Israeli Defence Forces

Sparks

After watching the video footage from this evening's "Dispatches" on Channel four, the first question that comes to mind is "Who's going to stop them?" And I thought "Hang on, Israel signed the Treaty of Rome, so why not use the International Criminal Court!" And then I found this on the ratifications status page :

On 28 August 2002, the Secretary-General received from the Government of Israel, the following communication: ".....in connection with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court adopted on 17 July 1998, [...] Israel does not intend to become a party to the treaty. Accordingly, Israel has no legal obligations arising from its signature on 31 December 2000. Israel requests that its intention not to become a party, as expressed in this letter, be reflected in the depositary's status lists relating to this treaty."

.

Is it just me or are things going from worse to god-awful in terms of international law?

mike65

International law is like sunny weather, we all like to see it but its usually raining...I would'nt say things are getting worse, if anything states are more accountable now than at any point previously, its just that it does'nt feel like that as we are now acutely aware of events that in the past would have passed us by or been know about only through the "misty" lens of newsreel footage/reportage from "far flung places". Now its in your face as it happens and we demand instant redress, so we're set up for a dissapointment.

Mike.

Sparks

I'd have thought that increased accountability would have led to changes

donnie_darko

We are in a terrible period for international law. The neo conservatives in the White House with their Project for a New American Century are setting the geo-political agenda. They will do what they please when they please as do the IDF and there is sweet all we can do about it. Speaking of the IDF, did anyone catch the sickening program on CH 4 last night highlighting the way the IDF murdered some UK journos? Mind you what do you expect from a pig but a grunt?!! Oh dear, they wont like that metaphor - They''l probably bulldoze my house, disappear my family in a measured response to my outrageous comments!!!!

donnie_darko

Sorry Sparks - just heard it was Dispatches I saw last night

Trebor

That was a very good program.

here's an idea why don't the governments all sanction Isreal until they cooperate, but do it outside the UN so America can't veto it

sanvean

I would say that it would need a hell of a lot of power, especially in economic terms. also, the will to back it up. America's emargo of Cuba is done along these lines, with punishments on countries (as far as i know those not members of the EU) that don't fall in line. Not sure how the embargo against South Africa (which was ignored by Israel, quelle surprise) worked, but maybe something along these lines?

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Here's why- the US sees Israel as a long-standing traditional ally, and it would be diplomatic suicide to pressure Israel in such a way. It would threaten half a dozen diplomatic initiatives currently on the table, not least the current peace process.

More to the point- the only truly significant trade partner Israel has is the United States- a couple billion dollars in aid and several million dollars in trade. Weapons contracters in the US view Israel as a prime meal ticket, so it's unlikely any real action will be taken. Especially not by a President who doesn't want to rock the boat just a year from asking the electorate to confirm his currently shaky mandate. Taking the nation to war on this scale is a big deal no matter what people think- his advisors are far too shrewd to allow him to stick his neck out any further than he's already done in the course of foreign affairs. He remembers the lessons of his dad- ignoring domestic issues is perilous, and easy to do after successful foreign policy adventures. Given the lack of a challenger, I think we can all expect four more years of Bush- the Democrats have been in disarray for some years now, don't see them getting their act together much.

Hairy Homer

Good Panorama program on BBC last night about the neocons and their influence in the White House at the moment.

Made the point that many of them came from liberal/left wing backgrounds and have brought all that self-righteous presumptuous zeal with them as they cross over to the far-right libertarian point of view.

They sound just like the ex Stickie Eoghan Harris. Or the ex Labour party minister Conor Cruise O'Brien.

Bloody clones.

Corben Dallas

didnt see that programme.

Israel should get out and STAY THE HELL OUT of Palestine. Just yesterday Shar-ron cancelled a Road map to peace meeting(i think in the US?) after the latest suicide bombing to return and plan their retribution for the attack.

And this will prob take the form of Bull Dozing the Bombers Family house (probably housing innocent civilians) and maybe shell a random Palestine area and throw a few in the direction of Yassers Gaff.
<< this is like locking up your entire family and all your relatives for a crime that yur brother committed>>

But what the demolition of those house does (and what Israel doesnt seem to grasp) is that this creates a whole bunch and entire families of suicide bombers who have nothing to live for anymore

The US shoud 'yank' < the Isreali chain and bring them back in line or just cut off all funding from the US.

Interesting thought - ppl think that the UK has pumped a lot of money in Northern Ireland over the years but this is probably a drop in the ocean compared to the Billions if not Trillions pumped into the Isreali state by the US.

vorbis

honestly, what is the point of taking sides in the israeli dispute? Both sides are as bad as each other. Incidentally it was the palenstinians which scuppered this latest peace effort with the suicide bombings. Israel will probably respond with its usually heavy handed tactics. To get a peace process to start there, both sets of allies (America + Syria,Iran) etc will need to bully the sides into agreement.

sanvean

Originally posted by vorbis
Incidentally it was the palenstinians which scuppered this latest peace effort with the suicide bombings.

I think you're making a slight generalisation here. 'The Palestinians'? Who? Hamas? Palestinian Authority? Or maybe it was the Hezbollah coming down from Lebanon.

I don't think it's really a case of taking sides, although it is hard not to do so. What Sharon really really needs to do is
(a) stop making demands which he knows full well the Palestinian Authority could never accept
(b) stop forming governments with radical right-wing zionists (who call the occupied territories the Territories of Samaria, Judea and Gaza)
(c) Allow the new guy (can't remember his name, he has two, right?) some time to actually consolidate power and allow him to form a police force with unrestricted movement to actually be in the position to stop suicide bombers.

So then we'd have a situation where the Palestinian Authority would be able to control suicide bombers, possible make some arrests on Hamas, and the situation would at least calm down, to allow for the possibility of actual peace talks.

Captain Trips

I don't think part (c) above has a hope in hell. For all intents and purposes, it would be akin to Tony Blair blaming Bertie Aherne (and yeah, he is to blame for a lot of ****!) for the IRA.

The groups like Islamic Jihad, etc., are not in power. They quite pparently at independently for there own purposes, right or wrong. What is scary is that the link between the neocons and Israel is so obvious from how Israel tars all Palestinians with the same brush akin to the Neocon Administration's branding any country with a terrorist organisation as "harboring" them (I dropped the U just in case any Americans were reading).

However, this link is very interesting:
http://www.metimes.com/2K1/issue2001-11/reg/katsav_says_israel.htm or have a look at Breaking News today in the Irish Times (it was on GPRS/WAP earlier).

As to whether the US regards Israel as a longstanding ally in the ME? I doubt it - if anything, all except the neocons would IMHO regard it as a massive liability. They have done more to rupture any chance of peace in the ME and to stir anti-US sentiment than anything the CIA/OSS has or have done in the past 50 years.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Corben Dallas
Israel should get out and STAY THE HELL OUT of Palestine.

Do you mean Palestine as in the West Bank and Gaza or Palestine as in the West Bank and Gaza and Israel itself, which is what the Arabs consider to be Palestine?

Originally posted by vorbis
honestly, what is the point of taking sides in the israeli dispute? Both sides are as bad as each other.

Wrong, the Israelis are morally superior to the Arabs. This is because Israel is being attacked and is fighting a defensive war. It is because the Arabs deliberately target civilians and the Israelis don’t.

To get a peace process to start there, both sets of allies (America + Syria,Iran) etc will need to bully the sides into agreement.

Agreement is not possible when one side is only interested in destroying the other.

You know, I can never understand why it’s so hard for lefties to accept that the Jews aren’t willing to march obediently to their deaths this time around.

Sparks

Wrong, the Israelis are morally superior to the Arabs. This is because Israel is being attacked and is fighting a defensive war. It is because the Arabs deliberately target civilians and the Israelis don’t.

Sorry, but anyone doing what the IDF is doing cannot claim moral superiority.

Agreement is not possible when one side is only interested in destroying the other.
You know, I can never understand why it’s so hard for lefties to accept that the Jews aren’t willing to march obediently to their deaths this time around.

Actually, what's being asked for is not a second holocaust - it's for the IDF not to trundle through the West Bank and Gaza in tanks, shooting the place up with cannon and .50cal's, building illegal settlements and stateing that they will not accept any peace plan that grants palestine soverignty.

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
You know, I can never understand why it’s so hard for lefties to accept that the Jews aren’t willing to march obediently to their deaths this time around.

Biffa - I'd like some solid reasoning behind your use of the word "lefties" here. I'd like you to show that there is a direct correlation between people's political ideals and which side they support in the conflict in hand.

Otherwise you're just trolling....and I'm pretty sure you dont want me to come to that conclusion.

jc

sanvean

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Wrong, the Israelis are morally superior to the Arabs. This is because Israel is being attacked and is fighting a defensive war. It is because the Arabs deliberately target civilians and the Israelis don’t.

If he's not trolling, I'd like him to answer (a) how the Israelis are morally superior to the 'arabs', and (b) explain how he can come to the conclusion that the Israelis don't deliberately target civilians. It's akin to saying that the suicide bombers don't target civilians as the 'Jews' are all illegal occupiers :rolleyes:

Agreement is not possible when one side is only interested in destroying the other.

True. Unfortunately, this problem exists in some areas on both sides.

Corben Dallas

Do you mean Palestine as in the West Bank and Gaza or Palestine as in the West Bank and Gaza and Israel itself, which is what the Arabs consider to be Palestine?

i mean the West bank and Gaza strip and all other agreed areas that fall under Palestinian control. The will have to be a Irseali state but there also must be an Independent and self autonomous Palestine

BlackFlag

Originally posted by vorbis
honestly, what is the point of taking sides in the israeli dispute? Both sides are as bad as each other. Incidentally it was the palenstinians which scuppered this latest peace effort with the suicide bombings. Israel will probably respond with its usually heavy handed tactics. To get a peace process to start there, both sets of allies (America + Syria,Iran) etc will need to bully the sides into agreement.

Without being blunt m8 you know fvck all about the middle East if you think that both sides are as bad as each other.....who is the war criminal here????....Aerial Sharon is,if he steps foot in Belgium he will be arrested as a war criminal.....go back to Lebannon 1982 and the massacres.


US and Israel are hypocrites/war mongerers/liars...the facts say so as does many independant TV programmes....
If you still don't believe me I will send you the relavent information.

bonkey

Originally posted by BlackFlag
Without being blunt m8 you know fvck all about the middle East if you think that both sides are as bad as each other

And you apparently know fsck all about the rules here concerning people's right to an opinion, and concerning politeness.

As for your stance....if anyone attempts to excuse inhumane acts on either side because of some perceived moral high ground they wish to attribute to one over the other, then I don't think its a stretch to say that the viewpoint is lacking in objectivity.

Here's a little test : picture an event occurring. fail to specify who was on the giving, and who was on the receiving end, or indeed what the event was about.

If you can condemn the event as being a crime against humanity without further information, then further information does not mitigate the crime.....

Both Israeli's and Palestinians are guilty of such unmitigatable crimes....and in pretty equal measure. Thus, its not a stretch to say that one is as bad as the other.

Of course, I'm sure that no end of supporters of one side or another will say "yes, but...." and present arguments why acts of inhumanity on their chosen side somehow don't count.

Take the act "which doesnt count". Reverse who did what to whom. If it still doesnt count, then your viewpoint is objective. If the nature of the act changes from "acceptable" to "unacceptable", then your justifications are lacking in impartiality.

I'm pretty sure that anyone who feels that one side is somehow "better" than the other in this conflict will fail to pass such a test of objectivity.

jc

sanvean

I don't think anyone is claiming that the Israelis haven't done what you claim they have (apart from, maybe, biffa), but there have been attrocities on both sides. that's the point.

BlackFlag

To -JC
Excuse me who said I was a supporter of "one side"
I am going by what I have witnessed since 1982 imbecile :rolleyes:

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Sparks
Sorry, but anyone doing what the IDF is doing cannot claim moral superiority.

Even though what the Palestinians are doing is far worse?

Actually, what's being asked for is not a second holocaust - it's for the IDF not to trundle through the West Bank and Gaza in tanks, shooting the place up with cannon and .50cal's, building illegal settlements and stateing that they will not accept any peace plan that grants palestine soverignty.

Wrong. What is being asked for is the destruction of the state of Israel. There is no limit on the number of Jews that they are willing to kill in order to achieve this aim.

Originally posted by bonkey

Biffa - I'd like some solid reasoning behind your use of the word "lefties" here. I'd like you to show that there is a direct correlation between people's political ideals and which side they support in the conflict in hand.

It’s not a question of supporting one side or the other that annoys me about lefties. It’s the way they try to deny Israelis the right to self-defence by consistently attacking any response they make to acts of Arab terrorism.

Originally posted by sanvean
If he's not trolling, I'd like him to answer (a) how the Israelis are morally superior to the 'arabs'…

a. They are the ones who are being attacked.
b. They don’t deliberately target civilians.
c. They are a democrat state fighting an authoritarian, regressive regime.
d. They restrain themselves in terms of what they are militarily capable of doing to the enemy, and what they actually do to the enemy.

…explain how he can come to the conclusion that the Israelis don't deliberately target civilians. It's akin to saying that the suicide bombers don't target civilians as the 'Jews' are all illegal occupiers

Are you suggesting that Palestinian terrorists should be considered to be as much non-combatants as Israeli civilians? Because that’s what is implied by the above statement.

Originally posted by Corben Dallas
i mean the West bank and Gaza strip and all other agreed areas that fall under Palestinian control. The will have to be a Irseali state but there also must be an Independent and self autonomous Palestine

Well therein lies the problem. Because that’s not what the Arabs consider to be Palestine.

Sparks

Even though what the Palestinians are doing is far worse?

Are you seriously going to sit there and assert that every single palestinian is personally responsible for deaths caused by palestinian terrorists? Because, you realise, that that makes every irish citizen personally responsible for the atrocities the IRA have carried out over the last thirty years...

Wrong. What is being asked for is the destruction of the state of Israel. There is no limit on the number of Jews that they are willing to kill in order to achieve this aim.

Actually, you're incorrect:
1) Who is asking for the destruction of the state of israel?
2) Who is "they"?

It’s not a question of supporting one side or the other that annoys me about lefties. It’s the way they try to deny Israelis the right to self-defence by consistently attacking any response they make to acts of Arab terrorism.

There is a large difference between self-defence and what the IDF is doing in Gaza.

a. They are the ones who are being attacked.
b. They don’t deliberately target civilians.
c. They are a democrat state fighting an authoritarian, regressive regime.
d. They restrain themselves in terms of what they are militarily capable of doing to the enemy, and what they actually do to the enemy.

a) True - however they're not the only ones being attacked.
b) The evidence (eyewitness testimony, photographic evidence and video footage) says otherwise.
c) Their democratic system of government does not mean that they're a liberal, progressive regieme. Remember that Sharon has a court case in an open court to answer to for his actions, and he's determining policy right now...
d) I've seen restraint - what the IDF are doing isn't restraint. IF they did decide to "cut loose" and attack the palestinians all-out, they would be attacked by every arab state in the region, they would lose whatever world opinion support they have, and it would threaten relations with the US. And it's hard to imagine Sharon not resorting to nukes in case of such an attack (by arab neighbours), so we'd see a nuclear exchange in the Middle East. That is why they wait until nightfall to open up with the tanks in Gaza, not morality.

And if the IDF is so morally pure, why do the refuseniks exist?

sanvean

Originally posted by Sparks

2) Who is "they"?

For people like Biffa, 'they' is that united body of 'arabs', with one thought, who are constantly sitting around crying 'death to israel':rolleyes:

Biffa: a 'democratic' state is more than just where a parliament is elected by the people, at least it has become more than that. if this were the case, Iran would be a democratic state. while it is essentially, well we all know different. Israel doesn't and cannot conform to the principles of a 'democratic' state if it is (a) subjugating a people and (b) defying such principles as continuing occupation of land (which you're not really supposed to do according to the UN). You also have the unaccountability of the IDF, the fact that there prime minister was convicted by a (Israeli) court of being unfit to rule in a ministerial position due to his actions in (i think) 1982. how he's allowed to become prime minister is just astonishing. also, as mentioned above, is the fact that he's wanted to stand against charges of genocide. then there's the problem of Moussad, who are perhaps one of the most brutal secret services in the world at the moment. Their actions aren't confined to suspected Palestinian terrorists, but were indicted (by an Israeli court again) of assisting a terrorist campaign in Baghdad during the fifties, in order to scare the prominent Jewish population to leave and join Isreal (something to do with them wanting a Israel to have the largest Jewish population in the Middle East, as Baghdad was something of a threat to the reason d'etre of Israel).

and so on and so forth.

dathi1

It’s not a question of supporting one side or the other that annoys me about lefties. It’s the way they try to deny Israelis the right to self-defence by consistently attacking any response they make to acts of Arab terrorism.

Biffo,
I don't know were u get the idea that everybody who opposes the illegal and immoral occupation of Palestine is a lefty?

dathi1

have to admit though.....this is what they had Christians / Muslims / Hashimites and Jews had before the Zionists invented the first terror group to establish this new state

dathi1

b. They don’t deliberately target civilians.

jez....no they just shoot 12 yr olds live on TV

c. They are a democrat state fighting an authoritarian, regressive regime.

they are a jewish state for jewish people founded on terrorisim by the Zionist stern gang etc.

bonkey

Blackflag has picked up a one-week ban for issuing personal insults.

jc

Hobbes

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Wrong, the Israelis are morally superior to the Arabs. This is because Israel is being attacked and is fighting a defensive war. It is because the Arabs deliberately target civilians and the Israelis don’t.

*Bzzzt* Wrong. But thanks for playing "WTF is really going on".

Israel are targetting civilians. If they weren't they wouldn't leave bombs in public places or drop missiles into crowded markets or drop bombs onto apartment blocks just to kill 1-2 people. Or run over people with bulldozers, or bury them alive in thier house because someone in the neighbourhood may of been a terrorist. Or shoot neutral observers, or blow up red cross buildings because they "thought they saw" someone run into it. Or leaving civillan taxi drivers in the middle of no where without food or water and no paperwork (which under thier law allows them to be shot if they leave that stretch of road).

If anything, Israel have the higher scoreboard for deaths of innocent civilians vs terrorists.

and people wonder why the fuk places like Hamas get suicide bombers lining up?

sanvean

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Are you suggesting that Palestinian terrorists should be considered to be as much non-combatants as Israeli civilians? Because that’s what is implied by the above statement.[/url]

No, I was reversing Arab and Jew to show the facile reasoning behind your reasoning.

Also, while some Arabs believe that Palestine should consist of all of Israel, many Jews do too. It's linked to David's Greater Israel, and their desire (tending to focus on far-right parties, as well as in certain sections of orthodox and Hasidic religious movements) is to encompass the territories of Gaza and 'Judea and Samarria' (ie, the West Bank) into Israel, as well as occupying certain areas in Lebanon, Syria (up to Damascus, if I recall correctly) and much of Western Jordan.

Éomer of Rohan

Israel was created by the then great powers (The US/UK) to be an area of strategic leverage, and the motions of the Balfour Declaration were voted through on a wave of conflicting emotions - sentimentalist desire to create a 'homeland' for an expatriated people and anti-semitic 'get them the hell out of our country' type feelings. The creation of Israel post WWII makes absolute strategic sense; the Brits were losing Iraq, India had just gone and that meant there were no natural operations centres to control the Persian Gulf; and so Israel was created.

I mean, consider how unnatural the sudden creation of this nation is; the Israelis fled centuries ago to Europe (and eventually America) because of war and persecution and so on. Israel disappeared. End of story. There should have been no restoration; that is about as natural as removing the people of modern day central Russia back to Mongolia and China - from whence they came just following the Mongolian invasion when Kievan Rus and Novgorod, the eminent powers in the area were subordinated to the Khans. Or 'restoring' the white population of Australia back to the UK. Same sort of thing. I am not anti-Semitic. I am not pro-Arabic. I unequivocally state that what the Hamas and Hezbollahs are doing is revolting BUT they think it is their only option - and the number of times they have been screwed around in the 'negotiations' is a reason for this. Israel must remove her troops from all the territory she occupied in the six-day war; all territory claimed is Palestinian land. There is no equivocation about this either.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Sparks
Are you seriously going to sit there and assert that every single palestinian is personally responsible for deaths caused by palestinian terrorists?

No, I’m saying that the actions of the Israeli government and military are morally superior to those of the Palestinian Authority and their terrorists allies.

Who is asking for the destruction of the state of israel?

The PA, PLO, Hamas, etc.

Who is "they"?

The PA, PLO, Hamas, etc.

There is a large difference between self-defence and what the IDF is doing in Gaza.

Well how would you suggest they stop Palestinian terrorism? (bearing in mind that nothing less than the destruction of the state of Israel will satisfy these people)

The evidence (eyewitness testimony, photographic evidence and video footage) says otherwise.

The Palestinians murder civilians as a matter of strategic policy, the Israelis do not.

IF they did decide to "cut loose" and attack the palestinians all-out, they would be attacked by every arab state in the region…

And they would win.

And it's hard to imagine Sharon not resorting to nukes in case of such an attack (by arab neighbours)…

No it’s not. They’ve never used them before.

…so we'd see a nuclear exchange in the Middle East.

Who else in the Middle East has nuclear weapons?

And if the IDF is so morally pure, why do the refuseniks exist?

You’d have to ask them that. But I would assume they are just well-intentioned but deluded individuals, like so many on the Left.

Originally posted by sanvean
For people like Biffa, 'they' is that united body of 'arabs', with one thought, who are constantly sitting around crying 'death to israel':rolleyes:

Well would you like to point out to me all those Arabs who are calling for an end to Palestinian terrorism and security for Israel?

Biffa: a 'democratic' state is more than just where a parliament is elected by the people, at least it has become more than that. if this were the case, Iran would be a democratic state. while it is essentially, well we all know different. Israel doesn't and cannot conform to the principles of a 'democratic' state if it is (a) subjugating a people…

Israel is not “subjugating” anyone. They are trying to protect themselves from attack.

…and (b) defying such principles as continuing occupation of land (which you're not really supposed to do according to the UN).

Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is not illegal under international law.

You also have the unaccountability of the IDF…

They are accountable to the Israeli government and Israeli courts.

…the fact that there prime minister was convicted by a (Israeli) court of being unfit to rule in a ministerial position due to his actions in (i think) 1982. how he's allowed to become prime minister is just astonishing. also, as mentioned above, is the fact that he's wanted to stand against charges of genocide.

Please read this.

then there's the problem of Moussad, who are perhaps one of the most brutal secret services in the world at the moment.

According to who? Noam Chomsky? Edward Said?

Their actions aren't confined to suspected Palestinian terrorists, but were indicted (by an Israeli court again) of assisting a terrorist campaign in Baghdad during the fifties, in order to scare the prominent Jewish population to leave and join Isreal (something to do with them wanting a Israel to have the largest Jewish population in the Middle East, as Baghdad was something of a threat to the reason d'etre of Israel).

I’m not familiar with this incident. Do you have a source?

No, I was reversing Arab and Jew to show the facile reasoning behind your reasoning.

I don’t understand. You are suggesting that if the Israelis the Palestinians kill should be considered civilians, then the terrorists the IDF kill should equally be considered civilians. That is what is directly implied by your argument.

Also, while some Arabs believe that Palestine should consist of all of Israel, many Jews do too. It's linked to David's Greater Israel, and their desire (tending to focus on far-right parties, as well as in certain sections of orthodox and Hasidic religious movements) is to encompass the territories of Gaza and 'Judea and Samarria' (ie, the West Bank) into Israel, as well as occupying certain areas in Lebanon, Syria (up to Damascus, if I recall correctly) and much of Western Jordan.

So what? Establishing this “Greater Israel” is not Israeli government policy and is very much on the political fringe. In contrast, the destruction of Israel is the primary goal for Arafat, the PLO and their terrorist friends.

Originally posted by dathi1
Biffo,
I don't know were u get the idea that everybody who opposes the illegal and immoral occupation of Palestine is a lefty?

First of all there is no illegal or immoral occupation of Palestine but I will retract the egregiously offensive “lefties” remark.

have to admit though.....this is what they had Christians / Muslims / Hashimites and Jews had before the Zionists invented the first terror group to establish this new state

No it’s not. Never in history was there a unified, independent state within those borders.

jez....no they just shoot 12 yr olds live on TV

If you’re talking about Mohammed al-Dura you might want to read this.

Originally posted by Hobbes
If they weren't they wouldn't leave bombs in public places or drop missiles into crowded markets or drop bombs onto apartment blocks just to kill 1-2 people.

This does not constitute “targeting” of civilians. The Israeli military’s responsibility is to protect the lives of Israelis, first and foremost. They should try and inflict the minimum number of civilian casualties as possible while doing so, but if terrorists are operating out of densely-populated civilian areas it is not always possible to avoid civilian casualties altogether. The fault for these deaths lies with the terrorists, not the IDF.

Or run over people with bulldozers…

If you are referring to Rachel Corrie you might want to read this

…or bury them alive in thier house because someone in the neighbourhood may of been a terrorist. Or shoot neutral observers, or blow up red cross buildings because they "thought they saw" someone run into it. Or leaving civillan taxi drivers in the middle of no where without food or water and no paperwork (which under thier law allows them to be shot if they leave that stretch of road).

I don’t know which incidents you are referring to here.

If anything, Israel have the higher scoreboard for deaths of innocent civilians vs terrorists.

Do you have a source for this?

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
The creation of Israel post WWII makes absolute strategic sense; the Brits were losing Iraq, India had just gone and that meant there were no natural operations centres to control the Persian Gulf; and so Israel was created.

So why the hell were the British trying to limit Jewish immigration into Palestine during the 30’s and 40’s? What bases did they maintain in Israel that allowed them to control the Persian Gulf?

Israel disappeared. End of story. There should have been no restoration…

Can I assume you are against Palestinian refugees returning to Israel then?

Israel must remove her troops from all the territory she occupied in the six-day war; all territory claimed is Palestinian land.

Since when? No one seemed to think it was Palestinian when the Jordanians controlled the West Bank and the Egyptians controlled the Gaza Strip.

If anyone’s interested in the real cause of the violence in the Middle East I suggest they read this article: Why Israel Is The Victim And The Arabs Are The Indefensible Aggressors In the Middle East

Captain Trips

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon


Who else in the Middle East has nuclear weapons?
[/url]

I'd say when the time is right, Iran will "have" nuclear weapons, or some sort of WMD thing. Much like Saddam had WMD! Oooh! And then Syria will also have them. In fact, whomever deserves an attack will have them.

Neither side is clearly in the right - but the 90% majority of people in both camps would love to see an end to the violence. Sharon however, is as bad as Arafat, and has crimes dating back to the 50s.

Or are we forgetting the IDF sponsored attack on that USS naval vessel to attack was it, Egypt, Lebanon? WHoever Israel gets itchy and wary of? I can't remember the exact names, but it's largely irrelevant and has been mentioned in a different thread in the past week.

That the arabs have been driven to killing themselves to make a point should show you how far Israel have joined satan himself. It's human nature that people will eventually just give in and accept defeat. Sharon must go, as Arafat has gone (or will eventually as his influence will decline).

Should not malfunctioning regimes be changed? The only light at the end of the tunnel is that Sharon is old and will die within 10 years or so (heck, the stress of coordinating genocide for 50 years would take it's toll on any man). Or better yet - elect women on both sides.

Éomer of Rohan

Israel is not “subjugating” anyone. They are trying to protect themselves from attack.

Like the British in South Africa and the concentration camps there as well? Or internment in Northern Ireland? Your moral highground here is the same level as the bottom of the Marianas Trench.

No, I’m saying that the actions of the Israeli government and military are morally superior to those of the Palestinian Authority and their terrorists allies

Bull. Niether have moral superiority. They both kill innocent people. It is the fault of Israel as much as the PA. Israel should not have annexed the territory that she did. Come on, there are something like a million (or more?) Palestinians living in Israel who have no say in the government. Democracy? I think not.

No it’s not. They’ve never used them before.

From Yom Kippur to the most recent of the Arab Israeli wars, the technological and training gap has been decreasing; even look at the relative stats for the respective wars. Thus, if we continue that line of reasoning, and there is no reason why we shouldn't, the next war might result in the defeat of the Israeli Army; and then I have no doubt the targets would be Tehran, Cairo, Damascus, Amman and various military targets, the weapons nuclear.

Who else in the Middle East has nuclear weapons?

oh, what is this? A right winger doubting the assertions of the ever so good USA that Iran is after nuclear weapons and that terrorists are even nearer to that goal than Iran??

l would you like to point out to me all those Arabs who are calling for an end to Palestinian terrorism and security for Israel?

I am sure in the vast millions of Arabs across the world, there are some that wish for Israel to have a secure nation state - and a secure Palestine as well so long as Israel ceases to occupy foreign territory illegally and ceases to oppress the Palestinians, the majority of whom are not responsible for the terror attacks.

Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is not illegal under international law.

I laughed my ass off at the link you provided with this; given by the Israeli UN ambassador to justify the occupation of the Palestion territories. The occupation is illegal. There were several resolutions tabled in the UNSC all vetoed by the US alone.

You’d have to ask them that. But I would assume they are just well-intentioned but deluded individuals, like so many on the Left.

Do you call this egregious too? You are simply trying to be provocative.

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Well how would you suggest they stop Palestinian terrorism?

So...what you're saying is that the only way to deal with the threat is to kill em all and let God sort 'em out? Because thats whats being done, and you seem to take the "what else can be done" attitude.

Would you deny that there are innocent Palestinians? Palestinians who would actually just like to see peace, and would live with and accept a peaceful settlement?

If you dont deny their existence, then the loutish tactics of the Israeli "protectionism" is inexcusable. Forget the concept of prosecuting the guilty...just kill enough people in the area, and you're sure to have the ones you want.

(bearing in mind that nothing less than the destruction of the state of Israel will satisfy these people)

Right...which means also - by logical extension - the only way Israel can ever be safe is when it kills all the Palestinians.

If the Palestinians will never settle for less than the destruction of a nation, then the only way to stop them is to destroy them utterly.

By your logic, Biffa, the only way a resolution can be found in the middle east will be when one side succeeds in annihilating the other. Now explain to me how either side can have the moral highground on that basis, because you're arguing that there is a clear distinction.

One side wants to destroy the other and wont stop till its done...and you argue that the only way to fight this is to kill them. So now...both sides want to destroy the other, and wont stop till its done.

Given that other options are available to both sides, and they choose not to take them......neither side has any claim to moral superiority. In both cases its "slaughter who you decide is a valid target".

Oh...and if you're going to do a "quote large block, add one line reply....repeat to end of article" on this like you just did on most of Sparks, then please dont bother. This is supposed to be a forum for discussion, and if the most you can respond to a point with is a single line, you're not really interested in discussing anything....

jc

jc

Gearoid

posted by Biffa

, You’d have to ask them that. But I would assume they are just well-intentioned but deluded individuals, like so many on the Left.

This does nothing to further your arguement Biffa, are you just trying to rise people here, Surely u know this is not how u debate an issue?

Hobbes

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
This does not constitute “targeting” of civilians.

I'm sorry but it does. If you drop a bomb onto an apartment block to kill one person which you know full well is full to the brim of innocent people then you are targetting civilians. Likewise if you fire a missile into a marketplace for the same reason. Or leave a bomb where children are playing in the hope of killing a person (and killing the children instead and then trying to cover it up).

If you are referring to Rachel Corrie you might want to read this

That link doesn't work (or semi works is a better one). You might want to go to the humanities forum and look up Rachel Corrie thread. It covers just about everything to do with her. Seeing as you didn't actually link to anything directly to do with the Corrie incident I can say what I read off that link was full of sh!t and all the links in the corrie thread debunk all the crap posted about it.

Also she is not the first person to die this way, and to date certainly isn't the last.

I don’t know which incidents you are referring to here.

Like I said Rachel Corrie wasn't the first or last. Reading off the Rachel Corrie thread links you'll find more documented incidents of what I posted.

Shooting of the neutral observers has been over the news a few times (they didn't just do it once).

A Red Cross grain warehouse was blown to bits by IDF because they thought they saw a terrorist run into it (despite being told there wasn't and that they could check).

The Taxi driver was when an ISM member was doing an interview on TV. They said they took 3 days to arrange travel to a stretch of road where a driver had his ID taken off him by the IDF and told not to move. Under Settler laws if he moved from the stretch of road he is allowed to be killed if he can't prove who he is.

Do you have a source for this?

I'll dig it out again (although it's probably in a boards thread). As far as I remember count wise Israel was over 2:1 in number of people they killed vs Palistine. The count was also only based on actual IDF/Terrorist attacks and didn't take into account of deaths due to the standard of living in Palistine (The site was somewhat similar to CAIN and quite impartial).

A quick google finds this though.

Deaths of Israelis from Terrorist Attacks = 1,689 (Sep '93 - Apr '03) ( Reference )
Deaths of Palestinians from Israeli attacks = 2,164 (Sep '00 - Mar '03) ( Reference )

Of course I only took deaths into account (Palistine wins on the most injured as well at around 22k vs 4k) and the Israeli list goes back further, so I expect the Palistine one to be higher.

As for the rest of the stuff you wrote. There comes a time when you say 'fuk it' and don't argue over who started it. You work on a way to stop the **** from happening. Something both sides (IDF/Hamas) aren't willing to do.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Captain Trips
I'd say when the time is right, Iran will "have" nuclear weapons, or some sort of WMD thing. Much like Saddam had WMD! Oooh! And then Syria will also have them. In fact, whomever deserves an attack will have them.

Actually Iran might just be the first if they so wanted it. Although the country is complying fully with nuclear inspectors.

Unlike Israel which actually cemented up their nuclear reactors control room and built a fake one so the UN nuclear weapons inspectors wouldn't discover they were building nuclear weapons.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Captain Trips
Neither side is clearly in the right - but the 90% majority of people in both camps would love to see an end to the violence.

Israel is clearly in the right. Israeli action is defensive, Palestinian action is offensive. When Palestinian terrorists stop trying to “push the Jews into the sea”, all Israeli military action will cease.

Or are we forgetting the IDF sponsored attack on that USS naval vessel to attack was it, Egypt, Lebanon? WHoever Israel gets itchy and wary of? I can't remember the exact names, but it's largely irrelevant and has been mentioned in a different thread in the past week.

I think you are referring to the USS Liberty. Here is an article debunking that story.

That the arabs have been driven to killing themselves to make a point should show you how far Israel have joined satan himself.

It shows how far the Arabs have gone that they are encouraging their children to blow themselves up in order to murder Jews.

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Like the British in South Africa and the concentration camps there as well? Or internment in Northern Ireland? Your moral highground here is the same level as the bottom of the Marianas Trench.

Well how do you propose they stop Palestinian terrorism?

Israel should not have annexed the territory that she did.

Israel has not annexed the West Bank or Gaza Strip. It continues to maintain a military presence in these territories because it is necessary for its own security.

Come on, there are something like a million (or more?) Palestinians living in Israel who have no say in the government. Democracy? I think not.

Dunno where you’re getting this from.

oh, what is this? A right winger doubting the assertions of the ever so good USA that Iran is after nuclear weapons and that terrorists are even nearer to that goal than Iran??

How does this alter the fact that Israel is the only power in the region with nuclear weapons?

I am sure in the vast millions of Arabs across the world, there are some that wish for Israel to have a secure nation state - and a secure Palestine as well so long as Israel ceases to occupy foreign territory illegally and ceases to oppress the Palestinians, the majority of whom are not responsible for the terror attacks.

Well they’re keeping awfully quiet aren’t they?

I laughed my ass off at the link you provided with this; given by the Israeli UN ambassador to justify the occupation of the Palestion territories. The occupation is illegal. There were several resolutions tabled in the UNSC all vetoed by the US alone.

Right but you’re not actually disagreeing with any of the article. The main points are:
- Jordan's unilateral "annexation" of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) in 1950 had no basis or validity in international law due to the aggressive means by which they took that territory
- a state may lawfully seize and occupy foreign territory if "necessary to its self-defense”
- a state may require, before it withdraws from territory occupied in a defensive conquest, that satisfactory security arrangements be established to safeguard its security
- the state that holds territory through lawful defensive conquest has, vis-a-vis the prior occupant that acquired the territory through unlawful offensive conquest, better title to the land.
- the question of sovereignty in the part of Palestine remaining outside of Israel under the 1949 armistice agreements has not been finally resolved

Originally posted by bonkey
So...what you're saying is that the only way to deal with the threat is to kill em all and let God sort 'em out? Because thats whats being done, and you seem to take the "what else can be done" attitude.

That is not what is being done. The IDF’s job is to kill enemy combatants. If these combatants are hiding in densely populated civilian areas, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to do this without killing civilians. What would you have them do? Let them go free and allow them to murder even more of your civilians than would have died if you’d taken them out when you had the chance?

By your logic, Biffa, the only way a resolution can be found in the middle east will be when one side succeeds in annihilating the other. Now explain to me how either side can have the moral highground on that basis, because you're arguing that there is a clear distinction.

If someone is trying to murder you, you have the right to fight back. This does not make you both as bad as each other. It means you are in the right and they are in the wrong.

Of course, not all Palestinians are trying to destroy Israel, therefore there is no need for one side to annihilate the other. A resolution will be found in the Middle East when those who are trying to destroy Israel give up or are forcibly stopped. This day will be brought closer when people in the West stop giving terrorists moral support.

Given that other options are available to both sides, and they choose not to take them......neither side has any claim to moral superiority. In both cases its "slaughter who you decide is a valid target".

What are the alternatives open to Israel, short of surrender?

Oh...and if you're going to do a "quote large block, add one line reply....repeat to end of article" on this like you just did on most of Sparks, then please dont bother. This is supposed to be a forum for discussion, and if the most you can respond to a point with is a single line, you're not really interested in discussing anything....

Eh sorry but that’s bollocks. How am I not engaging in this discussion? Are you saying I’m just dismissing or ignoring other peoples arguments?

Originally posted by Hobbes
I'm sorry but it does. If you drop a bomb onto an apartment block to kill one person which you know full well is full to the brim of innocent people then you are targetting civilians. Likewise if you fire a missile into a marketplace for the same reason. Or leave a bomb where children are playing in the hope of killing a person (and killing the children instead and then trying to cover it up).

At best that is collateral damage. At worst it is criminal negligence. It is not, however, the “targeting” of civilians.

That link doesn't work (or semi works is a better one). You might want to go to the humanities forum and look up Rachel Corrie thread. It covers just about everything to do with her. Seeing as you didn't actually link to anything directly to do with the Corrie incident I can say what I read off that link was full of sh!t and all the links in the corrie thread debunk all the crap posted about it.

Well the link works for me and I didn’t find anything on the Rachel Corrie thread to contradict any of it. You should take note also of what the guy writes at the bottom of the page: “There was originally a story from FrontPageMag here on Tom Hurndall, an activist who was shot by an Israeli soldier last month. I removed it due to the citing of a blatant fabrication by the Israeli Defence Forces…Although the article did contain some worthy information, it would be entirely hypocritical of me to complain about blatant fabrications and distortions and then link to one.”

As for the rest of the stuff you wrote. There comes a time when you say 'fuk it' and don't argue over who started it. You work on a way to stop the **** from happening. Something both sides (IDF/Hamas) aren't willing to do.

There are only two bases for a final settlement in the Middle East: either the Palestinians accept the legitimacy of the state of Israel, or else the Jews pack up and leave. Which do you think is more reasonable?

Éomer of Rohan

If someone is trying to murder you, you have the right to fight back. This does not make you both as bad as each other. It means you are in the right and they are in the wrong.

No it does not. You do not have the right to take life in any circumstances if you can avoid it. When you cannot avoid it, it does not make it right for you to take it but you do so because it is a necessity. There is no 'right' to fight back, that is a primitive response. What would have made Israel in the right would be if she withdrew her military from the occupied regions and entered international negotiations that would secure her nation. A nation which had no right to be established where it was BUT now it is there, this is impossible to undo.

Well how do you propose they stop Palestinian terrorism?

To pull their armies out of the occupied territories. And before you say 'but it is in the interest of their national security' then consider this; if Israel needs to break international law in order to secure her nationhood, then this calls into question the legality of the nationhood itself.

a state may lawfully seize and occupy foreign territory if "necessary to its self-defense"

That is bollocks. This sort of reasoning justifies the occupation of the Sudetenland and the Rhineland by Germany in the 1930's. This sort of reasoning is naked Imperialism of the colonial style because what happens when a foreign nation annexes a territory that gives them an advantage over your country; well, you need to annex one too - then they fear you and do so again, and on - an escalation. In fact pre-WWI all over again.

a state may require, before it withdraws from territory occupied in a defensive conquest, that satisfactory security arrangements be established to safeguard its security

Again, rubbish. If the aggressor state is the decider of what constitutes a 'satisfactory security arrangement' then this can be used to justify an occupation ad infinitum which of course defeats the point of this 'clause.'

the state that holds territory through lawful defensive conquest has, vis-a-vis the prior occupant that acquired the territory through unlawful offensive conquest, better title to the land

There is no such thing as lawful conquest, offensive or defensive. BOTH states are in the wrong and neither should be occupying it. The rightful administrator is the nation that occupied it before the first invasion/annexation.

sorry but that’s bollocks. How am I not engaging in this discussion? Are you saying I’m just dismissing or ignoring other peoples arguments?

Methinks you will be hard pushed to find someone who doesn't agree with JC on this one.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
At best that is collateral damage. At worst it is criminal negligence. It is not, however, the “targeting” of civilians.

You call it whatever makes you sleep at night. I call it murder, and terrorism. Only difference is one claims they are morally correct.

Well the link works for me and I didn’t find anything on the Rachel Corrie thread to contradict any of it.

Like I said what exactly about Rachel Corrie are you talking about? The link wasn't even a site, it just links off to a Blog and a search through the Blog had nothing about Rachel Corrie at all that was revelent.

Please be a good chap and tell me wtf your talking about on that page.

You should take note also of what the guy writes at the bottom of the page: “There was originally a story from FrontPageMag here on Tom Hurndall, an activist who was shot by an Israeli soldier last month. I removed it due to the citing of a blatant fabrication by the Israeli Defence Forces…

What fabrication? That IDF were fabricating something? or that ISM? I had a quick look around and Tom Hurndall was in fact shot by the IDF. ISM had posted the wrong date he was shot (and also other information which they had to remove due to familys wishes) but the story was not bull****.

Btw, a Blog isn't a news site. It's an opinion.

The IDF would really like ISM to just disappear, as it's pissing them off they can't get away with killing them. It's easier to kill Palestine people, as they just claim they are terrorists (World outrage at UN workers shot, none when the UN workers were from Palistine).

There are only two bases for a final settlement in the Middle East: either the Palestinians accept the legitimacy of the state of Israel, or else the Jews pack up and leave. Which do you think is more reasonable? [/B]

If you think there are only two, then you lack total imagination. The world is never made up of two choices.

Accepting the state of Israel doesn't mean you have to agree to live in poverty or have your homes destroyed and pushed off your land (note: by being pushed off I'm not talking like years ago, Israel still pushes people off thier land even today).

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Israel is clearly in the right. Israeli action is defensive, Palestinian action is offensive. When Palestinian terrorists stop trying to “push the Jews into the sea”, all Israeli military action will cease.

So you do not believe that any of the Palestinian terrorism targetted at Israel is because of people's reaction to the manner in which Israel decided to carry out its "defence"???

Take the comments about the very real probability that destroying Palestinian homes is only serving to create a new wave of suicide bombers - people left with nothing in their life except a want for revenge on the ones who destroyed their home, their livelihood, and possibly innocent members of their family through "criminal negligence" or "collateral damage".

You dont believe that there is any case to believe that there may be some truth in this, and that - at the very least - there are grounds to suspect that perhaps a different defensive strategy may - in fact - prove more successful in cutting down the number of bombers and attacks than the current one?

There is no case to believe that some of the terrorism is in response to the fact that Israel has - rightly or wrongly - taken control of lands which were not rightfully its own?

You can look at this two ways. One is that it all springs from one original root cause, and therefore that root cause is what must be resolved. This leads to two possible solutions - as you correctly say - either Israel "packs up and leaves", or Palestine just stops what its doing and accepts the problem.

The other is that this root cause has led to an ever-increasing group of causes, each of which feeds from and into the others. Here, the causes are manyfold, and both sides carry the responsibilities. However, this way of looking at it also gives the greater possibility of resolution, because there are identifiable issues which can be resolved, which can - over time - shrink the problem, and hopefully lead to an ultimate solution.

This ridiculous second way of looking at things is so bloody utopian and idealistic that they had the cheek to apply it to the North of Ireland, and while a full resolution is nowhere near being found, it is very hard to deny that improvements in the situation have been made, and that in general peace is several steps closer.

If you look at things from the second perspective, no-one has the moral high ground. Recognising that is the first step to both sides realising that compromise is the only way forward.

To insist in the absolute right of one side over the other is to ensure that there can never be no solution. Indeed, it is such insistence by others which led to the situation arising in the first place.

If we do not learn from the mistakes of history......

jc

Éomer of Rohan

....we should not be trusted to guide the course of the future.

Gearoid

Posted by Biffa,

If someone is trying to murder you, you have the right to fight back. This does not make you both as bad as each other. It means you are in the right and they are in the wrong.

Israel don't have the monopoly on this concept, If anything it would be the Palestinians that have the right to fight back since the whole conflict was started by the Jews in establishing their state and taking Palestinian lands after WW2.
The whole idea of saying Israelies are right and Palestinians wrong is wrong itself because it all depends on whos side your on, neither side can claim this over the other as the other would have to give up. Like many things Right and Wrong is decided by the winner at the end whoever that will be as it is usually the winner who writes the official version of history.

Therefore the Palestinians are totally entitled to believe in what they want, a palestinian state and lands restored as it is a right to have beliefs in a democracy and isn't Israel supposed to be a democracy? well now as you can see they are hardly being very democratic in their actions then are they?

Captain Trips

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon

That is not what is being done. The IDF’s job is to kill enemy combatants. If these combatants are hiding in densely populated civilian areas, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to do this without killing civilians. What would you have them do? Let them go free and allow them to murder even more of your civilians than would have died if you’d taken them out when you had the chance?

Eh?
1. They are not taking any real "chances" here. They are not saying quick now lets launch a quiet attack now that we have a CHANCE. They have a 24/7 "chance" and attack when they do most damage. If you think the IDF, for all good or bad they are, are taking chances you are seriously misguided.
2. So next we should have the police arrest a whole housing estate in say some socioeconomically deprived area because there are 3 drug dealers living there? Christ, even the US aren't as bad as to just roll over thousands of homes. Sure there's the odd hospital or school, but nothing so blatantly hostile to civil liberties as to blame an entire population. Why are they not attacking the bloody germans, eh? They are effectively pushing little children with there semi-automatics; they like to push the weak around.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
No it does not. You do not have the right to take life in any circumstances if you can avoid it. When you cannot avoid it, it does not make it right for you to take it but you do so because it is a necessity. There is no 'right' to fight back, that is a primitive response.

But surely you are not claiming there is any moral equivalence between the aggressor and the victim?

What would have made Israel in the right would be if she withdrew her military from the occupied regions and entered international negotiations that would secure her nation.

Israel has tried negotiating. All it got them was more violence. Why should Israel negotiate with a terrorist like Arafat, given his record of double-dealing? Under the 1993 Oslo Accords, the PA undertook to stop the violence, arrest terrorists, dismantle the terrorist infrastructure, collect illegal weapons and end incitement to violence. Instead, they have:
- authorized the Tanzim militia (an organ of Yasser Arafat's Fatah PLO faction) to fire upon Israeli civilians and soldiers with weapons supplied by the Palestinian Authority, and carry out bomb attacks against Israelis with explosives supplied by PA weapons depots;
- financed terrorist activities and infrastructures. Documents seized during Operation Defensive Shield gave details of the funding provided to the Tanzim and the Fatah's al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. Funds were paid directly to terrorists, as well as for the production and procurement of bombs and weapons;
- done nothing to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure which flourishes in the areas under Palestinian Authority control, all the while providing sanctuary to terrorist organizations such as Hamas and the Islamic Jihad;
- made no effort to arrest those directly responsible for terrorist attacks;
- released dozens of Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists who were already in Palestinian prisons, signaling to these organizations that they have a green light to launch attacks against Israeli citizens;
- refused to collect illegal weapons in accordance with their obligations under the existing Israeli-Palestinian agreements. Instead, the Palestinian Authority has attempted to smuggle in and to produce locally vast amounts of illegal arms and ammunition, including heavy weapons such as mortars and Katyushas artillery rockets;
- used their official media to incite Palestinians, especially Palestinian children, to continued violence against Israel;
- fostered the hero-worship of suicide bombers, encouraging others to follow in their footsteps;
- taken advantage of every Israeli attempt to ease restrictions on Palestinian daily life in order to launch renewed attacks on Israeli civilians. These policies of the Palestinian leadership have led to a long series of bloody terrorist attacks, including suicide bombings and car bombs in Israeli cities, as well as drive-by shootings and road-side ambushes targeting family cars, commercial vehicles and even school buses. Since September 2000, the Tanzim-Fatah and the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade alone have carried out more than 1,500 terror attacks and attempted attacks.
(taken from FAQ page of the website www.israel.org)

And before you say 'but it is in the interest of their national security' then consider this; if Israel needs to break international law in order to secure her nationhood, then this calls into question the legality of the nationhood itself.

Israel is not breaking “international law”. Even if it is, I don’t see how that calls the legality of its nationhood into question.

That is bollocks…Again, rubbish…defeats the point of this 'clause.'

The two arguments you have just rejected do not of course automatically justify any and all instances of military occupation by a foreign power. Each case should be judged on its merits. The Israeli presence in the West Bank is clearly justified by the need for self-defence given its history of being attacked by Jordan and the nature of the terrorist threat Israel faces.

Methinks you will be hard pushed to find someone who doesn't agree with JC on this one.

Methinks I’d be hard pushed to find someone to justify the accusation.

The rightful administrator is the nation that occupied it before the first invasion/annexation.

Well before the Israelis there was the Jordanians. Before the Jordanians there was the British. Before the British there was the Ottomans. Before them the Mamlukes. How far back do you want to go? Back to the Israelites?

Originally posted by Hobbes
Please be a good chap and tell me wtf your talking about on that page.

Seems we’re not looking at the same page. Anyway, it basically points out discrepancies in eye-witness testimony, casting doubt on the allegation that she was deliberately run over. But to be honest I wouldn’t worry about it, you’ve obviously made your mind up already.

If you think there are only two, then you lack total imagination. The world is never made up of two choices.

So let’s hear the alternative.

Accepting the state of Israel doesn't mean you have to agree to live in poverty or have your homes destroyed and pushed off your land (note: by being pushed off I'm not talking like years ago, Israel still pushes people off thier land even today).

Of course not. The Palestinians live in poverty and misery precisely because their corrupt, terrorist leaders are trying to destroy Israel.

Originally posted by bonkey
So you do not believe that any of the Palestinian terrorism targetted at Israel is because of people's reaction to the manner in which Israel decided to carry out its "defence"???

Yes I’m sure that’s very true, but the point is that the only way to stop this is either for Israel to surrender and dismantle itself or for the Palestinians to come to an accommodation with Israel.

You dont believe that there is any case to believe that there may be some truth in this, and that - at the very least - there are grounds to suspect that perhaps a different defensive strategy may - in fact - prove more successful in cutting down the number of bombers and attacks than the current one?

Sure that’s possible. What’s your suggestion?

This ridiculous second way of looking at things is so bloody utopian and idealistic that they had the cheek to apply it to the North of Ireland, and while a full resolution is nowhere near being found, it is very hard to deny that improvements in the situation have been made, and that in general peace is several steps closer.

If you look at things from the second perspective, no-one has the moral high ground. Recognising that is the first step to both sides realising that compromise is the only way forward.

To insist in the absolute right of one side over the other is to ensure that there can never be no solution. Indeed, it is such insistence by others which led to the situation arising in the first place.

I disagree. Peace in NI only came about because the root cause of the Troubles – the IRA’s campaign to unify Ireland by force – was brought to an end. It was brought to an end because the IRA finally realised it was an unachievable goal, and not because any real concessions on the political status of the North were made. There was no compromise here – one side essentially gave up.

And this is exactly what is needed in the Middle East – an acceptance by the Arabs that they cannot destroy Israel.

Originally posted by Gearoid
Israel don't have the monopoly on this concept, If anything it would be the Palestinians that have the right to fight back since the whole conflict was started by the Jews in establishing their state and taking Palestinian lands after WW2.

Actually the conflict was started by the Arabs when they attacked the 10% of Palestine allocated by the UN to the Jews in 1948.

The whole idea of saying Israelies are right and Palestinians wrong is wrong itself because it all depends on whos side your on…

Whose side I’m on depends on which side is right and which is wrong.

Therefore the Palestinians are totally entitled to believe in what they want, a palestinian state and lands restored…

If you think they are right to want Israel destroyed then fair enough, but they needn’t expect anything other than defeat and misery if they try to achieve this.

Originally posted by Captain Trips
Christ, even the US aren't as bad as to just roll over thousands of homes. Sure there's the odd hospital or school, but nothing so blatantly hostile to civil liberties as to blame an entire population.

They are not destroying thousands of homes and they are not blaming an entire population. The security measures they do take are necessary to protect Israeli civilians being murdered in cold blood.

Sparks

Wow. I barely know where to begin in pointing out what's wrong with that post Biffa.

Hmm. Well, let's give it a try in the name of education...

Israel has tried negotiating. All it got them was more violence.

To be fair, that does ignore the tendency of successive Israeli governments to fail to comprimise on any issue they hold dear, while demanding comprimise on issues the palistinians hold dear, a tendency shown again in the last few days when the Israeli cabinet voted to not even discuss the right of return, which they know the palestinians hold as a core issue.

Why should Israel negotiate with a terrorist like Arafat, given his record of double-dealing?

Why should the Irish government, or the English one, have talks with the likes of McGuinness? Because it's the least violent solution.

Under the 1993 Oslo Accords, the PA undertook to stop the violence, arrest terrorists, dismantle the terrorist infrastructure, collect illegal weapons and end incitement to violence.

Indeed, and they have not lived up to many of these. However - they are not the only ones, and to list their failings in this while ignoring those failings of the Israeli government is heavily biased.
In fact, the very man that is now leading the Israeli government is the man that urged Israelis to break the Oslo Accords and build those settlements.

- used their official media to incite Palestinians, especially Palestinian children, to continued violence against Israel;

This specific claim is one I have a problem with, because frankly I don't see why they'd need to do this, given the actions of the IDF every day in Palestine. Why should the PA be held up as demonising Isreali citizens, when the IDF and the Israeli government is working harder on doing that than the PA ever has?

(taken from FAQ page of the website www.israel.org)

Should we also take as gospel information we get from http://www.palestine-net.com/ ?

Israel is not breaking “international law”.

Apart from the Oslo Accords, which the settlements are in direct violation of, we have :
UN Security Council Resolutions 106,111,127, 162, 171, 228, 237, 248, 250, 251, 252, 256, 259, 262, 265, 267, 270, 271, 279, 280, 285, 298, 313, 316, 317, 332, 337, 347, 425, 427, 444, 446, 450, 452, 465, 467, 468, 469, 471, 476, 478, 484, 487, 497, 498, 501, 509, 515, 517, 518, 520, 573, 587, 592, 605, 607, 608, 636, 641, 672, 673, 681, 694, 726 and 799.

That's not including the UN resolutions vetoed by the US, and it's only current to 1992. And several of those resolutions are condemnations of Isreal for violating the Geneva convention. I think that's sufficent evidence to show that Isreal has flaunted international law, don't you?

http://www.middleeastnews.com/unresolutionslist.html

Even if it is, I don’t see how that calls the legality of its nationhood into question.

It doesn't. It does call into question whether or not the current Israeli administration ought to be in charge though.

Seems we’re not looking at the same page. Anyway, it basically points out discrepancies in eye-witness testimony, casting doubt on the allegation that she was deliberately run over.

Given the apparell she was wearing, the megaphone in her hand, the people standing around who tried to signal to the driver to stop... well, I find it damn hard to believe there wasn't at least a case for depraved indifference to be answered at best.

But to be honest I wouldn’t worry about it, you’ve obviously made your mind up already.

Pot, meet kettle...

So let’s hear the alternative.

Alternatives. Not only are there more than two solutions to such problems, there are normally more than three as well.
As to what those solutions are, that's what negotiation is all about.

Of course not. The Palestinians live in poverty and misery precisely because their corrupt, terrorist leaders are trying to destroy Israel.

The only thing I can say to that is "Incorrect".

Yes I’m sure that’s very true, but the point is that the only way to stop this is either for Israel to surrender and dismantle itself or for the Palestinians to come to an accommodation with Israel.

Correct and true - but the Israelis must also come to an accomodation with the Palestinians. That's the tough bit.

Sure that’s possible. What’s your suggestion?

I'd suggest it involved not sending tanks into Gaza, strictly enforcing the RoE of the IDF and carrying out a purge of the trigger-happy from it's ranks - and simultaenously sitting down at the negotiations table in good faith.

I disagree. Peace in NI only came about because the root cause of the Troubles – the IRA’s campaign to unify Ireland by force – was brought to an end.

Erm - you realise, don't you, that you just said that peace came about only because people stopped fighting?
Not to criticise, I just never thought of you as a fan of zen koans...

It was brought to an end because the IRA finally realised it was an unachievable goal, and not because any real concessions on the political status of the North were made. There was no compromise here – one side essentially gave up.

Perhaps Eomar should take this one, a local's perspective might be better.

Actually the conflict was started by the Arabs when they attacked the 10% of Palestine allocated by the UN to the Jews in 1948.

Not the UN, the British.

Whose side I’m on depends on which side is right and which is wrong.

Thing is, here both groups are in the wrong. Now what?

If you think they are right to want Israel destroyed then fair enough, but they needn’t expect anything other than defeat and misery if they try to achieve this.

I think it's fair to say that 98% of people in Israel and Palestine want to live their lives, get married, have children and grandchildren and generally live a happy life.
It's the 2% that crave power and destruction that cause the problems in BOTH nations.

They are not destroying thousands of homes and they are not blaming an entire population.

They can say that, and so can you. Their deeds however, belie those statements.

The security measures they do take are necessary to protect Israeli civilians being murdered in cold blood.

You know, if those measures actually worked, it would be harder to argue against them. But they don't - and they do promote terrorism and create terrorists, so I don't see how you can argue for them.

Captain Trips

*****
Israel have finally accepted the roadmap and Sharon has said the time has come to divide the areas into two. He has accepted basically that the military forces used, that Biffa has been arguing were right in what they did, were not effective. This is quite a historical day - it's on today's washington post.

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon

They are not destroying thousands of homes and they are not blaming an entire population. The security measures they do take are necessary to protect Israeli civilians being murdered in cold blood.

Many british were killed by IRA who were supported by the republic. Would you also be happy and suggest that the best course of action that the british could take is to start taking control of different counties and "settling" this land with british citizens. Same difference. Doesn't work, does it?

Arafat almost undoubtedly supported by proxy the likes of Hammas and Hizbullah or however they are spelled. But Sharon is also a notorious massacre fan from the 1950s. If one war criminal (Arafat) should step down to advance peace - should not an equal gesture be made by the man who is very much a politican who believes in aggression and not diplomacy. Witness how conveniently before the election a spate of suicide bombers attacked - and of course, the side that believes in military force 1st and foremost is Sharon. Remarkable turn around.

Are you totally in support of every action of the Isareli government? Have they done *no* wrong in you book? That's the message I get from reading your posts - and to believe Sharon is the shining light of peace and diplomacy and he can successfully resolve this (forgetting of course that he's been using the same tactic for 40 ****ing years) - or should he perhaps listen to his own people - the ones getting killed?

http://www.google.ie/search?q=cache:V29PeUwreYQJ:www.washtimes.com/world/20020412-73662628.htm+Sharon%27s+war+crimes&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

That's from 2002. Do a google and find out what Sharon's been involved in.

But nevertheless it looks like finally some progress has been made. The *US* pressure on Sharon (and why would they be pressurising someone who is so obviously always doing the right thing, no) has worked (today's Washington Times - http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030525-115510-8273r.htm - "The time has come to say yes to the Americans. The time has come to divide this land between us and the Palestinians," Mr. Sharon told the Yediot Ahronot daily. [/url]

So it looks like he has given in. He has accepted that his method of curtailing violence by striking with military forces has not worked. You have suggested throughout this thread that they have been in the right. The EU, UN and recently US pressure have all been brought to bear on him. Are you now so adamnant that he was right all along. "The time has come to divide the land". Hmmm. Sounds like maybe the tactics of the Israeli Defence Force have been admitted by Sharon as being not optimal and not capable of resolving the war.

Are you still saying what they did was right? How can you now argue the case against the EU, UN, US and ISRAEL.

Another quote: "Even some of those who voted for the plan said they had serious reservations about the road map but did not want to anger the United States. "

This is perhaps a separate issue, but it's odd that this should happen because normally the Israeli's can do whatever they want before and election in the US.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Why should Israel negotiate with a terrorist like Arafat, given his record of double-dealing?

Or with Sharon for that matter. He has just a good record as Arafat.

Your still falling into the same trap. Listing off one sides argument and claiming the other side is morally superiour to pull the same sort of crap. It isn't.

Israel is not breaking “international law”. Even if it is, I don’t see how that calls the legality of its nationhood into question.

Actually it is.

Seems we’re not looking at the same page. Anyway, it basically points out discrepancies in eye-witness testimony, casting doubt on the allegation that she was deliberately run over.

The link you posted goes to this site...
http://wrrh.blogspot.com/

Which takes forever to load. I've actually gone back to it as you failed to point out wtf parts you are talking about. Please quote it, because I cannot see it on the page.

As for the part that had nothing to do with Rachel Corrie, ISM denied the report they had dealings with terrorists. Something which an unnamed source claimed. Last time I checked unnamed source = BS.

Facts.
1. Rachel Corrie was stopping the Bulldozers from trying to knock down a doctors house that was helping ISM.
2. The whole incident lasted for three hours before she was run over. They knew full well she was there.
3. They ran over her with the tractor part, and instead of just stopping they reversed back over her.
4. They drove the bulldozer back when people were laying flowers where she had died and they fired tear gas at them.
5. To date no one has been charged with any crime (not even criminal negligance).

Now as I said the post in humanities links to a load of places including an ISM in depth look to all the BS posted and debunked (like claiming she threw herself into the bulldozer, or that an ISM rep said that's what they are trained to do).

Your right we aren't reading the same thing. Until you quote the part, all I see is your claiming that Rachel Corrie died because she was run over accident due to ISM have terrorists in thier organisation, as claimed by an unnamed source.

It's full of sh!t. Also when you do actually get the quote, bother to look up the news on others sites (actual news sites, try to get neutral ones if you can) to prove your point as Blogs are not news sites.

Of course not. The Palestinians live in poverty and misery precisely because their corrupt, terrorist leaders are trying to destroy Israel.

Sorry same argument and your full of sh!t. If Israel stopped all the crap it was doing the support for Hamas would drop dramatically. Btw, Sharon is also a terrorist, or haven't you heard of the Stern Gang?

Sure that’s possible. What’s your suggestion?

1. First up. Israel decalres itself morally correct though it's actions. Gets rid of laws that cause the needless deaths of people, stop the crap they are currently pulling and pulls back totally to a pre-agreed line (doesn't even have to be all the way back to the whenever the mess started). Also looks into compensating people wrongfully displaced/killed (for example, those children who died because IDF planted a bomb where they played, no one was jailed for it and the parents got nothing).

2. Israel lets UN peacekeeping forces into Palistine to stop the terrorist attacks. That takes the flack off them for anything that happens. It also allows the UN to ensure that Isreal is keeping thier side of the bargin.

3. UN/Palistine deals with jailing terrorists and bringing them to justice. Israel does not interfer in these actions.

For example the last time Palistine jailed a known terrorist at Israels request, Israel dropped a bomb on the jail to kill him. Instead killing the cops and accidently letting him get free.

It's not a solution. But it's starting point to begin from. Stop the killing by both sides first, then you have something to talk about.

I disagree. Peace in NI only came about because the root cause of the Troubles – the IRA’s campaign to unify Ireland by force – was brought to an end. It was brought to an end because the IRA finally realised it was an unachievable goal, and not because any real concessions on the political status of the North were made. There was no compromise here – one side essentially gave up.

Pika?!

CAIN have a good website on Northern Ireland. I recommend you go read it. You might learn something. I don't even know where to begin to tell you what is wrong with what you said.

They are not destroying thousands of homes and they are not blaming an entire population. The security measures they do take are necessary to protect Israeli civilians being murdered in cold blood.

I say 'Pika?' again. WTF are you on about? Do you even watch the news? During 9/11 Israel lauched a full scale attack into palistine while the rest of the world wasn't watching, and has been taking land and destroying homes since.

Gearoid

Actually the conflict was started by the Arabs when they attacked the 10% of Palestine allocated by the UN to the Jews in 1948.

You have a warped view of things, haven't you heard of the Stern gang?

Whose side I’m on depends on which side is right and which is wrong.

I think you totally missed my point, you cant say that ONE side IS right and the other wrong because it all depends on who you support, no person has the authority to declare what is right and what is wrong.