What's the fucking deal with Palestinians?

1…1415171920

Comments

  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    amen...
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • canadajammer
    canadajammer Posts: 263
    I see a flaw in a lot of some of the poster's logic.

    For example, let's say Hamas or Hezbollah initiates an attack against Israel, fires a missile and kills two Israeli Civilians.

    In this situation, what should Israel do. (focus on this particular situation, not the entire historical conflict.)

    Israel, like any nation, will retaliate. You can't fire a missile into a country and expect no consequences.

    It just so happens that Israel has a very large and powerful army, unlike its Hamas or Hezbollah counterparts.

    Its the size of Israel's army in comparison to Hamas' militant capabilities which has led to more Palestinians killed. I know on the surface this sounds horrible, but think about it: Don't blame Israel for having a more powerful military force than Hamas. Israeli attacks are no worse than the Hamas attacks. Actually, Hamas's intentions behind their attacks are always to kill innocent lives. IDF intends to kill specific Hamas militants, and unfortuntaly for everyone there are too many collateral damages.

    A lot of you were saying, that if Hamas had billions to spend on military, they woudlnt need to strab bombs to their chests and blow up busses. That is the stupidest comment I've heard. This just proves how you are villifying Israel for the sake of being more powerful! Sometime my friends, the underdog isnt always right! Considering Hamas' history, and intention to kill innocent people, as well as their charter which describes the destruction of Israel, if Hamas had billions to spend on military I guess their attacks would be just as devastating as the ones you claim Israel makes. But of course, they dont have those resources, so Israel is the evil military powerhouse and Hamas is just the noble underdog looking for peace.



    Also, one of you disputed a point I made before about corruption in Palestinian leadership. I meant that the PLO was corrupt and that Hamas was a terrorist organization. Palestinians in the election could choose from those two. I did not mean that Hamas was corrupt.

    There is no disputing Arafat's corruption:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/07/60minutes/main582487.shtml


    Hmmm, maybe those billions could have been spent on improving the lives of Palestinians, and invested in education and social programs. Believe me, it's not just the Israel conflict which has caused the demise of the people living in the Gaza region.
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    The flaw is very east to spot...

    STOP STEALING FUCKING LAND AND MURDERING PEOPLE IN THE PROCESS!!!

    see? ....very easy first step towards a solution.

    That was easy to realize.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Colorsblending9 wrote:
    I see a flaw in a lot of some of the poster's logic.

    Your post is completely flawed. You ask us to focus on one specific instance, which just happens to be a rocket attack against Israel - how many of these attacks have actually killed anyone? You can probably count the number on one hand.
    Colorsblending9 wrote:
    focus on this particular situation, not the entire historical conflict.

    Why? Why should we? You ask the people on the board to refrain from providing links to support what they say. Now you're asking us to ignore the history, and the wider picture, as they relate to this issue.
    Well, my answer is "No".


    Colorsblending9 wrote:
    Also, one of you disputed a point I made before about corruption in Palestinian leadership. I meant that the PLO was corrupt and that Hamas was a terrorist organization. Palestinians in the election could choose from those two. I did not mean that Hamas was corrupt.

    There is no disputing Arafat's corruption:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/07/60minutes/main582487.shtml

    There's also no diputing Olmerts Corruption..
    http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080518/twl-uk-israel-olmert-bd5ae06.html

    Or Ariel Sharon's corruption...
    http://www.masada2000.org/Corruption.html

    In fact you could say that the whole rotten edifice is corrupt...
    Israel faces corruption 'epidemic'
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6276071.stm

    Political Corruption in Israel
    http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery09282006.html

    In Israel, the odor of corruption
    http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/26/news/corrupt.php
    Colorsblending9 wrote:
    Hamas's intentions behind their attacks are always to kill innocent lives. IDF intends to kill specific Hamas militants, and unfortuntaly for everyone there are too many collateral damages.

    I provided a list of links above which detail how the IDF has routinely and deliberately targeted civilians. Continue to ignore them if you like.
    And as for trying to justify 'collateral damage' I'm afraid you're not convincing me for starters.
    Colorsblending9 wrote:
    Don't blame Israel for having a more powerful military force than Hamas.

    You really think this is what it all boils down to?
    Have you actually read any of the posts on this thread?

    Regarding your comments about terrorism Michael Neumann makes a valid point:
    http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article4690.shtml
    '..Neumann is even prepared to concede that "'the occupation itself', in the narrowest sense of the word, was no great crime." Indeed he believes that the 1967 war, which "liberated" the West Bank from Jordanian tutelage, gave Israel "a chance to make handsome amends for the crimes on which it was built...Israel could have sponsored...the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state..." Instead, largely spearheaded by the USA, the settlements made a bad situation infinitely worse, and it is the settlements and the brutal military regime instituted to defend them that bear the brunt of Neumann's often eloquent disgust.

    When he comes to the options available to Palestinians for countering Israel's race-war, Neumann is brutally consistent: there are none, save violence. This part of his argument will be unacceptable to the fainthearted, but it is up to them to refute it. He does not content himself with dismissing passive resistance as an option in the Palestinian context, but denies that it has worked in any context where the powerless faced the unscrupulously powerful. Gandhi "cannot be said to have won independence for India", Martin Luther King's civil rights movement had the backing of the US establishment, indeed "was practically a federal government project", and South Africa's ANC "was never a nonviolent movement but a movement that decided, on occasion, to use nonviolent tactics".

    As for "terrorism", which he defines as "random violence against non-combatants", he distinguishes it from "collateral damage" with the assertion that the latter "involves knowingly killing innocent civilians" while "Terrorism involves intentionally killing innocent civilians", concluding that "the moral difference is too academic even for an academic." Why, then, is "terrorism" considered to be particularly morally repugnant, while "collateral damage" tends to be taken in our moral stride?

    "Imagine trying to make such a claim. You say: 'To achieve my objectives, I would certainly drop bombs with the knowledge that they would blow the arms off some children. But to achieve those same objectives, I would not plant or set off a bomb on the ground with the knowledge that it would have that same effect. After all, I have planes to do that, I don't need to plant bombs.' As a claim of moral superiority, this needs a little work."

    The Palestinians, he repeats, are without options. Israel has all the options, principally that of unilateral withdrawal from the Occupied Territories, but refuses to use them. Hence he refuses "to pronounce judgment on Palestinian terrorism."
  • NMyTree
    NMyTree Posts: 2,374
    Colorsblending9 wrote:
    I see a flaw in a lot of some of the poster's logic.

    Oddly enough, your logic is completely biased and one-sided as you request everyone show empathy for Israel, it's plight and it's people. Yet in your arguments you show no empathy for the Palestine people and use the very same logic that you find disgusting; to justify and excuse all things Israel.

    Colorsblending9 wrote:
    Israel, like any nation, will retaliate. You can't fire a missile into a country and expect no consequences.


    You mean, like the consequences of Israel invading, occupying and expanding further into Palestine territory?

    Or is it that in your mind, the Jews have some kind of entitlement to do these things and not expect consequences?

    Colorsblending9 wrote:
    A lot of you were saying, that if Hamas had billions to spend on military, they woudlnt need to strab bombs to their chests and blow up busses. That is the stupidest comment I've heard.

    It was you who made the initial comment, earlier, remember?

    " Clearly innocent lives on both sides have been killed, and this makes me sick. But you will NEVER see an Israeli strap a bomb onto his/her chest and blowup a civilian bus containing Palestinian people. "

    So you excuse and justify Israel for having the money and resources to amass a huge military. But you demonize and condemn the Palestinians for NOT having the money and resources to amass a huge military.

    Furthermore, you insinuate the Palestinians have no right to defend themselves, in whatever manner at their disposal; based on their lack of a huge military.

    What was that you were saying about stupid?:rolleyes:

    Clearly the distinction here is this.........

    I am debating from a position that both sides are equally at fault and guilty of the same kind of attrocities. And neither should be painted as innocent or victims. The true innocent and victims are the civilians from both sides who have nothing to do with this conflict; but are routinely killed because they are caught in the crossfire.

    You are arguing exclusively in defense of Israel and have an extremely biased and discriminatory poit of view; in that defense.

    Stupid you say? Stupid I say, too. Very stupid.
  • swallowedwords
    swallowedwords Posts: 1,093
    Heineken Helen wrote:
    Thank you fluffmuffin :)

    It's my pleasure, my Irish coffee
    Free the West Memphis Three
    www.wm3.org

    Ron Paul 2012
  • swallowedwords
    swallowedwords Posts: 1,093
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    The flaw is very east to spot...

    STOP STEALING FUCKING LAND AND MURDERING PEOPLE IN THE PROCESS!!!

    see? ....very easy first step towards a solution.

    That was easy to realize.


    You're a hostile character. Relax, pal.
    Free the West Memphis Three
    www.wm3.org

    Ron Paul 2012
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    swallowedwords wrote:
    You're a hostile character. Relax, pal.


    Just trying to pound some obvious common sense into glue...
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • canadajammer
    canadajammer Posts: 263
    NMyTree wrote:
    Oddly enough, your logic is completely biased and one-sided as you request everyone show empathy for Israel, it's plight and it's people. Yet in your arguments you show no empathy for the Palestine people and use the very same logic that you find disgusting; to justify and excuse all things Israel.





    You mean, like the consequences of Israel invading, occupying and expanding further into Palestine territory?

    Or is it that in your mind, the Jews have some kind of entitlement to do these things and not expect consequences?




    It was you who made the initial comment, earlier, remember?

    " Clearly innocent lives on both sides have been killed, and this makes me sick. But you will NEVER see an Israeli strap a bomb onto his/her chest and blowup a civilian bus containing Palestinian people. "

    So you excuse and justify Israel for having the money and resources to amass a huge military. But you demonize and condemn the Palestinians for NOT having the money and resources to amass a huge military.

    Furthermore, you insinuate the Palestinians have no right to defend themselves, in whatever manner at their disposal; based on their lack of a huge military.


    What was that you were saying about stupid?:rolleyes:

    Clearly the distinction here is this.........

    I am debating from a position that both sides are equally at fault and guilty of the same kind of attrocities. And neither should be painted as innocent or victims. The true innocent and victims are the civilians from both sides who have nothing to do with this conflict; but are routinely killed because they are caught in the crossfire.

    You are arguing exclusively in defense of Israel and have an extremely biased and discriminatory poit of view; in that defense.

    Stupid you say? Stupid I say, too. Very stupid.

    I believe suicide bombing in the name of radical islam is disgusting and plain wrong. Everyone here does.
    I think Israel has the right to defend itself. I also think considering that their defense forces are more powerful/funded than and Hamas militants, I believe Israel has responsiblity to show restraint when carrying out their attacks. Sometimes they have, and sometimes they havent.

    I dont like it here when people view an Israeli retaliation to a Hamas militant attack, which yields more deaths, as brutal murder and wrong. Both sides in this case exhibited force, it just so happens that the IDF is stronger.

    I also don't like when there is celebration amongst Palestinians (even if its a small percentage) when a terrorist/militant/whatever you wanna call them, kills Israeli civilians.


    However, I really do identify with a lot of what you are saying. While we may not agree on everything, you seem to have an understanding of the situation, and you pointed out the most important thing: 'the true innocent victims are the civilians from both sides who have nothign to do with this conflict; but are routinely killed because they are caught in the crossfire.'

    Majority of both Israelis and Palestinians just want to live their own lives in peace, raise their children and enjoy life. Its a damn shame when civilians on both sides get caught up in the crossfire.


    It's not like Israel isn't interested in peace. Israel has peace with Egypt. Israel has peace with Jordan. There are even reports of talks with Syria. Bottom line is that Israel can make peace with its Arab neighbors, including the Palestinians.
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Colorsblending9 wrote:
    I believe suicide bombing in the name of radical islam is disgusting and plain wrong.

    The Palestinian resistance to the illegal occupation - which you so consistently choose to ignore - has nothing to do with radical islam. And even if it did, it would still be irrelevant with regards to the legitimacy of their struggle.
    By the way, nice way of ignoring/avoiding everything I posted above.
    Colorsblending9 wrote:
    It's not like Israel isn't interested in peace....Bottom line is that Israel can make peace with its Arab neighbors, including the Palestinians.

    If Israel wanted peace it could begin abiding by international law and withdraw to the 1967 borders. So why does it continue building illegal settlements?
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    Ever get the feeling it's like describing a Rembrandt to a blind person so they can try and paint it?
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • fuck
    fuck Posts: 4,069
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    Ever get the feeling it's like describing a Rembrandt to a blind person so they can try and paint it?
    yeah, but you always hope for that one blind girl who can sculpt Lionel Richie's head.
  • canadajammer
    canadajammer Posts: 263
    Byrnzie wrote:
    The Palestinian resistance to the illegal occupation - which you so consistently choose to ignore - has nothing to do with radical islam. And even if it did, it would still be irrelevant with regards to the legitimacy of their struggle.
    By the way, nice way of ignoring/avoiding everything I posted above.



    If Israel wanted peace it could begin abiding by international law and withdraw to the 1967 borders. So why does it continue building illegal settlements?


    http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_campdavid_2000.php

    Despite the amount of concessions Israel was prepared to make, Arafat walked out on peace. Right then and there. Peace was attainable, but it was rejected by Arafat.


    1967

    Pre-1967 borders had Egypt controlling Gaza and Jordan controlling West Bank Area. War broke out. If Israel was defeated, there would be no Israel at all right now. Israel came out victorious, and seized control of gaza/west bank areas. Now, 2008, Israel is responsible for returning the lands they won, after almost being annihilated by the other countries...

    Why wasn't there peace pre-1967 when the 'pre-1967' borders existed? Would those borders suffice now, but they wouldn't then?


    I mean, if you willingly go to war with another nation, and lose land during the process, you have to face the consequences.

    Unfortunately, things aren't that simple. And I do see Israel moving back to the pre-1967 borders at some point in time. Its a real shame that, that is the only way there could be a chance for peace...Israel has to lose land they won after being attacked by 4 different countries. ***Its a shame not because Israel has to lose land, but because they have to be the ones to concede something they rightfully won.

    I do see what you guys are saying, Israel is the only one in a position to concede anything at all for peace (like they may do with Golan/syria).

    They have done this before (giving back Sinai to Egypt in 1979 i believe)



    So If Israel does in the future go back to the '67 borders, will that be the end of the conflict? Will there be peace in the region. Maybe, maybe not. Will these land concessions lead to a severely weakened security position for Israel's defense? Maybe, maybe not.
    Will Hamas be satisfied with pre-1967 borders, when they call for the destruction of Israel?
    Of course, once an independent Palestinian state is created, what will happen from there? How will the country develop itself? Who will help them? Who will invest? Will there be open trade/borders with Israel. I hope one day we reach that point.

    Maybe Israel should concede because they are in a position to do so...I'm just frustrated by the way Israel is routinely blamed and vilified for everything that has gone wrong.
  • fuck
    fuck Posts: 4,069
    Colorsblending9 wrote:
    Pre-1967 borders had Egypt controlling Gaza and Jordan controlling West Bank Area. War broke out. If Israel was defeated, there would be no Israel at all right now.
    You fail to mention something. War didn't just "break out". Israel started the war.
    Israel came out victorious, and seized control of gaza/west bank areas. Now, 2008, Israel is responsible for returning the lands they won, after almost being annihilated by the other countries...
    under the geneva convention, which they signed, they aren't allowed to keep that land after the war.
    Why wasn't there peace pre-1967 when the 'pre-1967' borders existed? Would those borders suffice now, but they wouldn't then?
    There was no peace because Israel did not want peace.
    I mean, if you willingly go to war with another nation, and lose land during the process, you have to face the consequences.
    Egypt and Syria were forced to defend themselves. They have to deal with consequences for that?
    Unfortunately, things aren't that simple. And I do see Israel moving back to the pre-1967 borders at some point in time. Its a real shame that, that is the only way there could be a chance for peace...Israel has to lose land they won after being attacked by 4 different countries. ***Its a shame not because Israel has to lose land, but because they have to be the ones to concede something they rightfully won.
    That is not a shame. They did not rightfully win it, they stole it illegally, by killing people who live there, by planting illegal settlements in that land, and destroying people's homes.
    So If Israel does in the future go back to the '67 borders, will that be the end of the conflict? Will there be peace in the region.
    of course not. that is not everything that has to happen for peace. that is, however, 1 step that will lead to peace, and a BIG step at that. Once Israel goes back to the 67 borders, they can call a ceasefire with Hamas and begin having serious talks with them.
    Will Hamas be satisfied with pre-1967 borders, when they call for the destruction of Israel?
    Time and time again several people on this board have said that Hamas said they'd be willing to talk to Israel once they went back to the 67 borders.
  • canadajammer
    canadajammer Posts: 263
    _FiveAgainstOne_ wrote:
    You fail to mention something. War didn't just "break out". Israel started the war.


    under the geneva convention, which they signed, they aren't allowed to keep that land after the war.


    There was no peace because Israel did not want peace.


    Egypt and Syria were forced to defend themselves. They have to deal with consequences for that?


    That is not a shame. They did not rightfully win it, they stole it illegally, by killing people who live there, by planting illegal settlements in that land, and destroying people's homes.


    of course not. that is not everything that has to happen for peace. that is, however, 1 step that will lead to peace, and a BIG step at that. Once Israel goes back to the 67 borders, they can call a ceasefire with Hamas and begin having serious talks with them.


    Time and time again several people on this board have said that Hamas said they'd be willing to talk to Israel once they went back to the 67 borders.

    Please read this article, especially about the lead-up to the war.

    http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761570433

    Yes, Israel launched a preemptive air strike, decimating Egypt's air force. Egypt was clearly organizing an attack on Israel with Syria and Jordon. And vocally expressed the destruction of Israel. Wait a second, there was calls for the destruction of Israel pre-1967 war? It can't just be about the lands Israel acquired...

    Your comment about Egypt and Syria forced to defend themselves, as if they weren't planning on war, is so ridiculous its actually kinda funny.
    Just because Israel was so astoundingly victorious, it doesn't mean Egypt/Syria/Jordan weren't planning on going to war, and destroying Israel. They just happened to lose.

    They stole it Illegally?

    They were at war with Egypt/Syria/Jordan and they won, and conquered Gaza/West Bank/E.Jerusalem and Golan in the process. First of all, there was no Palestine, these lands were taken from the above countries. Secondly, those countries shouldn't have planned to jointly attack and destroy Israel if they weren't prepared to lose the war and those lands.
  • fuck
    fuck Posts: 4,069
    I'm just wondering if you cared to read this thread at all. This entire point was already discussed several times. go back a few pages and do some reading.
  • canadajammer
    canadajammer Posts: 263
    Sorry bud, please enlighten. I'll be glad to do the reading, just let me know what you want me to read.


    Also, we gotta change the name of this thread. "What the fucking deal with Palestinians" Thats just an insulting and stupid...
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Colorsblending9 wrote:
    http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_campdavid_2000.php

    Despite the amount of concessions Israel was prepared to make, Arafat walked out on peace. Right then and there. Peace was attainable, but it was rejected by Arafat.

    This is a lie. Arafat didn't walk out on the talks. And why don't you explain what exactly was being offered to the Palestinians? You talk about him walking out on peace, and rejecting peace. This is just pure nonsense.

    Take a look at this map of what was offered to Arafat and see if you can work out why it was rejected.
    http://www.iris.org.il/oslo_2000.htm

    http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20020416.htm
    'Look, is there a possible political settlement today? Has there been one for the last 25 years? Is it supported by the entire world, including the majority of the American people? The answer to that question is yes. There is a political settlement that has been supported by virtually the entire world, including the Arab states, the PLO, Europe, Eastern Europe, Canada…

    ES: Didn't Barak put that on the table?

    Chomsky: No, he did not.

    ES: He did not?

    Chomsky: What was also supported by the majority of the American people, has just been reiterated by Saudi Arabia. The U.S. has unilaterally blocked it for 25 years. What Barak put on the table, the population doesn't know this, because people like the Western media in Canada in the United States don't tell them. Like, you can check and see how often, you for example, and others, have reported what I just said. Don't bother checking. The answer is zero.

    The Barak proposal in Camp David, the Barak-Clinton proposal, in the United States, I didn't check the Canadian media, in the United States you cannot find a map, which is the most important thing of course, check in Canada, see if you can find a map. You go to Israel, you can find a map, you go to scholarly sources, you can find a map. Here's what you find when you look at a map: You find that this generous, magnanimous proposal provided Israel with a salient east of Jerusalem, which was established primarily by the Labor government, in order to bisect the West Bank. That salient goes almost to Jericho, breaks the West Bank into two cantons, then there's a second salient to the North, going to the Israeli settlement of Ariel, which bisects the Northern part into two cantons.

    So, we've got three cantons in the West Bank, virtually separated. All three of them are separated from a small area of East Jerusalem which is the center of Palestinian commercial and cultural life and of communications. So you have four cantons, all separated from the West, from Gaza, so that's five cantons, all surrounded by Israeli settlements, infrastructure, development and so on, which also incidentally guarantee Israel control of the water resources.

    This does not rise to the level of South Africa 40 years ago when South Africa established the Bantustans. That's the generous, magnanimous offer. And there's a good reason why maps weren't shown. Because as soon as you look at a map, you see it.

    ES: All right, but let me just say, Arafat didn't even bother putting a counter-proposal on the table.

    Chomsky: Oh, that's not true.

    ES: They negotiated that afterwards.

    Chomsky: That's not true.

    ES: I guess my question is, if they don't continue to negotiate -

    Chomsky: They did. That's false.

    ES: That's false?

    Chomsky: Not only is it false, but not a single participant in the meetings says it. That's a media fabrication . . .

    ES: That Arafat didn't put a counter-proposal . . .

    Chomsky: Yeah, they had a proposal. They proposed the international consensus, which has been accepted by the entire world, the Arab states, the PLO. They proposed a settlement which is in accordance with an overwhelming international consensus, and is blocked by the United States.

    ES: If you don't talk -

    Chomsky: Yeah, they did talk. They talked. They proposed that.

    ES: Once they walked out of Camp David,

    Chomsky: They didn't walk out of Camp David . . .

    ES: Both camps . . .

    Chomsky: No, no, both sides walked out of Camp David.

    ES: All right, once Camp David disbands, the radicals take over the process, my question is, how do . . .

    Chomsky: No, no, the radicals didn't take over the process.

    ES: You don't think that the Sharon, the right-wing Israeli . . .

    Chomsky: No, Barak stayed in power for months. Barak cancelled it. That's how it ended.'
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Colorsblending9 wrote:
    Please read this article, especially about the lead-up to the war.

    http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761570433

    Yes, Israel launched a preemptive air strike, decimating Egypt's air force. Egypt was clearly organizing an attack on Israel with Syria and Jordon. And vocally expressed the destruction of Israel. Wait a second, there was calls for the destruction of Israel pre-1967 war? It can't just be about the lands Israel acquired...

    Your comment about Egypt and Syria forced to defend themselves, as if they weren't planning on war, is so ridiculous its actually kinda funny.
    Just because Israel was so astoundingly victorious, it doesn't mean Egypt/Syria/Jordan weren't planning on going to war, and destroying Israel. They just happened to lose.

    They stole it Illegally?

    They were at war with Egypt/Syria/Jordan and they won, and conquered Gaza/West Bank/E.Jerusalem and Golan in the process. First of all, there was no Palestine, these lands were taken from the above countries. Secondly, those countries shouldn't have planned to jointly attack and destroy Israel if they weren't prepared to lose the war and those lands.


    Who started the 1967 Six-Day War?


    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=10259
    "We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him (Nasser) .” -- Former Israeli PM Menahem Begin.


    Israel has long claimed that it launched the Six-Day War in 1967 to defend itself. Below are some statements made by Israeli leaders as well as some report excerpts that prove otherwise.


    Israel’s former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman, regarded as a hawk, stated that there was “no threat of destruction” but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could “exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies.” Menahem Begin, the first Likud Prime Minister of Israel, also said: "In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.” "Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."

    "I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it." Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's Chief of Staff in 1967, in Le Monde on 28 February 1968.

    "Moshe Dayan, the celebrated commander who, as Defense Minister in 1967, gave the order to conquer the Golan...[said] many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who pressed the Government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for the farmland... They didn't even try to hide their greed for the land...We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was...The Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us.'" The New York Times, May 11, 1997.

    What happened after the Six-Day War?
    "In violation of international law, Israel has confiscated over 52 percent of the land in the West Bank and 30 percent of the Gaza Strip for military use or for settlement by Jewish civilians...From 1967 to 1982, Israel's military government demolished 1,338 Palestinian homes on the West Bank. Over this period, more than 300,000 Palestinians were detained without trial for various periods by Israeli security forces." Lockman and Beinin: "Intifada: The Palestinian Uprising Against Israeli Occupation."

    "Under the UN Charter there can lawfully be no territorial gains from war, even by a state acting in self-defense. The response of other states to Israel's occupation shows a virtually unanimous opinion that even if Israel's action was defensive, its retention of the West Bank and Gaza Strip was not...The [UN] General Assembly characterized Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza as a denial of self determination and hence a 'serious and increasing threat to international peace and security.' " John Quigley, "Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice."

    All Jewish settlements in territories occupied in the 1967 war are a direct violation of the Geneva Conventions, which Israel has signed.
    "The Geneva Convention requires an occupying power to change the existing order as little as possible during its tenure. One aspect of this obligation is that it must leave the territory to the people it finds there. It may not bring its own people to populate the territory. This prohibition is found in the convention's Article 49, which states, 'The occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.'" John Quigley, "Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice."
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    _FiveAgainstOne_ wrote:
    yeah, but you always hope for that one blind girl who can sculpt Lionel Richie's head.

    Yeah and that girl has no arms...
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")

Categories