Israeli Dies As Retribution For Israel's Terrorism

[Az]

I think I let the other ones tackle todays bussiness on this one . I'll handle history.

Umm, Israel didn't exist in the 20's... And before the 20's, jews and arabs lived in peace. Jews were even encouraged to move to palestine by the arab muftis.

you don't know sh!t about this , do you ? where the **** did you get it from ?

Read some history of the region between 1900 and 1948. Try to read some actual history books, however, not ones published by Israel.

maybe british ones , from the authors of the Simpson committee.....

seriously , if you are such an expert , recommend me some REAL books

I looked at the articles in the guardian, and they follow quite closely to the NYTimes stories.

You know, a story critical of Israel could be because Israel deserves critisism... Think about that for a while.

damn , I criticize Israel all the time. I know that there are many things that are wrong about my country . but don't you think that ... maybe , just maybe , it is wrong to kill civilians? after all , the Guardian is always putting articles when Israel does so.

I don't think this is a troll. It reflects what a lot of palsetinians are thinking. and why should they thing otherwise? It is a fact that Abu Hanoud was put in jail by the PLO. It is a fact that Israel sent helicopter gunships to rocket the prison he was in. It is a fact that he escaped in the aftermath of the attack. No amount of Israeli propaganda can cover this up... So tell me, what conclusions should the palestinians draw from those facs?

how the hell do you know what palestinians are thinking ?
what is that Israeli propoganda **** ? did you ever read an Israeli newspaper ? you know what are you talking about ?

What is it tom Clancy is so fond of saying? Oh, yes, 'war is a just a robbery writ large'

quoting Tom Clancy ....



and after all said and done , what is your knowledge of the events around here in the early century ? seriously , tell me what you think you know about events here , so I can kick your ass once and for all. ( not literally , of course ... )

[TCO]

Natan, you have muddled the issues. The issue of wether the Isr. settlements on post-1967 conquerred territory has to be settled on its own merits. As does every such issue. I mean if Isr. thinks it's their land shouldn't they just annex it? (I admit to being ignorant of the exact legal nature of current status. but the land must have some ultimate owner. Either a pre-1967 Jordanian individual or the Jordanian govt. So don't you have to annex/condemn it?)

Anyway...I did not hear Gnu argue for justifying terorrist actions. I think he just argued the merit of the settlements themselves. (I admit to not reading every single cut and paste...but that was the impression that I had.)

Ok? Now come back out of your corner swinging!!

[Natan]

Originally posted by GP
Natan, you have muddled the issues. The issue of wether the Isr. settlements on post-1967 conquerred territory has to be settled on its own merits.

But I'm talking about the presence of Israeli troops, not the settlements. That's in a another thread.

I mean if Isr. thinks it's their land shouldn't they just annex it? (I admit to being ignorant of the exact legal nature of current status. but the land must have some ultimate owner. Either a pre-1967 Jordanian individual or the Jordanian govt. So don't you have to annex/condemn it?)

It seems fair to me to say that Israel is temporarily maintaining control of the area until its status can be determined. The Allies held control of Germany after WWII without annexing it, and eventually set up two states with altered borders.

Anyway...I did not hear Gnu argue for justifying terorrist actions. I think he just argued the merit of the settlements themselves. (I admit to not reading every single cut and paste...but that was the impression that I had.)

Ok? Now come back out of your corner swinging!!

GNU is arguing that all Israelis, whether living on settlements or elsewhere, are legititimate targets for killing because of the presence of Israeli soldiers (and possibly because of the civillian presence as well) in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The ostensible reason is that they are supporting those Israelis actually in these regions, and I'm trying to show that:
1) This logic leads us to side with Iraq and al-Qaeda against the United States.

2) This logic is not self-consistent, because it uses various treaties and sources selectively.

[TCO]

Natan,

Too many damn ME threads!! Hard to keep all the stuff seperate.

I think you're being a little bit coy regarding the settlements. If they are just holding on to that land while figuring out what to do with it:
-it's been a long time...no?
-putting up houses for people (who aren't the landowners) certainly seems like you want to take that land. So fine just admit it and take it.
-Your example of American occupation of Ge is also a little strained...as we did not exploit the territory by putting people there...maybe a better example could be the seizing of E. German property and land* by the Soviet puppet state.

Let's let Gnu tell us if he thinks the prescence of settlements/troops/ISR. state/whatever justifies terrorist attacks. I di not get that impression. But if he agrees, I'll withdraw from my referee position.

*I'm not saying those two case are the same in degree but rather in kind.

[Natan]

Originally posted by GP
I think you're being a little bit coy regarding the settlements. If they are just holding on to that land while figuring out what to do with it:
-it's been a long time...no?

Sure, but it's a sensitive area. Negotiations have been underway for 8 years. It seems quite common in the Middle East to leave things in a strange state rather than create a potentially negative change i.e., campaigns run by banned political parties, regulations governing banned activity, etc. The truth is, Israel doesn't have a clue what it's going to do with 95% of the West Bank, so it just hasn't done anything with them.

-putting up houses for people (who aren't the landowners) certainly seems like you want to take that land. So fine just admit it and take it.

Well, that's what Israel did in East Jerusalem and the Golan heights, but the situation in the West Bank is a little less clear.

-Your example of American occupation of Ge is also a little strained...as we did not exploit the territory by putting people there...maybe a better example could be the seizing of E. German property and land* by the Soviet puppet state.

Right, but there are two separate issues which I think need to be adressed separately.

Let's let Gnu tell us if he thinks the prescence of settlements/troops/ISR. state/whatever justifies terrorist attacks. I di not get that impression. But if he agrees, I'll withdraw from my referee position.

Let me quote from CyberGNU's post above:
"1) Israel occpying palestine => Israel aggressor => Palestine justified in killing Israelis to end occupation. If Israel does not want their civilians killed they can end the occupation at any time."

[CyberGnu]

Umm, Israel didn't exist in the 20's... And before the 20's, jews and arabs lived in peace. Jews were even encouraged to move to palestine by the arab muftis.

you don't know sh!t about this , do you ? where the **** did you get it from ?

First off, calm down, OK?

This is the bibliography from the EB:
Among many recent works on Ottoman Palestine, the following are the broadest and most valuable: Moshe Ma'oz (ed.), Studies on Palestine During the Ottoman Period (1975); Amnon Cohen, Palestine in the 18th Century: Patterns of Government and Administration (1973); David Kushner (ed.), Palestine in the Late Ottoman Period: Political, Social, and Economic Transformation (1986); and Neville J. Mandel, The Arabs and Zionism Before World War I (1976, reprinted 1980).

Some useful general studies that cover the 20th century are Baruch Kimmerling and Joel S. Migdal, Palestinians: The Making of a People (1993); Fred J. Khouri, The Arab-Israeli Dilemma, 3rd ed. (1985); Howard M. Sachar, A History of Israel, 2 vol. (1979-87); Rosemary Sayigh, Palestinians: From Peasants to Revolutionaries (1979), a collection of interviews with camp Palestinians in Lebanon; Bruce R. Kuniholm and Michael Rubner, The Palestinian Problem and United States Policy: A Guide to Issues and References (1986), with an extensive bibliography; Pamela Ann Smith, Palestine and the Palestinians, 1876-1983 (1984); and Ian J. Bickerton and Carla L. Klausner, A Concise History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 2nd ed. (1995).

The period of the British mandate is covered by Tarif Khalidi, "Palestinian Historiography: 1900-1948," Journal of Palestine Studies, 10(3):59-76 (Spring 1981); Adnan Mohammed Abu-ghazaleh, Arab Cultural Nationalism in Palestine During the British Mandate (1973); Sami Hadawi, Bitter Harvest: A Modern History of Palestine, 4th rev. and updated ed. (1991); Ann Mosely Lesch, Arab Politics in Palestine, 1917-1939: The Frustration of a Nationalist Movement (1979); Y. Porath, The Emergence of the Palestinian-Arab National Movement, 1918-1929, trans. from Hebrew (1974), and The Palestinian Arab National Movement: From Riots to Rebellion, 1929-1939, trans. from Hebrew (1977); Kenneth W. Stein, The Land Question in Palestine, 1917-1939 (1984); Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949 (1987); Conor Cruise O'Brien, The Siege: The Saga of Israel and Zionism (1986); Dan Horowitz and Moshe Lissak, Origins of the Israeli Polity: Palestine Under the Mandate (1978; originally published in Hebrew, 1977); and Wm. Roger Louis and Robert W. Stookey (eds.), The End of the Palestine Mandate (1985).

I've only read Mandel and Porath myself, but this should keep you occupied

If you want the short verison check out the EB.

damn , I criticize Israel all the time. I know that there are many things that are wrong about my country . but don't you think that ... maybe , just maybe , it is wrong to kill civilians? after all , the Guardian is always putting articles when Israel does so.

Well, I don't know if any of your relatives went to the gas chambers... But even if they didn't, aren't you pretty glad that the Allies defeated Germany? Even if it took killing over two million german civilians?

We don't live in the middle ages any more. Wars are not fought between two mercenary armies. That era ended with industrialism.

how the hell do you know what palestinians are thinking ?
what is that Israeli propoganda **** ? did you ever read an Israeli newspaper ? you know what are you talking about ?

I trust reporters in NYTimes to tell the truth... and I have a few palestinian friends. and yes, I browse through the jerusalem post occasionaly. But most of all it comes from the posts made by por-israelites... When statements such as 'there is no such thing as a palestinian' are perpetuated the reason is Israeli (jewish?) propaganda... As it has no basis in reality, yet according to one of the posters on this forum is featured in Israeli text books.

quoting Tom Clancy ....

Would you mind critizising the statement instead of the source? that's cheap and pointless... Considering that if Einstein says 2 + 2 =5, he is wrong... While if Bush says 2 + 2 =4, he is actually right.

[CyberGnu]

Repeating your mantra doesn't prove it. God knows how many times I've told you killing children isn't a good thing.

Of course it isn't. So help me stop israels occupation so more children won't be killed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PA+Fatah encouraging and engaging in terror against Israel => Arafat agressor => Israelis justified in killing

Again the key word is 'context'.

Israel occpying palestine => Israel aggressor => PA+Fatah encouraging and engaging in terror against Israel is justified.

You really seem to have problem with the concept of time as well.

If I hit you in the face, I'm the aggressor. If you hit me in the face, and I hit you back, you are the aggressor. If you hit me in the face and I shoot you in the leg, you are the aggressor. If I hit you in the face and you decide to give me a kiss, I am the aggressor.

Notice what all those things have in common? Yes, it is the very FIRST attack that decides who is the aggressor and who is the victim. Whatever happens AFTER doesn't change this fact.

So, let's try again, shall we?

Israel occupies palestinian land makes them what?

Yes, the aggressor!!!!!

Now can we get past this, you think, or do we really have to go trhough this every time?

How many times do I have to say, Kuwait is rightfully a province of Iraq?

No it isn't. If Quwait decided to join Iraq they could do so at any moment.

Wrong, the civillians are not in power, Saddam Hussein's secret police are.

Unfortunately, you can't make that distinction. Iraq as a nation attacked Quwait. Iraq as a nation must capitulate. Whether that occurs through toppling the goverment or defeat of the military capability is a question of feasibility.

As I asked dalgetti, are you actually disagreeing with the Allied bombings of Germany and Japan? Usually jews complain about how the allies didn't defeat Germany fast enough...

So if they had just killed 500 people, that would have been a justified response? Besides, why is there such a thing as proportionate response when you are defending yourself from military occupation? America could have ended its military, economic, and political support for Israel at any time

A proper response would have been to stop selling oil to the U.S..

I think a simple analysis of the constitution of Arafat's al-Fatah movement shows that Arafat never intended a peaceful solution.

And reality says something completely different.

War of destruction. nicht=not, krieg=war, vernichtungskrieg=war of making not. Hitler's term for the war in the east.

Still don't get it.

And Palestine isn't, but CyberGNU's doctrine seems to be based on some sort of outside moral calculation (probably in his head) which is uninfluenced by UN decisions, as evidenced by his insistence that attacks on civillians are a-okay.

I quite frankly don't understand what you are talking about...

If a civilian is part of an aggressor nation, that civilian is a legitimate target. AIAIK, the U.N. has never condemned the Allies for their role in WW2.


GP, my view is that Israel has themselves to blame for their casulties. I think aggression is wrong, and a state using violence against their neighbour should be defeated by any means necessary. After Japan attacked the U.S., this resulted in the nuking of two japanese cities. Israels occupation of palestine is resulting in civilian casualties from bombs etc.

Both could have been averted by Japan/Israel ending the aggression. In Japans case full capitulation, in Israels case a more moderate settlement.

It can be simplified up like this: If I hit you in the face, I have only my self to blame for whatever damage I contract as a result of my aggression.

[Natan]

Of course it isn't. So help me stop israels occupation so more children won't be killed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And a non-sequiter followed by a series of exclamation points really isn't an improvement.

If I hit you in the face, I'm the aggressor. If you hit me in the face, and I hit you back, you are the aggressor. If you hit me in the face and I shoot you in the leg, you are the aggressor. If I hit you in the face and you decide to give me a kiss, I am the aggressor.

Not really. Too abstract, and ignores the time between the act and the response, as well as the fact that Israel took the areas in a defensive war (Dalgetti's department) The fact is, the Palestinians agreed to abandon terrorism and they never did. Furthermore, I don't see administering a piece of land as an attack. Such logic is silly. Israel didn't take the area from the Palestinians, it took it from Jordan, a distinct entity which no longer makes a claim on the area anyway. So the act can't be considered agression against the Palestinians.

No it isn't. If Quwait decided to join Iraq they could do so at any moment.

Not really, because Kuwait was (and is) a dictatorship. You might as well say that the Palestinians in East Jerusalem can join the PA at any moment.

Unfortunately, you can't make that distinction. Iraq as a nation attacked Quwait. Iraq as a nation must capitulate. Whether that occurs through toppling the goverment or defeat of the military capability is a question of feasibility.

As I asked dalgetti, are you actually disagreeing with the Allied bombings of Germany and Japan? Usually jews complain about how the allies didn't defeat Germany fast enough...

That's the most extrem case imaginable, and a tough one. It's a situation where America had to choose between civillian death and civillian death - now my belief is that the bombings were the right decision, but it's a debatable matter. It's irrelevant to the Israeli-Palestinian situation because neither side is really trying to exterminate the other, regardless of your demented propaganda.

A proper response would have been to stop selling oil to the U.S..

Iraq doesn't sell oil to the US as far as I know. Besides, the Palestinians certainly don't. But besides, you already said that if I hit you and you shoot me in the leg, that's self-defense. So either you admit that your doctrine defines the 9/11 attacks as self defense, or you retract your statement.

And reality says something completely different.

Um, written statements are reality. As are physical actions, like praising terrorists, giving them free right to operate where they please, and failure to provide a single idea at the Camp David talks.

If a civilian is part of an aggressor nation, that civilian is a legitimate target.

Right, just as the US was an aggressor nation, providing guns, money, UN votes and even military training and emergency resupply to Israel. In fact, many Israelis and even settlers are American citizens.

[CyberGnu]

And a non-sequiter followed by a series of exclamation points really isn't an improvement.

How is that a non-sequiter? If you think the killing of children is wrong, you should be striving for ending the conflict, not perpetuating it.

Not really, because Kuwait was (and is) a dictatorship. You might as well say that the Palestinians in East Jerusalem can join the PA at any moment.

Not comparable. Regardless of rulership, both you and me know that the quwaitis did not want to belong to Iraq.

That's the most extrem case imaginable, and a tough one. It's a situation where America had to choose between civillian death and civillian death - now my belief is that the bombings were the right decision, but it's a debatable matter. It's irrelevant to the Israeli-Palestinian situation because neither side is really trying to exterminate the other, regardless of your demented propaganda.

Ahh, so we've established that civilian casualties for the enemy is justified if it spares civilians casualties for your own people. The five children killed last week thus more than justifies palestinian violence against Israel in any way, shape or form.

Iraq doesn't sell oil to the US as far as I know.

Well, AFAIK, Iraq wasn't involved in the WTC incident, was it?

Besides, the Palestinians certainly don't.

Well, AFAIK, Palestine wasn't involved in the WTC incident, was it?

Umm, were you deliberatly putting spurious sentences in there, or were you just really sleapy?

Furthermore, half of the hijackers as well as bin laden himself came from Saudi Arabia, the worlds largest oil producer.

Um, written statements are reality. As are physical actions, like praising terrorists, giving them free right to operate where they please, and failure to provide a single idea at the Camp David talks.

Praising terrorists, a product of the failed negotiations. 'Free right to operate' - Not true, Failing to provide a single idea at the Camp David talks - a bizarre argument.

I guess you meant that instead of being honest and stating what the palestinian people required to accept a deal, he should have required Palestine, Israel and little bit of Brazil, just for good measure, only so he could pare down his 'demands' in negotiations?

Unlike Israeli apologists, a realist acknowledges that how sincere someone is about compromising depends on how close to a just settlement it takes the parties, not how far from their arbitrarily stated starting positions they are willing to go.

If I hit you in the face, I'm the aggressor. If you hit me in the face, and I hit you back, you are the aggressor. If you hit me in the face and I shoot you in the leg, you are the aggressor. If I hit you in the face and you decide to give me a kiss, I am the aggressor.


Not really.

Ahh, I guess this is the root of the problem. I'm sorry to have to say this, but this shows you clearly are delusional... I'm sorry, but your perceptions of reality doesn;t seem to fit with the rest of humanitys.

GP, would you mind commenting on that?

[TCO]

Please tell me clearly what you want commented on. I can't follow the thread anymore.

[Sprayber]

Well, I see that everyone followed ole Sprayber's advice.

[Fidel]

Originally posted by Chris 62
ME threads crack me up.

I just LOVE how naieve many of our "friends" are.

Hey Moby, why should the Jews do squat for a people who have activly tried to kill them for 50+ years?

War criminals....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

This stops when the islamics stop killing, and not before.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

Back to our Dookie bashing:

If you notice, he added a question mark after his thumbs up, showing in my mind that he questions this act, not supports it.

I still think he's nuts, but that's just an opinion, and I doubt he supports murder.

it's all good. this is a trolling thread, after all. but chris62's level of infantileness is right there with the thread starter. you gotta love the 'coffee' line...pretty much sums up the sad chris62 character . such command of subject! such depth! hahahah

[MOBIUS]

the simple observation is that the palestinians/arabs never stopped targetting civilians as a part of their warfare against Israel , since the 20s.

IIRC Jews lived in peace in Palestine for hundreds of years under the rule of the Ottomans. What changed in the 20’s was the rise in popularity of extreme nationalism in Zionism who wanted to carve their own living space for Jews out of what was already an independent nation.

The whole premise of Zionism is an invasion and take over of another nation’s land! Is it any wonder that some of the local population reacted angrily to hundreds of thousands of the these invaders especially when their express purpose was to set up a Jewish State!!?

Before anyone gets their knickers in a twist about my use of the word ’invade’

This is the definition of the word from
The Cambridge Dictionary

invade

verb

to enter (a place) when not wanted, often by using force or in large numbers

Now the Jews were welcome in small numbers as a valued minority group by the Arabs - not hundreds of thousands every year answering a clear doctrine to take over their country!!!

Most of these were illegal immigrants who were breaking the law - and yet for some reason they are seen by many Israelis as pioneering heroes!

So although Israel lionises Jewish illegal immigrants, she refuses the legitimate return of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees back to the in Israel that they fled fom in fear of their lives...

Zionism is an aggressive doctrine - how else can you take over a land for yourself from people who didn't want to be ruled by you?

errm.... so driveby shootings of civilians , mortar attacks and firing on civilian buildings are OK , after all , noone got killed , right ?

Well sorry, they obviously didn't make the news here...

I'd be interested in seeing those links though for the past few weeks so I can get my facts straight.

MOBIUS : I don't accept any quotes from guardian , since it only attacks Israel and doesn't even stop to think whether the palestinians have done something wrong . that is unless you prove me wrong and show me an article proving otherwise.

So all these stories I've been reading about the 5 Israeli boys killed etc are completely untrue? If they're so false, point out their falsehoods - just don't make a blanket generalisation without backing it up!

Besides, even when I quote articles from Ha'aretz (Israeli paper), I still get told by your lot that they're not to be accepted as they're a commie PA sympathising paper or some such...

Best not even mention B'Tselem huh?

Funny how the Guardian regularly wins international awards for it's journalism in the ME - you'd think it was for writing balanced fact based articles wouldn't you...?

I try to approach your statements seriously , but then I realize you simply troll . I have difficulty facing trolls . sorry.

Where's the trolling in the two articles I've used?

WTC: Israel is consistently the US' largest recipient of financial and military aid every year! The reason the US was attacked in this manner and not Israel is that the US is a 'soft target' - Al-Qaeda would never have been able to pull off the same stuff with Israeli airliners! Besides, you want to cut off the support at the source, hence the US is the militant Arab world's no.1 enemy!

I mean that's the reason all these terrorists give for their attacks of the US. Are they lying? Maybe OBL is sore at the US cos he had a MacDonalds that gave him food poisoning?

So, is that a Troll? No.

As for Hamoud being the victim of a rocket attack whilst incarcerated in a Palestinian cell, it happened!!! They didn't just use missiles - they used 1 ton bombs! So the precedent is there for it to happen again!

So, is that a Troll? No, the fact is that you have no argument, so you try to sully my good name by calling me a Troll...

Hey Moby, why should the Jews do squat for a people who have activly tried to kill them for 50+ years?

War criminals....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

This stops when the islamics stop killing, and not before.

There speaks the voice of ignorance...

Fine, keep your head in the sand - there's plenty in this post alone to challenge your assumptions on who the aggressors are, the reasons behind why a good number of Israeli PM's past and present could be considered guilty of war crimes and why as the dominant power and occupying force in this conflict, it behooves Israel to be the one that stops the killings and the 'pre-emptive' assassinations...

Never has Eli posted joy over palestinian civilians dying.

Nice try, Siro...

Cyber wasn't talking about civilians, he was talking about the assassinations. Eli's glee over some of these deaths and IDF military strikes has been palpable in the extreme!

While these are clearly 'bad guys' that are dying in the majority of cases, the fact that Eli should derive joy from their deaths is a little troubling to say the least...

quote:

Paikitis, I think it is more like 'another 10 are born'.


Irrelevant.

Irrelevant!!?

No - it's a graphic example of why you don't understand that revenge strikes, assassinations etc is worsening your security and not improving it!

Take the Khmer Rouge - they were just some tiny group of crackpot Marxists (uses that term very loosely!) until the US started bombing the Cambodian countryside indiscriminately and turn the population to them. Next thing you know, they've taken over the country and killed between 1-2 million of their own people!

If someone killed someone in your family and you knew that your only chance of 'justice' was to fight back, would you - or would you just meekly accept it?

You would fight back! So why do you expect the Palestinians to meekly take it?

Unless you know a better way to get the idea that "terror is a good way to promote our goals" out of the palestinian mind.

Yeah, it's called stopping killing them and giving their country back (the occupied territories). Easy really, still can't figure out why you haven't worked that out for yourself...

Assassinations are effective in the mid term. In the short term it causes more anger and lust for retribution. But since the leaders are dead, things don't go well and it lasts for a long time. After half a year or more, a new leader springs about

I'd say those leaders are being replaced as fast as Israel's assassinating them actually - you still haven't figured out that Martyrdom itself is a powerful weapon in the Palestinian arsenal.

And what was ****ing camp david?

THe settlements simply show that Israel wanted a peace deal according to it's own terms, by "setting facts on the ground". True, quite immoral, but everything is subjective.

So you're admitting that Camp David was unfair to the PALS, that's what I like about you - eventually you actually admit these things, that's what keeps me posting!

Still, setting up more houses != Targeting Children and Civilians

Well if you read one of my links in my 1st post you'll find that Palestinian houses were bulldozed only last week I'm thinking that Women and children lived in those...

How would you like it if one day your next door neighbour decided to extend his property by bulldozing your house and stealing your land!!?

Question: Do the Pals get paid compensation for getting their houses bulldozed or are they just left homeless to fend for themselves!?

The simple observation that PA never stopped propoganda and never put a decent lock on terrorists should tell you that they never intended to end hostilities.

No, as I've mentioned earlier, Israel has already bombed prisons it knows to contain militants - to lock these people up would be giving them the death sentence in the face of Israeli assassinations! I don't think so!

What is more corageous?
Targetting little children and civilians (what pals are doing now)
or Stopping violence and starting peace talks (what we hoped pals would do)

The targeting of civilians is unacceptable even if it is a part of a hostile population.

Um, most of the dead Palestinians are actually civilians - like those 5 boys last week for example...

How can you condemn Palestinian atrocities without condemning your own!!?

Fact: More than 4 times as many Palestinians have died as Israelis - most of those civilian!

I said I accept the fact, that since Ariel was the minister of defense, thus commander of the chief of the IDF general staff, he has responsibility over what hapenned, since IDF allowed the phalanges to walk in the camps of Sabra and Shatilla.

However, the massacare that followed was not foreseen and the comitte investigating into it, found Ariel Sharon not guilty of it, as he was proved of not knowing about that massacare until after the fact.

Was it negligence to let the Christian phalanges in? Yes.

Could it been clearly expected? No. Since infact it wasn't expected. Israel, according to foreign sources, trained the phalanges to the level of an army with army codes.

Of course the fact that the Phalange President (Jamayil sp.) had been assassinated the day before had absolutely no bearing on thoughts of revenge when they were invited by the IDF into the camps!!!

Then there's these claims about those that 'disappeared' in the hands of the IDF (see my link in 1st post)...

Either way Sharon had to step down, which IMO is a tacit admission of guilt. Which brings me to the next question - if he was not fit for the job as defence minister, how the hell did he get to become PM!!?

I think the words 'cover' and 'up' spring to mind here - cover ups happen all the time, so why not here...

Is the field commander of the christian phalanges, currently a Minister in the Lebanese Government, as appointed by Syria, guilty of war crimes? Yes

Yes and he should be brought to justice too! So, you're saying it's OK because he did it?

I won't face other Mobiusy claims since they are trolling, and one needs an IQ only of over 60 to see that.

Where's the Trolling? Is Sharon not already under investigation for War Crimes in Belgium?

I like asking this question, so I'll ask it again... "When are we going to see Sharon come to the UK for a state visit?"

The answer is never because he knows he risks be indicted for war crimes!

It's not a Troll - it's a fact!

Another fact is that you refuse to answer my posts because you can't!

So far you've admitted to me that Sharon is guilty of war crimes by proxy, that Begin and Shamir were terrorists and now you've just admitted that Israel's peace 'proposals' were/are blatantly unfair...

Is it any wonder you don't want to answer my posts - or that the pro Israel brigade never answers my really meaty questions such as the ongoing expansion of the Settlements by bulldozing and stealing Palestinian houses and land!!!

C'mon hotshot - gimme all ya got!

I still don't know that german word, btw. Assuming it is a display of your incomprehension of 'context', however, so I won't delve further into it.

Best not to - seeing as he appears to be associating you with a nazi term...

Aggression = bad

Repeating your mantra doesn't prove it. God knows how many times I've told you killing children isn't a good thing.

Seems like Cyber needs to keep repeating it in the vain hope that something that is patently obvious might actually get through to you sometime soon...

Perhaps you should tell Israel about stopping killing children? I'm willing to bet that Israel has killed more women and children than the terrorists since this conflict started...

[Eli]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
The whole premise of Zionism is an invasion and take over of another nation’s land!

Yes, I guess that the Palestinian(and this word got it's modern meaning only after 1967) independant state that was here before the Jews came was conquered.

[Superpopanz]

Fact 1: The UN proposed the partitioning of Palestine into two independent States, one Palestinian Arab and the other Jewish, with Jerusalem internationalized (Resolution 181 (II) of 1947).
Fact 2: On 14 May 1948, the UN general-assembly voted for the partition plan and the United Kingdom relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the Partition Plan. At the the first day of independence , all surrounding arab states, tribes and groups declared war on Israel with the outspoken intention to "push the 600000 jews back into the sea".
Fact 3: In the following 4 wars, the arabs got their butt wiped in 75%.
Fact 4: The foundation of Israel has been decided by the UN, the arabs didnt accept the solution , waged war and lost. Thus the arabs have also lost ALL moral and official right on their part of the land, END OF STORY!

It is so pitiful to watch the arabs now cry for the UN. Had they accept the solution, everything would be entirely different. They wanted it all, they got nothing. Imagine if Germany wanted East Prussia back! Now they have to take what Israel offers them. If the US withdraws from the game, the palestinians will be wiped off at the next opportunity, bombing, ambush whatever. No sovereign country would take this **** for long, the US is the one who put down the top of the boiling pot for they must stay got with the arab oil. There is no chance for peace. I always thought if Rabin had not been assasinated, they could have done it. This is a MYTH! I spoke with several MODERATE arabs of Jerusalem and Hebron, very warm and friendly people btw, bussiness men, guides, cab driver, family fathers etc. and they UTTERLY destroyed the myth! All what was negotiated and agreed in Oslo and Camp David was ONLY the very first step to those moderate arabs, plain and simple! Whatfor to make compromise, if you know damn well the others will break it anyway. How long can the strongest society follow the path of peace if it gets attacked daily and weekly by terrorists attacks?

All of you "good-human", pacifists, "friends of the underdog", left and right anti-jews and anti-americans, your all hipocrisy makes me SICK! Your utter one-eyedness and ideologic emotionality never let you see both sides of the story, your incapability to understand history and daily reality results ultimately in such a disgusting and flatout dumb-impertinence to ask a democratic country to commit suicid in favour of an archaic , brutal and corrupt society and THIS is what makes the line between your kind and any moderate, balanced and realistic person.
http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/46c...2560e5005c1f2b!OpenDocument