This is why the Israeli side is morally superior to the Palestinians.

[el freako]

Originally posted by Oerdin

The Palestinians also would have had full use and rights to all water resources with in the treaty borders of Palestine... ...Sorry but your argument just doesn't stand up to the facts.

Do you notice that the map's israeli borders include almost all of the major artesian water sources that were within the 1967 borders of the west bank?

So, technically, yes you are correct the palestinians would have access to their own water sources - after the israeli's have nicked the land with most of them on. - this is 'streaching' the law to opress the weak.

[Whaleboy]

Maps, land, cities, deaths, destruction, suffering, strike, counter strike.

Can't we all just get along?

[Az]

Do you notice that the map's israeli borders include almost all of the major artesian water sources that were within the 1967 borders of the west bank?

can you point it on the map, please? ( use MS Paint. )

How many IDF soldiers have been held repsonsible for murdering Palestinians?

I personally know of two cases. Both of which were not intentional.

[Berzerker]

Oerdin -

A British mandate with a 40-60 Jew Arab population split.

A "mandate"? Yeah, we'll walk in and take your land and call it a "mandate".

The two state solution has been offered by Israel since 1948.

They never offered the Palestinians a state of their own. Maybe you don't understand what a "state" is...

Actually Israel was created to absorb Jews.

That's what I said in the quote you selected.

It was the stated declaration of Israel's Independence and was sanctified by the United Nations.

The UN had a "mandate" too? Gee, everyone seems to have a mandate except for the people who actually lived there.

If the Israeli's can provide new homes to Jews who were run out of Muslim countries then it is reasonable to expect Arab countries to resettle their people.

Whether or not it's reasonable is irrelevant. Btw, many of those homes were built with our money.

The Arabs never have though instead they keep the Palestinians as a perminent refugee population.

The absence of a state of their own has nothing to do with it?

First off there is no apartied in Israel; that has always been a lie.

Yeah, it's all a lie.

We worked against apartied in South Africa because it was morally wrong and could not be justified. Israel has geniune security concerns brought about by 50 years of Arab militantism and the many terrorist attacks. Now let me enlighten you to another fact; the difference in Israel is not racial and mainly it isn't even religous. The main difference is between Israeli citizens (Jew or Arab) who are allowed to move freely in Israel and no citizens living in the West Bank & Gaza who are resricted access to Israel. Since Palestinians are not Israeli citizens and are their own national group it makes sense they be treated like any other noncitizen nationality with reguards to immigration or travel.

So there's no system of apartheid but these Palestinians are treated like non-citizens with restricted acces while Israeli settlements are built in their alleged territory? Thanks for making my case...

Ignorant.

Certainly possible.

If you learn a bit about history you will learn that the League of Nations made the UK the legal controller of the area and this was agreed to in treaty with the Turks who previously controlled the territory. Further the creation of the state of Israel was fully blessed by the UN and Israel was made owner of everything in side the 1967 borders.

Wow, so a bunch of people living thousands of miles away gave the land to people who didn't live there and you wonder why the rightful owners aren't happy? Gee, by your "logic", since the Brits were the "owners" of that land by virtue of expelling the previous occupiers - the Turks - then the USSR justifiably "owned" eastern Europe and the west would have been justified in seizing western Europe. Is that what you want to argue?

BTW I notice you avoid the real point of this thread; the fact that Israel punishes its extremists while the Palestinians promote and help their terrorists.

Was I required to respond to your generalisations? Okay, you're making generalisations. Happy? Is it illegal for the state of Israel to murder Palestinians? No, it's just illegal for certain Israeli citizens. So, if the PA is the "state", why can't they make it legal for certain Palestinians to murder Jews? The "real point" of your thread was to ignore what has happened over the past few decades.

[Az]

Originally posted by elijah
Maps, land, cities, deaths, destruction, suffering, strike, counter strike.

Can't we all just get along?

I would, if they were similar to me. As the situation stands, I have no wish to become a citizen of a 3rd world country.

[Whaleboy]

"I'd like to get along, but he started it, its his fault"

[Berzerker]

Azazel -

That's why the whole discussion about who's the genuine owner of the land meaningless.

Obviously it is not meaningless if people are willing to blow themselves up to kill Jews. During the Indian wars, people called them savages (yesterday's terrorists) for retaliating against settlements. That can't justify murdering the innocent, but to ignore the catalyst for such behavior is shortsighted.

Then we're confusing two things: personal property, and sovereignity. In that sense, the Brits did little to change the personal property. of the lands. Most of the land was the sovereign's land. First it was the Turks, then the Brits, and then the Israelis.

Yes, both the Brits and the Turks mainly wanted resources, but they were still occupiers lacking the moral authority to keep or give away the land. The Israelis want more though, not that I blame them for wanting their own state, but it was a big mistake giving them that land. Think of all the violence that could have been avoided if the west let them stay in peace instead of trying to push the problem off on others.

No it wasn't.

Oerdin started this thread to show there is no "moral equivelance", i.e., one side is bad, the other is good.

I'd rather be killed by a bullet to the head, than to be killed by being hit by a car. In the first case I was murder. In the second, I was killed unpurposefully, whether it was my fault or the driver's. Do you think that the murder is a lesser evil?

You don't think 3x as many people killed by "heavy equipment" is just a bit peculiar? And trying to compare this to cars hitting pedestrians is illogical, you can't throw bombs around at people and then act as if the innocent killed by such reckless behavior was "unintentional". That would be like using a machine gun on a crowd when someone in the crowd shoots at you.

Actually, He wasn't involved in that slaughter. I was referring to the fact that the military campaign in the Lebanon was secretly planned by him to have bigger objectives than the way he reported it to Begin, and the government.

I'd call that "involvement", but I heard he allowed a Christian militia to go in and slaughter a bunch of people as part of his plan. Perhaps you can explain what he has to answer for (your words) if he wasn't involved.

Snore. So I guess the jews should've compensated the arabs for their lands, but not get any compensation back, just to be 'right'?

What part of "two wrongs don't make a right" do you find perplexing? If Arab dictators stole from Jews, that doesn't mean Jews can steal from other Arabs.

It does for who's in a state of war very much too. In any case, I am not certain what do you mean by that part of your post.

Of course, but morality requires that once the combatants are done with their "adventures", they leave.

You're not reading the map correctly, I assume. all of the grey area is palestinian controlled. That includes the little blue triangles on it.

I'll take another look.

[quote]Oh, and Begin probably is among the top 5 righteous leaders the Mid East has known in the last century.[/quote

I'm not sure that qualifies as an endorsement.

That doesn't contradict with the fact that he did many evil deeds, as well. You should know it very well, Che, from histories of different great men. They did some evil stuff, as well.

And he was a "terrorist" who got elected, that was my earlier point, both sides elect terrorists.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
That would be like using a machine gun on a crowd when someone in the crowd shoots at you.

The Israelis do that, Berz. Then again, so did we in Falujah.

[Berzerker]

Azazel, correct me if I'm wrong, but according to that map, those triangles are Israeli settlements within Palestianian "sovereignty" (the lighter shade of brown).

[Lincoln]

I thought this thread was about punishing civilians who target innocent civilians. Israel clearly has the high ground here morally. Until killing innocent children is frowned upon by the Palestinians there is no way those who support that tactic can claim to be anything but immoral cowards. People have been oppressed throughout history by stronger groups and they did not feel a need to kill the innocent children of their oppressors. How many German children did the Jews kill in WW2 even though they were hunted like animals by their oppressors? How many innocent children of whites did the blacks kill in the 60's or during slavery for that matter? Israel punishes and the Palestinians praise the heartless killers of innocent women and children. There is no question of who has the moral high ground.

[chequita guevara]

So the Palestinian children who are murdered by the IDF should just be ignored, Lincoln?

[Lincoln]

You can't answer the question can you without somehow blaming Israel?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Lincoln
You can't answer the question can you without somehow blaming Israel?

If you didn't have blinders on I wouldn't need to do so. As I've stated befoer, as long as both sides continue to slaughter each other's children, there will be no peace. The IDF is the moral equivalent of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the al_Aqsa brigades.

[Berzerker]

I thought this thread was about punishing civilians who target innocent civilians. Israel clearly has the high ground here morally.

Rather arbitrary there Lincoln, why not condemn the killing of the innocent regardless of who is doing the killing? I do. Again, roughly 3x as many Palestianians have been killed than Jews and we're supposed to believe this statistic reflects unintentional and intentional killings?

[Lincoln]

I condemn whoever does it for whatever reason. In the example stated however in the original post Israel was doing the right thing. I would like to see a similar example from the Palestians.