Latest Exploit of the Heroic Palestinians.

[nationalist]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

So no people lived there before the Zionist invasion?

Yeah. They were called Brits Before that, wasn't the land controlled by Turks? There hasn't been an independant Palestine, but there have been Palestinians. However, the Palestinains aren't going to get any sympathy as long as they use their teenage suicide bombers.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
notyou, the difference is that the palestinians did not go into the settlement to specifically kill that girl. They went in there to kill settlers, which they are considering combatants without uniform. The girl was killed during the raid.

And so the problem remains: The settlers are not the victims here. The girl was, and the party culpable for her death are her parents.

My position is based on a belief that nothing justifies the act of skulking around in civvies (or the other side's uniforms) and killing civilians. I will never agree to any excuse for it, and I will never blame the victims.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It was populated by Jews and Syrian Arabs

Mostly Arabs, who were brutally forced to leave... some were massacred, others left by fear. The land was stolen!

However, the Palestinains aren't going to get any sympathy as long as they use their teenage suicide bombers.

Perhaps not, but it is all they have left.

[notyoueither]

Hmmm. I think both Gandhi and Mandela acheived their goals a long time ago.

[CyberGnu]

Drake, i don't think you got the point.

Merely saying that aggression is not tolerated does not bring peace.

But acting on it, like the US did in quwait, does. Unfortunately, the US is solidly behind the aggressor in this conflict...

[CyberGnu]

Dino, I actually haven't mentioned deserved or justified. But however you feel about the girls death, the fact remains that it is her parents that are to blame. I think you believe as me, that the death of a young girl is a horrible thing, but I don't see you posting about how her parents should be sent to jail.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Mostly Arabs, who were brutally forced to leave... some were massacred, others left by fear. The land was stolen!

What's your point? It's not like this sort of thing has never happened before. Jews in Arab states at the same time were treated in the same way. Luckily for them, Israel was willing to accept the Jewish refugees into their country. The Arab states, OTOH, treated their fellow Arabs like **** and left them in refugee camps. Yet you would have us believe that all the problems faced by the Palestinians today are Israel's fault.

Anyway, I feel for the Arabs kicked out of Palestine in 1948. I also feel for the Jews who were expelled from Arab states at that time. Both groups got caught up in a greater conflict and got screwed. However, you can't spend all of eternity being pissed off by what happened to your ancestors. The Arabs tried several times to destroy Israel and take back Palestine, but they failed. Israel is here to stay and the Pals need to accept that. Violence will get them nothing. If they turn to peaceful measures, however, they will probably get their own state. They won't get everything they want, but that's what happens when you're on the losing side of a conflict. It's time to put aside the hatred and dreams about the destruction of Israel. Now is the time for the Pals to cooperate with their Jewish neighbors.

[CyberGnu]

notyou: just to clarify things
You do support putting on a uniform and killing civilians?
You do support invading other countries, killing the inhabitants and taking their land, as long as you are strong enough to withstand the opposition?

BTW, you are blaming the victims here... Unless I'm misinterpreting your posts completely. The victims in this particular situation are the girl and the palestinians. The girl was killed, and the palestinains got their land stolen.

So by blaming the palestinians for fighting back, you are actually blaming the victims...

[CyberGnu]

Drake, the palestinians have accepted the existance of Israel. It was part of the Oslo treaty, signed over a decade ago. The problem is that Barak actually offered them less in his 'generous' offer at Camp David than what they were supposed to get from the Oslo...


And you wonder why they are disillusionised by israels eternal mantra of 'security first, land second'. They know from hard experience that it actually means 'security now, and the longer we can string out the situation the more idiots in the world will fall for the argument that the palestinians should look to the future and not the past'.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Israel is here to stay and the Pals need to accept that. Violence will get them nothing

It got them this far, didn't it? I mean, the world didn't give two ****s about Palestine before the bombings and shootings.

Now is the time for the Pals to cooperate with their Jewish neighbors.

When the Jews cooperate with them as well. After Rabin it all collapsed. Barak's offer was totally laughable (and seeing how besieged he was in Israel at the time, little chance of his plan being passed).

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Drake, i don't think you got the point.

Merely saying that aggression is not tolerated does not bring peace.

But acting on it, like the US did in quwait, does. Unfortunately, the US is solidly behind the aggressor in this conflict...

My point was that legalistic bull**** works great on paper, but when applied to the real world it falls apart. Israel is the perfect example of this. You classify Israel as the agressor, but it isn't nearly as black and white as you would like it to be. If you look solely at Israel and the occupied territories, then Israel does indeed seem to be the agressor. However, if you expand your view of the conflict to include the Arab states that are still at war with Israel, then the occupation of the West Bank looks like a defensive measure. So which is it? Is Israel the agressor or the defender in this whole thing? In truth, they are both at the same time. So how do your precious international laws handle this confused situation? The complexities of the real world make any sort of law inapplicable in certain situations. The morality of a situation always depends on the circumstances surrounding the situation. Belief in absolute morality, whether in the form of international law or religious dogma, only helps to fuel this horrible conflict.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So how do your precious international laws handle this confused situation?

Well, it does say that the building of settlements in occupied territory is illegal under the Geneva Convention.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

So how do your precious international laws handle this confused situation?

Well, it does say that the building of settlements in occupied territory is illegal under the Geneva Convention.

International law also says that the killing of non-combatants is illegal. Neither side has the moral high ground in this deal.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

It was populated by Jews and Syrian Arabs

Mostly Arabs, who were brutally forced to leave... some were massacred, others left by fear. The land was stolen!

However, the Palestinains aren't going to get any sympathy as long as they use their teenage suicide bombers.

Perhaps not, but it is all they have left.

Imran, I can clearly see why you are anti-Israeli. You really believe Palestinian propaganda.

Palestine for several years was a war zone. People flee war zones. In fact, the Arab nations encouraged it to avoid casualties.

To my knowledge, the Israeli's never massacred civilian populations. In fact, in some cases, they warned civilians that an attack on an Arab position was coming in order that they flee and not be killed.

You also have to consider that the Palestinians started the war with a view to wiping out the Jews. Co-existence, accepted by Israel, has never been accepted by the Palestinians - even to this day.

I don't know what your precise position today on the conflict. However, given your tone, I suspect you are another ethnic cleanser, aren't you?

Ned

[KrazyHorse]

I don't know of any specific convention that allows for the retention of land aquired during a defensive war, but I don't think that there is one prohibiting it either. Plenty of historical precedent for the retention of the land. Alsace-Lorainne to France after WW1 is another example

Retaining territory captured in war is not illegal; deliberately altering the ethnic makeup of the inhabitants of that territory (through deportation, genocide, settlement-building or any other method) is, and has been since the Geneva Treaties of 1946 were signed. IIRC, this is why Israeli settlements have been specifically denounced as illegal by the UN.