the tunnels are something else. Gaza is under siege. literally they are prevented from importing some very essential items. tunnels are the main form of transportation for bringing in supplies....and some of the tunnels are used to smuggle in arms....but again....if a guy has your house surrounded by guys with guns and is keeping you from leaving, and wont let food in...i'd be digging to. and if they started shooting at my house i might think about smuggling in some guns.
ok great. If thats what that particular tunnel was used for, fine. I totally support that. but I'm also not surprised Israel prevented a tunnel being dug into their country. are you?
It makes no difference who broke the ceasefire. my point is that those 200+ rockets Hamas fired in retaliation did way more harm then good.
Gaza is a concentration camp, complete with fences surrounding it. IT is under a police state, thanks to Israel. Palestinians are treated like second class citizens, they have few rights. meanwhile ISrael is sending military attacks into refugee camps and shit, it not a good situation for gazans. gaza is one of the most densely population places on the planet, under siege by and enemy armed by the most powerful military in the world.
thats true. and its mostly shut off from the outside world because of Hamas. Hamas's actions and policies gives Israel an excuse to shut them off. its wrong but thats the way it is. at some point, Hamas must realize they need to try something different. One of Israel's biggest demands is to stop rocket attacks and renounce violence. why not give in to that demand? just for the sake of trying something new. because what they are doing, isn't working.
and lets not forget..the civil war that Hamas fought against the PA probably didnt help much either. thats something not even you can blame on Israel.
when under military siege....you can't renounce violence. that's absurd.
If Hamas must renounces violence, then so must Israel. I agree with that.
People see this is a war between 2 sides and that's not really accurate. Israel is expanding its borders with force, and Hamas is being blamed, and can do little to stop them. there is no confrontation...its a slaughter. Israel could flatten gaza if they wanted to , and they certainly accomplished some of that goal.
Hamas is a symptom of Israeli aggression. there was almost no terorism in the area until Israel started its polices of targeting villages and civliians to "break the back" of the Palestinians. these armed group-hamas-hezbollah- in palestinian territories are springing up in reponse to ISraeli agressoin. If anyone should ley down their arms Its hould be ISrael.
ideally both sides agree to it, but the aggressor should be the first to call off hostilities.
0
g under p
Surfing The far side of THE Sombrero Galaxy Posts: 18,200
the tunnels are something else. Gaza is under siege. literally they are prevented from importing some very essential items. tunnels are the main form of transportation for bringing in supplies....and some of the tunnels are used to smuggle in arms....but again....if a guy has your house surrounded by guys with guns and is keeping you from leaving, and wont let food in...i'd be digging to. and if they started shooting at my house i might think about smuggling in some guns.
ok great. If thats what that particular tunnel was used for, fine. I totally support that. but I'm also not surprised Israel prevented a tunnel being dug into their country. are you?
It makes no difference who broke the ceasefire. my point is that those 200+ rockets Hamas fired in retaliation did way more harm then good.
Gaza is a concentration camp, complete with fences surrounding it. IT is under a police state, thanks to Israel. Palestinians are treated like second class citizens, they have few rights. meanwhile ISrael is sending military attacks into refugee camps and shit, it not a good situation for gazans. gaza is one of the most densely population places on the planet, under siege by and enemy armed by the most powerful military in the world.
thats true. and its mostly shut off from the outside world because of Hamas. Hamas's actions and policies gives Israel an excuse to shut them off. its wrong but thats the way it is. at some point, Hamas must realize they need to try something different. One of Israel's biggest demands is to stop rocket attacks and renounce violence. why not give in to that demand? just for the sake of trying something new. because what they are doing, isn't working.
and lets not forget..the civil war that Hamas fought against the PA probably didnt help much either. thats something not even you can blame on Israel.
when under military siege....you can't renounce violence. that's absurd.
If Hamas must renounces violence, then so must Israel. I agree with that.
People see this is a war between 2 sides and that's not really accurate. Israel is expanding its borders with force, and Hamas is being blamed, and can do little to stop them. there is no confrontation...its a slaughter. Israel could flatten gaza if they wanted to , and they certainly accomplished some of that goal.
Hamas is a symptom of Israeli aggression. there was almost no terorism in the area until Israel started its polices of targeting villages and civliians to "break the back" of the Palestinians. these armed group-hamas-hezbollah- in palestinian territories are springing up in reponse to ISraeli agressoin. If anyone should ley down their arms Its hould be ISrael.
ideally both sides agree to it, but the aggressor should be the first to call off hostilities.
Like my buddy/friend and musician Michael Franti would say this is ALL CRAZY CRAZY CRAZY from the album Everyone Deserves Music
Shine on
All my people, who been broken hearted
Shine on
From the place where all life has been started
When you need fresh air
Go beyond horizons, to your place in the sun
Shine on
Let your heart be boundless like your faith in the one
(chorus)
It's crazy, crazy, crazy
No stoppin' to this warfare
It's crazy, crazy
We're breathing in the same air
It's crazy, crazy, crazy
Don't tell me that you don't care....
Sing on
From the language of your ancestors and
Sing on
Be playful in your innocence and
Lift your head up high
And rejoice for all you see without your eyes
Sing on
Like a bird that's makin' love in sunset skies
(chorus)
(bridge) No life's worth more than any other
No sister worth less than any brother
(chorus)
...somebody please send us a prayer!
Peace everybody
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
when under military siege....you can't renounce violence. that's absurd.
Hamas can renounce violence today. they can hold a press conference one hour for now and renounce violence and promise no rocket attacks into Israel. they can announce they will lay down their arms in return for the opening of the border and recieve aid. (among other things but thats a start)
People see this is a war between 2 sides and that's not really accurate. Israel is expanding its borders with force, and Hamas is being blamed, and can do little to stop them. there is no confrontation...its a slaughter. Israel could flatten gaza if they wanted to , and they certainly accomplished some of that goal.
Hamas is a symptom of Israeli aggression. there was almost no terorism in the area until Israel started its polices of targeting villages and civliians to "break the back" of the Palestinians. these armed group-hamas-hezbollah- in palestinian territories are springing up in reponse to ISraeli agressoin. If anyone should ley down their arms Its hould be ISrael.
ideally both sides agree to it, but the aggressor should be the first to call off hostilities.
ever play a game call mercy when you were a kid? someone see how long u can go when pushing your arm behind your back and the person would yell mercy when they couldnt go anymore. something along those lines.
anyway, its the aggressor who usually forces the weaker person into calling mercy.
what you say above is true. Israel should be the first to call off hostilities. I 110% agree with that. but it doesnt exactly appear that is the case does it? Israel is stronger. as much as you or I dont like that fact, they call some of the shots. and what are Israel's demands? that Hamas lay down its arms and renounce violence. Hamas has to understand that they can not win a military war against Israel...so why not give that a try?
what you say above is true. Israel should be the first to call off hostilities. I 110% agree with that. but it doesnt exactly appear that is the case does it? Israel is stronger. as much as you or I dont like that fact, they call some of the shots. and what are Israel's demands? that Hamas lay down its arms and renounce violence. Hamas has to understand that they can not win a military war against Israel...so why not give that a try?
you mean give up. something I gaurantee the palestinians will not do.
the international community needs to step in-which there has been some accounts of that happening-not talking about he bs camp david agreements,serious efforts have been made to achieve peace. in 2002 hamas agreed to peace if israel were to withdraw the 67 borders....and all arab countries involved signed the agreement. Obama even hinted he might support it. so there are moves being made for peace. its up to israel. And the US has ways of influencing Israel. cut off military support- that would be devastating to them. cut off political support, they could be sanctioned. lots of ways to influence israel.
thats a real solution for peace. start with a 2 state solution, move on from their to hopefully reach a one state system in the future.
its better than suggesting the palestinians just give up.
but that's a maybe. Palestinian violence may be the reason the US doesn't still have marines stationed in the area. that suicide bomb that killed 270+ americans sure as hell got us the fuck out., and it has got israel out of the westbank in the past. without resistance chances are palestinians will simply be overrun.
you can't expect a people under assault to give up resisting.
what you say above is true. Israel should be the first to call off hostilities. I 110% agree with that. but it doesnt exactly appear that is the case does it? Israel is stronger. as much as you or I dont like that fact, they call some of the shots. and what are Israel's demands? that Hamas lay down its arms and renounce violence. Hamas has to understand that they can not win a military war against Israel...so why not give that a try?
you mean give up. something I gaurantee the palestinians will not do.
the international community needs to step in-which there has been some accounts of that happening-not talking about he bs camp david agreements,serious efforts have been made to achieve peace. in 2002 hamas agreed to peace if israel were to withdraw the 67 borders....and all arab countries involved signed the agreement. Obama even hinted he might support it. so there are moves being made for peace. its up to israel. And the US has ways of influencing Israel. cut off military support- that would be devastating to them. cut off political support, they could be sanctioned. lots of ways to influence israel.
thats a real solution for peace. start with a 2 state solution, move on from their to hopefully reach a one state system in the future.
its better than suggesting the palestinians just give up.
again, none of the following will happen unless Hamas renounces violence. it just wont. then and only then, can the 1967 borders be discussed. (disclaimer: I'm NOT supporting that theory, just calling it like I see it)
you call it giving up, I call it being the bigger man.
but that's a maybe. Palestinian violence may be the reason the US doesn't still have marines stationed in the area. that suicide bomb that killed 270+ americans sure as hell got us the fuck out., and it has got israel out of the westbank in the past. without resistance chances are palestinians will simply be overrun.
you can't expect a people under assault to give up resisting.
I get that. but resisting hasnt work out so well has it?
...this is thirty years ago, virtually no Palestinian terrorism in Israel, virtually. He(Israeli official) said, “Our policy has been to attack civilians.” And the reason was explained—you know, villages, towns, so on. And it was explained by Abba Eban, the distinguished statesman, who said, “Yes, that’s what we’ve done, and we did it for a good reason. There was a rational prospect that if we attack the civilian population and cause it enough pain, they will press for a,” what he called, “a cessation of hostilities.” That’s a euphemism meaning cessation of resistance against Israel’s takeover of the—moves which were going on at the time to take over the Occupied Territories. So, sure, if they—“We’ll kill enough of them, so that they’ll press for quiet to permit us to continue what we’re doing.”
there was virtually no no terrorism in the past-until Israel went hardline and starting taking out villages and civilians, deliberately, and here we are today.
Like I've been saying all along. Palestinian terrorism is a reaction to Israeli aggression. Deal with disease (Israeli aggression) chances are you get rid of the symptoms (Palestinians terrorism).
you see what we're doing here? just going back and forth trying to get one each side to renounce violence. yes, ideally, Israel should first, but I think Hamas would gain respect and credibility if they did first. frankly, I dont care who does it, I just want it done.
Palestinian violence may be the reason the US doesn't still have marines stationed in the area. that suicide bomb that killed 270+ americans sure as hell got us the fuck out., and it has got israel out of the westbank in the past. without resistance chances are palestinians will simply be overrun.
you can't expect a people under assault to give up resisting.
I get that. but resisting hasnt work out so well has it?.
Neither has peaceful, non violent protesting. Just ask Rachel Corrie. Oh wait, that's right, she was murdered 6 years ago.
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.
The illegality of the settlements under international humanitarian law does not affect the status of the settlers. The settlers constitute a civilian population by any standard, and include children, who are entitled to special protection. Although some of the settlers are part of the security forces, this fact has absolutely no bearing on the status of the other residents of the settlements.
The wounded and sick, as well as the infirm, and expectant mothers, shall be the object of particular protection and respect.
As far as military considerations allow, each Party to the conflict shall facilitate the steps taken to search for the killed and wounded, to assist the shipwrecked and other persons exposed to grave danger, and to protect them against pillage and ill-treatment.
Article 17
The Parties to the conflict shall endeavour to conclude local agreements for the removal from besieged or encircled areas, of wounded, sick, infirm, and aged persons, children and maternity cases, and for the passage of ministers of all religions, medical personnel and medical equipment on their way to such areas.
Article 18
Civilian hospitals organized to give care to the wounded and sick, the infirm and maternity cases, may in no circumstances be the object of attack, but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict....
Article 27
Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity.
Women shall be especially protected against any attack on their honour, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault.
Without prejudice to the provisions relating to their state of health, age and sex, all protected persons shall be treated with the same consideration by the Party to the conflict in whose power they are, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, religion or political opinion.
Article 39
Protected persons who, as a result of the war, have lost their gainful employment, shall be granted the opportunity to find paid employment. That opportunity shall, subject to security considerations and to the provisions of Article 40, be equal to that enjoyed by the nationals of the Power in whose territory they are.
Where a Party to the conflict applies to a protected person methods of control which result in his being unable to support himself, and especially if such a person is prevented for reasons of security from finding paid employment on reasonable conditions, the said Party shall ensure his support and that of his dependents.
SECTION 111
OCCUPIED TERRITORIES
Article 47
Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.
Article 48
Protected persons who are not nationals of the Power whose territory is occupied may avail themselves of the right to leave the territory subject to the provisions of Article 35, and decisions thereon shall be taken according to the procedure which the Occupying Power shall establish in accordance with the said Article.
Article 49
Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons do demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.
The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.
The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.
The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.
The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
Article 50
The Occupying Power shall, with the cooperation of the national and local authorities, facilitate the proper working of all institutions devoted to the care and education of children.
The Occupying Power shall take all necessary steps to facilitate the identification of children and the registration of their parentage. It may not, in any case, change their personal status, nor enlist them in formations or organizations subordinate to it.
Should the local institutions be inadequate for the purpose, the Occupying Power shall make arrangements for the maintenance and education, if possible by persons of their own nationality, language and religion, of children who are orphaned or separated from their parents as a result of the war and who cannot be adequately cared for by a near relative or friend.
A special section of the Bureau set up in accordance with Article 136 shall be responsible for taking all necessary steps to identify children whose identity is in doubt. Particulars of their parents or other near relatives should always be recorded if available.
The Occupying Power shall not hinder the application of any preferential measures in regard to food, medical care and protection against the effects of war, which may have been adopted prior to the occupation in favour of children under fifteen years, expectant mothers, and mothers of children under seven years.
Article 53
Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.
Article 55
To the fullest extent of the means available to it the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population; it should, in particular, bring in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied territory are inadequate.
The Occupying Power may not requisition foodstuffs, articles or medical supplies available in the occupied territory, except for use by the occupation forces and administration personnel, and then only if the requirements of the civilian population have been taken into account. Subject to the provisions of other international Conventions, the Occupying Power shall make arrangements to ensure that fair value is paid for any requisitioned goods.
The Protecting Power shall, at any time, be at liberty to verify the state of the food and medical supplies in occupied territories, except where temporary restrictions are made necessary by imperative military requirements.
Article 56
To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring and maintaining, with the cooperation of national and local authorities, the medical and hospital establishments and services, public health and hygiene in the occupied territory, with particular reference to the adoption and application of the prophylactic and preventive measures necessary to combat the spread of contagious diseases and epidemics. Medical personnel of all categories shall be allowed to carry out their duties.
If new hospitals are set up in occupied territory and if the competent organs of the occupied State are not operating there, the occupying authorities shall, if necessary, grant them the recognition provided for in Article 18. In similar circumstances, the occupying authorities shall also grant recognition to hospital personnel and transport vehicles under the provisions of Articles 20 and 21.
In adopting measures of health and hygiene and in their implementation, the Occupying Power shall take into consideration the moral and ethical susceptibilities of the population of the occupied territory.
Article 59
If the whole or part of the population of an occupied territory is inadequately supplied, the Occupying Power shall agree to relief schemes on behalf of the said population, and shall facilitate them by all the means at its disposal.
Such schemes, which may be undertaken either by States or by impartial humanitarian organizations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, shall consist, in particular, of the provision of consignments of foodstuffs, medical supplies and clothing.
All Contracting Parties shall permit the free passage of these consignments and shall guarantee their protection.
A Power granting free passage to consignments on their way to territory occupied by an adverse Party to the conflict shall, however, have the right to search the consignments, to regulate their passage according to prescribed times and routes, and to be reasonably satisfied through the Protecting Power that these consignments are to be used for the relief of the needy population and are not to be used for the benefit of the Occupying Power.
Article 63
Subject to temporary and exceptional measures imposed for urgent reasons of security by the Occupying Power:
(a) Recognized National Red Cross (Red Crescent, Red Lion and Sun) Societies shall be able to pursue their activities in accordance with Red Cross principles, as defined by the International Red Cross Conferences. Other relief societies shall be permitted to continue their humanitarian activities under similar conditions;
(b) The Occupying Power may not require any changes in the personnel or structure of these societies, which would prejudice the aforesaid activities.
The same principles shall apply to the activities and personnel of special organizations of a non-military character, which already exist or which may be established, for the purpose of ensuring the living conditions of the civilian population by the maintenance of the essential public utility services, by the distribution of relief and by the organization of rescues.
Article 72
Accused persons shall have the right to present evidence necessary to their defence and may, in particular, call witnesses. They shall have the right to be assisted by a qualified advocate or counsel of their own choice, who shall be able to visit them freely and shall enjoy the necessary facilities for preparing the defence.
Failing a choice by the accused, the Protecting Power may provide him with an advocate or counsel. When an accused person has to meet a serious charge and the Protecting Power is not functioning, the Occupying Power, subject to the consent of the accused, shall provide an advocate or counsel.
Accused persons shall, unless they freely waive such assistance, be aided by an interpreter, both during preliminary investigation and during the hearing in court. They shall have the right at any time to object to the interpreter and to ask for his replacement.
Sorry, but one attack with 6 dead isn't going to catch America's eye. It would take time, and a consistent demonstration of Israel's brutality. Otherwise, it's like an alcoholic wanting a gold star for keeping clean a month and then falling off the wagon at the first sign of trouble. American sentiment won't change overnight.
So 60 years of Israeli brutality isn't enough?
I could post hundreds, thousands, of pictures of broken bodies, bulldozed homes, destroyed hospitals, people reduced to abject poverty, e.t.c. Instead, I'll just post the following picture, as I think It says all that needs to be said about how much time and support Israel has already been given by the American people:
ideally both sides agree to it, but the aggressor should be the first to call off hostilities.
By its very definition, the fact that the aggressor began its aggression in the first place is a pretty good indication that it doesn't much care to call of hostilities. If it was so inclined, it would never have begun hostilities in the first place.
but just a few posts ago, you said any settlers living on occupied land are valid targets. children live there too. but I guess if they get hit with some homemade rockets, thats life.
although it does make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside that you wouldnt specifically target children. even though you call them "valid targets"
They're living on stolen land. If they don't like the sporadic bottle rocket attacks then they can simply fuck off back to America.
I regard the 'children' in the video clip I posted as valid targets. As far as I'm concerned, any Israeli settler who verbally abuses, spits at, throws stones and rocks, beats, or murders a Palestinian is a valid target.
That's just my opinion.
Edit: I'll add this qualification - again, this is just my opinion, as I don't speak for anyone but myself; any settler who is too young to know any better - babies e.t.c, - and also those settlers who do not engage in open aggression and hostility to their neighbours (perhaps some of these people were coerced into moving onto stolen land by the benefits offered by the Israeli government) these people do not quailify as legitimate targets in my opinion. As for those tens of thousands of settlers who are there by dint of the Zionist ethnic cleansing campaign, and who routinely engage in terrorising their Arab neighbours; as far as I'm concerned they deserve everything they get.
Sorry, but one attack with 6 dead isn't going to catch America's eye. It would take time, and a consistent demonstration of Israel's brutality. Otherwise, it's like an alcoholic wanting a gold star for keeping clean a month and then falling off the wagon at the first sign of trouble. American sentiment won't change overnight.
So 60 years of Israeli brutality isn't enough?
It would seem not. And for 60 of those years, Americans didn't get the kind of news exposure we do now. We were distracted by vietnam, Iran Contra, Latin America, etc. Palestine was not a priority. In addition, for many of those 60 years, the violence was mutual, a confused mess of Islam and Judaism that Americans didn't understand. There was also the guilt over the holocaust and the blind eye many Christian groups turned to it. There were a lot of factors working against real in depth coverage of the plight Palestine for a very long time. I would say that it's only in the last 20 years at best that Americans have started to get the REAL picture of what's going on there... and even then, there's been enough terrorism to make the Palestinians LOOK as culpable as Israel, even if they weren't. The tide is turning on Israel. But every time Hamas shoots of a rocket that kills a civilian, it sets their cause back a bit... American are simply too paranoid about Islamic terrorism. Yes, Israel does far worse, far more regularly. Nobody said It was fair, but there you have it.
Edit: I'll add this qualification - again, this is just my opinion, as I don't speak for anyone but myself; any settler who is too young to know any better - babies e.t.c, - and also those settlers who do not engage in open aggression and hostility to their neighbours (perhaps some of these people were coerced into moving onto stolen land by the benefits offered by the Israeli government) these people do not quailify as legitimate targets in my opinion. As for those tens of thousands of settlers who are there by dint of the Zionist ethnic cleansing campaign, and who routinely engage in terrorising their Arab neighbours; as far as I'm concerned they deserve everything they get.
You gotta be fucking kidding me. This is exactly what we've been saying for 15 pages and you've been telling us is proof that we support Israeli genocide.
By its very definition, the fact that the aggressor began its aggression in the first place is a pretty good indication that it doesn't much care to call of hostilities. If it was so inclined, it would never have begun hostilities in the first place.
Exactly, it's called Zionism.
"We must expel the Arabs and take their places."
-- David Ben Gurion, 1937, Ben Gurion and the Palestine Arabs, Oxford University Press, 1985.
"The past leaders of our movement left us a clear message to keep Eretz Israel from the Sea to the River Jordan for future generations, for the mass aliya (=Jewish immigration), and for the Jewish people, all of whom will be gathered into this country."
-- Former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir declares at a Tel Aviv memorial service for former Likud leaders, November 1990. Jerusalem Domestic Radio Service.
"It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonialization, or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands."
-- Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998.
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article4176.shtml
'...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.
Michael Neumann:
'The Zionists and their camp followers did not come simply to "find a homeland," certainly not in the sense that Flanders is the homeland of the Flemish, or Lappland of the Lapps. They did not come simply to "make a life in Palestine." They did not come to "redeem a people". All this could have been done elsewhere, as was pointed out at the time, and much of it was being done elsewhere by individual Jewish immigrants to America and other countries. The Zionists, and therefore all who settled under their auspices, came to found a sovereign Jewish state.'
'Zionism was from the start an ill-considered and menacing experiment in ethnic nationalism. Neither history nor religion could justify it. The Jews had no claim to Palestine and no right to build a state there. Their growing need for refuge may have provided some limited, inadequate, short-term moral sustenance for the Zionist project, but it could not render that project legitimate. The mere fact of later suffering cannot retroactively convert a wrong into a right: my attempt to usurp your land does not become legitimate simply because I am wrongly beaten by someone else, far away, when my project is near completion. Nor did the well founded desperation of the Jews during the Nazi era provide any justification for Zionism; at most it provided an excuse. If someone is murdering my family in Germany, that does not entitle me to your house in Boston, or my "people" to your country. All Jews fleeing Hitler were indeed entitled to some refuge. One might even suppose that it was the obligation of the whole world, including the Palestinians, to do what they could to provide such refuge. But this is not the whole story.
For one thing, those with ample means to provide refuge, and those who are responsible for the need, have by far the greater share of responsibility. The Palestinians fell into neither category. Even more important, there is an enormous difference between providing refuge and providing a sovereign state. No amount of danger or suffering requires this, and indeed it may conflict with the demand for refuge. Simply to control one's own affairs isn't always the safest alternative. Arguably, for instance, the Jews were safer in the United States, where they are not sovereign, than they ever were in Israel. This is not only a fact but was always a reasonable expectation, so the need for refuge is also no basis for Zionism...
If there are any great lessons to be learned from the Nazi era , they are to watch out for fascism, racism, and ethnic nationalism. Supporting Israel hardly embodies these lessons.'
Edit: I'll add this qualification - again, this is just my opinion, as I don't speak for anyone but myself; any settler who is too young to know any better - babies e.t.c, - and also those settlers who do not engage in open aggression and hostility to their neighbours (perhaps some of these people were coerced into moving onto stolen land by the benefits offered by the Israeli government) these people do not quailify as legitimate targets in my opinion. As for those tens of thousands of settlers who are there by dint of the Zionist ethnic cleansing campaign, and who routinely engage in terrorising their Arab neighbours; as far as I'm concerned they deserve everything they get.
You gotta be fucking kidding me. This is exactly what we've been saying for 15 pages and you've been telling us is proof that we support Israeli genocide.
That's not what you've been saying at all. You've been saying that Israeli civilians - including settlers - don't qualify as legitimate targets.
Edit: I'll add this qualification - again, this is just my opinion, as I don't speak for anyone but myself; any settler who is too young to know any better - babies e.t.c, - and also those settlers who do not engage in open aggression and hostility to their neighbours (perhaps some of these people were coerced into moving onto stolen land by the benefits offered by the Israeli government) these people do not quailify as legitimate targets in my opinion. As for those tens of thousands of settlers who are there by dint of the Zionist ethnic cleansing campaign, and who routinely engage in terrorising their Arab neighbours; as far as I'm concerned they deserve everything they get.
You gotta be fucking kidding me. This is exactly what we've been saying for 15 pages and you've been telling us is proof that we support Israeli genocide.
That's not what you've been saying at all. You've been saying that Israeli civilians - including settlers - don't qualify as legitimate targets.
How is that different from:
"any settler who is too young to know any better - babies e.t.c, - and also those settlers who do not engage in open aggression and hostility to their neighbours"
?
How is that different from:
"any settler who is too young to know any better - babies e.t.c, - and also those settlers who do not engage in open aggression and hostility to their neighbours"
?
So you're saying that all settlers are either too young to know any better or don't engage in open aggression and hostility to their neighbours?
How is that different from:
"any settler who is too young to know any better - babies e.t.c, - and also those settlers who do not engage in open aggression and hostility to their neighbours"
?
So you're saying that all settlers are either too young to know any better or don't engage in open aggression and hostility to their neighbours?
No, I'm saying that from the beginning we were saying exactly what you just said, that innocent (ie. those that don't engage in open aggression and hostility) civilians should not be targeted.
No, I'm saying that from the beginning we were saying exactly what you just said, that innocent (ie. those that don't engage in open aggression and hostility) civilians should not be targeted.
Actually, that's not what was said. You and Jlew both said that 'unarmed civilians' shouldn't be targeted. You didn't say those not engaged in open hostility and aggression. You see, there are settlers who verbally abuse Palestinians on a daily basis, who spit at them, and beat them with their fists. These settlers are unarmed. Are they therefore not legitimate targets for attack?
Also, there are those who use stones, rocks, and/or baseball bats. Do these qualify as 'unarmed'?
ideally both sides agree to it, but the aggressor should be the first to call off hostilities.
By its very definition, the fact that the aggressor began its aggression in the first place is a pretty good indication that it doesn't much care to call of hostilities. If it was so inclined, it would never have begun hostilities in the first place.
that's exactly why we have international law and the UN.
Or are you saying let it go? or are you saying the palestinians should lay down their arms? and continue to be barricaded and bombed and kept in a police state/concentration camp?
your asking the guy getting robbed to trust the guy robbing him, that if he puts down his weapons the guy hitting him with a baseball bat just might stop.
in the middle east, that's putting a lot of faith in your worst enemy. not gonna happen.
I don't understand how someone could think if the Palestinians stop all attacks it might help their cause. The major flaw in this is that you are viewing the israelis as a defensive nation when in reality they are an absurdly offensive terrorist nation. The israelis throughout this century have endlessly shown they want to take over Gaza, the West bank, Lebanon and even parts of Syrian. Contrary to popular belief they started the 1948 war and the 1967 war to grab more land.
You forget that the israelis had total control over Gaza a few years back and only pulled out of it because it was becoming too costly to sustain protection in those areas. The only reason they couldn't sustain the total domination of Gaza was because of those random Palestinian attacks against the israeli military and the extremist settlers of gaza.
So what do you think will happen if the Palestinians stop all attacks and tell the israelis we have no more weapons.. seriously what do you think will happen?
I don't understand how someone could think if the Palestinians stop all attacks it might help their cause.
that would be me. and I must be INSANE to call for an end to violence. what ever was I thinking? second of all, it would help their cause. for one, Israel wouldn't have a reason to smack the fuck out of them.
but according to you, Palestinians should continue (rocket) attacks on Israel. please tell me, how do those benefit the Palestinian cause?
The major flaw in this is that you are viewing the israelis as a defensive nation when in reality they are an absurdly offensive terrorist nation. The israelis throughout this century have endlessly shown they want to take over Gaza, the West bank, Lebanon and even parts of Syrian. Contrary to popular belief they started the 1948 war and the 1967 war to grab more land.
You forget that the israelis had total control over Gaza a few years back and only pulled out of it because it was becoming too costly to sustain protection in those areas. The only reason they couldn't sustain the total domination of Gaza was because of those random Palestinian attacks against the israeli military and the extremist settlers of gaza.
So what do you think will happen if the Palestinians stop all attacks and tell the israelis we have no more weapons.. seriously what do you think will happen?
(if Hamas publicly announced they would stop attacks and renounce violence)
I think Israel would lift the blockade on Gaza, provide aid, and discuss giving back occupied land with pressure from the Obama administration and Congress.
I think Israel would run out of excuses to use airstrikes and military incursions.
The Israelis compain all the time about Hamas occupying schools and hospitals and use that as an excuse to obliterate the building and anyone in it, women and children included. So whats so different about Israeli non combatants in the occupied territories being targeted. If an innocent child has been put in that position by his or her parents that is their fault. If the situation was reversed the Israeli's would be saying that they are using the non combatants as as human shields and that it would not stop them from completing their mission.
your asking the guy getting robbed to trust the guy robbing him, that if he puts down his weapons the guy hitting him with a baseball bat just might stop./quote]
PLEASE no more ridiculous analogies. Israel, the guy with the baseball bat, has specifically said, these problems would end if Hamas lays down its arms.
in the middle east, that's putting a lot of faith in your worst enemy. not gonna happen.
sign, ok fine. I give p. continue supporting the firing of worthless rockets. and watch Israel continue to fuck them up in the name of defense. I promise you, as long as the Palastinians continue to do that, America will turn a blind eye to Israel's atrocities in the name of defense.
The Israelis compain all the time about Hamas occupying schools and hospitals and use that as an excuse to obliterate the building and anyone in it, women and children included. So whats so different about Israeli non combatants in the occupied territories being targeted. If an innocent child has been put in that position by his or her parents that is their fault. If the situation was reversed the Israeli's would be saying that they are using the non combatants as as human shields and that it would not stop them from completing their mission.
Israel is just as wrong as Hamas when they bomb those targets.
that would be me. and I must be INSANE to call for an end to violence. what ever was I thinking? second of all, it would help their cause. for one, Israel wouldn't have a reason to smack the fuck out of them.
but according to you, Palestinians should continue (rocket) attacks on Israel. please tell me, how do those benefit the Palestinian cause?
(if Hamas publicly announced they would stop attacks and renounce violence)
I think Israel would lift the blockade on Gaza, provide aid, and discuss giving back occupied land with pressure from the Obama administration and Congress.
I think Israel would run out of excuses to use airstrikes and military incursions.
You keep accusing Byrnzie of misquoting you when every post you have quoted me on you have misquoted me to further your argument. Did you even read my post? Where did I say this "Palestinians should continue (rocket) attacks on Israel"? I said the attacks WORKED.
I just told you the israelis DID NOT NEED A REASON to start wars or to grab more land.. and even then the world supported them. That was back in the days when Hamas did not even exist. Just a few years back they had internal and external "control" over Gaza with checkpoints and troops riddled everywhere in Gaza. The only thing that drove them out was the fact that they could not sustain the occupation BECAUSE OF THE PALESTINIAN ATTACKS. Yes the attacks worked. Just like the attacks by Hizbullah in Lebanese territory worked to drive the idf out of southern Lebanon in 2000. The Palestinians tried the peaceful route in the 70's and what did it get them? Assassinations.. but you probably call that "history" now.
You also talk about how israel will open the borders if Palestinians halt attacks. Well guess what.. Hamas tried that already and the israelis refused to open up the borders and eventually broke the ceasefire. Even to this day there are airstrikes on Gaza that go unreported and Hamas isn't even sending rockets out. So your whole argument is pointless.
Do you want to know why Byrnzie tells you your argument is pro-Israeli. It is because you keep saying "oh they should both stop any violence for there to be peace". If both sides were losing then your argument would be the best way out but in this case one side is gaining excessively and the other is losing excessively. Your argument may work well in most cases but not in the case of a zionist movement that has ethnic cleansing as one of its goals.
You failed to answer the question I posed so I'll answer it for you. What would it get the Palestinians if they halted attacks and told they israelis we have given up all our weapons? It'll get them the terrorist state of GREATER israel.
No, I'm saying that from the beginning we were saying exactly what you just said, that innocent (ie. those that don't engage in open aggression and hostility) civilians should not be targeted.
Actually, that's not what was said. You and Jlew both said that 'unarmed civilians' shouldn't be targeted. You didn't say those not engaged in open hostility and aggression. You see, there are settlers who verbally abuse Palestinians on a daily basis, who spit at them, and beat them with their fists. These settlers are unarmed. Are they therefore not legitimate targets for attack?
Also, there are those who use stones, rocks, and/or baseball bats. Do these qualify as 'unarmed'?
:roll:
What are you a lawyer or something? If you want to play semantics, by all means, have fun diddling yourself all day. We said innocent, unarmed, civilians, and a half dozen other descriptors at various times. I think it was plenty clear who we were referring to. But if playing dumb helps you feel like you were right and vindicated, don't let me piss on your parade.
If you're carrying a bat or rocks, you're not unarmed. If you're assaulting, abusing, or harassing, you're not innocent. Clear?
By its very definition, the fact that the aggressor began its aggression in the first place is a pretty good indication that it doesn't much care to call of hostilities. If it was so inclined, it would never have begun hostilities in the first place.
that's exactly why we have international law and the UN.
Or are you saying let it go? or are you saying the palestinians should lay down their arms? and continue to be barricaded and bombed and kept in a police state/concentration camp?
your asking the guy getting robbed to trust the guy robbing him, that if he puts down his weapons the guy hitting him with a baseball bat just might stop.
in the middle east, that's putting a lot of faith in your worst enemy. not gonna happen.
Hardly. Israel can't be trusted. What I'm saying is that the guy getting robbed needs to get the guy FINANCING the guy who's robbing him to withdraw his support. Israel is irrelevant. They aren't going to stop until the US pulls the plug on them. They have no reason to. Palestine's ONLY hope to gain some measure of justice is to take the US out of the equation so that the international protections and laws can work. To do that, yes, I believe Palestine needs to lay down its arms. The guy hitting him with the baseball might not stop, but the guy that bought and gave him the bat might take it back and now you've got a fairer fight.
I don't understand how someone could think if the Palestinians stop all attacks it might help their cause. The major flaw in this is that you are viewing the israelis as a defensive nation when in reality they are an absurdly offensive terrorist nation. The israelis throughout this century have endlessly shown they want to take over Gaza, the West bank, Lebanon and even parts of Syrian. Contrary to popular belief they started the 1948 war and the 1967 war to grab more land.
You forget that the israelis had total control over Gaza a few years back and only pulled out of it because it was becoming too costly to sustain protection in those areas. The only reason they couldn't sustain the total domination of Gaza was because of those random Palestinian attacks against the israeli military and the extremist settlers of gaza.
So what do you think will happen if the Palestinians stop all attacks and tell the israelis we have no more weapons.. seriously what do you think will happen?
No, I'm viewing Israel as a nation that has been ALLOWED to be aggressive due to its unquestioned support by the US. And every time a Palestinian bomb goes off, US support for Israel hardens, US politicians and media have a story to point to to distract and overshadow Israeli atrocities, and Palestine gets a little farther from a fair shake from the UN. It isn't fair, but thre it is.
Comments
i agree -rocket attacks, bad idea.
when under military siege....you can't renounce violence. that's absurd.
If Hamas must renounces violence, then so must Israel. I agree with that.
People see this is a war between 2 sides and that's not really accurate. Israel is expanding its borders with force, and Hamas is being blamed, and can do little to stop them. there is no confrontation...its a slaughter. Israel could flatten gaza if they wanted to , and they certainly accomplished some of that goal.
Hamas is a symptom of Israeli aggression. there was almost no terorism in the area until Israel started its polices of targeting villages and civliians to "break the back" of the Palestinians. these armed group-hamas-hezbollah- in palestinian territories are springing up in reponse to ISraeli agressoin. If anyone should ley down their arms Its hould be ISrael.
ideally both sides agree to it, but the aggressor should be the first to call off hostilities.
Like my buddy/friend and musician Michael Franti would say this is ALL CRAZY CRAZY CRAZY from the album Everyone Deserves Music
Shine on
All my people, who been broken hearted
Shine on
From the place where all life has been started
When you need fresh air
Go beyond horizons, to your place in the sun
Shine on
Let your heart be boundless like your faith in the one
(chorus)
It's crazy, crazy, crazy
No stoppin' to this warfare
It's crazy, crazy
We're breathing in the same air
It's crazy, crazy, crazy
Don't tell me that you don't care....
Sing on
From the language of your ancestors and
Sing on
Be playful in your innocence and
Lift your head up high
And rejoice for all you see without your eyes
Sing on
Like a bird that's makin' love in sunset skies
(chorus)
(bridge)
No life's worth more than any other
No sister worth less than any brother
(chorus)
...somebody please send us a prayer!
Peace everybody
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
fantasic
Hamas can renounce violence today. they can hold a press conference one hour for now and renounce violence and promise no rocket attacks into Israel. they can announce they will lay down their arms in return for the opening of the border and recieve aid. (among other things but thats a start)
good, me too.
ever play a game call mercy when you were a kid? someone see how long u can go when pushing your arm behind your back and the person would yell mercy when they couldnt go anymore. something along those lines.
anyway, its the aggressor who usually forces the weaker person into calling mercy.
what you say above is true. Israel should be the first to call off hostilities. I 110% agree with that. but it doesnt exactly appear that is the case does it? Israel is stronger. as much as you or I dont like that fact, they call some of the shots. and what are Israel's demands? that Hamas lay down its arms and renounce violence. Hamas has to understand that they can not win a military war against Israel...so why not give that a try?
you mean give up. something I gaurantee the palestinians will not do.
the international community needs to step in-which there has been some accounts of that happening-not talking about he bs camp david agreements,serious efforts have been made to achieve peace. in 2002 hamas agreed to peace if israel were to withdraw the 67 borders....and all arab countries involved signed the agreement. Obama even hinted he might support it. so there are moves being made for peace. its up to israel. And the US has ways of influencing Israel. cut off military support- that would be devastating to them. cut off political support, they could be sanctioned. lots of ways to influence israel.
thats a real solution for peace. start with a 2 state solution, move on from their to hopefully reach a one state system in the future.
its better than suggesting the palestinians just give up.
but that's a maybe. Palestinian violence may be the reason the US doesn't still have marines stationed in the area. that suicide bomb that killed 270+ americans sure as hell got us the fuck out., and it has got israel out of the westbank in the past. without resistance chances are palestinians will simply be overrun.
you can't expect a people under assault to give up resisting.
again, none of the following will happen unless Hamas renounces violence. it just wont. then and only then, can the 1967 borders be discussed. (disclaimer: I'm NOT supporting that theory, just calling it like I see it)
you call it giving up, I call it being the bigger man.
I get that. but resisting hasnt work out so well has it?
they actually tried your way in the past. it din't work out so well for them.
there was virtually no no terrorism in the past-until Israel went hardline and starting taking out villages and civilians, deliberately, and here we are today.
Like I've been saying all along. Palestinian terrorism is a reaction to Israeli aggression. Deal with disease (Israeli aggression) chances are you get rid of the symptoms (Palestinians terrorism).
I can't believe it's been that long.
http://www.btselem.org/English/Publicat ... d_Grab.asp
International Law
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.
The illegality of the settlements under international humanitarian law does not affect the status of the settlers. The settlers constitute a civilian population by any standard, and include children, who are entitled to special protection. Although some of the settlers are part of the security forces, this fact has absolutely no bearing on the status of the other residents of the settlements.
Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm
Article 16
The wounded and sick, as well as the infirm, and expectant mothers, shall be the object of particular protection and respect.
As far as military considerations allow, each Party to the conflict shall facilitate the steps taken to search for the killed and wounded, to assist the shipwrecked and other persons exposed to grave danger, and to protect them against pillage and ill-treatment.
Article 17
The Parties to the conflict shall endeavour to conclude local agreements for the removal from besieged or encircled areas, of wounded, sick, infirm, and aged persons, children and maternity cases, and for the passage of ministers of all religions, medical personnel and medical equipment on their way to such areas.
Article 18
Civilian hospitals organized to give care to the wounded and sick, the infirm and maternity cases, may in no circumstances be the object of attack, but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict....
Article 27
Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity.
Women shall be especially protected against any attack on their honour, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault.
Without prejudice to the provisions relating to their state of health, age and sex, all protected persons shall be treated with the same consideration by the Party to the conflict in whose power they are, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, religion or political opinion.
Article 39
Protected persons who, as a result of the war, have lost their gainful employment, shall be granted the opportunity to find paid employment. That opportunity shall, subject to security considerations and to the provisions of Article 40, be equal to that enjoyed by the nationals of the Power in whose territory they are.
Where a Party to the conflict applies to a protected person methods of control which result in his being unable to support himself, and especially if such a person is prevented for reasons of security from finding paid employment on reasonable conditions, the said Party shall ensure his support and that of his dependents.
SECTION 111
OCCUPIED TERRITORIES
Article 47
Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.
Article 48
Protected persons who are not nationals of the Power whose territory is occupied may avail themselves of the right to leave the territory subject to the provisions of Article 35, and decisions thereon shall be taken according to the procedure which the Occupying Power shall establish in accordance with the said Article.
Article 49
Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons do demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.
The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.
The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.
The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.
The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
Article 50
The Occupying Power shall, with the cooperation of the national and local authorities, facilitate the proper working of all institutions devoted to the care and education of children.
The Occupying Power shall take all necessary steps to facilitate the identification of children and the registration of their parentage. It may not, in any case, change their personal status, nor enlist them in formations or organizations subordinate to it.
Should the local institutions be inadequate for the purpose, the Occupying Power shall make arrangements for the maintenance and education, if possible by persons of their own nationality, language and religion, of children who are orphaned or separated from their parents as a result of the war and who cannot be adequately cared for by a near relative or friend.
A special section of the Bureau set up in accordance with Article 136 shall be responsible for taking all necessary steps to identify children whose identity is in doubt. Particulars of their parents or other near relatives should always be recorded if available.
The Occupying Power shall not hinder the application of any preferential measures in regard to food, medical care and protection against the effects of war, which may have been adopted prior to the occupation in favour of children under fifteen years, expectant mothers, and mothers of children under seven years.
Article 53
Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.
Article 55
To the fullest extent of the means available to it the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population; it should, in particular, bring in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied territory are inadequate.
The Occupying Power may not requisition foodstuffs, articles or medical supplies available in the occupied territory, except for use by the occupation forces and administration personnel, and then only if the requirements of the civilian population have been taken into account. Subject to the provisions of other international Conventions, the Occupying Power shall make arrangements to ensure that fair value is paid for any requisitioned goods.
The Protecting Power shall, at any time, be at liberty to verify the state of the food and medical supplies in occupied territories, except where temporary restrictions are made necessary by imperative military requirements.
Article 56
To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring and maintaining, with the cooperation of national and local authorities, the medical and hospital establishments and services, public health and hygiene in the occupied territory, with particular reference to the adoption and application of the prophylactic and preventive measures necessary to combat the spread of contagious diseases and epidemics. Medical personnel of all categories shall be allowed to carry out their duties.
If new hospitals are set up in occupied territory and if the competent organs of the occupied State are not operating there, the occupying authorities shall, if necessary, grant them the recognition provided for in Article 18. In similar circumstances, the occupying authorities shall also grant recognition to hospital personnel and transport vehicles under the provisions of Articles 20 and 21.
In adopting measures of health and hygiene and in their implementation, the Occupying Power shall take into consideration the moral and ethical susceptibilities of the population of the occupied territory.
Article 59
If the whole or part of the population of an occupied territory is inadequately supplied, the Occupying Power shall agree to relief schemes on behalf of the said population, and shall facilitate them by all the means at its disposal.
Such schemes, which may be undertaken either by States or by impartial humanitarian organizations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, shall consist, in particular, of the provision of consignments of foodstuffs, medical supplies and clothing.
All Contracting Parties shall permit the free passage of these consignments and shall guarantee their protection.
A Power granting free passage to consignments on their way to territory occupied by an adverse Party to the conflict shall, however, have the right to search the consignments, to regulate their passage according to prescribed times and routes, and to be reasonably satisfied through the Protecting Power that these consignments are to be used for the relief of the needy population and are not to be used for the benefit of the Occupying Power.
Article 63
Subject to temporary and exceptional measures imposed for urgent reasons of security by the Occupying Power:
(a) Recognized National Red Cross (Red Crescent, Red Lion and Sun) Societies shall be able to pursue their activities in accordance with Red Cross principles, as defined by the International Red Cross Conferences. Other relief societies shall be permitted to continue their humanitarian activities under similar conditions;
(b) The Occupying Power may not require any changes in the personnel or structure of these societies, which would prejudice the aforesaid activities.
The same principles shall apply to the activities and personnel of special organizations of a non-military character, which already exist or which may be established, for the purpose of ensuring the living conditions of the civilian population by the maintenance of the essential public utility services, by the distribution of relief and by the organization of rescues.
Article 72
Accused persons shall have the right to present evidence necessary to their defence and may, in particular, call witnesses. They shall have the right to be assisted by a qualified advocate or counsel of their own choice, who shall be able to visit them freely and shall enjoy the necessary facilities for preparing the defence.
Failing a choice by the accused, the Protecting Power may provide him with an advocate or counsel. When an accused person has to meet a serious charge and the Protecting Power is not functioning, the Occupying Power, subject to the consent of the accused, shall provide an advocate or counsel.
Accused persons shall, unless they freely waive such assistance, be aided by an interpreter, both during preliminary investigation and during the hearing in court. They shall have the right at any time to object to the interpreter and to ask for his replacement.
So 60 years of Israeli brutality isn't enough?
I could post hundreds, thousands, of pictures of broken bodies, bulldozed homes, destroyed hospitals, people reduced to abject poverty, e.t.c. Instead, I'll just post the following picture, as I think It says all that needs to be said about how much time and support Israel has already been given by the American people:
http://moinansari.files.wordpress.com/2 ... ne_map.jpg
By its very definition, the fact that the aggressor began its aggression in the first place is a pretty good indication that it doesn't much care to call of hostilities. If it was so inclined, it would never have begun hostilities in the first place.
They're living on stolen land. If they don't like the sporadic bottle rocket attacks then they can simply fuck off back to America.
I regard the 'children' in the video clip I posted as valid targets. As far as I'm concerned, any Israeli settler who verbally abuses, spits at, throws stones and rocks, beats, or murders a Palestinian is a valid target.
That's just my opinion.
Edit: I'll add this qualification - again, this is just my opinion, as I don't speak for anyone but myself; any settler who is too young to know any better - babies e.t.c, - and also those settlers who do not engage in open aggression and hostility to their neighbours (perhaps some of these people were coerced into moving onto stolen land by the benefits offered by the Israeli government) these people do not quailify as legitimate targets in my opinion. As for those tens of thousands of settlers who are there by dint of the Zionist ethnic cleansing campaign, and who routinely engage in terrorising their Arab neighbours; as far as I'm concerned they deserve everything they get.
It would seem not. And for 60 of those years, Americans didn't get the kind of news exposure we do now. We were distracted by vietnam, Iran Contra, Latin America, etc. Palestine was not a priority. In addition, for many of those 60 years, the violence was mutual, a confused mess of Islam and Judaism that Americans didn't understand. There was also the guilt over the holocaust and the blind eye many Christian groups turned to it. There were a lot of factors working against real in depth coverage of the plight Palestine for a very long time. I would say that it's only in the last 20 years at best that Americans have started to get the REAL picture of what's going on there... and even then, there's been enough terrorism to make the Palestinians LOOK as culpable as Israel, even if they weren't. The tide is turning on Israel. But every time Hamas shoots of a rocket that kills a civilian, it sets their cause back a bit... American are simply too paranoid about Islamic terrorism. Yes, Israel does far worse, far more regularly. Nobody said It was fair, but there you have it.
You gotta be fucking kidding me. This is exactly what we've been saying for 15 pages and you've been telling us is proof that we support Israeli genocide.
Exactly, it's called Zionism.
"We must expel the Arabs and take their places."
-- David Ben Gurion, 1937, Ben Gurion and the Palestine Arabs, Oxford University Press, 1985.
"The past leaders of our movement left us a clear message to keep Eretz Israel from the Sea to the River Jordan for future generations, for the mass aliya (=Jewish immigration), and for the Jewish people, all of whom will be gathered into this country."
-- Former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir declares at a Tel Aviv memorial service for former Likud leaders, November 1990. Jerusalem Domestic Radio Service.
"It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonialization, or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands."
-- Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998.
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article4176.shtml
'...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.
Michael Neumann:
'The Zionists and their camp followers did not come simply to "find a homeland," certainly not in the sense that Flanders is the homeland of the Flemish, or Lappland of the Lapps. They did not come simply to "make a life in Palestine." They did not come to "redeem a people". All this could have been done elsewhere, as was pointed out at the time, and much of it was being done elsewhere by individual Jewish immigrants to America and other countries. The Zionists, and therefore all who settled under their auspices, came to found a sovereign Jewish state.'
'Zionism was from the start an ill-considered and menacing experiment in ethnic nationalism. Neither history nor religion could justify it. The Jews had no claim to Palestine and no right to build a state there. Their growing need for refuge may have provided some limited, inadequate, short-term moral sustenance for the Zionist project, but it could not render that project legitimate. The mere fact of later suffering cannot retroactively convert a wrong into a right: my attempt to usurp your land does not become legitimate simply because I am wrongly beaten by someone else, far away, when my project is near completion. Nor did the well founded desperation of the Jews during the Nazi era provide any justification for Zionism; at most it provided an excuse. If someone is murdering my family in Germany, that does not entitle me to your house in Boston, or my "people" to your country. All Jews fleeing Hitler were indeed entitled to some refuge. One might even suppose that it was the obligation of the whole world, including the Palestinians, to do what they could to provide such refuge. But this is not the whole story.
For one thing, those with ample means to provide refuge, and those who are responsible for the need, have by far the greater share of responsibility. The Palestinians fell into neither category. Even more important, there is an enormous difference between providing refuge and providing a sovereign state. No amount of danger or suffering requires this, and indeed it may conflict with the demand for refuge. Simply to control one's own affairs isn't always the safest alternative. Arguably, for instance, the Jews were safer in the United States, where they are not sovereign, than they ever were in Israel. This is not only a fact but was always a reasonable expectation, so the need for refuge is also no basis for Zionism...
If there are any great lessons to be learned from the Nazi era , they are to watch out for fascism, racism, and ethnic nationalism. Supporting Israel hardly embodies these lessons.'
That's not what you've been saying at all. You've been saying that Israeli civilians - including settlers - don't qualify as legitimate targets.
How is that different from:
"any settler who is too young to know any better - babies e.t.c, - and also those settlers who do not engage in open aggression and hostility to their neighbours"
?
So you're saying that all settlers are either too young to know any better or don't engage in open aggression and hostility to their neighbours?
No, I'm saying that from the beginning we were saying exactly what you just said, that innocent (ie. those that don't engage in open aggression and hostility) civilians should not be targeted.
Actually, that's not what was said. You and Jlew both said that 'unarmed civilians' shouldn't be targeted. You didn't say those not engaged in open hostility and aggression. You see, there are settlers who verbally abuse Palestinians on a daily basis, who spit at them, and beat them with their fists. These settlers are unarmed. Are they therefore not legitimate targets for attack?
Also, there are those who use stones, rocks, and/or baseball bats. Do these qualify as 'unarmed'?
Or are you saying let it go? or are you saying the palestinians should lay down their arms? and continue to be barricaded and bombed and kept in a police state/concentration camp?
your asking the guy getting robbed to trust the guy robbing him, that if he puts down his weapons the guy hitting him with a baseball bat just might stop.
in the middle east, that's putting a lot of faith in your worst enemy. not gonna happen.
You forget that the israelis had total control over Gaza a few years back and only pulled out of it because it was becoming too costly to sustain protection in those areas. The only reason they couldn't sustain the total domination of Gaza was because of those random Palestinian attacks against the israeli military and the extremist settlers of gaza.
So what do you think will happen if the Palestinians stop all attacks and tell the israelis we have no more weapons.. seriously what do you think will happen?
that would be me. and I must be INSANE to call for an end to violence. what ever was I thinking? second of all, it would help their cause. for one, Israel wouldn't have a reason to smack the fuck out of them.
but according to you, Palestinians should continue (rocket) attacks on Israel. please tell me, how do those benefit the Palestinian cause?
(if Hamas publicly announced they would stop attacks and renounce violence)
I think Israel would lift the blockade on Gaza, provide aid, and discuss giving back occupied land with pressure from the Obama administration and Congress.
I think Israel would run out of excuses to use airstrikes and military incursions.
if you stop this ^^^
this will not continue.
its at least worth a try. homemade rockets, which is basically their only form of armed resistance, DOES NOT WORK.
sign, ok fine. I give p. continue supporting the firing of worthless rockets. and watch Israel continue to fuck them up in the name of defense. I promise you, as long as the Palastinians continue to do that, America will turn a blind eye to Israel's atrocities in the name of defense.
Israel is just as wrong as Hamas when they bomb those targets.
You keep accusing Byrnzie of misquoting you when every post you have quoted me on you have misquoted me to further your argument. Did you even read my post? Where did I say this "Palestinians should continue (rocket) attacks on Israel"? I said the attacks WORKED.
I just told you the israelis DID NOT NEED A REASON to start wars or to grab more land.. and even then the world supported them. That was back in the days when Hamas did not even exist. Just a few years back they had internal and external "control" over Gaza with checkpoints and troops riddled everywhere in Gaza. The only thing that drove them out was the fact that they could not sustain the occupation BECAUSE OF THE PALESTINIAN ATTACKS. Yes the attacks worked. Just like the attacks by Hizbullah in Lebanese territory worked to drive the idf out of southern Lebanon in 2000. The Palestinians tried the peaceful route in the 70's and what did it get them? Assassinations.. but you probably call that "history" now.
You also talk about how israel will open the borders if Palestinians halt attacks. Well guess what.. Hamas tried that already and the israelis refused to open up the borders and eventually broke the ceasefire. Even to this day there are airstrikes on Gaza that go unreported and Hamas isn't even sending rockets out. So your whole argument is pointless.
Do you want to know why Byrnzie tells you your argument is pro-Israeli. It is because you keep saying "oh they should both stop any violence for there to be peace". If both sides were losing then your argument would be the best way out but in this case one side is gaining excessively and the other is losing excessively. Your argument may work well in most cases but not in the case of a zionist movement that has ethnic cleansing as one of its goals.
You failed to answer the question I posed so I'll answer it for you. What would it get the Palestinians if they halted attacks and told they israelis we have given up all our weapons? It'll get them the terrorist state of GREATER israel.
:roll:
What are you a lawyer or something? If you want to play semantics, by all means, have fun diddling yourself all day. We said innocent, unarmed, civilians, and a half dozen other descriptors at various times. I think it was plenty clear who we were referring to. But if playing dumb helps you feel like you were right and vindicated, don't let me piss on your parade.
If you're carrying a bat or rocks, you're not unarmed. If you're assaulting, abusing, or harassing, you're not innocent. Clear?
Hardly. Israel can't be trusted. What I'm saying is that the guy getting robbed needs to get the guy FINANCING the guy who's robbing him to withdraw his support. Israel is irrelevant. They aren't going to stop until the US pulls the plug on them. They have no reason to. Palestine's ONLY hope to gain some measure of justice is to take the US out of the equation so that the international protections and laws can work. To do that, yes, I believe Palestine needs to lay down its arms. The guy hitting him with the baseball might not stop, but the guy that bought and gave him the bat might take it back and now you've got a fairer fight.
No, I'm viewing Israel as a nation that has been ALLOWED to be aggressive due to its unquestioned support by the US. And every time a Palestinian bomb goes off, US support for Israel hardens, US politicians and media have a story to point to to distract and overshadow Israeli atrocities, and Palestine gets a little farther from a fair shake from the UN. It isn't fair, but thre it is.