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

[Ben Kenobi]

The problem is not that there were other areas offered, the Jews were offered land in Ethiopia. The whole point of the Jews wanting Palestine is that this is where Judea used to be.

Now, even if the Europeans offered them land in Europe, I doubt the Jews would have taken any other land other than Palestine.

[Berzerker]

Then, and I believe you're right, I say screw 'em. They chose their bed, let these people over there fight it out without help from the US. Sorry to be so cold, but their dispute is costing lives over here making my family less safe.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Sandman
That said, I cannot understand why the Palestinians are criticised for wanting to 'drive the Jews into the sea', when a portion of Israel's government wants to drive the Palestinians into the desert. It's hypocritical to demand a crackdown on radical Palestinian groups without a similar crackdown on the Israeli side. MY suggestion: Offer to outlaw some of the settler parties in exchange for the Palestinians clamping down on Hamas etc. Fat chance that'll happen, of course.

Note, a significant difference is that while you might have a FEW extreme Israeli government officials proposing such a policy it remains the essential policy of the PLO as embodied in their charter.

Article 15: The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national (qawmi) duty and it attempts to repel the Zionist and imperialist aggression against the Arab homeland, and aims at the the liquidation of the Zionist presence.

http://www.iris.org.il/plochart.htm

While there were reports in many western media sources in 1996 that the PLO had ammended their charter, this is not actually the case.

The PNC vote was taken in a closed session and the PNC and PLO have yet to release an official version of the resolution. Conflicting versions of the resolution's text appear today in the Arabic newspapers Al-Quds and Al-Ayyam, and in a release put out by the Jerusalem Media and Communications Center. The operative clauses in the JMCC version, which in the view of Peace Watch is the most accurate, states as follows: "First: The PNC delegates the legal committee to prepare a National Program; Second: The Program shall be presented to the Palestinian Council in a special session in accordance with the provisions of Article 33 of the Covenant for its adoption; Third: The Charter shall be amended by repealing all that contravenes the mutual letters of recognition between the PLO and the state of Israel."

This decision fails to meet the obligations laid out in Article XXXI (9) of the Oslo II accords in two respects. First, the actual amendment of the Covenant has been left for a future date. As of now, the old Covenant, in its original form, remains the governing document of the PLO, and will continue in this status until the amendments are actually approved. In legal terms, there is a sharp difference between calling for something to change and actually implementing the changes.

http://www.iris.org.il/pncvote.htm

Saying you'll get around to ammending the charter later doesn't actually affecect the contents of the charter untill you actually do so.

[Zevico]

The IDF is the moral equivalent of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the al_Aqsa brigades.

Che, how many Israelis here profess to wanting to kill as many people as possible if they become soldiers? What you are doing here is accusing every single Israeli on this board of being a cold hearted murderer and a racist, which is quite frankly absolutely false, as has been shown by their posts here and by the majority of Israeli's actions everywhere.

Again, roughly 3x as many Palestianians have been killed than Jews and we're supposed to believe this statistic reflects unintentional and intentional killings?

Berzerker, that comparison isn't a very good one: the IDF is in the territories perhaps daily while suicide bombers strike perhaps weekly or a few times a week in Israel. Moreover, when the IDF goes in, it usually has a gun battle with whoever it attempts to arrest/kill (depending on the target), so it quite likely that civilians will be accidentally shot in the crossfire. What this basically amounts to is that a tiny minority of Israelis really are horrible peopel and really do want to kill Palestinians whilst the rest do not. In comparison, a large minority (30%, according to a recent poll, I think) of Palestinians did not support any sort of ceasefire with Israel and prefer to support the killing of Israelis, whether civilian or not.

[Zevico]

David Ben-Gurion is the one you're thinking of - responsible for the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946, amongst other things.

Actually, it was the Irgun, headed by Menachem Begin. Ben Gurion was part of the Haganah, a non-terrorist organisation.
Begin and members of the Irgun claim that they phoned the hotel some time beforehand, giving civilians and staff their plenty of time to evacuate. This claim does have some logic behind it-if anyone was to be actually killed, especially civilians, the Irgun would lose some of its support base, become hated by many Jews, and generally just shoot itself in the foot. I do not believe it or disbelieve it personally, as I don't know of any motivations the Irgun could have for setting it off without informing the area.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


So refugee camp = terrorist camp now?

If it's a Palestinian refugee camp, then yes.

[Az]

So you guys will "compensate" for stolen land if other thieves will do the same? Gee, I'll stop murdering people if someone else does too.

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

That's a bogus argument, it doesn't matter if the people living there were a "nation". That's like saying the USSR could have morally kept eastern Europe since Germany conquered it first and abolished the victim's nationhood.

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

Yeah, all those people who are robbed of their land should just keep quiet and embrace the people who took their lands

Makes just as much sense as yours.

Apparently it is relevant or there wouldn't be a problem over there. Arabs aren't crossing the Atlantic to bomb Jews in NYC...

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

When one side is portrayed as causing all or most of the death and destruction while the other side has actually killed ~3x as many people, that argument takes on the appearance of a peculiarity to say the least.

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

Irrelevant? Hardly, over here we get a picture of brutal savages blowing up children while these numbers are rarely mentioned. Your "justification" for these numbers was "heavy equipment",
meaning you guys are just guilty of being sloppy?

Sloppy? Not in relation to other military operations.

If it's a war and killing civilians is acceptable (albeit perhaps lamentable?), then why complain about the bombings of civilians? Yes, ~3x as many Arabs are "mistakenly" killed...

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

You can't ignore recent history, the people who got screwed won't. And telling them they'll be compensated when someone else comensates you won't convince them you have the moral high ground.

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

You expressed confusion when I said both sides elect terrorists.

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. )

Ah, okay. But I thought that was sovereign lands belonging to the Arabs, so why are there any settlements there to begin with?

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

Btw, can you identify the source of your quotes, you mixed 3 people into your last post.

umm, ok, sorry about that.

[Whaleboy]

Here's my view.

I JUST DON'T CARE ANYMORE!!!

There was a time when I really actually cared about what was happening in the Middle East, and I thought it was a case of 6 of one, half a dozen of the other.

I am sick of the bickering, the fighting, the eye for eye, tooth for tooth reprisals, the biblical justifications, the endless meaningless circular points of view that never lead anywhere. I am sick of peace processes that go nowhere, and lead to yet more needless deaths on both sides. I am sick of people believing they are superior to another. We are all human for gods sake!

I don't care about the little details that politicians and zealots get stuck on. I don't care about the legal issues. I dont care about political convenience or injured prides. I dont care about the constant conflict of opinions, both on the ground and here. I just want peace and I don't give two ****s how we get it.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by orange
I love the assertion that all Israelis love Palestinians and all Palestinians want to kill all the Isrealis. It's bull****

Read the damn thread! It is explicitely stated that this is not the case! Damn, can't you read?

As for not knowing your history, Oerdin you show absolutely no knowledge of Sykes-Picot, Balfour, or the McMahon correspondence. Before you even attempt to get into a battle about Israeli soverignty due to the UN's declaration, why not do a little reading on at least those three very crucial parts of the story.

I am well aware of the Balfour decloration and all the rest. I've seen your past posts and I am most confindent that my pinky has more historical knowledge then you do.

[Whaleboy]

Now now, play nice

Oerdin: Are you a guitarist?

[Ming]

I agree... ATTACK THE ARGUMENTS... NOT THE POSTERS...

SO CHILL!

[Dinner]

Originally posted by GePap
Do these rulings show a moral superiority of the Israeli side? No. They show that the rule of law is followed in the Israeli side more often than the Palestinians side: only if you define following the law as inherently moral, regardless of the law does this conjure any sort of "moral superiority".

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.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by elijah
I JUST DON'T CARE ANYMORE!!!

I care. Part of the reason those *******s drove planes into our buildings is because of this crap.

[Whaleboy]

I care. Part of the reason those *******s drove planes into our buildings is because of this crap.

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.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ming
I agree... ATTACK THE ARGUMENTS... NOT THE POSTERS...

SO CHILL!

Ok, will do. I got upset because he diliberately mischaracterized the argument. In the future I will just accept when people do that it is because they have no real argument.