Latest Exploit of the Heroic Palestinians.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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

Nope... but a lot of people here act like Israel's **** don't stink.

To my knowledge, the Israeli's never massacred civilian populations.

You then really don't know much about the history of 1947-49 do you?

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.

WOULD YOU? Say the UN came in and said that California was going to be given back to the Native Americans since they lived their long ago. You think the US would sit back and say, well ok. No, we'd fight and try to kick the crap out of any state that popped up.

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?

No, but it sure seems you are... after all you believe the Palestinians are sub-human, don't you?

Israel, first and foremost needs to move out of the West Bank and Gaza TOTALLY, including support for settlements. Let 100% of the WB and Gaza be under control of the Palestinian people (even the current settlements), who will have UN supervised elections and Parliamentary democracy.

That is my position. But yours is to kill all the dirty Arabs (helps they aren't white, right paco?) because they are in the way of the good strong Jews.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by 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...

The fact that Arafat didn't live up to any of the provisions in the Oslo accord shows how much he really cared about it. He was supposed to fight terrorism, but that didn't happen, unless you consider financially supporting terrorists and letting them hide out at your compound as "fighting terrorism". This behavior makes me seriously doubt Arafat's "acceptance" of Israel's right to exist. It takes a very naive person to take Arafat's word (or, more accurately, his English words) at face value anymore.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

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

Nope... but a lot of people here act like Israel's **** don't stink.

I'll readily admit that Israel has done wrong, the settlements being the most obvious example. However, building settlements is a far cry from murdering civilians in their homes or in supermarkets. At least the settlements can be removed; I don't know how you're going to bring back all the Israelis killed in the name of Palestinian independence. Or all the Palestinians, for that matter. Seems like a pretty steep cost for a piece of land...

[The Mad Monk]

Imran, are you saying it would be justified for the Jews who were driven out of Germany, Poland, and the former Soviet Union in the '30s and '40s to demand their property back, and murder families in their beds if they don't get their way?

[KrazyHorse]

He probably would.

Oh, and BTW: I think that settlers who carry arms are valid military targets; they're occupying forces. Their families are civilians, and should be respected as such.

You're making me nauseous again, Imran.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by 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...

I support the right of nations to defend themselves through the use of uniformed combatants. I would extend the same consideration to Palestinians in uniform who wish to fight with Israeli soldiers and police. I am not blaming all Palestinians. I am blaming terrorists who target civilians.

The Palestinians are not the victims of terrorism. They are the purpetrators of it. Why do you think they were driven out of Jordan? What did they do to Lebanon? These are the people you think the Israelis are victimizing? I don't think so.

To suggest that Israel invaded anyone is absurd. They fought a series of wars when they were attacked, or attack against them was imminent. They won. They are no more the aggressors than the United States was an agressor in WWII.

The Israelis have built settlements in the occupied territories. They also lost settlements when Israelis were driven out of some of those territories in 1948. Israel is, by and large, defending itself. However, yes, some of their settlements are probably unjust. Unfortunately I will never grant that terrorism targeting civilians is justified by any injustice. There are other solutions.

The fact is that the Palestinians are the authors of their own misfortune vis-a-vis violence. Some of them are the ones who insist on continuing an armed struggle targeting civilians. I do not blame the Israelis in the slightest when they act to annihilate the centres of terror and any who actively resist. Certain parallels may be drawn with Afghanistan.

BTW. The lands Israel took from Jordan (The West Bank) were not given back to Jordan when peace was made. I think that makes them Israeli to do with what they deem fit. It seems they deem fit to grant large parts of it to the Palestinians.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran, are you saying it would be justified for the Jews who were driven out of Germany, Poland, and the former Soviet Union in the '30s and '40s to demand their property back, and murder families in their beds if they don't get their way?

If they were still there in colonized occupied lands, yes. The problem is that they under colonial rule.. and in Germany they were basically assimilated into the population before Hitler.

As an aside, if East Germans protested against Soviet occupation by terrorist acts, I'd say it was justified (and so would the US government at the time, mind).

[KrazyHorse]

BTW. The lands Israel took from Jordan (The West Bank) were not given back to Jordan when peace was made. I think that makes them Israeli to do with what they deem fit. It seems they deem fit to grant large parts of it to the Palestinians

There are limitations to what conquering nations can do in conquered territory. See my comment on the last page. The Israeli government, numerous Arab governments, and Palestinian organisations have all been guilty of war crimes, including the deliberate targetting of civilians and civilian structures and ethnic cleansing, and none of the parties involved have bothered halting their crimes.

[notyoueither]

I agree with you KH. I definitely believe that the Israelis have more than likely carried out some unjust actions in the West Bank. Not all of their settlements would fall in that category, but certainly some from what I've gathered.

None of it justifies targeting civilians through acts of terror though. There are other remedies. Like negotiating peace.

[KrazyHorse]

I believe you might be referring to the old maxim that two wrongs don't make a right. I agree with that. The Palestinians cannot justify their crimes by pointing at the Israelis, and vice-versa.

[catullus]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Imran, are you saying it would be justified for the Jews who were driven out of Germany, Poland, and the former Soviet Union in the '30s and '40s to demand their property back, and murder families in their beds if they don't get their way?

Most Western Euro nations have paid huge sums of money, both to victims/survivors/relatives of the holocaust/property confiscations and to Israel (seen as best inheritor of the millions killed in the war). I really hope that most of us feel this was the right thing to do.

I'm looking forward to seeing Israel compensating the thousands living in refugee camps in the ME for losses of homes and orange and olive groves in the expulsions of 47-49 and the later acts of state vandalism.
AND supporting the PA economically, of course. After rebuilding their communication infrastructure (roads and airport) first.

Was compensating victims of the Holocaust right?
Was supporting Israel politically and economically right (even after terrorist acts by Israelis-to-be and Israeli-leaders-to-be)?

Will compensating victims of the Palestinian exodus be right?
Will supporting Free Palestine politically and economically be right (even after terrorist acts by FreePalestinians-to-be and FreePalestinians-leaders-to-be)?

C.

[CyberGnu]

Drake, while I wholeheartedly agree with you that one has to look at the entire picture, it doesn't apply to this case. No matter how you look at it Israel is still the aggressor.

Also, it has been the stated policy of three of the four major resistance movements in palestine that once an israeli goes to a settlement he is in fact a combatant. His weapons might be bulldozers and fake legal edicts, but the result is still the same as blatant landgrabbing.

Incidentally, the fourth movement, Hamas, who advocates strikes in all Israel, not only the areas outside the green line, is also the one opposed to Arafat. If Israel truly wanted peace, they would cooperate with Arafat to stop the Hamas, instea of increasing Hamas influence.

[notyoueither]

How much did France, or Great Britain, or Italy, or Norway pay to Israel?

[CyberGnu]

Drake:

The fact that Arafat didn't live up to any of the provisions in the Oslo accord shows how much he really cared about it. He was supposed to fight terrorism, but that didn't happen, unless you consider financially supporting terrorists and letting them hide out at your compound as "fighting terrorism". This behavior makes me seriously doubt Arafat's "acceptance" of Israel's right to exist. It takes a very naive person to take Arafat's word (or, more accurately, his English words) at face value anymore.

How are whether Arafat is hiding wanted men indicative of whether he lived up to the Oslo accords or not? Quite frankly, using ANY examples from after the second intifada started to make points regarding the period between the intifadas is logically impossible, unless you assume that Israelis can see the future.


Finally, while it might take a naive person to take Arafts word, that person would not have to be more naive than someone taking, for example, Bush's word.

One would have to be extraordinarily naive, however, to believe that arafat could publically support an end to terrorism while Israeli occupation still continues. It amazes me how good the israeli spin-machine is on touting thispropaganda piece, and how incredibly stupid the vast majority of americans is to buy it...

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Drake, while I wholeheartedly agree with you that one has to look at the entire picture, it doesn't apply to this case. No matter how you look at it Israel is still the aggressor.

I dare you to try and prove this. I personally think you are ignorant of the situation, but I'll give you a chance to prove your point. How exactly is Israel the aggressor, "no matter how you look at it"?