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

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Being moral can easily be defined as a person doing the right thing. I think it's clear that things such as equality before the law, punishing militants from your own sai as well as the other side, providing legal protections of the rights of your citizens both Jew and Arab would all be interpreted as "doing the right thing" by most reasonable people. Morality often has very little to do with the law but irrefutably the Israeli side is acting more morally then the Palestinian side.

Only if you count murders as the sole measure of suffering does this make sense. Fine, even if we disregard the fact that a Palestiains is more likely to get killed than an Israeli, period, there are counless other abuses. For example, home demolitions: how many Palestiains have been made homelss by association? here is no moral defense for that. Curfews and closures that starve the palestinains economy, plus the ubiquitious checkpoints. Palestians suffer far more than Israeli on a daily basis. Israel built essentially discriminatory systems in the west bank, were you can have a settlement with white stucco houses, red roofs and lawn, while the palestinains villages around it have no regular access to water and have to wait for a couple of days until the water truck comes over.

The Pals have no rule of law,both by the failure of their leaders, the actions of their leaders, and the conditions in which they live every day. The PA is the most responsible, for this, but Israel is not that far behind.

So no, I do not see israelis as acting more morally simply becuase of these court actions. Now, if tommorrow every single illegal settlement (as much a violation of the rules of war as terrorism, if less deadly) was shut down, amybe you can come to me about being more moral.

[Ramo]

The cantons thing has always been a lie. Israel would have gotten several movement corridors but the Palestinians had full rights to move any where in the West Bank and Gaza.

Cantons my eye.

Of course the agreement said that the Pals would be able to move across the highways. The point is that Israel would have control over these main highways. As I said earlier, not exactly a mark of sovereignty.

The Palestinians also would have had full use and rights to all water resources with in the treaty borders of Palestine

Except that parts of the occupied territories that had the water resources would conveniently be annexed by Israel.

and the treaty insure the Palestinians had civilian air corridors through Israel and into the West Bank much as West Germany had through East Germany and into West Berlin.

Again, the point is that Israel has ultimate control over Pal airspace.

Sorry but your argument just doesn't stand up to the facts.

Seeing as how you didn't actually address my argument, that's an incorrect assertion.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No you said that they've elected terrorists. Ariel Sharon isn't a terrorist, and never was one. Arafat was one ( I am not sure about his current status. )

You guys did elect Begim, who was the head of the Stern Gang, right?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

No you said that they've elected terrorists. Ariel Sharon isn't a terrorist, and never was one. Arafat was one ( I am not sure about his current status. )

You guys did elect Begim, who was the head of the Stern Gang, right?

Head of Irgun. Avraham Stern was the Stern Gang's creator. Both groups were responsible for terrorist outrages, of the sort which would attract criticism from people pontificating about immoral 'Arab' or 'Palestinian' terrorism- the assassination of Count Folke Bernadotte, for instance (U.N. mediator) on September 17th 1948, along with his aide, Col. Serot, Lord Moyne (British Minister Resident) in 1944 in Cairo, the random murder of civilians- at the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem on 13th December 1947, in Deir Yassin on April 9th, 1948, at the Jaffa Gate in Jerusalem on January 7th 1948, and so on, and so on.

Electing former terrorists as head of state is nothing new, nor is it particular to the Middle East- Eamon de Valera became Eire's leader, Jomo Kenyatta in Kenya, Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, Nelson Mandela in South Africa, and so on.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I realize it is nothing new, molly bloom, but I was pointing out the fact that Israel has elected terrorists, especially when they state that the Pals have elected a terrorist in Arafat.

[Zevico]

the assassination of Count Folke Bernadotte

Never heard of that one. Source?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Never heard of that one. Source?

Your kidding? That's the most famous one. There was a big case on this whether the UN could sue the state of Israel for this action. The I.C.J. ruled that the UN had international personality and could sue. It's called The Reperations Case. It doesn't have the facts, however.

If you want cites:

http://www.mideastfacts.com/bernadotte_hirst.html

Count Bernadotte died a few minutes after the shooting, and three days later the assassins identified themselves as Hazit Hamoledeth (Fatherland Front), a subgroup of the Stern Gang.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Count_Bernadotte

He was assassinated, along with UN observer Colonel André Serot, on September 17th in Jerusalem by members of the Zionist extremist "Stern gang", also known as "Lehi".

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/folke.html

During the fight for Jewish statehood, extremist military groups sometimes resorted to the use of terrorist tactics. One such instance occurred in 1948 when members of the Jewish underground organization LEHI (Fighters for the Freedom of Israel) killed UN Peace Mediator Count Folke Bernadotte to protest his diplomatic efforts to modify the Palestine partition plan.

[Berzerker]

Azazel -

No, but I promise to pay you for that matress I took from you when your brother pays me for my couch.

As if that's even moral, a Palestinian who was robbed of their land isn't the brother of an Arab dictator who stole from Jews.

The comparison doesn't hold water because there no nationhood that was abolished.

Sure there was, the Ottoman's did what the Nazis did - abolish nationhood of the countries they conquered. Besides, since when is it moral to steal other people's land based on the rationalisation that the victims weren't a nation? Human rights belong to humans, not nations.

No in NYC, but they do it in other places.

And would these attacks be happening if there was no conflict over those lands?

Yep. Israel is held as the victim by the world opinion.

I was talking about the US media, not world opinion.

Sloppy? Not in relation to other military operations.

Then account for the numbers. When I mention them you say "heavy equipment" is responsible (whatever that means).

Why, thank you for ignoring the intent discussion once again!

The pot speaketh.

Killing civilians should be avoided as much as possible. But if groups don't abide the rules of war, and hide in population centers, it shouldn't and doesn't give them protection. You'd be rewarding the crime if you would.

LIke I said, use a machine gun on a crowd because someone shot at you. That would certainly account for 3x as many Arab deaths. Keep going, you've almost justified suicide bombers since government personnel live among the general populace too.

That swings both ways. The arab refugee problem, and the jewish displacement problem were created at the same time.

By whom? Did Palestinians displace European Jews? Did European Jews displace Palestinians? If someone breaks into my home, can I now break into yours? That seems to be your logic.

No you said that they've elected terrorists. Ariel Sharon isn't a terrorist, and never was one. Arafat was one ( I am not sure about his current status. )

You said yourself Sharon has some "adventures" to answer for, it sure sounds like he was involved in a mass slaughter. Didn't you say that was part of his plan? 9/11 was part of OBL's plan. But haven't you been reading the thread? Begin was a terrorist, and so was Sharon.

Because they weren't sovereign lands belonging to "the arabs" when the settlements were built.

I see. And you say all these settlements would be removed if peace was accepted? Is that even politically possible?

[Az]

As if that's even moral, a Palestinian who was robbed of their land isn't the brother of an Arab dictator who stole from Jews.

then why do they keep saying they're brothers all of the time?

seriously, though, expecting that the jews would pay reparations for the palestinian lands while not paying reparations for the jewish property as a part of an all-encompassing agreement is unfair.

Sure there was, the Ottoman's did what the Nazis did - abolish nationhood of the countries they conquered. Besides, since when is it moral to steal other people's land based on the rationalisation that the victims weren't a nation? Human rights belong to humans, not nations.

then controlling someone's land isn't stealing it! Lands belonging to sovereigns switch hands while sovereigns change. With regards to private lands, the lands remained in private hands during Ottoman and British rule. Just because your land is in the sovereign territory of the US, doesn't mean that the US government owns it!

WRG to palestinian refugees, and compensation for their land, see previous discussion.

And would these attacks be happening if there was no conflict over those lands?

So you propose to always avoid conflict even if you're right? How very un-american of you.

I was talking about the US media, not world opinion.

Well, obviously we were talking about different things. For some reason, I weigh the latter a bit more than the former.

The pot speaketh.

what? I've been addressing the intent issue all along. You're the one who always compared numbers and gave intent no regard.

LIke I said, use a machine gun on a crowd because someone shot at you. That would certainly account for 3x as many Arab deaths. Keep going, you've almost justified suicide bombers since government personnel live among the general populace too.

you wouldn't be a lawyer, by any chance? TARGETTING COMBATANTS IS OK. SUICIDE BOMBERS DON'T TARGET COMBATANTS.

By whom? Did Palestinians displace European Jews? Did European Jews displace Palestinians? If someone breaks into my home, can I now break into yours? That seems to be your logic

No, but we again return to the proximity of palestinians and other arabs.
The comparison is also void because 'can' is irrelevant in a town where there is no police force.

You said yourself Sharon has some "adventures" to answer for, it sure sounds like he was involved in a mass slaughter. Didn't you say that was part of his plan? 9/11 was part of OBL's plan. But haven't you been reading the thread? Begin was a terrorist, and so was Sharon.

Having a nice time ignoring or falsifying all of what I've said? his 'adventure' was a military one. I didn't say that mass slaughter was part of his plan. The establishment of a friendly regime in Lebanon was.

I see. And you say all these settlements would be removed if peace was accepted? Is that even politically possible?

yes. Already happened in the past.

[Drake Tungsten]

Then get peace. Dont wanna know how, don't care who has to make the first move or who has the resolve for it, don't care who or how many people get irate about it.

Let's get to transferring, then.

[Dinner]

I freely acknowledge that 60 years ago, before the existence of an Israeli state, there were Jewish terrorist organizations that worked towards statehood. I also acknowledge that some members of these terror organizations even got into politics after the War of Independence. The point is Israel outlawed all of these terror organizations and people who continued membership in these organizations were put in jail. Have the Palestinians done the same

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ramo
Of course the agreement said that the Pals would be able to move across the highways. The point is that Israel would have control over these main highways. As I said earlier, not exactly a mark of sovereignty.

To my understanding neither side could be denied use of these movement corridors. I suppose this could be considered a violation of sovereignty but then so would the movement corridor which connects the West Bank to Gaza. The reality is both sides need check point free movement corridors or else they would become cantons.

Except that parts of the occupied territories that had the water resources would conveniently be annexed by Israel.

True the settlers often settled on the best land but the choice now is between forcably relocating hundreds of thousands of unwilling people or simply adjusting borders so that most Jews are in Israel and most Palestinians are in Palestine.

Again, the point is that Israel has ultimate control over Pal airspace.

Where does it say this in the agreement? I'm sure you can find the actual Clinton peace treaty on the internet if you wanted to.

[our_man]

Not wanting to get OT here, but I just had to respond to molly bloom's consideration of Eamon de Valera as a terrorist. While there are plenty of people that would argue Collins a terrorist, I have never heard of anyone suggesting de Valera before.

First of all, the Easter Rising (and his involvement) were not terrorist actions. The Volunteers simply went in and occupied public buildings. The British Army then tried to wipe them out and consequently destroyed a large part of the city centre.

During the War of Independence, he spent almost all of his time in the States, trying to win support for the Irish State (because the Irish delegation wasn't even allowed to present their case for self-deteremination at Versailles). He was also in jail in England (or on the run) for some time. Consequently he did not have much involvement in the War of Independence; in his absence Collins was the one who assumed the mantle of leadership.

Similarly, while he no doubt contributed to the start of the Civil War, he was not involved with the anti-Treaty IRA forces. Again, he was in jail for a large part of this period, where he couldn't do much.

So please, explain to me how Eamon de Valera is a terrorist.

[Az]

Of course the agreement said that the Pals would be able to move across the highways. The point is that Israel would have control over these main highways. As I said earlier, not exactly a mark of sovereignty

erm, what agreement? Taba didn't talk about controlling the highways...

[Dinner]

Originally posted by our_man
First of all, the Easter Rising (and his involvement) were not terrorist actions. The Volunteers simply went in and occupied public buildings. The British Army then tried to wipe them out and consequently destroyed a large part of the city centre.

The Easter Rising was not a peaceful action and the partisapants most certainly had arms. They did not however resport to the type of terrorism which became the hallmark of the IRA and they did mostly confine themselves to shooting at police or soldiers. That is in their credit.