Car Bomb in Jerusalem - Tens of casualties

[GePap]

Originally posted by Natan

This same logic could be used against Palestinians, since the risk of a Palestinian youth dying is greater than that of an Israeli way, but of course neither you nor anyone else would say that. You're not saying that the parents took a risk, you're saying that the sins of the fathers must be visited on the (one year old) children - not to be confused with racism, of course.

The difference is in that, while most Israeli's immigrated since 1948, Palestinians did not. What was meant was that Jews from around the world left their homes to go live in israel. Palestinians are in their home, there's nothing they can do about it.

Okay, so it's just that all Jews in the area should be killed. I don't think living in an area can be considered aggression. I don't think you can say that people who "profit from aggression" should/can be killed. This is again Nazi logic; the Jews certainly gained from the Versailles treaty.

That is not Nazi logic (as someone reading Mein Kampf can tell you), that term is highly overused, besides the fact that purely Nazi ideology is a weird and thin mix. As for constituting aggression: What is meant is that Zionist settlers have come into land which were taken by military force, which in 1967 was aggresion. Again, Israel was planning to go to war in 1967 to stop Syrian shelling from the Golan. When Nasser in Egypt tried to scare israel away from attacking by making threats, and when he got HUssein to agree, thats when Israel decided to go after all three, not just Syria.

Seeing as they also say they'll never compromise on their goals . . .

I wonder: where did you read that the Palestinians, all of them, still want the whole mandate back? The Fatah constitution? Do you realize that is from the 60's, and has been supersedeed by many more documents? Have you ever gone to Zionist websites, you know, the ones that claim Jordan for Israel cause transjordan was part of the administrative area of palestine at the time of Balfour (and what right did britain have in giving away Ottoman land populated mostly by Arabs?)? In 1988, yes, 1988, the PLO recognized Israel- which is why the US opened relations with them, aboth Yamir's opposition. Again, if this has not yet gotten through the huindred times I have written it to you: THE PALESTINIANS HAVE RECOGNIZED THE EXISTANCE, AND RIGHT TO EXIST, OF ISRAEL, WITHIN ITS 1967 BORDERS, WHICH IS WHY, IN 1988, THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION, ABOVE ISRAELI COMPLAINTS, OPENED TALKS AND RELATIONS WITH THE PLO So, you saying that the Palestinians haave yet to recognize israel is based on either ignorance, which by now, would be intollerable, or some ideological bent which does not allow you to recognize that validity of that act.

These were insignifigant. And besides, the Poles did not target them. Oh, and as for that snide settlements comment, the Poles did the same thing in 1945.

The big diff with the Poles in 1945 is that the world had changed Polands borders, so that these were Poles moving to live elsewhere in Poland- as far as I know, completely legal. The illegality of Jewish settlements is based on the fact that the occupied territories (hence the name!) are not recognized by anyone, as Israeli land.

[Natan]

Originally posted by GePap
The difference is in that, while most Israeli's immigrated since 1948, Palestinians did not.

That's not really relevant to the options their grandchildren have now. Besides, many Israelis didn't have a choice about immigrating, since they were expelled from their home countries.

That is not Nazi logic (as someone reading Mein Kampf can tell you), that term is highly overused, besides the fact that purely Nazi ideology is a weird and thin mix. As for constituting aggression: What is meant is that Zionist settlers have come into land which were taken by military force, which in 1967 was aggresion.

So what? Look at all the Russians living in Finnish Karelia, taken by force in a Soviet war of aggression1940. No one says that they should be killed. Would you argue that Chinese civillians in Tibet, or Moroccans in Western Sahara, or Russians in the baltic states are legitimate targets?

Again, Israel was planning to go to war in 1967 to stop Syrian shelling from the Golan. When Nasser in Egypt tried to scare israel away from attacking by making threats, and when he got HUssein to agree, thats when Israel decided to go after all three, not just Syria.

In short, when Egypt backed Syrian aggression through Fedayeen raids, blockading the straights of Tiran, and plain old threats, Israel came to war with it too. Is that so surprising?

I wonder: where did you read that the Palestinians, all of them, still want the whole mandate back? The Fatah constitution? Do you realize that is from the 60's, and has been supersedeed by many more documents?

Why hasn't it been repealed? Why does Faysal Husseini seem to think that Oslo is stage one of destroying Israel?

Have you ever gone to Zionist websites, you know, the ones that claim Jordan for Israel cause transjordan was part of the administrative area of palestine at the time of Balfour (and what right did britain have in giving away Ottoman land populated mostly by Arabs?)?

Yes, but I can't find anything of the sort in the Constitutions of the main Israeli political parties. Likud doesn't say "Oslo was a gimmick which we'll cancel as soon as we can negotiate a favorable deal and then stab the knife into Arafat's back."

In 1988, yes, 1988, the PLO recognized Israel- which is why the US opened relations with them, aboth Yamir's opposition. Again, if this has not yet gotten through the huindred times I have written it to you: THE PALESTINIANS HAVE RECOGNIZED THE EXISTANCE, AND RIGHT TO EXIST, OF ISRAEL, WITHIN ITS 1967 BORDERS, WHICH IS WHY, IN 1988, THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION, ABOVE ISRAELI COMPLAINTS, OPENED TALKS AND RELATIONS WITH THE PLO So, you saying that the Palestinians haave yet to recognize israel is based on either ignorance, which by now, would be intollerable, or some ideological bent which does not allow you to recognize that validity of that act.

No, it's based on the fact that they are lying through their teeth and describe themselves as such. Remember Faysal Husseini's explanation of Oslo?

The big diff with the Poles in 1945 is that the world had changed Polands borders, so that these were Poles moving to live elsewhere in Poland- as far as I know, completely legal. The illegality of Jewish settlements is based on the fact that the occupied territories (hence the name!) are not recognized by anyone, as Israeli land.

I don't accept the idea that wrong becomes right and vice versa based on what is said. There's no reason to say that something is right or wrong because a lot of people, or in this case, a lot of different entities recognized as "states" (including bogus ones like the Ukrainian SSR) say so.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Natan

That's not really relevant to the options their grandchildren have now. Besides, many Israelis didn't have a choice about immigrating, since they were expelled from their home countries.

But they had the possible choice to go to the US, or Argentina, or a hundred different places. Besides, The problem is not Jews that settled within the 1948 borders, but within the occupied territories

So what? Look at all the Russians living in Finnish Karelia, taken by force in a Soviet war of aggression1940. No one says that they should be killed. Would you argue that Chinese civillians in Tibet, or Moroccans in Western Sahara, or Russians in the baltic states are legitimate targets?

There is one big sidfference- Karelia is now Russian, Tibet is part of China. Look at any map other than an israeli map: are the occupied territories Israeli? NO. The world defines the occupied territories as , well, occupied land. Thus, settlements by the occupying power are considered illegal. As I said, the worldd recognizes Tibet as chinese, so as many chinese can live there as they wantt. Another big difference- all Tibetans are seen as Chinese citizens, all Finns in karelia as Russian citizens. The nations you mentioned have granted citizenship to those that live in these areas, not so israel.

In short, when Egypt backed Syrian aggression through Fedayeen raids, blockading the straights of Tiran, and plain old threats, Israel came to war with it too. Is that so surprising?

In short, you are not reading. Israel plans war aginst Syria to stop Syrian attacks- Egypt, afraid of Syrain defeat, threatens war, to stop israel. Israel then attacks both. In such a scenerio, everyone is guilty of something, everyone guilty of aggression. The question is about the fatermath. Did Israel try to negotiate an end to violence with either Syria or Egypt? No, it just sat there, basking in victory, thinking that, since they had the power, they could do anything they wanted. Well, they were wrong, and we are all paying for their acts.

Why hasn't it been repealed? Why does Faysal Husseini seem to think that Oslo is stage one of destroying Israel?

Yes, but I can't find anything of the sort in the Constitutions of the main Israeli political parties. Likud doesn't say "Oslo was a gimmick which we'll cancel as soon as we can negotiate a favorable deal and then stab the knife into Arafat's back."

No, it's based on the fact that they are lying through their teeth and describe themselves as such. Remember Faysal Husseini's explanation of Oslo?

And do I care what Faysal Husseini said? No, cause it is meaningless. What matters, what will be inforced, what will be remembered, was what was signed. Why did balfour do what he did? In the end, it doesn't matter at all, only what he wrote. Besides, what did the other Palestinian negotiators say? Also, recognition of israel came in 1988, 5 years before Oslo, so the fact that Palestinians recognized Israel had nothing to do with the "Oslo Plot" you seem to have cooked up in your head.

I don't accept the idea that wrong becomes right and vice versa based on what is said. There's no reason to say that something is right or wrong because a lot of people, or in this case, a lot of different entities recognized as "states" (including bogus ones like the Ukrainian SSR) say so.

If so, please tell me what absolute values allow you to hold the views you hold? Because most absolute values I know drive me towards the conclusion that israel is wrong.
Law is based on what people say- Killing someone is not always murder- in fact, most of the time it is not. Why? Cause people have said so. There are laws, i follow them. Israel is breaking a long list of laws, agreements, treaties, declarations, and all other sort of international statements of purpose and values, and that is wrong, it is immoral. If you don't value laws, rules, agreements, then fine by you.

[CyberGnu]

Natan, GePap covered most of the issues here very eloquently.

A few things that needs elaboration though:

Are you saying that Nazi hatred of jews was based on accusations of jews being communists?

If this is not the case, please answer the original question: You do understand the difference between doing and being, right?


Regarding the innocence of youth, you have completely misunderstood things. Israeli babies aren't being 'punished' for anything they have done, or for any kind of genetic sin.

They are victims, and the guilty ones are their parents for putting them in danger.

You are essentially arguiing that babies should be used as a kind of human shield. What is th next step? Should Israeli army posts be issued babies, so that the army can;t be fought either? should every american GI in afganistan strap a baby to his helmet, so the afgans can;t shoot at them?

If you willingly bring a child into a warzone (or in this case, occupied territory) , you should not cry foul if that child gets hurt.

Okay, so it's just that all Jews in the area should be killed.

26 times and counting. You think you;ll get this before we hit a hundred? Again, I'll try to type slowly, since this sentence seems to be full of tough words: 'A n a g r e s s o r s h o u l d b e f o u g h t w i t h a l l m e a n s n e c e s s a r y , b u t o n l y a s l o n g a s i t i s a n a g g r e s s o r .'

I just don't understand what is so hard with this sentence. You'd think that a moderatly intelligent ten year old would get it after ten repetions or so, but yet we are at number 26 right now, and no luck. Well, maybe this time.


I also find your statement 'I don't think you can say that people who "profit from aggression" should/can be killed. This is again Nazi logic' intriguing.

Much of U.S. law is made on this principle. A criminal who will not yield to authorities can be killed while apprehended, especally if he violently resists arrest.

Particularly relevant to this case would be an unwanted intruder in a private dwelling. When police is called to the scene, they will usually try to get the intruder to leave. If the intruder refuses, the police are authorized to use force, and if the intruder appears to be a danger to the life of the police officer he has the right to kill the intruder.

Clearly this is based on nazi logic. Both Franklin and Washington were known nazis, right? You might want to bring this up with your history or civics teacher to clear up any misunderstandings you have.


I think you are referring to the typist you see in movies, diligently typing out orders and such. The vast majority were needed for administration of occupied territories, and not in uniform. Other civilians, out of the top of my head, were the prostituted that followed the german army... Not to mentioned the nurses. It's also a well known fact that several german officers brought their families if they got a permament occupational posting.

BTW, the perhaps most celebrated freedom fighters in the world, norwegians who blew up the telemarken water plant, killed several norwegian technicians who did nothing but their job. This is am undisputed fact. You can check it out in the book 'the heroes of telemarken'.

Your position that killing civilians automatically makes a freedom fighter into a terrorist is obviously not tenable.

Of course I don;t believe you are part of some kind of zionist plot, what gave you that idea? But several people can use the same techniques despite not beloning to the same organization...

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Originally posted by Natan
Tom, Zobezo: There are lots of examples of guerilla movements defeated:
* Nationalist partisans in the USSR after WWII fought against the Soviets for several years, but were eventually defeated.
...

Zobo, please

Through, Guerilla success depends largely on local support.
Israel do nothing to make Pals guerrila or terrorist forces unpopular. At the contrary.

[Tom201]

Originally posted by Natan
Like any country, Israel generally prefers to arrest rather than kill suspects. If nothing else, you get a chance to interogate them. But every country kills its enemies in war. Like the way the US declared with pride that it had killed Mohammed Atef, an Al-Qaida leader. No trial of course. But I don't think you really need to try people who are open about their membership in terror organizations, they're effectively enemy soldiers.

Well talking about the US and the whole Osama bin Laden story...

I doubt they will catch him. Even when he comes to some military camp without weapons showing a white flag. Im sure he gets killed by "accident". The US have no interest in a court thingy. I doubt they could show enough evidence (they accused him, showed some clues, everyone believed them, but no real proove was shown), when he is dead that doesnt matter. And everyone will again run around with the american flag and call them heros.

They had also no interest in preventing the afghanistan war. The hand them over or we atack *we give the taliban a chance* show was bs.
The taliban asked for evidence bevor they would hand him out. The US refused. If the US acused some holland guy being terrorist but dont show any evidence, the netherlands wont hand him out either.
The US also refused to speak with the regime ("We dont negotiate!")
Under this circumstances the taliban had no other choice than refuse.

I dont say it was wrong to atack the taliban. Now the ppl. have more rights and a better future. But longterm is is questionary if the northern alliance (which is also guilty of massacres within the civilian population and the warlords already fighting each other again) is a good choice. The US military also killed a lot of civiliance in this war. It sometimes seems they are really incompetent - they atacked accidently the red cross 2 times, there were a lot of reports about bombing of civilian houses.

The 2. thing why the US had no interest in just getting osama bin laden without a war: Their negotiation with the taliban (at that point the regime was good enough...) about a oil pipeline thru afghanistan 3 weeks bevor the terror atack failed. Now with the new regime it is more likly that they can build their pipeline. Isnt that practical?

[Natan]

Originally posted by GePap
But they had the possible choice to go to the US, or Argentina, or a hundred different places.

Only if they had relatives living there or were extremely lucky, which a minority of Ashkenazim and almost no Sephardim did. There's a reason Holocaust survivors festered in refugee camps for three years until Israel was founded; no one else would take them in.

There is one big sidfference- Karelia is now Russian, Tibet is part of China. Look at any map other than an israeli map: are the occupied territories Israeli? NO. The world defines the occupied territories as , well, occupied land.

I think that Atlas makers have even less authority than "the international community" in tell people where they can live. I should note though that for decades, the US refused to recognize the Soviet annexation of the Baltic states.

Another big difference- all Tibetans are seen as Chinese citizens, all Finns in karelia as Russian citizens. The nations you mentioned have granted citizenship to those that live in these areas, not so israel.

You know, when Israel does offer it, such as in East Jerusalem and the Golan, it is refused, so I don't think this can be the real objection.

In short, you are not reading. Israel plans war aginst Syria to stop Syrian attacks- Egypt, afraid of Syrain defeat, threatens war, to stop israel.

You're forgetting the Fedayeen raids and the closure of the straits of Tiran.

Israel then attacks both. In such a scenerio, everyone is guilty of something, everyone guilty of aggression. The question is about the fatermath. Did Israel try to negotiate an end to violence with either Syria or Egypt? No, it just sat there, basking in victory, thinking that, since they had the power, they could do anything they wanted. Well, they were wrong, and we are all paying for their acts.

Syria and Egypt didn't try to negotiate either. In fact, they decided at Khartoum that they would never negotiate with Israel.

And do I care what Faysal Husseini said? No, cause it is meaningless. What matters, what will be inforced, what will be remembered, was what was signed.

Why should that be so? The texts of treaties which have been broken in world history could fill books.

Why did balfour do what he did? In the end, it doesn't matter at all, only what he wrote.

No, what matters is that what he meant was enforced. And if I lived in 1917 and found out that he had given a newspaper intervie saying "we just said this to get the Jews in Poland to fight the Germans and really we're planning to revoke this as soon as we win" I wouldn't have put much credence by his words.

Besides, what did the other Palestinian negotiators say? Also, recognition of israel came in 1988, 5 years before Oslo, so the fact that Palestinians recognized Israel had nothing to do with the "Oslo Plot" you seem to have cooked up in your head.

IIRC the Palestinians did not recognize Israel in 1988, but rather said that they would be willing to do so in negotiations. There is a difference.

If so, please tell me what absolute values allow you to hold the views you hold? Because most absolute values I know drive me towards the conclusion that israel is wrong.
Law is based on what people say- Killing someone is not always murder- in fact, most of the time it is not. Why? Cause people have said so. There are laws, i follow them. Israel is breaking a long list of laws, agreements, treaties, declarations, and all other sort of international statements of purpose and values, and that is wrong, it is immoral. If you don't value laws, rules, agreements, then fine by you.

UN resolutions can't be considered laws because they're never enforced and in fact, no real enforcement mechanism exists except the haphazard rulings of the big boys on the block. People can't be expected to abide by laws which aren't enforced and aren't evenly applied.


Cyber, I think the issue of whether civillians should be killed is important and distinct enough to deserve its own thread. However, I should first point out that the minefield analogy is incorrect, your objection is not to the risks taken by the parents (AFAIK the baby would have been at greater risk of car accident in the US than terrorist attack or car accident in Israel) but that you have decided it is wrong for them to be there. But like I said, this deserves its own thread. The intruder analogy is doubly flawed, because the warning provided by the Palestinians is generic - it would be like the police saying "everyone get out of any house which the court hasn't given you deed to" once every six monthes and then bombing any house they felt fit the description. Secondly, a police investigation is not grounds to murder innocents; killing Randy Weaver's wife or bulldozing the Branch Davidian compound was not okay just because he was wanted on gun charges.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Natan
I think that Atlas makers have even less authority than "the international community" in tell people where they can live. I should note though that for decades, the US refused to recognize the Soviet annexation of the Baltic states.

Atlases are made with current politics in mind- they don't set policy, they mirror it. Thus, the fact that no maps have the occupied territories as part of Israel shows you that no one believes those lands are rightfully Israeli. As for the second part, what right does Israel have to tell anyone (hence, Palestinians) were to live? They do have that right, given by law, but there is a hierarchy of laws. Israel has the right to keep Palestinians out because it is the recognized sovereign right of all states to control their populations, who lives there and who doesn't. But aht right, which you Natan seem to extoll and agree with, exist only as part of a long line of agree emtns between states. No rights are natural- they are all convetions. Your problem is that you insist that part of the convention (Israel keeping Palestinians out of living in israel) is valid but the rest (Israel not having that right in lands that aren't Israel, like the occupied territories) isn't.

You know, when Israel does offer it, such as in East Jerusalem and the Golan, it is refused, so I don't think this can be the real objection.

Isreal has never offered East Jerusalem whole (ie, break up the borders of the city of Jerusalem created in 1967 which include large swaths of land in the West bank. If you think they did, well, you are wrong. They have offered limited soveriegnty over the Mosque complex, the arab quarter (but not all territories outside the green line) and thats it. As for the Golan, Israel and Syria disagree on the exact borders and on the exact conditions, which is why Syrai hasn't really sat down. Remember, Syria accepted UNSCR 242 in 1972, and one provision is recognizing the existance of Israel. So, your suggestion that the final aim is full destruction of Israel is based on no diplomatic evidence whatsoever

You're forgetting the Fedayeen raids and the closure of the straits of Tiran.

The raids happened all the time, and Israel usually just carried out massive counter retaliations in Gaza which killed far more people than the Fedayeen ever did. Second, the closure of the straits of Tiran was done after Nasser begun to try to threaten israel into not going to war with Syria. It was part of his strategy. So, Israel was planning to go to war with Syria before the closings, the closing just gave them a good excuse and reason to extend the war to Egypt.

Syria and Egypt didn't try to negotiate either. In fact, they decided at Khartoum that they would never negotiate with Israel.

Firts of all, Syria wan't at Khartoum (They boycotted it). Second, Egypt and Jordan refused to give Israel de jure recognition, which they would end up doing in UNSRC 242 a few month away anyway, but also spoke of negotiation necessary to get back their lands lost in june 1967. MOre to the point: Israel refused to negotiate from a position of strenght, the Arabs from a postion of weakness. I can undertand the second stance far more than the first. If you can tell me why israel was so uneager to negitoate from a position of strenght, maybe we can move on with this point.

Why should that be so? The texts of treaties which have been broken in world history could fill books.

So what? MOst of the time, large numbers of people died afterwards, so maybe we, as an international community, should make it our business to insure treaties are followed and lives and values upheld.

No, what matters is that what he meant was enforced. And if I lived in 1917 and found out that he had given a newspaper intervie saying "we just said this to get the Jews in Poland to fight the Germans and really we're planning to revoke this as soon as we win" I wouldn't have put much credence by his words.

Both sides failed to enforce Oslo all the way. Even if you believe him, Oslo was a terrible agreement in the first place, they way to sidestep madrid, which was a far more mature way towards resolving the conflict.

IIRC the Palestinians did not recognize Israel in 1988, but rather said that they would be willing to do so in negotiations. There is a difference.

To quote George Schultz, US secreatry of state under reagan in 1988:
The PLO today issued a statement in which it accepted UNSCR 242 and 338, recognized Israel's right to exist in peace and security and renounced terrorism. As a result, the US is prepared for a substantive dialogue with PLO representatives.

You can take any further arguments with Mr. Schultz.

UN resolutions can't be considered laws because they're never enforced and in fact, no real enforcement mechanism exists except the haphazard rulings of the big boys on the block. People can't be expected to abide by laws which aren't enforced and aren't evenly applied.

UN security council resolutions, not General Aseembly resolutions, can be rightfully enforced. In fact, the Korean War and the Gulf war are both examples of UNSC resolutions being enforced. You are right that this sytem only works if all major powers, (the five veto powers) agree to do it (or for some reson, are not at the meeting when the others do) so the only reason UNSCR 242 has not been enforced by force is the US.

[CyberGnu]

Feel free to start a new thread, just copy paste the relevant parts of my post to it and start replying.

You seem to have misunderstood the baby-tossing analogy. It is not a question of probabilities. It is a question of whom is responsible for the death of a child. If the child is brought into an area where that baby shoulnd't be, it must be the responsibility of the parents.

Again, look at U.S. law. If I bring my baby to a robbery, say holding up a conveniance store, and the store clerk shoots at me and hits the baby, who is guilty of the murder? According to U.S. law, it is me. (And this is a very sane view, I think).

It all comes down to the concept of human shields. You can't expect the palestinians to not fight you just because you decide to keep children around... That is your choice, and you are the only one who should be forced to deal with the moral consequences.


I can't make heads or tail of your intruder reply...

Are the palestinians telling Israel they wnat their land back only every six months? And what area is it that you confuse with Israel? I think the palestinians have been very clear that they don't want israelis in their land... And the lulls in the fighting are caused by the mistaken beliefs that negotiations would lead somewhere...

Finally, a police investigation is not grounds, and I never claimed it was. But this is way past an investigation... And to refer back to the pevious analogy, if I call the police and tell them there is an intruder in my house and he seems to be violent, the police are not going to start an investigation... They will send officers to the scene, where they will try to talk to the person. If he offers violent resistance, he can be killed.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Tom201
Hm, u are talking here about the TV while I talk about that particular Radiostation I've seen a report about. I cant judge about the TV I didnt see any of this. Im likley to belive the report I've seen, but I admit that it is of course possible that they just behaved nicer cose they were followed around by a foreign reporter team. So I dont know.

Hmm...
True.
Well remember the part where they said jews murdered their own children and blamed it on the palestinians.

But in general I have to say that cutting ppl. of from their own radio/tv/newspaper information cant be a good idea. Even not when u say they sending stuff which u consider being encitement. Imagine all radio/tv/newspapers are cut off, how the palastins get their info? Right - by hearsay and I belive hearsay would carry alot more of encitement and would do more damage to their view about israel than a radio could possibly do.

I'm not so sure but I'll agree.

Second blowing of radiostations and that like give the palastins even more the view that israel is evil and fears true (the palastins would see it this way) info.
In my opinion it wont help israel.

I basically agree.

If we didn't really stop the encitemet it is useless.

While I apriciate that some terrorist get judged by a court (I hope that these are fair courts, meaning if there is any doubt he had anything to do with terrorist actions he is free to go), assasinating ppl. should never be an option for a state.

Look, most people who get caught, were caught with weapons after / right before / during a terract.

I have yet to hear about a person being injustly convicted of terrorist activity.

Think about it, what other state is going around assasinate ppl? Well maybe some dictatorships...

Psst - everyone's doing it.

It's a simple solution. You have a master terrorist and capturing him would prove too difficult. So you nail him. No more master terrorist.

Look, technically it's a military action. In war you don't judge every warrior you kill.

But what hits the mind immediatly is the comparision to mafia organisations. Right now it is in my opionion very reasonable to compare israel and the mafia. Methods are the same:
"Carlos that guy betrayed us" - "Hm 2 loyal guys says so, thats enough evidence - kill him" *victim gets killed by the mafia*

I think it's too presumptious to call the GSS and Mossad "2 loyal guys"

Let's just say I read some things about how exact is the info GSS and Mossad have... and you'll be amazed what people can know even without Echelon on their side

"Mossad says they are terrorists, if this evidence would be enough for a court doesnt matter, there wont be one. We believe Mossad lets kill the bastards" *ppl. accused being terrorst get hit by a rocket*

But the point is wrong.
We don't kill them because we lack on evidence or something.

We kill them because we know we might not arrest them in time, or at all.

There are 100 times more arrests than assassinations - but those aren't reported as much.

And finally, many arrest attempts have ended in a bad way. Some times many Israeli soldiers died. It's easier to send in a rocket.

Actually the mafia is even doing their job better, usually only killing the one that was the target and very rarly ppl. happen to be around.

that's because the mafia can do soemthing like poison his food.

the difference is, that if an israeli soldier kills a terrorist with a gun, he has to manage to escape. He probably won't because the entire 3 million palestinians are on his tail.

Of course it is a bit provocating to compare israel with the mafia. I admit that the goals are diffrent. Israel is not doing this for maximising money and trading around drugs and so on, they do it for security. But and that is important the methods seem to be the same. And this cant be tolerated. (At least not when israel claim their actions to be justified)

Look at a war:

We have this and this warrior which is on his way to kill us.
Let's take him out in advance.

Well if u want to do something but the methods u use fail. U wont use the same method again that is proved to be uneffective for your goals: Killing the ppl. that are the target without killing anyone else - the second one fails often -> ergo Methods are uneffective and needs to be changed.

Basically, mostly it is accurate. The problem is that it's a very tight place...

Running around and bombing targets with rockets blowing the whole place up wont help much on this issue. Right now Israel doesnt seem to give a **** about palastin civilian causalties.

Israel gives some ****.
Though agreeably not too much.
Israel should give a **** abuot thier own civilians first.

Israel is proud of their mossad. Well maybe they should use their intelegence agency not only to find targets, but also to work out effective plans for assination. Ever heard of sniper rifles or undercover agents?

Do you understand that those are exposed after the assassination, and hundreds of gunmen will chase them?

When there's an agent, you have to save him.
A rocket doesn't need to be saved.

There are more "clean" ways to assasinate ppl. (just learn from the mafia ). This takes of course more risks than flying around in a secure helicopter, but Israel have to take this risks or have to live with the fact to kill innocent ppl.

Israel prefers to live with killing innocent ppl., knowing that it does it's best to avoid killing them.
Of course, avoiding loosing it's own soldiers is more important.

So Im absolutly against assasination in general (see mafia methods).

See "war"

But if they do so they need to do it in a "clean" way. They could if they wanted but they dont... (dont want to take any risks for their own man to avoid killing innocent ppl.)

exactly.
assassinations are a very messy thing.

and anyway, I told you, we arrest 100 times more people.

Well they also often kill police men on purpose (see yesterday bombings after the sniper atack, which killed 4 police man).
I dont belive this signal would help israel in any way. Just imagine being a palastin police man: First u dont help Israel by looking for terrorists and so on (or maybe some did but failed). Then there is some terrorist action in israel, and it is very unclear if u had the power to do anything about it.

It's not true.
Many policemen already participate in terror, directly (shoting at israelis) or indirectly (not persuing terrorists and releasing them).

If they had looked for terrorists, we woudln't have the need to shoot those policemen.

Israel is responding with bombing random buildings of the police and killing random police man. This should than be the signal for u to work in favor of Israel??

it bombs not random buildings, but those which are related to arafat.

we continue "signaling" him, that if he doesn't budge, he'll lose power.

Honestly would u after Israel destroyed your buildings and killed maybe a friend of yours help them?

I don't care!

There have been 10 months time to help Israelis before we started destroying buildings. They didn't use that time. Tough luck.

Or would u be more likly to apriciate more terror atacks on tose that done the damage to u??

They supported terror attacks before as well, so I don't care.

Really? The guerilla wars that happend in the past were either won by the guerillas (cuba), or the atacking force gave up (us vs. vietnam).
With the guerillas being that radical like the palastins there is no way of military victory than killing them all. U really think this is an option?

I think that killing everyone who is armed is defently legitimate and can be done with some goodwill

Palestine is no jungel.

Than at the end some questions to learn more :
How much % of the population in Israel is involved in military/police/mossad?

hmmm....
at a given time? I wouldn't bet my money on much.
Mossad is extremly small and closed.
It deals mainly with other things.

GSS is large but has many "cooperators".

police is several thousands.

Military is i would gess several dozen thousands.

[Sirotnikov]

To quote George Schultz, US secreatry of state under reagan in 1988:
The PLO today issued a statement in which it accepted UNSCR 242 and 338, recognized Israel's right to exist in peace and security and renounced terrorism. As a result, the US is prepared for a substantive dialogue with PLO representatives.

You can take any further arguments with Mr. Schultz.

Well, Mr. Schultz is very naive.

Israel and Rabin esp. believed the PLO, but were proved to be wrong, histerically.

Fatah, which is the main PLO body, openly practices terror.

Arafat is known to support terror both mentally and economically (GSS and Mil. Intelligence info).

Arafat also ordered the release of dozens of terrorists which he promised to keep in jail. The terracts have grown deadlier ever since.

The PLO declaration of intentions still IIRC contains a close saying that "fighting for the elimination of israel is the ultimate just cause". Or at least it was there until 1999 or something.

On numerous occasions since, different PLO spokesmen called the oslo accords "a tactical step in a greater plan to destroy israel".

All this takes precedence over their declaration of renouncing terror, since it is obvious why would they want to lie and say they renounce terror (get world public support and legitimacy) while there is no reason for them to lie and claim they want to destroy israel.

[Natan]

Originally posted by GePap
Atlases are made with current politics in mind- they don't set policy, they mirror it. Thus, the fact that no maps have the occupied territories as part of Israel shows you that no one believes those lands are rightfully Israeli.

Most atlases I've seen say that "the status of these territories is to be determined," which I'd say pokes a hole in your argument that they're obviously Palestnian. It was never my claim that the territories are "rightfully Israeli," but rather that they are not clearly "rightfully Palestinian."

As for the second part, what right does Israel have to tell anyone (hence, Palestinians) were to live? They do have that right, given by law, but there is a hierarchy of laws. Israel has the right to keep Palestinians out because it is the recognized sovereign right of all states to control their populations, who lives there and who doesn't. But aht right, which you Natan seem to extoll and agree with, exist only as part of a long line of agree emtns between states. No rights are natural- they are all convetions. Your problem is that you insist that part of the convention (Israel keeping Palestinians out of living in israel) is valid but the rest (Israel not having that right in lands that aren't Israel, like the occupied territories) isn't.

So if the UN passed a resolution saying that lefties should be exterminate, that would be okay? This is absurd. What Russia, China, Britain, France, and the US happen to think politically convenient one morning in New York isn't necessarily right of just.

Isreal has never offered East Jerusalem whole (ie, break up the borders of the city of Jerusalem created in 1967 which include large swaths of land in the West bank. If you think they did, well, you are wrong. They have offered limited soveriegnty over the Mosque complex, the arab quarter (but not all territories outside the green line) and thats it.

And this affects negotiations with Egypt and Syria how?

As for the Golan, Israel and Syria disagree on the exact borders and on the exact conditions, which is why Syrai hasn't really sat down. Remember, Syria accepted UNSCR 242 in 1972, and one provision is recognizing the existance of Israel. So, your suggestion that the final aim is full destruction of Israel is based on no diplomatic evidence whatsoever

Obviously if the only acceptable evidence of a nation's intentions are the treaties it signs, we will never be able to show that any state has nefarious motives. But by that reasoning, there's no evidence that the US doesn't intend to abide by the UN charter, or that

The raids happened all the time, and Israel usually just carried out massive counter retaliations in Gaza which killed far more people than the Fedayeen ever did.

So the fact that the fighting was constant makes the war unjustified?

Second, the closure of the straits of Tiran was done after Nasser begun to try to threaten israel into not going to war with Syria. It was part of his strategy. So, Israel was planning to go to war with Syria before the closings, the closing just gave them a good excuse and reason to extend the war to Egypt.

What are you saying? That Israel should not have made plans to fight Syria while it shelled the Golan? Or that Nasser was justified in closing the straits of Tiran because it served his foriegn policy goals? And furthermore, Israel was not planning to attack Syria - the Soviets merely spread misinformation to that effect to Nasser to dupe him. If Israel had planned to attack Syria from the beginning, they would have seized it at the beginning instead of at the end of the war.

Firts of all, Syria wan't at Khartoum (They boycotted it). Second, Egypt and Jordan refused to give Israel de jure recognition, which they would end up doing in UNSRC 242 a few month away anyway, but also spoke of negotiation necessary to get back their lands lost in june 1967.

The Arab states always insisted that the lands had to be returned before they accepted Israel's right to exist. Furthermore, the meaning of resolution 242 was never clearly decided on, and both sides only accepted their interpretations of the resolution. They said as much at the time.

MOre to the point: Israel refused to negotiate from a position of strenght, the Arabs from a postion of weakness. I can undertand the second stance far more than the first.

It seems quite reasonable to me to refuse to give something (land) for meaningless nothing, that is, a "recognition" of a state's "right to exist."

So what? MOst of the time, large numbers of people died afterwards, so maybe we, as an international community, should make it our business to insure treaties are followed and lives and values upheld.

"So what?" So maybe nations are a little reluctant now to sign treaties with their enemies?

Both sides failed to enforce Oslo all the way.

Really? Would you like to explain how Israel violated Oslo? And besides, if the Palestinians thought Oslo was a bad agreement, they should have renounced it. Lying through your teeth is really not a good way to start peace negotiations.

To quote George Schultz, US secreatry of state under reagan in 1988:
The PLO today issued a statement in which it accepted UNSCR 242 and 338, recognized Israel's right to exist in peace and security and renounced terrorism. As a result, the US is prepared for a substantive dialogue with PLO representatives

Not quite so - negotiations later had to be suspended because it turned out the PLO wasn't so sure about renouncing terrorism. But either way, negotiations started shortly thereafter.

UN security council resolutions, not General Aseembly resolutions, can be rightfully enforced.

It's just that they usually aren't. More to the point, Israel had no assurance that the UN would enforce the sections pertaining to its right to exist, and therefore I don't think it could be expected to abide by the rest.

[GePap]

wrong

Well, Rabin believed, and was killed by Israeli fanatic for wanting peace. As for what takes precedent, I only take legal statements, one made in writing, as valid, since only they can be enforced and used in the future for peace. Besides, countless israeli government offcicials have, since oslo, repudiated it and also talked even of mass expulsion, so don't act the innocent, since you talk about peace, and then build settlements, keep palestinians out of work, assasinate people, and so forth.

Besides, when will you, Natan, or Eli begin to state what principles and/or morals drive you to these conclusions? Read my signature at the bottom: reality is created. the current violence is an outcome of a failed peace process (Oslo was wrong from the start) and no faith between the two sides. Well, ignore the two sides opinion, and, as i said in dalgetti's thread, force a resolution down people throats based on basic and universal values as enumerated by the international community. Israelis and Palestinians are too stuck in their own morass to get out. A new approach is key. Whether you want it or not should really be becoming more irrelevant.

[CyberGnu]

GePap, very well said.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Natan

Most atlases I've seen say that "the status of these territories is to be determined," which I'd say pokes a hole in your argument that they're obviously Palestnian. It was never my claim that the territories are "rightfully Israeli," but rather that they are not clearly "rightfully Palestinian."

Well, Jordan has renounced all claims to the West bank, and Egypt never annexed Gaza. Those lands were in the part give to Palestinians by the 1947 partition. I do make they claim that they are rightfully Palestinian, but at least i am now clear on your position.

So if the UN passed a resolution saying that lefties should be exterminate, that would be okay? This is absurd. What Russia, China, Britain, France, and the US happen to think politically convenient one morning in New York isn't necessarily right of just.

The UN can't pass such a resolution because it conflicts with its basic Charter. Thus the example is invalid.

And this affects negotiations with Egypt and Syria how?

Israel already got peace with Egypt, and Syria is dragging its feet. But east jerusalem never ahd anything to do with either of those nations anyway, only for a while with Jordan, who also already delcared peace.

Obviously if the only acceptable evidence of a nation's intentions are the treaties it signs, we will never be able to show that any state has nefarious motives. But by that reasoning, there's no evidence that the US doesn't intend to abide by the UN charter, or that

And whay would you say the US doesn't? Intentions change daily, rights and laws rarely. For any long-term solutiuon then, intentions mean nothing, laws everything.

So the fact that the fighting was constant makes the war unjustified?

What are you saying? That Israel should not have made plans to fight Syria while it shelled the Golan? Or that Nasser was justified in closing the straits of Tiran because it served his foriegn policy goals? And furthermore, Israel was not planning to attack Syria - the Soviets merely spread misinformation to that effect to Nasser to dupe him. If Israel had planned to attack Syria from the beginning, they would have seized it at the beginning instead of at the end of the war.

Israel saw egypt as the most powerful enemy with the biggest army, so they had to be put out first (you seem to no realize that this crisis took months, and israel is small enoguh to shift forces in a few weeks). Jordan, which during the crisis aligned itself with Nasser, both was also a big threat, shelling Israel once the war begun, and owned the biggest prize. After the may crisis begun, Syria took the back-burner.

The Arab states always insisted that the lands had to be returned before they accepted Israel's right to exist. Furthermore, the meaning of resolution 242 was never clearly decided on, and both sides only accepted their interpretations of the resolution. They said as much at the time.

And obviously, Camp david shows that that was not true, and that peace, if given a chance, can happen. As for 242, it does have some ambiguity, but unfortunitelly for israel, its interpretation is shared only by the US.

It seems quite reasonable to me to refuse to give something (land) for meaningless nothing, that is, a "recognition" of a state's "right to exist."

Recognition is everything in international politics, which is why every government does all it can (just like Israel did with the PLO) to stop rebel groups from being recognized. Once you are recognized, you get to sit at the table and be heard.

"So what?" So maybe nations are a little reluctant now to sign treaties with their enemies?

Who are your enemies? The Palestinians? Why are they your enemies? Perhaps when you come to comprehensive answers to those two questions you will see the wrongness of Israel's position.

Really? Would you like to explain how Israel violated Oslo? And besides, if the Palestinians thought Oslo was a bad agreement, they should have renounced it. Lying through your teeth is really not a good way to start peace negotiations.

Firts, i still don't give a damn about that guy, or any guys, statement to the press- statements can change, agreements can only be followed or borken. As for israel, it never kept up the agreed timetable of withdrawls. thats how israel violated it.

Not quite so - negotiations later had to be suspended because it turned out the PLO wasn't so sure about renouncing terrorism. But either way, negotiations started shortly thereafter.

You had said that the PLO had not recognized Israel. You were wrong. As for terrorism, thats a different cup of tea.

It's just that they usually aren't. More to the point, Israel had no assurance that the UN would enforce the sections pertaining to its right to exist, and therefore I don't think it could be expected to abide by the rest.

Wrong again. Security Council resolutions that call for cation usually are. The big deal with israel is that the US has always blocked resolutions that call for anti-israel action (veto power). besides, the very right of Israel to exist within the international community was granted by the UN! The UN recognizes the right of states to exist, which is why we got the Gulf (kuwait) and Korean war (South Korea). Any failure to enforce is based on the acceptance of a moyor veto power to the aggression, but since the US is Israel's sugardaddy, arguments vs the UN seem rather silly and baseless.