Everyone needs to watch this video

jlew24asu wrote:

going back to 1967 borders is impractical and isn't going to happen.

Michael Neumann:
'It is sometimes alleged that complete withdrawal from the occupied territories is "impracticable" because the facts on the ground are too deeply entrenched: Israeli settlements are just too extensive and important to uproot. One can hardly take this seriously. If it was "practicable" for hundreds of thousands of stateless Palestinians to leave their homes, why is this impracticable for half as many Israeli citizens in far more comfortable and peaceful circumstances? Throughout modern history, from the waves of U.S immigration to the peaceful post-World War II population transfers, there have been far greater shifts than this movement of a few miles. In many cases, if the settlers prefer, they can simply return to their homes in the United States. "It's impraticable" seems here a stand-in for "Aw, gee, these towns are too nice to let the Arabs have them".
The significance of the withdrawal alternative is not that it represents a just solution. Arguably, justice would require much more than that - not only the abolition of Jewish sovereignty in Israel, but a full right of return, with compensation, for the Palestinians, and the eviction of Jewish inhabitants occupying Palestinian property. But the existence of the withdrawal alternative effectively completes the case against Israel. It's willful and pointless rejection of that alternative places Israel decisively in the wrong. In the first place, Israel has a right of self defence, but it does not apply in the Occupied Territories. If the U.S invaded Jamaica and dotted it with settlements, neither the settlers nor the armed forces could invoke any right to defend themselves against the Jamaicans, any more than a robber who invaded your house. So it is with the Israeli's in the Occupied Territories. Their right of self-defense is their right to the least violent defensive alternative. Since withdrawal (perhaps followed by fortifying their own 1948 border) is by far their best and least violent defense, that is all they have a right to do.'

Byrnzie wrote:

So it is with the Israeli's in the Occupied Territories. Their right of self-defense is their right to the least violent defensive alternative. Since withdrawal (perhaps followed by fortifying their own 1948 border) is by far their best and least violent defense, that is all they have a right to do.'

this is what i've been saying for some time now.

Israeli's have a right to defend themselves-just not with force. their self-defense can be achieved by leaving the occupied territories. If peace is the goal, (which Israel claims its is) then get the fuck out. people will stop throwing rocks at your tanks and setting off bottle rockets.

_outlaw wrote:

half the world sided with the Nazis, and half the world didn't, but even the other half agreed the land was under dispute. HOWEVER, when the ENTIRE world says the land is undisputed and it rightfully belongs to the Palestinians, but the Israelis are the ONLY ones claiming it is under 'dispute' then YEAH i'd say you side with Israel, against the entire world.

Actually, I don't think anyone disputed that France belonged to the French. Even the Nazis knew that the country wasn't theirs. There was no real dispute about it at all.

Either way, it was as a result of the crimes of world war II that the U.N was created - to stop such crimes of state from re-occurring. Zionist Israel is a signatory to the U.N, and therefore it is obliged to abide by it's laws. Unfortunately it's been behaving like a rogue state for the past 60 years, not too dissimilar to the Nazi regime in it's messianic militarism, and ethnic cleansing. This shit needs to stop, for Israel's sake as well as that of it's Arab neighbours.

NoK wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

well, the man is holding the boy while ducking and running. how can you question he's not using him as a human shield?

Again, the first clip shows a guy pushing a little kid away and pointing towards the group of people as in telling him to get the fuck back and stand with them. I realise you did not comment about this one but I thought I'll remind you since you posted it.

The second clip shows a boy crouching in the middle of road. If you watch it again you will realise the fighter DUCKS down when he gets to where the boy is actually crouching. This leads me to conclude that the fighter knows he can get shot around the area where the boy is crouching. So he grabs the little boy and drags him back to the group of people. So tell me why would he run to the boy get himself in danger then just drag him 5 metres to a group of people? Not to mention keeping the top half of his body exposed to bullet fire.. The logical explanation is that he is trying to get the boy out of a harms way but a biased TV station could try to push this in their favour and post a SHORTENED clip then label it HAMAS USES HUMAN SHIELDS. If you search the net you will find pictures of IDF soldiers CHAINING 10 year old Palestinian boys to their armoured jeeps.

Does that explain it to you better?

yea, it exaplins that you can totally make up shit to suit your agenda. well done

jlew24asu wrote:

since when do children (on their own) decide that they are ready to die for the cause?

outlaw has already mentioned this but I will repeat. What the guy is saying is not literal. You can try to use the language barrier as an argument but if you do don't post something in Arabic in the first place.[/quote]

I based my response of YOURS....
'

NoK wrote:

The second clip is translated loosely. Arabic is my second language and I can assure you what the guy was saying was Palestinians as a whole.. women.. children].. elderly.. fighters have experienced death so much they are ready to die for the cause.. and they have become a human shield to the resistance[/i].. its not literal..

children arent ready to die for the cause. they are CHILDREN.

_outlaw wrote:

do you agree with this statement: Israel has the sole power to bring about the two-state solution, since Hamas and the entire world support such a solution, but Israel blocks it by not withdrawing to the 1967 borders. I hope that sentence is not too complicated for you. Good luck with it. Other than that, if Israel is the one problem affecting the two-state solution, then I would say ISRAEL is the problem, not HAMAS which is just in its moment of fame, like Hezbollah once was. You do realize that Hamas was established in the 1980s right? You do know that the Palestinians have been arguing for that land since 1967 (moreso 1969), which is BEFORE Hamas' existence came about. You do realize that Hamas came about AS A RESULT of Israel's refusal to abide by international law and recognize the rights of the Palestinians, right? You do know that this "result" would not have come about if it were not for the source, ie. the "problem" which is ISRAEL.

logical reasoning, let me know how you feel about it.

heres some logical reasoning for you. I've only said this nine times but since you can not seem to wrap your head around it, I'll repeat it again. not sure what else I can do.

Hamas is part of the PROBLEM because.....they deliberately target and kill Israeli civilians.

I really do not know how much clearer I can be.

jlew24asu wrote:

_outlaw wrote:

by jlew's definition of "disputed land," if I were to argue that France should still be under Nazi occupation, that would make the land "disputed."

guess what genius. during WWII, the land in France WAS under dispute. that must mean I support the Nazi's right!!!!!!

_outlaw wrote:

yeah. because half the world sided with the Nazis, and half the world didn't, but even the other half agreed the land was under dispute. HOWEVER, when the ENTIRE world says the land is undisputed and it rightfully belongs to the Palestinians, but the Israelis are the ONLY ones claiming it is under 'dispute' then YEAH i'd say you side with Israel, against the entire world.

you only need two parties to have a dispute. those two parties would be the Israelis and the Palestinians. they both want the same land. its being disputed.

this somehow translates into me being a supporter of Israel and a supporter of ethic cleansing.


fucking classic.

jlew24asu wrote:

Hamas is part of the PROBLEM because.....they deliberately target and kill Israeli civilians.

It's fortunate that you weren't around during the Apartheid era of South Africa. I imagine you would have regarded the ANC as 'part of the PROBLEM' and focused all of your attention on their attacks upon the whites. You then would have cried wolf and claimed that you were impartial.

Byrnzie wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

Hamas is part of the PROBLEM because.....they deliberately target and kill Israeli civilians.

It's fortunate that you weren't around during the Apartheid era of South Africa. I imagine you would have regarded the ANC as 'part of the PROBLEM' and focused all of your attention on their attacks upon the whites. You then would have cried wolf and claimed that you were impartial.

if the ANC targeted and killing innocent civilians, then yes. they absolutely were part of the problem.