Israel will react very very very very seriously

[Sirotnikov]

Re: i hope i got my yiddish right

Originally posted by paiktis22
osweld, siro thanks petseleh

I'm not that good with Yiddish, esp. with a greek accent.

Natan, Help?

[axi]

Siro, this reminded me of a question i've always wanted to ask you:

during the 50s and 60s, children in a kibutz lived in thier own 'dorm' apart from parents

Aren't kibbutzes modelled after the communist collectives? If so, how do you explain Israel's experiments with communist organisation forms? Since you hate communism, you've probably found an explaination about this.

Any information you have on the kibbutzes, please feel free to share it with us. I am eager to learn.

[Natan]

So basically, the Palestinians would be ag9ining the same sort of military ability in a minor way that israel has now- you keep saying it is a war, so how can you then deny your 'enemy' the same capabilities? Hobbes, no lover of freedom, stated that the one right no man can be denied is the right of self-defense, and this applies to both sides.

Did I ever claim that the act of smuggling Kassam-2 rockets into the West Bank was immoral? No, I don’t believe I did. I merely brought them up to show that the Palestinians have more military capacity than they are currently deploying. You’re simply reading your own pre-concieved prejudices into my words.

Its easy to continue to deny that this is the Palestinian people rising up, since that would force Israel to ask why, not just to call Arafat a murderer.

Even if we did accept that it was a “popular uprising” you have to have been reading a lot of Fatah propaganda to believe that the righteous rage of the Palestinian people is just and cannot be defeated. Just because a lot of people want something, doesn’t make it right.

I say, why not let the US do an Afghanistan on the West bank and Gaza, bomb, invade, root out the Terrorists, and then... form a democratic, viable Palestinina state on Palestinian land, ie, 100% of the Occupied territories? Could Sharron's government ever allow that? I mean, hey, it would solve the military problem, no?

100% would require too much movement of people - but trading the Gush Etzion and Maaleh adumim Jewish areas of the West Bank for the Umm Al-Fahm Arab area in Israel would work, and I think that replacing the PA with a Democratic state would be a good idea, assuming Israel was assured that a Democratic state wouldn’t also support terrorism. The thing is, I don’t think the EU or the US share this view with me, so it’s a moot point.

cause you do see all that terror in jordan, right?

Firstly, there’s more to a country’s well-being than terrorism, and secondly, Jordan certainly has its own problems with Islamism. Of course, their job is a lot easier since they don’t have a pourous border with an enemy which supports terror against it.

Is that so? So why have sanctions on Iraq, since all it is doing is breaking international agreements.

Well, the theory behind them is that they help hasten the end of the Baath regime and prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Why are NK and Iran an 'axis of evil' as you believe, since all they are doing is breaking international agreements?

Because they’re both tyrannies developing nuclear weapons which they apparently plan to use on others in their respective regions. Almost every nation breaks international agreements, I don’t think the world’s axis of rotation is an evil one.

Why was Karine A such a bad thing, if all the PA was doing was breaking international agreements?

See above response at top of the post.

Why should the Arabs ahve accepted the 1947 partition, if that was only an INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT!!?

As any supporter of the Palestinian cause on this webboard will tell you, it was only a General Assembly resolution and therefore non-binding anyway.

International agreements were not made to be broken. Sorry, but only ignorant or immoral people belive that Laws were made to be broken.

International agreements are not real laws. A law which is not enforced isn’t really a law. You can’t have an unenforced law and then selectively apply it to your enemies. It just doesn’t work. And when a whole body of laws, like UN resolutions and international treaties, go completely unenforced, they are not binding. An international agreement (and I’m sure dindoc will back me up here) is binding in the sense that it is reciprocal - if one party violates its terms in dealing with another, then the other parties do not respect the terms of the treaty as regards to the offending party.

In 1956 it invaded Egypt in cahoots with france and Great britian, and was really hoping at that time for an excuse to invade Jordan too.

Yes, because Egypt was supporting Fedayeen terrorist attacks on Israel. But I thought we were discussing recent history, like the last 15 years.

I, unlike some of the others here, have never called what palestinian extremist do anything other than murder, but a crime is a crime, and the crimes of others do not absolve one of their crimes, never will, NEVER.

You’re not so much interested in showing that both sides have committed crimes as in showing that they are morally equivalent. I agree completely with the former but utterly reject the latter.

We all know that we don't know anything that really happened since we were not there.

Okay, but don’t ever tell me then that the deal wasn’t good enough.

Besides, the settlers are armed (by israel) and fanatical.

False. How many settlers do you know? Most are there for the cheap housing, and most are unarmed. This is just a silly stereotype.

Any real concessions, that forced settlers out, would start a civil war in israel.

Extremely, extremely, unlikely, about on par with a revolution in America over the income tax. Firstly, most of the settlers would simply flee peacefully. The ones who wanted to stay would simply stay - the idea that they would somehow move to Israel and somehow engage in armed conflict against it is absurd. They’d be too busy fighting Palestinians at home to even consider it.

The fanatics killed one Israeli prime minister already, they probably have no qualmss killing more.

You know, fanatics (and quacks, but the line between them is blurry) have killed a lot of American presidents, but I don’t think that really shows anything.

If this is true, how could Israel have been created at all? Arabs held most of the Land, had for centuries.

1) Not true - most of the land was state-owned by the time of the British mandate.
2) There is such a thing as land purchase.

If possesion is 9/10th the law, what right does Israel have to exist at ALL?

You may note that Israel possesses a certain amount of land, yes?

No, possesion is not 9/10th, the deed is.

I disagree. Once people have been living in a house for years, I don’t think its fair for the children or grandchildren of a previous inhabitant to come and demand it back.

Simply based, you are arguing based on the notion that MIGHT MAKES RIGHT. Well, sorry, that's immoral and wrong, and I will never play by such a twisted and inhuman rule!

Everyone agrees that there is a certain time after which land claims become forfeit. The only question is when. So I reject that charecterization of my position.

Most israeli's killed are not settlers but soldiers or civilians in israel.

Yes, but the rate of settlers killed is enormous. AFAIK, as a percentage of their population, it’s more comparable to that of the Palestinians than the Israelis. But the reason I bring it up is that the Palestinians, especially Fatah, consider all Jews beyond the green line to be legitimate targets.

Besides, there is a major difference. The israeli government subsidizes the housing, so, big settlements are not the actions of individuals, like trying to sneak accross the US-Mexico border- they are a policy of state, and an illegal one at that.

I don’t think that makes a difference for the people living there.

The question is, who is responsible for what, and what must they do to rectify their actions. neither side is yet willing to do what they must.

It seems to me that the first obligation anyone has here is a Palestinian obligation to abandon terrorism. If that doesn’t happen, nothing else can on either side.

The Zealots dies for their cause, so fanaticism is nothing new in the region.

2,000 years ago. I might as well say that Stalin isn’t so surprising, since he’s only comparable to Genghis Khan when it came to killing Russians.

Most people killing themselevs are also barely out of beign teenagers themselves.

Most are in their 20s, yes. So what? Its still a pretty unique phenomenon. And bear in mind, they don’t take suicidal people. It’s the Hamas policy - suicide is forbidden, only self-martyrdom is praiseworthy. So you have to enjoy your life to be an eligible candidate for human bomb.

To repeat my point ad-infinitum- what hamas, islamic Jihad, and parts of fatah do is criminal and immoral. That still does not absolve israel of its crimes.

The question here is not did Israel do anything wrong, but is Israel just as bad as hamas, Jihad Islami, and Fatah, and I think the answer is definitely no.

The US can go screw itself really.

That doesn’t really pertain to the question.

The EU is a far more important ally for the US than israel can ever be, and the EU does care far more about human rights than the US, and support for Israel there is weak, so it is not an impossibility.

I think you overestimate the extent of European pressure on the US and the willingness of the EU to exert such pressure. We’ll see.

Yet that is the line we have to work with, and that is the line that must be used.

Why? It’s an arbitrary line, and slavishly adhering to it doesn’t serve the goal of one state for Jews and one for Palestinians.

The Palestininans have the right to live in their land, just as the Israelis do. So, either a federation is formed for the whole land, or Israel gives back what it took in 1967, and the palestinians make a state out of that. Israel is still getting 78% of the land while certainly not being 78% of the people

If the Palestinians would like a nice share of the Negev desert so that they can have a nicer percentage, I’m sure it could be arranged.

since, if we take the refugees into account, there are as many palestinians as israelis (count here only the Jews for israeli, and Israeli Arabs for Palestinians)

Okay, but there are still more Jews than Palestinians in the world. But besides, if we’re going to do this, we should include Jordan in Palestine.

Siro:
My Yiddish-English dictionary defines Petzel as "jellied calves feet." Petzeleh would be something like "little bit of jellied calves feet."

Axi
Siro can speak for himself, but from what I've read, the Kibbutzim didn't really work too well. Economically, they are seriously flagging, and now it comes out that in a number of cases, child abuse was allowed to continue because the authorities on the Kibbutz didn't want to rock the boat by bringing in the police, and now some of the children are actually suing their parents over it. Of course, this sort of thing happens in other communities too, but in my humble opinion, formed thousands of miles away, the Israeli collective farms don't look to successful. After all, Sharon grew up on one, so they must be bad.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Natan
Siro:
My Yiddish-English dictionary defines Petzel as "jellied calves feet." Petzeleh would be something like "little bit of jellied calves feet."

How dissapointing. I now have to spoil the joke

Your dictionary apparently has not yiddish slang Natan

according to the english/russian/yddish site I've searched in
petseleh means small d!ck

I thought since you came from Russia Siro you might now it, oh well

[GePap]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Sirotnikov

And I tohugh you know history

THe PLO was formed in 1964.[/q]

I concede the point, since I was wrong

And the Israeli-ARab conflict exists in it's violent phenomen since 1929.

And do you care to talk about why? Could it be that as Zionist organizations bought more and more land from large Arab landlords, most of them absentee lanlords elsewere, the groups then kicked the Arab tenents out, and then refused to employ any arabs as a way of increaign 'jewsih' work, thus leading to greater and greater Arab unemployment, plus the general sense off xenophobia and anti-immigrant feelings one gets everywhere?

You obviously haven't heard of anything previous of 1967 so I'm going to have a tough time talking to ya.

How far back? Are we talking back to the violence of 29 you mentioned, or to the british plan for partition in 1937, or the Jewish campaign vs the British, or the war of independence, or the raids by Israel and Arab states accross their borders, or the war of '56? Try me...

But they can be bridged if evryone follows international law. the rpoblem is that israel has dificulties with the notion of international laws....

No international laws solve nothing.

An international body set that Israel should exist, and the arabs had a problem with it in 1947.

Yes they did, and they were wrong- but the whole, 'they started it' bullcrap is for 3 year olds, not statesmen or peoples. And may I add that that agrrement gave you no right to ANY of JERUSALEM nor the west bank nor Gaza, and that the Parts israel did get, and see included into it's internationaal recognized borders were the result of the war in which israel gained lots of land slated for the Paletinian state.

Luckaly, we jews didn't rely on the international good will to save us.

But plenty of US and French (until after Algerian war)goodwill. Do you know how many 14-1 security council resolutions against israel there have been?, and guess who's the one? Without US diplomatic backing, israel would be where Iraq is today.

Are you a terrorist Sirotnikov? If not, how can you make such a claim? Your understanding of Human beings seems rather limited...

No my understanding of human beings is great.
A person who can target innocent children, can't really be considered a normal human being.

If I remember, some of those reservist that signed the petition were saying that their officers told them to fire at children, or randomly into neighborhoods. i guess they aren't real people, or the men in bombers dropping loads on cities, they were not people either, or the Israelites who slaughtered the Caaninites, they weren't people either, or........

Sept. 2000

Mass violent riots break out across Israeli major towns, where the rioters target civilians and civil property.

Did you expect Israeli police not to protect Israeli citizens by trying to remove the threat using fire?

Lets review:
Violent protests break out in Seattle, were demontrators are attacking civilian property and civilian law enforcement- did you expect the US police not to protect US citizens, themselves, by trying to remove the threat using fire? Wait, they didn't, nor did the police in Sweden, and when a violent protestor was killed in Genoa, it lead to outrage. But i guess that while police in civilized countries use non-fatal force to subdue violent protests, Israeli police should not be expected to react like civilized police, since they are only dealing with those dirty Arabs... and whether they are israeli citizens or not really doesn't matter either...


Lets get to the heart of the matter why don't we?

back in 1967, israel was given a choice, a choice imbodied by UN security Council Resolution 242: Land or Peace.
Now, israelis always claim that the reason for the conflict is that Arabs are unwilling to recognize israel's right to exist because of some, nazi-like and thus Holocaust possible, anti-semitism. Well, UNSCR 242 called for:

termination of all claims or states of belligerancy and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force
Guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area, for achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem (notice, no mention of the right of return), for guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every state in the area, thorugh measures including the establishment of demiliterized zones
And of course, the kicker, the Withdrwl of Israeli armed forces fromterritories occupied in the recent (1967) conflict.

So, UNSCR 242 gives israel full recognition by its neighbors, allows for the boundaries to be dimiliterized, does not even mention the right of return of refugees into israel, and all of this at the cost of the occupied territories. Again, Land or Peace. Well, israel, intoxicated by its decisive victory in 1967 decided that it could win any war, so ity chose land, not peace.

All the tragedies, all the death, or the calamities are either a direct or indirect consequence of the Israeli decision. By choosing land, and war, it gave strenght to fanatics on both sides, and Baraks 'generous' offer shows that Israelis still go with land, not peace. Have the Arab neighbors, and the Palestinians commited crimes vs israel and Israelis? YES, and they need to be punished for it, but they, and everyone else, is acting on a stage created by israel, and you expect us to cry cause the play did not go as planned?, 'cause the Palestinians were stubborn and didn't leave center stage like most of the arabs in all the other areas taken by israel, so that israel's claim that this land was theirs rings hollow? No, as i have been saying all along, everyone is responsible for their actions. the reason I view Israel as the belligerant party is that the arabs, back in 1967, were willing to talk peace- it was Israel who said No, and it still is the one that really says NO.

With the settler, supporters always say that they live there now, so they havee a right to stay, Natan using the 9/10th of the law excuse. Well, thats wrong. The settlers are there illegally, through their own initiative and Israeli government policy. The government and the settlers have carried out a crime, which mortages and babies do not erase. Any settler that decide not to stay put and become Palestinian citizens (which is a choice the settlers should be given) will have to leave, period, for that is the consequence of their action- and the israeli government will have to pay for them and their resettlement in israel, for that is its consequesnce for its actions. I would ask the edward said question, of why a Jew from Chicago has the right to live in Haiffa but an arb born in Jaffa must become a refugee and can't return- but I accept that the right of retun is no longer viable, and that the refugees won't get to go home- and the settler won't get to stay.
As for another big 'reason to support israel', that they are democratic, well, in my eyes, that makes the actions of Israel far WORSE than those of dictatorial states. You see, democracy grants legitimacy to a government, not morality. At least the Chinese, or Iraqis, or North Koreans, can claim that the policies their dtates carry out are the result of evil dictators or parties out for their own gain. Hell, even the Germans can claim that after 1933, there was a dictatorship, so there was nothing they could do. Well, no such lifeline is open to israelis. For the past 35 years, israelis have been supporting illegal and immoral practices in the occupied territories throught their votes. How does this make me view israelis? Badly I must say, for one would think that a modern, democratic state would uphold human rights and values, but israel has not.

The conclusion: Everyone is responsible for their choices and their actions, and when it comes to the current conflict, while both sides are guilty, Israel is ultimately the most responsible.

[Comrade Tribune]

As I pointed out in the other thread, the real (religious) Jews are the very last people to want any responsibility for the acts of Israel.

In fact they say there is no philosophical foundation for (the state of) Israel´s very existence. So it turns out the Zionists have more in common philosophically with the Nazis than with (Torah-true) Jews.

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by paiktis22


Natan: 16 words

Some will get through and that's enough meanwhile you can't nuke the whole world in time

We wouldn't have to nuke all of humanity. Just hit key junctures and humanity's future on Earth would be negligible at best. If I had 2,500 thermonuclear weapons to launch against the rest of planet Earth while being attacked in turn at the same time, I'd hit the following:

1. Freshwater resources.
2. The "breadbaskets" of the world, in terms of food production.
3. Natural resources.
4. Major population centers (including all political and financial capitals).
5. Panama Canal, Suez Canal.
6. I'd blow the hell out of the Strait of Gilbratar. Maybe some earthquakes could be triggered by multiple 25-megaton ground (or, in this case, sub-oceanic) impacts. The goal being to make the area unnavigable.
7. The same with Bosporus.
8. The same with the Strait of Malacca.
9. Maybe some key areas along the Atlantic Ridge and/or the Ring of Fire in the Pacific. Filling old mines with water have caused earthquakes ... can you imagine what might happen if nudets were used on weakened portions of the Earth's crust?

The United States would be a radiocative ruin, but the rest of humanity would soon join us in death. The muties would rule! Then the cockroaches!

CYBERAmazon

[Natan]

Originally posted by GePap
And do you care to talk about why? Could it be that as Zionist organizations bought more and more land from large Arab landlords, most of them absentee lanlords elsewere, the groups then kicked the Arab tenents out, and then refused to employ any arabs as a way of increaign 'jewsih' work, thus leading to greater and greater Arab unemployment, plus the general sense off xenophobia and anti-immigrant feelings one gets everywhere?

How is this even vaguely relevant? Next why don't you talk about the replacement of white workers by blacks is what leads to race riots. After that you can blame Jews for the Russian pogroms and then move on to saying that Arabs just don't want to talk about how their terrorism led to Americans gunning up mosques. This is barely worthy of a response.

How far back? Are we talking back to the violence of 29 you mentioned, or to the british plan for partition in 1937, or the Jewish campaign vs the British, or the war of independence, or the raids by Israel and Arab states accross their borders, or the war of '56? Try me...

Just my guess, but probably Pogroms of 1929, Arab revolt of 36-39, and then ethnic violence from 36 to 47, followed by Arab invasion and Fedayeen raids, all before 1947.

But plenty of US and French (until after Algerian war)goodwill. Do you know how many 14-1 security council resolutions against israel there have been?, and guess who's the one? Without US diplomatic backing, israel would be where Iraq is today.

A single ally is very different from concepts like "international law" and the "international community."

Lets review:
Violent protests break out in Seattle, were demontrators are attacking civilian property and civilian law enforcement- did you expect the US police not to protect US citizens, themselves, by trying to remove the threat using fire? Wait, they didn't, nor did the police in Sweden, and when a violent protestor was killed in Genoa, it lead to outrage. But i guess that while police in civilized countries use non-fatal force to subdue violent protests, Israeli police should not be expected to react like civilized police, since they are only dealing with those dirty Arabs... and whether they are israeli citizens or not really doesn't matter either...

I think we both know that the level of protestor violence went way beyond that of globalization protests - every traveller who went on the roads in the Galilee was pulled out of his car - if he was Arab he could pass, if he was Jewish, he was beaten. The casualties came at a time when three policemen were sorrounded by a large mob, and if the police claims are to be believed, people in the mob were brandishing firearms. It should also be noted that unlike the globalization protests, the police had no time to prepare.

back in 1967, israel was given a choice, a choice imbodied by UN security Council Resolution 242: Land or Peace.
Now, israelis always claim that the reason for the conflict is that Arabs are unwilling to recognize israel's right to exist because of some, nazi-like and thus Holocaust possible, anti-semitism. Well, UNSCR 242 called for:

termination of all claims or states of belligerancy and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force
Guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area, for achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem (notice, no mention of the right of return), for guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every state in the area, thorugh measures including the establishment of demiliterized zones
And of course, the kicker, the Withdrwl of Israeli armed forces fromterritories occupied in the recent (1967) conflict.

So, UNSCR 242 gives israel full recognition by its neighbors, allows for the boundaries to be dimiliterized, does not even mention the right of return of refugees into israel, and all of this at the cost of the occupied territories. Again, Land or Peace. Well, israel, intoxicated by its decisive victory in 1967 decided that it could win any war, so ity chose land, not peace.

Obviously, you've completely ignored all of the region's most 1967 history which did not fit your preconceptions - the Arab states, with the exception of Egypt, utterly rejected resolution 242 for 20-25 years, so Israel did not have a choice.

the reason I view Israel as the belligerant party is that the arabs, back in 1967, were willing to talk peace- it was Israel who said No, and it still is the one that really says NO.

This is just plain false. To this very day, Arafat's own al-Fatah faction rejects Israel's existence and calls for its utter annihilation. It's right smack in the Fatah constitution, for all to see.

With the settler, supporters always say that they live there now, so they havee a right to stay, Natan using the 9/10th of the law excuse. Well, thats wrong. The settlers are there illegally, through their own initiative and Israeli government policy.

It's "ilegal" in the sense that it violates a UN resolution - well whoop-de-doo!

[QUOTE]
The government and the settlers have carried out a crime, which mortages and babies do not erase. Any settler that decide not to stay put and become Palestinian citizens (which is a choice the settlers should be given) will have to leave, period, for that is the consequence of their action- and the israeli government will have to pay for them and their resettlement in israel, for that is its consequesnce for its actions.

I would ask the edward said question, of why a Jew from Chicago has the right to live in Haiffa but an arb born in Jaffa must become a refugee and can't return- but I accept that the right of retun is no longer viable, and that the refugees won't get to go home- and the settler won't get to stay.

Why is it that a Palestinian born in Tyre has a right to live in Nablus but a Jew born in Efrat or Cairo must be a refugee?

The conclusion: Everyone is responsible for their choices and their actions, and when it comes to the current conflict, while both sides are guilty, Israel is ultimately the most responsible.

Conclusion: You have never taken even a glimpse at the Fatah constitution.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Natan

How is this even vaguely relevant? Next why don't you talk about the replacement of white workers by blacks is what leads to race riots. After that you can blame Jews for the Russian pogroms and then move on to saying that Arabs just don't want to talk about how their terrorism led to Americans gunning up mosques. This is barely worthy of a response.

This is relevant because everything has a cause. The Israeli argument is that anti-Jewish attacks are the result of anti-semitism, which is then used to compare arabs to nazis, and thus why one can't talk to the Arabs- a nice excuse . Arab anti-Jewish violence was wrong, but it was not the result of just blind hatred, but of major societal changes. If one fails to understand the reasons for violence one is fated not to be able to prevent it further. Also, Russian pogroms were many times state organized, so comparing the '29 attacks to Russian pogromss is innacurate since the controlling entity, Britain, tried to stampt out the violence, which it did.

Just my guess, but probably Pogroms of 1929, Arab revolt of 36-39, and then ethnic violence from 36 to 47, followed by Arab invasion and Fedayeen raids, all before 1947.

And how nice that you left out Zionist crimes! Face it, both sides did nasty things, so don't act like Israelis were angels and did nothing- tell that to the families of the King David Hotel.

A single ally is very different from concepts like "international law" and the "international community."

Yes, which goes to show that the international community disapproves of Israel's actions and one, very powerfull ally is what has kept Israel out fo the 'axis of evil' box. (have we forgotten israels WMD programs?)

I think we both know that the level of protestor violence went way beyond that of globalization protests - every traveller who went on the roads in the Galilee was pulled out of his car - if he was Arab he could pass, if he was Jewish, he was beaten. The casualties came at a time when three policemen were sorrounded by a large mob, and if the police claims are to be believed, people in the mob were brandishing firearms. It should also be noted that unlike the globalization protests, the police had no time to prepare.

Very violent protests are common- just look at Nigeria. But even in cases of very serious violence (and how many of those Jewish motorists died?) police don't first go for live-ammo, which israel commonly does. We also keep living out that, since these are the occupied territories, security is entrusted to the Army, and not the civil police, which most certainly has reprecussions.

Obviously, you've completely ignored all of the region's most 1967 history which did not fit your preconceptions - the Arab states, with the exception of Egypt, utterly rejected resolution 242 for 20-25 years, so Israel did not have a choice.

Egypt acepted the resolution in time for Camp david, which is 12 years later. Israel never tried to have this resolution enforced, which is why one only hears Palestinains or their supporters ever mention it- Israeli or US officials never speak of it, since they wish to ignore it. My main argument is that Israel is the party most responsible for post-1967 history. You didn't even try to negotiate with Syria, jordan, and egypt to any worhtwhile extent. Why don't you read the government statements of Dayan, Abba Eban, and other israeli leaders of the times? It make for wonderful reading.

This is just plain false. To this very day, Arafat's own al-Fatah faction rejects Israel's existence and calls for its utter annihilation. It's right smack in the Fatah constitution, for all to see.

But does Arafat, and the Palestinian Authority constitution? You keep mentioning Fatah, but not the PA- they aren't the same.

It's "ilegal" in the sense that it violates a UN resolution - well whoop-de-doo!

Which is the only reason the world has saction against Iraq. UN security council resolutions matter, get used to it.

Why is it that a Palestinian born in Tyre has a right to live in Nablus but a Jew born in Efrat or Cairo must be a refugee?

A palestinian born in Tyre can't go to nablus, thats against Military Occupation law, i mean, even israelis can't go into areas blocked off by the Israeli army. And by the way, Jews born in Egypt can go back and live there- there is no law banning Jewish in-migration, though obvioulsy the Egyptians would not make them welcomed. Sephardim are not refugees, they migrated with the support of Israel (again, in the face of strong anti-Jewish feeling in arab sates). There is a branch of the UN responsible for taking care of refugees. How many refugee camps are there for Jews in Israel? How many? 0. Anyway natan, nice shot, but no cigar.

[q]
Conclusion: You have never taken even a glimpse at the Fatah constitution.

Which is by no means the only relevant document to look at. Have you ever looked at the palestinian constituion?

[Natan]

This is relevant because everything has a cause. The Israeli argument is that anti-Jewish attacks are the result of anti-semitism, which is then used to compare arabs to nazis, and thus why one can't talk to the Arabs- a nice excuse. Arab anti-Jewish violence was wrong, but it was not the result of just blind hatred, but of major societal changes.

Isn't that what causes all anti-Jewish violence? The point here is that Israel could not negotiate with those Arabs at that time, because of their anti-Semitism - the "cause" of their pogroms really doesn't matter.

And how nice that you left out Zionist crimes! Face it, both sides did nasty things, so don't act like Israelis were angels and did nothing

Wasn't it your claim that Israel was solely, or close to solely responsible for the violence?

- tell that to the families of the King David Hotel.

So it's wrong to bomb military HQs now?

Yes, which goes to show that the international community disapproves of Israel's actions and one, very powerfull ally is what has kept Israel out fo the 'axis of evil' box.

You know, only one powerful ally CREATED that box.

(have we forgotten israels WMD programs?)

I think it's pretty clear that America isn't just going after whoever has nukes - otherwise Russia, China, Britain and France would be at the top of the list, along with Israel. Which they aren't. Because we don't think they plan to sell their weapons to terrorists or use them on their neighbors. But really, this is an issue for another thread.

police don't first go for live-ammo, which israel commonly does.

As far as anyone can tell, the police only used live ammo when they ran out of tear gas.

We also keep living out that, since these are the occupied territories, security is entrusted to the Army, and not the civil police, which most certainly has reprecussions.

It would be a serious mistake to trust security in a warzone to the civil police alone.

Egypt acepted the resolution in time for Camp david, which is 12 years later.

Exactly, and the other Arab states took another decade or two. And when the Egyptians did, Israel signed a treaty and uprooted the Jewish communities in the Sinai for peace. Similarly, Israel signed a peace treaty with Jordan. So your claim that Israel chose land over peace is false.

Israel never tried to have this resolution enforced, which is why one only hears Palestinains or their supporters ever mention it- Israeli or US officials never speak of it, since they wish to ignore it.

How could such a resolution have ever been enforced when the USSR had a veto on the security council? That's a poor argument.

My main argument is that Israel is the party most responsible for post-1967 history.

Right, and my main argument is the reverse.

You

Wrong pronoun again. Are you starting to get this now?

didn't even try to negotiate with Syria

Maybe because Hafez Assad was continually announcing his intent to destroy Israel? Maybe the allies never wanted peace since they didn't negotiate with Hitler . . . come on, when a leader announces repeatedly in public and private that he wants only to destroy your country, you can't be expected to negotiate with him - it would be absurd.

jordan

Why is the burden solely on Israel to start negotiations? I'd say the burden is on the Arab states to at least recognize Israel's existence as an independent state before negotiations can commence.

and egypt

As soon as Sadat made his trip to Jerusalem and announced his intentions for peace, Israel negotiated and reached a deal in complete accordance with resolution 242. So I'd hardly say Israel chose land over peace.

Why don't you read the government statements of Dayan, Abba Eban, and other israeli leaders of the times? It make for wonderful reading.

Why don't you read those of Nasser, Hafez Assad, and Arafat?

But does Arafat

He says he is at unity with Hamas, wrote a letter congradulating the family of the suicide bomber how blew up the Dolphinarium nightclub, and heads al-Fatah.

and the Palestinian Authority constitution?

You tell me. Maybe not.

You keep mentioning Fatah, but not the PA- they aren't the same.

Al-Fatah and no other party runs the PA. Fatah is Arafat's movement. As the head of al-Fatah, he is responsible for his actions. Furthermore, al-Fatah is the most moderate Palestinian organization. Also, it is the principles of al-Fatah by which Arafat claimed to lead the Palestinians through the decades, so your claim that they accepted resolution 242 after 1967 is ludicrous.

A palestinian born in Tyre can't go to nablus, thats against Military Occupation law, i mean, even israelis can't go into areas blocked off by the Israeli army.

Under Palestinian law though, he can. That was my point.

And by the way, Jews born in Egypt can go back and live there- there is no law banning Jewish in-migration, though obvioulsy the Egyptians would not make them welcomed.

AFAIK, Egypt simply does not allow immigration of any sort. It expelled its Jews by law in the 50s. Simple as that: All Jews must leave. The Jordanian constitution of the same period said that "Any man [in Jordan] will be a Jordanian citizen as long as he is not Jewish."

Sephardim are not refugees, they migrated with the support of Israel (again, in the face of strong anti-Jewish feeling in arab sates). There is a branch of the UN responsible for taking care of refugees. How many refugee camps are there for Jews in Israel? How many?

So because Israel integrated the Jewish refugees while the Arab states oppressed the Palestinian ones, there were no Jewish refugees? That's terrible logic. If you are forced to flee a place, you are a refugee - regardless of the welcome you recieve.

[faded glory]

err........wtf? what kind of response was that? Will it be that limited if those things reign on your cities.

[Sikander]

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Middle East

Originally posted by GePap
So basically, the Palestinians would be ag9ining the same sort of military ability in a minor way that israel has now- you keep saying it is a war, so how can you then deny your 'enemy' the same capabilities? Hobbes, no lover of freedom, stated that the one right no man can be denied is the right of self-defense, and this applies to both sides.

You are arguing out of both side of your mouth. The Israelis allowed the Palestinians autonomy in the West Bank and Gaza as a step toward a final peace agreement which would end with a Palestian state. This is the Oslo accords. Part of that agreement is that the Palestinians will be limited to arms with which to police themselves, while Israel will be responsible for any potential external threats. The Palestinians are breaking that agreement by bringing in offensive weapons and using those weapons against civilians. I guess they believe that might makes right, and it seems like you agree with them.

Punching someone in the face, and then killing them when they try to defend themselves against you is not self defense. How many Palestinians were being killed by Israel before the second Intafada? Now that they have launched numerous attacks against Israeli civilians, and the Israelis have responded by attacking such military and terrorist targets as they can find in self defense, the Palestinians have earned the right to defend themselves and acquire offensive weapons?

Originally posted by GePap
Is that so? So why have sanctions on Iraq, since all it is doing is breaking international agreements. Why are NK and Iran an 'axis of evil' as you believe, since all they are doing is breaking international agreements? Why was Karine A such a bad thing, if all the PA was doing was breaking international agreements?
Why should the Arabs ahve accepted the 1947 partition, if that was only an INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT!!? International agreements were not made to be broken. Sorry, but only ignorant or immoral people belive that Laws were made to be broken.

I agree that it is short sighted to flaunt a law which you may well need to protect you someday, to say nothing about morality, which comes in many flavors. Laws in the end however are only useful to the extent that they are enforced. In a world made up of states and nation states the only truly effective way to enforce international laws is by force of arms. In my opinion international law is way ahead of itself, because it's enforcement mechanism is powerless against the powerful, and subject completely to the whims of the international community even when it might be applied to the weak. It is basically falsely advertising a power that it does not have.

What are of use are conventions of behavior, like those which govern many types of state behavior including regularly breaking agreements. The penalties are not spelled out, but the steady cumulation of being unrespected and shunned are nonetheless worthy, and fall well within the capabilities of even the weakest states.

As for the example you use above about 'The Axis of Evil', the only people who are impressed by these arguments are those who are true believers in international law. The reason the U.S. opposes these regimes is not because they break international law, or international agreements. It is because they present an immediate threat to the U.S. and it's allies. The fact that they are also breaking agreements presents the administration with a nice argument to help shore up it's case amongst the wobbly leftists and centrists both domestically and internationally, but we would have to be rattling our saber at almost every country on the planet if the real issue was violations of international agreements, which our allies do as readily as our enemies.

Originally posted by GePap
If this is true, how could Israel have been created at all? Arabs held most of the Land, had for centuries. If possesion is 9/10th the law, what right does Israel have to exist at ALL? No, possesion is not 9/10th, the deed is. The big difference is that settlers are there illegally, the refugees have the legal right to return. Simply based, you are arguing based on the notion that MIGHT MAKES RIGHT. Well, sorry, that's immoral and wrong, and I will never play by such a twisted and inhuman rule!

Inhuman rule? I can't think of anything which is more natural to the condition of humanity. The motto of many lifeforms could well be Might Makes Life. It must be really nice to have the power to draw a line across the history of the human race and say:

"From this point forward any actions which violate my interpretation of international law or my sense of morality must be reversed, no matter what the cost."

Unfortunately (for you at least) you can only make such proclamations, and not back them up. The real lines on the map obey only the complex interworkings of billions of human beings, and amongst these forces is the use of military force. Fortunately it is not the only force at work, economics, culture, and various forms of morality and convention also play a role. As an American kibbitzer living on land stolen 200 years ago from Native Americans who were extinguished culturally if not physically, you don't have all that much say in where the lines on the map in the Middle East go.

For some people might does indeed make right. For others it is exactly the opposite, the worst action imaginable is violence. Your problem is that you judge everyone else by your own standards, and it is a typical failing, I'm not trying to single you out for this, we all do it. But it doesn't help to solve anything. The Palestinians and Israelis don't need our ideas, or our moral indignation. It all pales in comparison to the facts of their everyday lives. Sprayber was right when he said that we can't make them want peace. And in the end it is their problem. I want them to solve it also, and I get angry about the violence as well, but I have to let go of any delusion that I can solve the problem myself, or that I am fulfilling my potential any more than those who piss me off so regularly when I watch the news. It has to be enough for me that I am living my life in the best way I can.

Leadership by example is by far the most effective form of leadership, because it is both moral and non-coercive. It can have an amazing effect on even your enemies, but it requires patience, dedication and it requires that the journey be as fulfilling as the goal. If you want peace do not go armed and demand it. Fill yourself with love and let those who are without it be attracted to your glow. If you want to cause people to retrench and repeat their own internal mantra about why their cause is just, then attack them and threaten them. Most people here prefer the latter method. This is a wargame site after all, and though many of them claim to hate violence, it is mainly because they are afraid of getting hurt. They love conflict though.

Please don't assume that I am some sort of religious nut with a messiah complex, I'm not. I'm not looking for world peace. I am a warrior. I like the world the way it is for the most part, which is to say full of conflict with almost all issues in doubt. I think that there is an element of divinity in combat just as there is in peace, and I am still too young a soul to desire a steady state over a dynamic system. I respect those who are clear and honest about who they are, and from what I've seen I would count you and Natan in that group, which is why I butted into your conversation.

[GePap]

Well, Natan

As i do have work to do, this will be my last post of today.

I decide to not use quotes, since that goes on for ever. I will defer to you on the question of wether the arab states allow Jews or not, but that does not change my point, all it does is show that the Arab states are also acting immorally and unjustly. One can't say that because the other guys are bad, i will be bad. That sort of logic leads nowhere. In principle, all refugees have the right of return- if a Jewish family wants to retun to Cairo, it is their right to do so, just as if a palestinian family want to return to Jaffa, they should be allowed to do so.

On the issue of violence pre-1947. there was never really any negotiation between arabs and Jews, because both sides were busy talking to the english- besides, where would negotiations have lead? As Ben Gurion said, the conflict was that both people want the same land. On King David, fine, its a Military HQ- so what was wrong with the attack on an army base that killed two soldiers, which is how this thread begun? If there was nothing wrong with King david, there was nothing wrong with shooting at soldiers, since both are military targets, no?

As for WMD, US, China, Russia, Britain, France all legally get to have nukes, no one else theoretically can- the NPT treaty of 1968. Iraq doesn't sell to anyone, neither does Iran- the reason they are singelled out is because they would be breaking the NPT. Another way ion which international law matters. On the 'axis of evil' line, I use it rethorically. The point stands that sans US support, sactions would have been placed on israel long ago.

As for Israeli Police- the reaon its military police is because it is military administered land- ie. occupied territories, ie. not part of Israel. The police was military all the time, before any troubles begun.

On Fatah, it is not the PA, no matter how much you want to say they are the same thing. Any palestinian state would use the PA constitution, not the Fatah one (saying that is like saying the GOP party platform is the US constitution). The PA constitution accepts the existance of Israel in Green Line borders.

As for saying my claim is false, Israel sought peace with Egypt only after ANOTHER WAR!, and one that showed the Israeli notion that they would win any war, so why seek peace, was not fully justified. Once Israel saw that it could not expect to keep the Sanai, it decided to give it away. The same has not happened with the Golan or the West Bank and Gaza. As for Assad (the old 'appeasement and hitler' bit is overused and a terrible historical example at that. Cliche), the man was a dictator, but israel could have made peace, if it were willing to give back the Golan- but its just too nice a territory, Strategically and from a water stand point for Israel to give it back. You constantly say the Israel should keep 10% of the west bank. That is land, not peace.

Finally, on my claim: I don't think israel is solely responsible for the violence, i say that it is ultimately responsible for the violence, which is different. Both sides have commited crimes, both sides have committed attrocities and violated human rights- but in the end, it is Israels continued occupation of lands outside its recognized international borders, that keeps peace from coming, albeit very slowly due to 50 years of propaganda by extremists. Until israel goes back to its green Line borders, peace will not come, because the palestinians will continue to fight the occupation, and repressive arab regimes in the area will use that as a way of keeping themselves afloat. This conflict needs a political solution, anything short of that just prolongs the agony.

[GePap]

Could not resist

Damn this forum and its evil influences on my work!

On a factual note, Egypt and Jorda both accepted UNSCR 242 when it came out, in 1968, under pressure by the USSR and US, respectively. Assad in Syria accepted it in 1972. Since they all accepted UNSCR 338, which calls for the implementation of UNSCR 242 when it came out, by 1975 Israels major neighbors all recognized 242.

On a lighter note, i highly recommend Charles D. Smith's Palestine and the Arab -Israeli Conflict, currently in its foruth edition, ISBN- 0-312-20828-6. It is a very balanced book with lots of key documents, plus good, in depth discussions of the internal and external politics, not only between Israel and its neighbors, but within each state, and between Arab states, that have shaped the conflict. Good debate is informed debate, not random accusations thrown out.

Sikander: while i disagree with you on your basic point, thanks for including me into the truth-telling group. Do I get some sort of prize? A kuwpie doll, perhaps?

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
The problem with communism, is that it is against human nature, which is to exploit.

Against human nature Bull****! That´s just what some neo-liberal wackos try to make us belive, cause you can´t fight human nature, now can you?

Then tell me, why was there violence prior to 1967?

In a sense the whole of Israel is occupied territory, but no one that I know of demand the destruction of the state of Israel, not anymore. (well maybe some of the militant islamist groups, but they´re politically insignificant). And you know why there was violence prior to 1967, the whole "lets give the jews a state on the expense of the palestinians" thing stinks to high heaven.

Your nice site, doesn't tell you how in the 50s and 60s arab terrorists infiltrated Israel, and massacared villages and kibutzes, raiding children's houses at nights (during the 50s and 60s, children in a kibutz lived in thier own 'dorm' apart from parents).

Which site is that?

I think you better re-read your dictionary, brainiac.

Typo

Amnesty are pittyful fools. Just like most leftists. They mean well, but they can't see what's infront of their eyes.

But by your definition anyone who reports Israeli "measures to try and fight terror" is a raving commie and can´t be trusted. Isn´t that so?

And you do look racist, and you might even be racist. I just don't care enough to think about it.

Yeah, I´m a racist ´cause I dare to critizise the zionists Are you connected to the Anti-Defamation League by any chance? You certainly have the one eye to qualify.

We've already set defintions for terrorists as opposed to freedom fighters / partisans.

Maybe I´ve missed that one but here´s:

Terrorist or not quiz: (just add yes or no after the name)

The Moro National Liberation Front, Southern Phillipines
National Democratic Front, Phillipines
New Peoples Army (NPA), Phillipines
Zapatista Front of National Liberation, Mexico
Sandanista Front of National Liberation, Nicaragua
Revolutionary Peoples Liberation Party-Front (DHKP), Turkey
Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) , and related organisations, Turkey
National Liberation Front of Kurdistan (ERNK), Turkey
Hamas (Movement of Islamic Society, Algeria
National Liberation Army of Iran
The Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO), Israel
HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement), Israel
Hizbollah (Party of God), Israel
Shining Path (Sendar Luminoso), Peru
Shining Path/ Communist Party of Peru, Peru
Tupac Amaru Solidarity Page, Peru
The Irish Republican Army, Ireland
People against Gangsterism and Drugs (Pagad), South Africa
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, Sri Lanka
Kosovo Liberation Army, Kosovo, Yugoslavia

Taken from theGuerilla groups online page

Some obsolete historical groups are missing like the FNL and FLN but I think there´s plenty to go around anyway

If everybody gets the same result I´ll agree to the definitions you speak of...