jews why they are building settlements. what type of answer do you expect on a pearl jam message board?
You could simply try giving an honest answer. I provided some documentation above which sheds some light on the motivation behind the settlements.
If you ask me what is worse between a little girl holding a sign in protest or a little boy strapping himself with a bomb preparing himself for martyrdom later in the life, the choice is simple.
thing that gives me some hope in the cluster fuck that is the Israeli assault on the Palestinians....is that soon, for the first time, Jews are being born with no direct ties to the holocaust.
Aunts and uncles and grandparents lived it, before now, and for the first time the generation being born has no direct ties to that.
they might not be so goddamn hostile in the future.
but seeing shit like this....racism at an early age, really kind of takes the wind out of the sails on that. teaching kids to be racists, its the same goddamn clusterfuck all over again. its like they don't want the violence to end.
they have the upper hand now...who know for how long...
If you ask me what is worse between a little girl holding a sign in protest or a little boy strapping himself with a bomb preparing himself for martyrdom later in the life, the choice is simple.
If you ask me what is worse between a little girl holding a sign in protest or a little boy strapping himself with a bomb preparing himself for martyrdom later in the life, the choice is simple.
a generation of racism vs a single act of idiocy?
i don't agree at all.
Sure, and let's be clear about one thing - that Palestinian child in the picture wasn't going on any suicide mission. That's just some kind of a message from one particular faction of the Palestinians that they will continue to resist, and that they'll teach their children to resist. Big deal. They have every right to resist. In fact their right to resist the occupation is given in the U.N convention on Human Rights.
(And as a side note, I've heard/read many people talking about passive resistance, and Ghandi. Do your homework. Ghandi said that 'I prefer non-violence. I think that it's morally superior. I believe it's as effective as violence to achieve your goals, but with must less cost.' However, he enters two qualifications: 1. 'You have no right to tell people they must use non-violence. Because according to the current standards of right and wrong, violence is allowed.' I.e, You can't say that everyone has the right to use violence except the Palestinians. 2: 'If you don't have it in you to act non-violently - and for him it's a very high standard. For him, to act non-violently means to be willing to go 'smilingly and cheerfully into the gunfire and allow yourself to be killed' - he says that if you don't have it in you to meet that standard and you are humiliated and abused by someone else then you better hit back hard. Because for Ghandi there was nothing more disreputable than cowardice. If you can't be non-violent and you are being attacked, and/or abused, then you better hit back hard.)
Secondly, suicide bombers are not just mindless killers with no respect for life. They are human beings, with a history behind them.
I.e:
http://www.beyondintractability.org/ess ... e_bombers/
'Various grievances and social stressors can contribute to the formation of terrorist groups. For example, poverty, unemployment, epidemics, and criminality often lead to social instability, which provides fertile ground for terrorist activity. Over-population, socioeconomic struggle, and a lack of professional opportunities can also produce a sense of rage, powerlessness, and resentment among the populace.
Disaffected individuals and/or groups may perceive the world as treating them harshly and unjustly. In some cases, there are indeed genuine causes for grievance and a sense of group persecution. The move from being a disaffected individual to a violent extremist is usually facilitated by some catalyst event. [16] In most cases it is an act of extreme violence committed against the individual, family or friends by those in authority or by some rival group. Research findings indicate that most suicide bombers have had at least one of their loved ones killed or severely harmed at the hands of their enemies. Many of them join terrorist groups in an angry and vengeful state of mind with the intent to take part in aggressive acts. They are rarely coerced into it.
In fact, many suicide bombers may view themselves as soldiers engaged in a war. Casualties are then seen as the regrettable but inevitable consequence of fighting for one's just cause. It is not that they are bloodthirsty or that they enjoy killing civilians, but rather that they believe these missions are the only way to fight for their cause. Although the realization that terrorists view themselves as soldiers engaged in a just war does not legitimize their cause or methods, it does provide some insight into their psychology and motivation. It suggests that their psychology is similar to that displayed by combatants in other conflicts, and that suicide bombers view themselves as soldiers or warriors reacting to the provocative abuses and injustices of others. [17] According to this line of thinking, suicide bombing is a matter of fighting back against unjust political or economic policies, authoritarian governments, and structural violence...'
If you ask me what is worse between a little girl holding a sign in protest or a little boy strapping himself with a bomb preparing himself for martyrdom later in the life, the choice is simple.
a generation of racism vs a single act of idiocy?
i don't agree at all.
Sure, and let's be clear about one thing - that Palestinian child in the picture wasn't going on any suicide mission. That's just some kind of a message from one particular faction of the Palestinians that they will continue to resist, and that they'll teach their children to resist. Big deal. They have every right to resist. In fact their right to resist the occupation is given in the Geneva convention.
sadly, its far from a "single act of idiocy", its a way of life. and secondly, what the hell makes you think its not a generation of racism, just like the jewish girl? the little boy is being taught to HATE Jews. thats racist is it not? its shocking how well you can downplay and even overlook the fact that Hamas teaches its children to be martyrs. they teach them to actually kill themselves.
(And as a side note, I've heard/read many people talking about passive resistance, and Ghandi. Do your homework. Ghandi said that 'I prefer non-violence. I think that it's morally superior. I believe it's as effective as violence to achieve your goals, but with must less cost.' However, he enters two qualifications: 1. 'You have no right to tell people they must use non-violence. Because according to the current standards of right and wrong, violence is allowed.' I.e, You can't say that no-one has the right to use violence except the Palestinians. 2: 'If you don't have it in you to act non-violently - and for him it's a very high standard. For him, to act non-violently means to be willing to go 'smilingly and cheerfully into the gunfire and allow yourself to be killed' - he says that if you don't have it in you to meet that standard and you are humiliated and abused by someone else then you better hit back hard. Because for Ghandi there was nothing more disreputable than cowardice. If you can't be non-violent and you are being attacked, and/or abused, then you better hit back hard.)
so you are trying to justify suicide bombers and violence in general as a means to achieve goals ? wow, just when I thought you could sink any lower.
so you are trying to justify suicide bombers and violence in general as a means to achieve goals ? wow, just when I thought you could sink any lower.
Let me get this right...you're criticising the use of violence to achieve goals? Please explain to us all once again how you feel about the solution to the 9/11 attacks?
[Nazi Germany laid claim to Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, France, e.t.c.] they sure did lay claim to it. then a war was fought and they lost. had they won that war, maybe they will still own the land.
8. Also urges all States, unilaterally and in co-operation with other States, as well as relevant United Nations organs, to contribute to the progressive elimination of the causes underlying international terrorism and to pay special attention to all situations, including colonialism, racism and situations involving mass and flagrant violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms and those involving alien domination and occupation, that may give rise to international terrorism and may endanger international peace and security;
14. Considers that nothing in the present resolution could in any way prejudice the right to self-determination, freedom and independence, as derived from the Charter of the United Nations, of peoples forcibly deprived of that right referred to in the Declaration on Principles of International
Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, particularly peoples under colonial and racist regimes and foreign occupation or other forms of colonial domination, nor, in accordance with the principles of the Charter and in conformity with the above-mentioned Declaration, the right of these peoples to struggle to this end and to seek and receive support;
Thursday, 14 September , 2006 12:40:00
Reporter: Lindy Kerin
ELEANOR HALL: A Sydney academic is challenging Australian law enforcement authorities to develop a better understanding about the psychology of suicide bombers.
Dr Colin Wastell from the Macquarie University Department of Psychology will address the Australian Police Summit in Sydney later today.
He says authorities need to be better informed about what motivates people to carry out such atrocities, and suggests that's not religious fervour for paradise, but a sense of justice here on Earth.
Lindy Kerin reports.
LINDY KERIN: Dr Colin Wastell from the Macquarie University's Centre for Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism says the most common perceptions about who suicide bombers are and what motivates them are wrong.
He says suicide bombers are not all driven by religious extremism, nor are they necessarily illiterate and poor.
Instead, Dr Wastell says those who carry out deadly attacks are largely from secular and educated middle classes.
COLIN WASTELL: In general, suicide bombers are not any more mentally deranged than members of their society. In other words, they're not a specifically dysfunctional group of people.
We also know that in terms of the motivations that they express and that we can certainly see is consistent in the literature that they either have used, say in their video taped last wills and testaments, or other material, they are in fact people of deep concern, of deep thought about the injustice that they see being done to the people that they identify with.
LINDY KERIN: Dr Wastell says the widely held belief that suicide bombers are also motivated by promises of paradise and the reward of 72 virgins is simplistic.
COLIN WASTELL: One of the things that's been unfortunate is that we have little knowledge of some of the underpinning ideological structure of the Islamic faith.
And so without that knowledge, it's easy for us to, if you like, latch on to ideas and interpret them through our particular models of reality, or our particular viewpoints.
And so I think it's been the essential kernel of the facts are there, but we then take them and mould them, interpret them, look at them in, shall we say, Western coloured glasses.
LINDY KERIN: Dr Wastell will address the Australian Police Summit in Sydney later today.
The two-day forum has been looking at the key issues confronting state and federal police, as well as customs and security professionals.
COLIN WASTELL: We do have to accept that there is a real possibility there could be people who are disaffected, who are so enraged, who are, by what they see, and I emphasise, by what they see as the injustice, and they wish to do something about it.
your response to a picture of a 6 year old with a bomb strapped to his body is....
BIG DEAL
I cant debate with you anymore about this. you win.
If you were being honest - which you rarely are - then you know full well that that wasn't my sole response to the picture you posted. This is just your way of admitting that you have nothing constructive to add to the subject.
Measures to prevent international terrorism which endangers
or takes innocent human lives or jeopardizes fundamental
freedoms and study of the underlying causes of those forms
of terrorism and acts of violence which lie in misery,
frustration, grievance and despair and which cause some
people to sacrifice human lives, including their own, in an
attempt to effect radical changes....
8. Also urges all States, unilaterally and in co-operation with other States, as well as relevant United Nations organs, to contribute to the progressive elimination of the causes underlying international terrorism and to pay special attention to all situations, including colonialism, racism and situations involving mass and flagrant violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms and those involving alien domination and occupation, that may give rise to international terrorism and may endanger international peace and security;
14. Considers that nothing in the present resolution could in any way prejudice the right to self-determination, freedom and independence, as derived from the Charter of the United Nations, of peoples forcibly deprived of that right referred to in the Declaration on Principles of International
Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, particularly peoples under colonial and racist regimes and foreign occupation or other forms of colonial domination, nor, in accordance with the principles of the Charter and in conformity with the above-mentioned Declaration, the right of these peoples to struggle to this end and to seek and receive support;
The resolution:
153 - 2, with one abstention (Honduras)
If you were being honest - which you rarely are - then you know full well that that wasn't my sole response to the picture you posted. This is just your way of admitting that you have nothing constructive to add to the subject.
this is YOUR post...maybe you should read it again. looks like you forgot what you said...
Sure, and let's be clear about one thing - that Palestinian child in the picture wasn't going on any suicide mission. That's just some kind of a message from one particular faction of the Palestinians that they will continue to resist, and that they'll teach their children to resist. Big deal. They have every right to resist. In fact their right to resist the occupation is given in the U.N convention on Human Rights.
I've taken nothing out of context. you are giving a HONEST response to the picture I posted of Hamas parading around a child with bombs strapped to his waist.. its disgusting and sick and says alot about your character. in your eyes, its perfectly fine for children to strap bombs to themselves. eh, no big deal, they are just resisting.
Sure, and let's be clear about one thing - that Palestinian child in the picture wasn't going on any suicide mission. That's just some kind of a message from one particular faction of the Palestinians that they will continue to resist, and that they'll teach their children to resist. Big deal. They have every right to resist. In fact their right to resist the occupation is given in the U.N convention on Human Rights.
It looks like I said more than just 'big deal'. But then this would place the words 'big deal' back within the rightful context in which I used them, and that wouldn't suit your purpose of attempting to twist my meaning, would it?
I've taken nothing out of context. you are giving a HONEST response to the picture I posted of Hamas parading around a child with bombs strapped to his waist.. its disgusting and sick and says alot about your character. in your eyes, its perfectly fine for children to strap bombs to themselves. eh, no big deal, they are just resisting.
Actually, no, it's just s child being dressed up. He's too young to know what's going on. Like I said above, and like anyone with two brain cells can see, the kid isn't being sent on a suicide mission. So what's your point?
As far as anything being sick and disgusting, I would say that Israel's recent slaughter of over 400 Palestinian children in Gaza carries slightly more weight.
jlew, perhaps you need help. Maybe we can try putting everything except "big deal" in bold so you can see that there are words around it -- like, his definition of what is going on in the picture.
Sure, and let's be clear about one thing - that Palestinian child in the picture wasn't going on any suicide mission. That's just some kind of a message from one particular faction of the Palestinians that they will continue to resist, and that they'll teach their children to resist.Big deal. They have every right to resist. In fact their right to resist the occupation is given in the U.N convention on Human Rights.
Also, like Byrnzie said, it's kinda hilarious how you keep talking about a 6 year old dressed up in a suicide bomber outfit while 400 other children are lying in graves (many times on top of eachother) due to the attacks Israel committed in just 3 weeks. I don't give a shit if every one of those children was wearing a "suicide bomber outfit," Israel's indiscriminate killing is unjustifiable and no side comments you throw can distract people from what is actually happening there.
Israel's actions should be held accountable, not what clothes a Palestinian child is wearing. It's ridiculous how you waste your time arguing something so useless. "Jewish settlements are being built because they can be." what the fuck kind of shit is that? Palestinian suicide bombers are killing themselves because they CAN. is that some sort of answer you would want? It's not the kind we would give though, likely because we're on the side of rationality, whereas the only way to avoid saying Israel is building settlements to minimize, and steal, Palestinian land illegally is by saying "they can do it, so they do it."
"We should not justify suicide bombers. We are against the suicide bombers, but we must understand what drives these young people to such actions. They want to liberate themselves from such a dark life. It is not ideological, it is despair." - Mahmoud Darwish
"We should not justify suicide bombers. We are against the suicide bombers, but we must understand what drives these young people to such actions. They want to liberate themselves from such a dark life. It is not ideological, it is despair." - Mahmoud Darwish
now if you had said this, I would understand, but you didnt.
you and your little trolling sidekick outlaw downplay the fact the Hamas brainwashes children into killing themselves and dresses them up with bombs. both of your responses..."Big Deal"
shocking and disturbing. I wonder if you guys are going to volunteer your children one day for a mission.
Sure, and let's be clear about one thing - that Palestinian child in the picture wasn't going on any suicide mission. That's just some kind of a message from one particular faction of the Palestinians that they will continue to resist, and that they'll teach their children to resist. Big deal. They have every right to resist. In fact their right to resist the occupation is given in the U.N convention on Human Rights.
It looks like I said more than just 'big deal'. But then this would place the words 'big deal' back within the rightful context in which I used them, and that wouldn't suit your purpose of attempting to twist my meaning, would it?
I've taken nothing out of context. you are giving a HONEST response to the picture I posted of Hamas parading around a child with bombs strapped to his waist.. its disgusting and sick and says alot about your character. in your eyes, its perfectly fine for children to strap bombs to themselves. eh, no big deal, they are just resisting.
Actually, no, it's just s child being dressed up. He's too young to know what's going on. Like I said above, and like anyone with two brain cells can see, the kid isn't being sent on a suicide mission. So what's your point?
Big Deal right? you're right, maybe it was Halloween. what ever was I thinking
As far as anything being sick and disgusting, I would say that Israel's recent slaughter of over 400 Palestinian children in Gaza carries slightly more weight.
I agree 110% with you. so sad, it really is. if it were the other way around however...eh, Big Deal..
Comments
do I? why are you asking if I do?
what the fuck is wrong with you people. I'm not defending Israel. and why does it matter how I personally feel about international law? It makes no difference how I feel.
Please elaborate.
you asked me why the Jews are building settlements...my answer is because they can. not because they legally can but because the physically can. what answer are you looking for? maybe someone else will take your bait.
You mean my baiting you into giving an honest answer?
'Because they can' isn't an answer - it's horseshit.
yet again, if we dont fall in line with the Byzine way of thinking its horseshit. Israel builds settlements because they feel they can...so they do. tell me, what answer or discussion are you looking for?
It's that simple is it?
There's no desire to steal the land? There's no messianic ambition involved?
They spend millions of $$ building illegal settlements simply because they can?
http://www.btselem.org/English/Publicat ... d_Grab.asp
Land Grab: Israel's Settlement Policy in the West Bank
'The establishment of settlements on the West Bank violates international humanitarian law, which establishes the principles applying during war and occupation. Moreover, the settlements lead to the infringement of international human rights law.
International humanitarian law prohibits the occupying power to transfer citizens from its own territory to the occupied territory (Fourth Geneva Convention, article 49). The Hague Regulations prohibit the occupying power to undertake permanent changes in the occupied area, unless these are due to military needs in the narrow sense of the term, or unless they are undertaken for the benefit of the local population.
The establishment of the settlements leads to the violation of the rights of the Palestinians as enshrined in international human rights law. Among other violations, the settlements infringe the right to self-determination, equality, property, an adequate standard of living, and freedom of movement...
...Israel has created in the Occupied Territories a regime of separation based on discrimination, applying two separate systems of law in the same area and basing the rights of individuals on their nationality. This regime is the only one of its kind in the world, and is reminiscent of distasteful regimes from the past, such as the Apartheid regime in South Africa.
Under this regime, Israel has stolen hundreds of thousands of dunam of land from the Palestinians. Israel has used this land to establish dozens of settlements in the West Bank and to populate them with hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens. Israel prohibits the Palestinians as a group from entering and using these lands, and uses the settlements to justify numerous violations of the Palestinians' human rights, such as the right to housing, to earn a livelihood, and the right to freedom of movement. The drastic change that Israel has made in the map of the West Bank prevents any real possibility for the establishment of an independent, viable Palestinian state as part of the Palestinians' right to self-determination.
The settlers, on the contrary, benefit from all the rights available to Israeli citizens living within the Green Line, and in some cases are even granted additional rights. The great effort that Israel has invested in the settlement enterprise - in financial, legal and bureaucratic terms – has turned the settlements into civilian enclaves in an area under military rule, with the settlers being given priority status. To perpetuate this situation, which is a priori illegal, Israel has continuously breached the rights of the Palestinians.
Particularly evident is Israel's manipulative use of legal tools in order to give the settlement enterprise an impression of legality. When Jordanian legislation served Israel's goals, Israel adhered to this legislation, arguing that international law obliges it to respect the legislation in effect prior to the occupation; in practice, this legislation was used in a cynical and biased manner. On the other hand, when this legislation interfered with Israel's plans, it was changed in a cavalier manner through military legislation and Israel established new rules to serve its interests. In so doing, Israel trampled on numerous restrictions and prohibitions established in the international conventions to which it is party, and which were intended to limit infringement of human rights and to protect populations under occupation.
The settlements are unlawful, and their presence leads to the violation of human rights. Accordingly, B'Tselem demands that the Israeli government act to vacate all the settlements. This process must take place while respecting the human rights of the settlers, including payment of compensation.'
yes, yes, and yes.
Why don't you just admit that you're completely clueless about the situation?
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article4176.shtml
'The desire for control over all of historic Palestine has been shared by most Zionist leaders for over a century...
During the time of the British Mandate, David Ben Gurion viewed plans for a Jewish state in part of Palestine as merely a precursor to "the ingathering of the exiles in all of Palestine"...In a similar vein, Chaim Weizmann wrote of proposals to partition Palestine developed in the 1930s that, "In the course of time we shall expand to the whole country ... this is only an arrangement for the next 15-30 years" (see �Zionism and Its Impact,� by Ann M. Lesch). Thus, even when the early Zionist leadership expressed a grudging willingness to settle for less than the whole of Palestine for the state of Israel, their moves were part a strategy to obtain as much land as they could in anticipation of later expansion. They were not "compromising" in any real sense.
Another telling statement is that of Menachem Begin upon winning the 1977 Israeli election, when he proclaimed in reference to the territories occupied in 1967, "What occupied territories? These are liberated territories!" Later, even as Begin negotiated with Egyptian President Anwar Al-Sadat over the Sinai Peninsula, he staunchly refused to budge on the question of the West Bank and Gaza (and the Syrian Golan Heights), where settlements were already expanding. And let us not forget the now famous quotation by the former Israeli general and defense minister Moshe Dayan that Israel should make it clear to the Palestinians that "we have no solution, you shall continue to live like dogs, and whoever wishes may leave."
More recently, as the Oslo process slouched toward its violent end, the colonial expansion under both Labor and Likud Ministers � Rabin, Peres, Netanyahu, Barak, and Sharon � reached a fever pitch. Throughout the last century, the Zionist movement has made abundantly clear their designs on Palestine through these and countless other words and deeds.
Moreover, the Zionist leadership does not stand alone in its maximalist claims. Though a majority of Israelis voiced support for the "disengagement," the will to remove the colonies of the West Bank is drastically weaker. Expansionism in Israel arises from complex socio-political phenomena and has a long, tangled history. And however much some adherents of Zionism may object to control over the West Bank, we ignore the harsh realities of Zionism at our own risk...
One who supports an ideology of racism and militarist expansionism cannot ignore the suffering that results. Despite the protestations of the Zionist left that Zionism should be taken back to its pure, just roots, Zionism is a captive of its own tragic flaws. There is no such thing as a "just Zionism," just as there is no such thing as a "just white supremacism" or "just colonialism." A system that enshrines bigotry, that establishes one people as the chosen people of a state, whatever the putative justifications, cannot but discriminate and oppress.'
next time dont ask rhetorical questions and maybe you might be able to have a meaningful discussion. but I seriously doubt it. the last thing you are interested in is discussion. just personal insults with anyone who doesnt 110% agree with every word you say.
You didn't answer my question. Why are illegal Jewish-only settlements still being built?
this is a rhetorical question, a baiting question. you need to ask the Jews why they are building settlements. what type of answer do you expect on a pearl jam message board?
You could simply try giving an honest answer. I provided some documentation above which sheds some light on the motivation behind the settlements.
If you ask me what is worse between a little girl holding a sign in protest or a little boy strapping himself with a bomb preparing himself for martyrdom later in the life, the choice is simple.
thing that gives me some hope in the cluster fuck that is the Israeli assault on the Palestinians....is that soon, for the first time, Jews are being born with no direct ties to the holocaust.
Aunts and uncles and grandparents lived it, before now, and for the first time the generation being born has no direct ties to that.
they might not be so goddamn hostile in the future.
but seeing shit like this....racism at an early age, really kind of takes the wind out of the sails on that. teaching kids to be racists, its the same goddamn clusterfuck all over again. its like they don't want the violence to end.
they have the upper hand now...who know for how long...
i don't agree at all.
(And as a side note, I've heard/read many people talking about passive resistance, and Ghandi. Do your homework. Ghandi said that 'I prefer non-violence. I think that it's morally superior. I believe it's as effective as violence to achieve your goals, but with must less cost.' However, he enters two qualifications: 1. 'You have no right to tell people they must use non-violence. Because according to the current standards of right and wrong, violence is allowed.' I.e, You can't say that everyone has the right to use violence except the Palestinians. 2: 'If you don't have it in you to act non-violently - and for him it's a very high standard. For him, to act non-violently means to be willing to go 'smilingly and cheerfully into the gunfire and allow yourself to be killed' - he says that if you don't have it in you to meet that standard and you are humiliated and abused by someone else then you better hit back hard. Because for Ghandi there was nothing more disreputable than cowardice. If you can't be non-violent and you are being attacked, and/or abused, then you better hit back hard.)
Secondly, suicide bombers are not just mindless killers with no respect for life. They are human beings, with a history behind them.
I.e:
http://www.beyondintractability.org/ess ... e_bombers/
'Various grievances and social stressors can contribute to the formation of terrorist groups. For example, poverty, unemployment, epidemics, and criminality often lead to social instability, which provides fertile ground for terrorist activity. Over-population, socioeconomic struggle, and a lack of professional opportunities can also produce a sense of rage, powerlessness, and resentment among the populace.
Disaffected individuals and/or groups may perceive the world as treating them harshly and unjustly. In some cases, there are indeed genuine causes for grievance and a sense of group persecution. The move from being a disaffected individual to a violent extremist is usually facilitated by some catalyst event. [16] In most cases it is an act of extreme violence committed against the individual, family or friends by those in authority or by some rival group. Research findings indicate that most suicide bombers have had at least one of their loved ones killed or severely harmed at the hands of their enemies. Many of them join terrorist groups in an angry and vengeful state of mind with the intent to take part in aggressive acts. They are rarely coerced into it.
In fact, many suicide bombers may view themselves as soldiers engaged in a war. Casualties are then seen as the regrettable but inevitable consequence of fighting for one's just cause. It is not that they are bloodthirsty or that they enjoy killing civilians, but rather that they believe these missions are the only way to fight for their cause. Although the realization that terrorists view themselves as soldiers engaged in a just war does not legitimize their cause or methods, it does provide some insight into their psychology and motivation. It suggests that their psychology is similar to that displayed by combatants in other conflicts, and that suicide bombers view themselves as soldiers or warriors reacting to the provocative abuses and injustices of others. [17] According to this line of thinking, suicide bombing is a matter of fighting back against unjust political or economic policies, authoritarian governments, and structural violence...'
sadly, its far from a "single act of idiocy", its a way of life. and secondly, what the hell makes you think its not a generation of racism, just like the jewish girl? the little boy is being taught to HATE Jews. thats racist is it not? its shocking how well you can downplay and even overlook the fact that Hamas teaches its children to be martyrs. they teach them to actually kill themselves.
and all you can say is "BIg Deal" ??!?!?!?!?
you have hit a new low my friend.
so you are trying to justify suicide bombers and violence in general as a means to achieve goals ? wow, just when I thought you could sink any lower.
yes they are.
Let me get this right...you're criticising the use of violence to achieve goals? Please explain to us all once again how you feel about the solution to the 9/11 attacks?
Meanwhile:
http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/42/a42r159.htm
General Assembly
94th plenary meeting - 7 December 1987
8. Also urges all States, unilaterally and in co-operation with other States, as well as relevant United Nations organs, to contribute to the progressive elimination of the causes underlying international terrorism and to pay special attention to all situations, including colonialism, racism and situations involving mass and flagrant violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms and those involving alien domination and occupation, that may give rise to international terrorism and may endanger international peace and security;
14. Considers that nothing in the present resolution could in any way prejudice the right to self-determination, freedom and independence, as derived from the Charter of the United Nations, of peoples forcibly deprived of that right referred to in the Declaration on Principles of International
Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, particularly peoples under colonial and racist regimes and foreign occupation or other forms of colonial domination, nor, in accordance with the principles of the Charter and in conformity with the above-mentioned Declaration, the right of these peoples to struggle to this end and to seek and receive support;
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/conten ... 741219.htm
Understanding terrorism: the psychology of suicide bombers
Thursday, 14 September , 2006 12:40:00
Reporter: Lindy Kerin
ELEANOR HALL: A Sydney academic is challenging Australian law enforcement authorities to develop a better understanding about the psychology of suicide bombers.
Dr Colin Wastell from the Macquarie University Department of Psychology will address the Australian Police Summit in Sydney later today.
He says authorities need to be better informed about what motivates people to carry out such atrocities, and suggests that's not religious fervour for paradise, but a sense of justice here on Earth.
Lindy Kerin reports.
LINDY KERIN: Dr Colin Wastell from the Macquarie University's Centre for Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism says the most common perceptions about who suicide bombers are and what motivates them are wrong.
He says suicide bombers are not all driven by religious extremism, nor are they necessarily illiterate and poor.
Instead, Dr Wastell says those who carry out deadly attacks are largely from secular and educated middle classes.
COLIN WASTELL: In general, suicide bombers are not any more mentally deranged than members of their society. In other words, they're not a specifically dysfunctional group of people.
We also know that in terms of the motivations that they express and that we can certainly see is consistent in the literature that they either have used, say in their video taped last wills and testaments, or other material, they are in fact people of deep concern, of deep thought about the injustice that they see being done to the people that they identify with.
LINDY KERIN: Dr Wastell says the widely held belief that suicide bombers are also motivated by promises of paradise and the reward of 72 virgins is simplistic.
COLIN WASTELL: One of the things that's been unfortunate is that we have little knowledge of some of the underpinning ideological structure of the Islamic faith.
And so without that knowledge, it's easy for us to, if you like, latch on to ideas and interpret them through our particular models of reality, or our particular viewpoints.
And so I think it's been the essential kernel of the facts are there, but we then take them and mould them, interpret them, look at them in, shall we say, Western coloured glasses.
LINDY KERIN: Dr Wastell will address the Australian Police Summit in Sydney later today.
The two-day forum has been looking at the key issues confronting state and federal police, as well as customs and security professionals.
COLIN WASTELL: We do have to accept that there is a real possibility there could be people who are disaffected, who are so enraged, who are, by what they see, and I emphasise, by what they see as the injustice, and they wish to do something about it.
To dismiss it would be very unwise...
BIG DEAL
I cant debate with you anymore about this. you win.
If you were being honest - which you rarely are - then you know full well that that wasn't my sole response to the picture you posted. This is just your way of admitting that you have nothing constructive to add to the subject.
http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/42/a42r159.htm
General Assembly
94th plenary meeting - 7 December 1987
Measures to prevent international terrorism which endangers
or takes innocent human lives or jeopardizes fundamental
freedoms and study of the underlying causes of those forms
of terrorism and acts of violence which lie in misery,
frustration, grievance and despair and which cause some
people to sacrifice human lives, including their own, in an
attempt to effect radical changes....
8. Also urges all States, unilaterally and in co-operation with other States, as well as relevant United Nations organs, to contribute to the progressive elimination of the causes underlying international terrorism and to pay special attention to all situations, including colonialism, racism and situations involving mass and flagrant violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms and those involving alien domination and occupation, that may give rise to international terrorism and may endanger international peace and security;
14. Considers that nothing in the present resolution could in any way prejudice the right to self-determination, freedom and independence, as derived from the Charter of the United Nations, of peoples forcibly deprived of that right referred to in the Declaration on Principles of International
Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, particularly peoples under colonial and racist regimes and foreign occupation or other forms of colonial domination, nor, in accordance with the principles of the Charter and in conformity with the above-mentioned Declaration, the right of these peoples to struggle to this end and to seek and receive support;
The resolution:
153 - 2, with one abstention (Honduras)
this is YOUR post...maybe you should read it again. looks like you forgot what you said...
I've taken nothing out of context. you are giving a HONEST response to the picture I posted of Hamas parading around a child with bombs strapped to his waist.. its disgusting and sick and says alot about your character. in your eyes, its perfectly fine for children to strap bombs to themselves. eh, no big deal, they are just resisting.
It looks like I said more than just 'big deal'. But then this would place the words 'big deal' back within the rightful context in which I used them, and that wouldn't suit your purpose of attempting to twist my meaning, would it?
Actually, no, it's just s child being dressed up. He's too young to know what's going on. Like I said above, and like anyone with two brain cells can see, the kid isn't being sent on a suicide mission. So what's your point?
As far as anything being sick and disgusting, I would say that Israel's recent slaughter of over 400 Palestinian children in Gaza carries slightly more weight.
Also, like Byrnzie said, it's kinda hilarious how you keep talking about a 6 year old dressed up in a suicide bomber outfit while 400 other children are lying in graves (many times on top of eachother) due to the attacks Israel committed in just 3 weeks. I don't give a shit if every one of those children was wearing a "suicide bomber outfit," Israel's indiscriminate killing is unjustifiable and no side comments you throw can distract people from what is actually happening there.
Israel's actions should be held accountable, not what clothes a Palestinian child is wearing. It's ridiculous how you waste your time arguing something so useless. "Jewish settlements are being built because they can be." what the fuck kind of shit is that? Palestinian suicide bombers are killing themselves because they CAN. is that some sort of answer you would want? It's not the kind we would give though, likely because we're on the side of rationality, whereas the only way to avoid saying Israel is building settlements to minimize, and steal, Palestinian land illegally is by saying "they can do it, so they do it."
now if you had said this, I would understand, but you didnt.
you and your little trolling sidekick outlaw downplay the fact the Hamas brainwashes children into killing themselves and dresses them up with bombs. both of your responses..."Big Deal"
shocking and disturbing. I wonder if you guys are going to volunteer your children one day for a mission.
Big Deal right? you're right, maybe it was Halloween. what ever was I thinking
I agree 110% with you. so sad, it really is. if it were the other way around however...eh, Big Deal..