|
We are going into war!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :( (pg. 13)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| tenor |
| quote: | Originally posted by Izzy
so tenor, if your scenrio were true then would you contimplate (note: i did not say actual do it but just the thought of) starping a bomb on yourself, walking to the a cafe' in sweden and blowing your self up taking as many civilian lives as possible? thats the impression i am getting so correct me if im wrong. |
Probably, if it was the only way of making a statement. Agreed, attacking civilians is very sneaky, but it's been done by both sides.
| quote: | | all im saying is that in comparision between the two parties involved the terrorist acts commited by palestinians are worse then the ones committed by the israelis. can you agree with me on that? is forcably moving an entire people or oppressing them (palestinians), which isnt the case, moraly worse then killing an entire people (israelis)? |
In comparison? Why? Because the palestinians are targetting civilians? A couple of things for you to search the web for: Qana, Al-Sheikh, Deir Yassin, Naser Al-Din, Beit Daras, Kafr Qasem, Kibya etc etc.
| quote: | | as indicated by many of the orginization's charters and principles within the palestinian territories (leave out the fact that i can prove arafat is and has ties to terrorism, according to pres. Bush anyone who harbours or leads a blind eye to terrorism is a terrorist). |
Yes, Arafat is a terrorist, a corrupt dictator. I dont deny that. But please, dont base your words on pres. Bush's, he's just not credible :D
| quote: | | most (if not all) of the cases of innocents you and evil_bastard put on here of the palestinian side who died in the hands of israeli soldiers can have some rational justification (the case with the kid and a fake gun, maybe the soldier had worse then 20/20 vision and couldnt tell that it was fake, i can do this about almost each case, it doesnt make it right but a rational reason for why this may have occurred can be presented) |
Rational reason or not, these things should not happen when you are occupying a country. If it was any civilized country, the soldiers would be in deep for killing a boy because the soldiers didnt have perfect eyesight.
| quote: | | yet on the other hand i can see no rational reason why someone would want to blow himself up and unquestionably kill innocent civilians. or can you think up of a rational reason why he/she would do such a thing? |
Because they have already exhausted all other choices. Attack the Israeli soldiers in Palestine with stones? You get shot. Attacking the civilians (while nasty and immoral) is also a good way to change public opinion (but not necessarily for the better).
| quote: | | for those reasons i belive there is a "worse" side to this and just as you said, you may not like israel but they are the least bad candidate. |
Whats your solution then? |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by GnikyLime
After reading this thread and the last Israeli-Palestinian one over the last few days, I have a few thoughts which bear mentioning.
~ Good v. Bad
Yoepus, you may be very well versed in contemporary Middle Eastern history and meditate upon your opinions; however, your extreme bias causes you to make some irrational claims. The world is not a simple dichotomy of good and evil.
|
The fact is perhaps my writings seem more extrme then indeed I am. The truth is that I do believe nothing is black and white, but this conflict comes extremly close to being black and white.
As for WWII, I will say this in the moral context of things doing something to your own citizen is one thing (Russia and that bastard Stalin), doing something to your own citizens, and then taking over countries to do something to their citizens is another thing (Hitler, Japan.. etc). The fact is that in WWII and in the current Afghanistan war, just as in the Israeli war, I am not saying both side are 'good', I am saying one is 'good' in the context of the other which is 'bad'. The fact is that war is sometimes brought upon you (example Sept. 11th) and you have no choice but to defend your self in an attempt to prevent further attacks.
I have gotten ever fustrated on this thread due to the close-mindedness of some people. When they ask a question, and reply and don't even change their thought 10%. Grant you I understand it is ridiciolous to expect people to change because what they read here, but it doesn't even seem that it is coming in to them. This is where the exagerations comes from.. since the facts don't seem to sink in, and they seem to have been taught exagerations from the other side, I feel it is worht a try. Furthermore these are usually used to clarify or illustarate a point. It is usually clear when I do such.
I will say again, that the IDF does follow it's doctorine and does investigate cases, the sites you reffered to will note this as well. The fact that the Palestinians have not filled offical complaints, or that witness and testimonies of this incident were submited does not mean they have no will to investigate. Sometimes violations by soldiers happen and no evidence can be brought against them, or the violation is witnessed or reported. (I will disagree with you on the wacko theory, as I believe they have already been weeded out in the recruitment phase (psych eval and such) and do not serve combat roles, of course there will always be some, but then we are talking about 1% of 1%...).
I will sum this up to say, War is Hell. But again.. do not make me into a monster or such, I respect human life to the highest respect, I will admit I have a lot of trouble respecting the life of people who do not, and from here comes a lot of my anger and fustration. But the fact is that I do not think killing innocents can ever be justified. But I have to look at the picture in consquence, and when you use War as a last resort (and Israel has), they will not hesitate to minimize any risk to themselves and I understand this and recongize this right.
Furthermore I do not see how your Bush bashing brings any help to this conflict, it does not take a genius that he is not the brains behind the US operations, and it does not take a brain to figure out the brains are doing a good job. By this I mean I truly believe that the 3 tenets I outlined earlier in this thread are the sole operational plan to rid this world of terrorism.
Ok abck to the other post.. have a lot to catch up on.
Yoepus
If necessity is the mother of invention, then laziness must be the father. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by Inspector_Morse
Yeah, I'm touchy, I knew people who were killed by the IRA. |
This was exactly my point, many people in this thread were making light of the fact of how inhuman and monsterous of a weapon terrorism is, especially when directed at civilians.
| quote: | | And I don't find it funny. You say it's funny, and all I get is this image of someone laughing their head off at how someone gets worked up about people's deaths |
Well your image is wrong, I am as sadden by every innocent death as you. And what saddens me more is that 1600 people have died in this latest round of violence, and probably 99% of these could have spared their lives is the Palestinians would have conceded to Peace.
The thing is you of all should understand the evils of terrorism and should understand it has surpased its usefulness in this world, the world will be a better place without it and we should not tolerate it any longer, not one act.
What I find funny is how you go try and justify these things (again not personally you, but others on this forum...), perhaps funny is not the word, but more ironic. The truth is the Palestinians invented terrorism, and it only takes a brief look back in history to see at the really, really dehumanizing acts they have accomplished. One that will always stand agains them is Munich Olympic games - one that broke the spirit of the games, and the unity of the world peacefully.
| quote: | | What do you mean by "closed minded"? Is it my inability to see the oh so rightness of everything you say? |
No, by closed minded I mean I feel like I am talking to a brick wall. It looks like nothing is going in.. or going through, and certainly nothing is staying in there. I will try a few more attempts at the other posts and will give up if they start repeating their same lines without paying attention to what I have said.
| quote: | | I have something important to do, so I'm getting out of here before I get too angry (yes, you've wound me up, well done, put another notch on your Kleenex box). |
That makes one, indeed this whole conflict is a about a ty little thing in the desert.. but some how the world got the thing wrapped around to a clash of civilizations. Thats what it comes down to.
Oh well.. I won't give any more effort to trying to argue with you, altough debating with you was much more pleasent then your fellow British counterpart.
Yoepus
The most wasted of all days is one without laughter.
|
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by tenor
[quote]So you didnt actually read the report. Try it first. The quote only mentioned the new secret rules, and thats all you can talk about? Please. |
I guess you don't find the humor in basing something on something 'secret' you've never seen before, and unconfirmed names and sources.
| quote: | | Well, which one of the geneva conventions? |
Sorry, the jus ad bellum are stated in the UN Charter, Chapter Seven, here you may find the 'justifications for war', Gevena is the jus ad bellow or 'rules of war'.
| quote: | | 10000 years? hardly.. |
Jericho, the city in this region was estimate to have been inhabited firstly around 10,000BC, Hebron around 8000BC (if I recall, I might be way off). The fact is that altough Judisim was not yet founded, the majority of the Jews did become of these people as they moved to Bayblon latter and then returned.
| quote: |
Here's the root of this argument. Brits had nothing to do with Palestine when Balfour declared his words. The mandate was given in 1920 at San Remo, Balfour Declaration was in 1917. Also, I doubt that the people in San Remo cared about the Balfour Declaration - if you can prove otherwise, I'll be happy to hear it. |
How about the 57 nations who signed the decleration (including the UK) in the League of nations in 1921 I believe?? I guess that doesn't cout for anything eh? Also, how about the facts and opinions latter stated in the Peel Commision, or the 'White Papers' as you call them.
Again, this is showing the Jewish population only through these certain years, and only the area of Israel (Israel now and territories), not 80% which was designated as no migration to Jews, and also called Jordan. I can publish some exact numbers if you want. Again I am saying in ALL the BRITHISH MANDATE, and TRHOUGHTOUT this time, not just 11 years in a selected region.
| quote: | | Wow. the numbers really dont show that, but maybe it is really so! How did they try to restrict it, and when was this? Or are you talking about the white paper of 1939? |
Again, selective numbers.. remeber we are talking about the whole British Mandate (Balfour recall?), how can you explain areas designated as 'Jew Free' for no migration? Give me some historical examples of the British cracking down on illegal Arab migration, I can flood you with ones where they cracked down on illegal Jews. But you must know this reading all your books.
If you were not so quick as to throw out selective quotes from web pages and books you might get the whole real story for once. Check out the link you reffered me to above, it will help strengthen my argument and weaken yours.
| quote: | | 1959:Ex-ing-cuse me? Oh yeah, it's your own personal Geneva Convention again.. |
Again, UN Charter and international law Egypt violated to freedom of navigation by blockading shipping designated to Israel, trying to domesticate the Suze canal, and so forth. Please do some research or read a text in full for once. Even the Arab Education for Moderate Countries don't falisfy these things so much as you.
| quote: |
So, they launched a pre-emptive attack against someone who already declared war on them? .. |
There was justified cause for war (again International law - UN Charter), Israel attacked first. So hard to understand?
Yoepus
and heres a better one for you;
If you can not answer a man's argument, all it not lost; you can still call him vile names.
Agai |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: |
Funny. I would guess most palestinians could say the same. I quoted a report from B'Tselem which included a story of boys playing with plastic guns and getting shot.. |
To address these points:
FOR GOD'S SAKE, THIS IS A WAR SCENE! Who would let their boys out with plastic guns onto the streets with soldiers?? It is not uncommon for these boys to have real guns as well, and this is why the soldiers perhaps shot the poor guys.... rumors spread quick of how low these Palestinians go to kill just another Israel sometimes. It is really sad how the Palestinians can not keep their children safe inside their houses when war is waging.. we all know that the children are innocent as they come on both sides.
And for that peace rally you so on TV. Who in God's name holds a peace rally in the middle of the battlezone??? What were they thinking for crying out loud? Why were they there? Betlehem is a war scene these days, it is not safe to be in the streets, especially in masses. Why did they not heed the warning to disperse?
Again I do not justify the reactions of the Army and indeed I do believe it can be more humane, but this is like leaving your keys in your car and saying it was stolen.
Yoepus
How can I keep an idiot in suspense? I'll tell you later |
|
|
| tenor |
| quote: | | Sorry, the jus ad bellum are stated in the UN Charter, Chapter Seven, here you may find the 'justifications for war', Gevena is the jus ad bellow or 'rules of war'. |
I can't find them there. Maybe you should show me?
This is the closest thing I can find in Chapter 7 of the UN Charter:
'The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.'.
| quote: | | Jericho, the city in this region was estimate to have been inhabited firstly around 10,000BC, Hebron around 8000BC (if I recall, I might be way off). The fact is that altough Judisim was not yet founded, the majority of the Jews did become of these people as they moved to Bayblon latter and then returned. |
With 4 million people in the whole world 10000BC, you dont think any of those might've been also the ancestors of the modern-day palestinians? Also - dont you think thats quite a moot point, whether someone lived there first, rather than who lived there? Would you also support the expulsion of most americans, giving the land back to the indians?
| quote: | | How about the 57 nations who signed the decleration (including the UK) in the League of nations in 1921 I believe?? I guess that doesn't cout for anything eh? |
What? They signed a letter by the foreign minister? I'd like to see a quote that supports your argument here..
| quote: | | Again, this is showing the Jewish population only through these certain years, and only the area of Israel (Israel now and territories), not 80% which was designated as no migration to Jews, and also called Jordan. I can publish some exact numbers if you want. Again I am saying in ALL the BRITHISH MANDATE, and TRHOUGHTOUT this time, not just 11 years in a selected region. |
Sorry, my bad. I didnt think you were talking about the whole mandate, but Transjordania was promised to Emir Abdullah already in 1921, when the jewish population was less than 100000..
| quote: | | There was justified cause for war (again International law - UN Charter), Israel attacked first. So hard to understand? |
I guess also justified cause for war crimes such as transferring of the population? Since you love to talk about Geneva convention and the UN, I'll quote 4th geneva convention, article 49: “Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory” is considered a war crime. Even in an internal conflict, “displacement of the civilian population shall not be ordered for reasons related to the conflict.” (2nd additional protocol of 1977) |
|
|
| Flotser |
The palestinians sure are in dispear, and something is pushing them forward to all those terror acts....but Israel's exsistence and occupied terretories are surly not the one!
1) They were a country-in-its-way , they recieved from the Israeli side a self goverment (they decided it won't be democratic), a police + weapons, a sea fleet, an airport, Radio & Tv stations, and they were able to work inside the israeli state if they wanted to...
----------------
Israel wanted to give the a country...
but then was the horrible mass terror and bus blowings in all Israel's terretory.... while , and after the OSLO negotioantions,
2) as i mentioned above i dont think that the oocupied land (with no israeli presence, pushed those poeople to do terror and blow themselves up.the PLO (palestinian outhority) wanted to recieve more so for rushing up the built of a palestinian country they moved to a stratey of terror, terror against Israel, and terror against their cevilians. they made a simple propoganda .. and blamed all the palestinian suffer on Israel. actually its not true in a !
They received and still do receive LOTS of money from mostly Eourope and USA, if they were a demoocratic goverment they would use that money in the development of their country-on-its-way, but no! they used that to buy weapons (for example the KARIN A boat), includeing mass number of RPG & anti-air weapons... and supporting & paying Terror organisations (very soon it will be defently prooven), by that they made the palestinians to live in a poor difficult condition - i repeat, they received LOTS of money - and used it for Terror and Weapons... , and i am sure lots of Intelligence would be found in the PA now, as they found mass weapons in Arafat's offices, includeing USA's shot guns nad RPG's, and bombs ready to be carried out to Israel.
The current palestinian goverment should be removed and take its place to a democratic goverment ... and believe me Israel will do peace as it always tries to achive it. now Israel and USA had enough to hear Arfats claims for fighting terror - when he doesnt move his fingers ( For Example : the name of the terrorist who made the horrible terror act in the Hotel in jerusalem with 22 people killed and many still savire injured, was given to them a month ago... they didnt arrest him...and look what happend). why do you think that the USA is supporting this Irael's entrence to the PA? cause lots of their CIA agents are spread in the territories - they discoverd the true nature of the PA and Arafat..
and i'll say again:
STOP SUPPORTING PLO ORGINIZED TERROR AND HELP ISRAEL IN ITS IN-ALL-MEANS-JUSTIFIED WAR AGAINST TERROR. |
|
|
| GnikyLime |
| quote: | | Originally posted by Yoepus As for WWII, I will say this in the moral context of things [sic] doing something to your own citizen is one thing (Russia and that bastard Stalin), doing something to your own citizens, [sic] and then taking over countries to do something to their citizens is another thing (Hitler, Japan.. etc). |
Where did Hitler start? The genocide his regime committed started on his own citizens. Also take into consideration that Stalin's Russia spread (read: Soviet influence on countries under Warsaw Pact) into other countries after WWII, therefore causing harm to citizens of other countries. Besides, genocide is ing genocide, I don't understand why you would say that there is some sort of moral difference between a system of genocide focused on one's own citizens or someone else's citizens.
| quote: | | Originally posted by Yoepus The fact is that in WWII and in the current Afghanistan war [side note by GnikyLime: it is not a legal, officially declared war], just as in the Israeli war, I am not saying both side [sic] are 'good', I am saying one is 'good' in the context of the other which is 'bad'. The fact is that war is sometimes brought upon you (example Sept. 11th) [sic] and you have no choice but to defend your self in an attempt to prevent further attacks. |
As I wrote earlier, I don't think anyone on this thread would agree that the Holocaust or September 11th was justified. The question is not should we take actions against atrocities like these but how. I am not an idiot: I know that you are not saying both sides are "good." And no, I don't think you are holding your usage of "good" and "bad" as a comparison of the 2 sides. If I had to choose which side was least morally corrupt, I would say Israel, but the difference between you and I is that I more than recognize that Israel is not perfect. Soldiers do horrible things, governments commit atrocities, people can be asses: those are truths of humanity that apply to every country in the world. At the point at which you deny that Israel falls under any of those categories at any point in time, you are throwing logic and rationality out the window.
| quote: | | Originally posted by Yoepus I have gotten ever fustrated on this thread due to the close-mindedness of some people. When they ask a question, and reply and don't even change their thought 10%. Grant you I understand it is ridiciolous [sic] to expect people to change because what they read here, but it doesn't even seem that it is coming in to them. |
I find it hard to believe that you do not see the above statement as hypocritical. You are just as close-minded as the people that you are butting heads with. Show me one example where you have changed your thought 10%.
Who knows more: the man or woman who knows everything or the man or woman who knows nothing?
| quote: | | Originally posted by Yoepus (I will disagree with you on the wacko theory, as I believe they have already been weeded out in the recruitment phase (psych eval and such) and do not serve combat roles, of course there will always be some, but then we are talking about 1% of 1%...). |
Not really, war and violence change people. Why was my grandfather a raging alcoholic for forty years? Alcoholism does not run on that side of my family; however, my grandfather served forty years in the Navy. Seeing your best friend's head blow up right beside you (the only war memory my grandfather ever mentioned) changed you from the person you were when you took those psychiatric exams. I think Stanley Kubrick best summed up how war changes people, id est soldiers, in Full Metal Jacket. I use the term "war" loosely because very few "wars" these days are official, legal wars. How else could the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay (Camp X-ray) not be held under the rules of the Geneva Convention (and, no, I don't know which one or what article) for P.O.W.'s?
| quote: | | Originally posted by Yoepus But the fact is that I do not think killing innocents can ever be justified [sic]. But I have to look at the picture in consquence[sic], and when you use War [sic] as a last resort (and Israel has), they will not hesitate to minimize any risk to themselves and I understand this and recongize this right. |
Even if Israel has used war as a last resort, she has not been flawless or perfect. This is not to say that the Palestinians are "good" or even that they are "better" than the Israelis, but as you say, "war is hell," and the IDF cannot be 100% or even 90% moral in hell. No millitary force can or has.
| quote: | | Originally posted by Yoepus Furthermore [sic] I do not see how your Bush bashing brings any help to this conflict, it does not take a genius [sic] that he is not the brains behind the US operations, and it does not take a brain to figure out the brains are doing a good job. By this I mean I truly believe that the 3 tenets I outlined earlier in this thread are the sole operational plan to rid this world of terrorism. |
The Dubya ridiculing comes from the Inspector_Morse quote, which I found humorous. Which is better for America: a president mocked by late night talk show hosts for fellatio with an intern or one mocked by the world for being an idiot? Of course G.W. isn't that "brains" behind the operation, but he definitely has an agenda that started long before September 11th. He was threatening to murder and/or oust Saddam Hussein (both of which would go against American executive office orders and UN regulations) well before he had even won the Republican primary. Also, I don't think that the "brains" are doing a great job in Afghanistan. Yes, Al Qaeda and the Taliban were struck large blows, but read what I actually wrote about the American role in Afghanistan. Those facts are merely the tip of the iceberg; America's nose is not clean in Afghanistan.
Post Script:Please stop making cheap shots at people's intelligence, it makes you look stupid. You do have some well researched points, but you are not 100% rational and do not have great grammar and syntax; mocking someone else's IQ for similar mistakes is a sign of lower intelligence. So, if you want to appear as academic as you would like, do not act like a ridiculing ass. |
|
|
| TranceGiant |
"So all land belongs to the persons who were there first? We better start redistributing land on this planet with a heavy hand.. Let's start with the americans! Sorry, but things that happened 3000 years ago shouldnt matter now. Things that happened 10 or 50 years ago should. "
You still didnt get it. I dont use this argumenation for the justication of Zionism. I just showed you that the way u make things simpler than they are, the way u look at history selectively, I also could do the same. But I dont need to. Zionism is much more then the historical right on Eretz Israel. (want me to continue or is that enough..). Nevertheless i dont see nor difference between things that happened 10 and 1000 years ago. It leads to the question: Wheres the border and who decides? But again that isnt necessary for my argumenation.
"The war will GIVE us the land. The concept of 'ours' and 'not ours' are ONLY CONCEPT for peacetime, and during war they lose all their meaning." - Ben-Gurion, feb 7 1948, addressing the Mapai council. (source: Benny Morris, The birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem 1947-1949) "
As i see, history for you is based on quotes. That only counts. We have many facts who contradcit those quotes though. The Decleration of Independence already posted here by Izzy, i think, shows us that Israel DOES want peace, the fact that the Arabs launched war shows us that they didnt (dont?). Those are facts, too. Another fact is that teh jews officially agreed on the partiotion plan, whereas the Arabs didnt. You coul quote all day long, those two fact remain and they speak more than thousands of quotes. I repeat. If YOU start war, you take risks. Imagine a world where every1 could wage wars whenever he feels liek, without fearing losing ANYTHING.
"www.aish.com? 'Everything Jewish'? What a credible site.. No offense. "
Lame. You came with quotes, I came with quotes. Quotes remain quotes right? Since the refugee issue is not as clear as the position of both parties towards co-existence at that time, here u have some of your beloved quotes, no matter what site publishes them, they are there:
On April 23, 1948 Jamal Husseini, acting chairman of the Palestine Arab Higher Committee (AHC), told the UN Security Council:
"The Arabs did not want to submit to a truce... They preferred to abandon their homes, belongings and everything they possessed."
On September 6, 1948, the Beirut Daily Telegraph quoted Emil Ghory, secretary of the Palestine Arab Higher Committee, as saying:
"The fact that there are those refugees is the direct consequence of the action of the Arab states in opposing partition and the Jewish state. The Arab states agreed upon this policy unanimously..."
On October 2, 1948, the London Economist reported, in an eyewitness account of the flight of Haifa's Arabs:
"There is little doubt that the most potent of the factors [in the flight] were the announcements made over the air by the Arab Higher Executive urging all Arabs in Haifa to quit... And it was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades."
>>>>So, the people driven out of their homes in Palestine now started the war and not Egypt et al?>>>>>
Huh?? Where do u take this from?
"Its no excuse" (referring to the refugee problem).
Whats your problem, tell me? Israel was willing to give the Palestinian a sovereign state, where all refugees coul live independently. I repeat. If there was no war launched in 1948 we wouldnt have this refugee problem right now. If the Arab would have integrated the refugees we wouldnt have the refugee problem right now. European refugees the "sudeten-deutsche" were integrated after being driven out of Poland and Czecoslovacia. Arabs still speculated with Israel's destruction--their mistake.
>>Completing your analogy, I would also see that you only have fake bullets in your gun, without a chance of killing me. No, I would not shoot you.>>
99% of historians will agree with me. Israel had to defend itself. The gun was loaded with russian bullets, the man kept repeating his will to kill me and he was credible enough since it wouldnt be the first him for him to try to do so.
If you will maybe READ what has been written in this and the "read important-here" thread you'll see enough of Israel-critisizm by me. I repeat: Things must(!) be amended. I repeat: They live better than in any other Arab state.
"Our army will conquer the Negev, will take the land into its hands and will sell it to the JNF at 20-25 Palestinian pounds per dunam. And there is a source . . . of millions [of pounds]." - Ben-Gurion, feb 1947. Same book. You really oughta read it."
Ooff...no matter if its true or not, Israel was attacked, Israel defended itself.period.
""I would love to see such survey. Altho - I might've been over my head saying that they do not represent the population.. Hell, I would be fighting too if the swedes occupied finland and said 'we were here first' and keep us occupied for 30 years without being able to leave, living in ty houses and looking over the fence where rich swedish kids were playing with their new bikes.""
I can show you..Israel didnt occupied Palestine, why cant u understand that? Israel occupied OCCUPIED territories! And not out of bordem but during a war imposed on them. NEVERTHELESS Israel WANTS to get rid of those territories and has already offered to do that. And one again The Arabs rejected.
You're a big fan of Benny Morris? I have something for you, my friend. Look how your hero thinks today: http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/co...,653594,00.html |
|
|
| evil_bastard |
"Terrorism" has become the media soundbite to define the worst thing anyone can possibly do.
But in my eyes, "terrorism" and "surgigcal strikes against government buildings" are just as bad if the 'killers' share a scant regard for human life in their attempts to achieve political reform.
I am very concerned that the IDF and Israeli police are being trusted by millions of people, like Yoepus, to "breach and clear" Palestine.
Not only have I heard hundreds of reports down the years, often by international bodies whose opinion and findings I trust, but I have seen countless times the disregard for rules of engagement made by Israeli soldiers.
This disregard (as anyone who saw the BBC 10 o clock News crew being shot at by Israelis will know about) can only suggest that a blind eye is turned towards such actions.
These serious allegations have been flooding in for years by respected bodies from both Israel and outside, as well as Palestine, to such an extent that "trust" alone that Sharon is telling the truth will not satisfy me.
To try and give myself the comforting thought that these same troops that shot at British peace protestors and news crews yesterday are in fact responsible people, led by responsible people, I have searched the internet quite laboriously to try and find evidence that these men, who are reported to have killed armed Palestinians and that the unarmed victims were "running away" are telling the truth. Sadly, I have found no such investigations, evidence, or discipline being enforced on these soldiers. I'm tempted to e-mail the IDF with the list I provided earlier, asking them what evidence they have that the particular killings were legitimate targets (the geneva land war convention calls for "legitimate" and "illegitimate targets"), and whether or not any attempt to verify these claims will be made. I suspect it would be completely ignored, or met by a hostile and vague response. This is the only language the IDF seem to know.
Until Israel summons up the moral courage to accept a Palestinian state, the bloodshed will not end. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
"The war will GIVE us the land. The concept of 'ours' and 'not ours' are ONLY CONCEPT for peacetime, and during war they lose all their meaning." - Ben-Gurion, feb 7 1948, addressing the Mapai council. (source: Benny Morris, The birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem 1947-1949)"
Ben Gurion said many things, and did actions that were stronger then his words. The spirit of Israel is bessed summed up in it's charter.
You encouraged many to read the book, and altought admitedly I have not, I have heard many reviews and a mix of good and bad things about it. I thought I would post a review here, for any who might have been interested in knowing a bit more:
| quote: |
This book's 1988 publication caused a big stir in Israel. Then a Jerusalem Post reporter, Morris was a former Israeli Defense paratrooper with a Cambridge University Ph.D. He concluded "the Palestinian refugee problem was born of war, not by design, Jewish or Arab" (p. 286). But he also claimed that Israel's leaders believed in a population transfer. He blamed Israeli actions at least partly for Arab refugees' 1948 flight. While some Arabs left to escape battles and others after Israelis made their lives difficult, he concluded that some were simply expelled.
Morris found no evidence proving Arab claims that Palestine's Jewish community entered the 1947-49 war with a sinister master plan to expel Arabs, or that Jewish leaders ever adopted one. Yet he wrote that "from the mid 1930s most" Jewish community leaders, "including [David] Ben-Gurion, wanted to establish a Jewish state without an Arab minority...and supported a "transfer solution'."
Morris wrote that by February-March 1948, "some 75,000 Arabs, mostly from the urban and upper classes of Jaffa, Haifa and Jerusalem and from villages around Jerusalem and in the Coastal Plain, had fled to Arab centers to the east, such as Nazareth and Nablus, or out of the country." (p. 30). Morris admitted both that the Hagana had limited the conflict and that Israelis were not "removing or moving the Arabs out of Palestine or the Jewish-dominated areas of Palestine." (p. 59-60) Yet he attributed Arab flight to "Jewish-Hagana, [Irgun Zvai Leumi] IZL or LHI-attacks, or fear of impending attack, and from a sense of vulnerability to such attack."
In Fabricating Israeli History (1997), Professor Efraim Karsh disproved Morris' key claims. The Jewish community had suffered much of the same pressure that Arabs had, but stayed put. Moreover, Arabs left when they were still winning and the Jewish side was "dangerously cornered."
Morris also failed to properly attribute the transfer idea to Britain's Peel Royal Commission, which in 1937 recommended a plan after the Greek-Turkish post-World War I model: The plan would have created two states in Western Palestine, 85% for Arabs and 15% for Jews. Moreover, Ben-Gurion's grudging acceptance of it would have compensated for Israel's proposed tiny size-and depended on League of Nations approval and British administration. But Britain dropped the plan. It was never mentioned in 30 Jewish Agency Executive communications to the Palestine Partition Commission.
Minutes from 1937-38 JAE meetings (Karsh found only three, not the four Morris reported) included no lengthy debate on "various aspects of the transfer idea" that Morris had attributed to the Jewish leaders who attended (p. 25-26). Karsh found that the issue arose only at one meeting-and then only in a discussion of risks and opportunities Britain's proposal would create. Contrary to Morris' claim, it was never concrete Jewish policy.
Morris wrote that Ben-Gurion said, "The starting point for a solution of the Arab problem in the Jewish State" was the conclusion "of an agreement with the Arab States that would pave the way for a transfer of the Arabs out of the Jewish state to the Arab countries." In fact, Karsh found that Ben-Gurion deeply regretted Israel's proposed tiny size, but longed "to prepare the ground for an Arab-Jewish agreement" and believed "we are obliged to run the state in such a way that will win us the friendship of the Arabs both within and without the state....[The ] Arab policy of the Jewish state must be aimed not only at full equality for the Arabs but at their cultural, social, and economic equalization, namely, at raising their standard of living to that of the Jews."
Since then, Morris has shifted 180 degrees. Where once he considered an Israeli-Palestinian peace possible, he no longer does. In September 2001, in a lecture at University of California at Berkeley Theological Institute, Morris complained of Arabs' obstinate refusal to accept any compromise-the 1937 Peel Commission proposal, the 1947 UN partition plan or the 1979 Sadat and Begin autonomy plan. After Palestinian Arabs rejected the Camp David II proposal in 2000, which would have included 95% of the West Bank and all of Gaza, Morris concluded, "They have been making historic mistakes for 70 years and there is a price for historic mistakes."
On Nov. 23, 2001 Morris told Israel's Yediot Ahronot he no longer believes Arab leaders like Abu Mazen when they say would accept Israel's existence, not when they "cheer for bin Laden.... Palestinians are to blame.... They want to throw [the Jews] into the ocean, and anyone who holds a different opinion is mistaken."
On February 21, 2002, Morris wrote in Britain's Guardian that by the time he had finished Righteous Victims in 1999, his restrained optimism had given way to grave doubts about peace. By 2000, his hopes had "crumbled into a cosmic pessimism." Morris blamed Yasser Arafat, whom he described as "a worthy successor to Hajj Muhammad Amin al Husseini, the mufti of Jerusalem." Husseini led the Palestinian Arabs' bloody but abortive 1930s rebellion against Britain's mandate government and their abortive 1948 war to destroy the nascent Jewish state The Mufti spent World War II in Berlin, "working for the Nazi foreign ministry and recruiting Bosnian Muslims for the Wehrmacht." Morris described him as implacable and incompetent, but "also a trickster and liar...Above all, Husseini embodied rejectionism-a rejection of any compromise with the Zionist movement." In this sad war, Morris now believes, Yasser Arafat is both underdog and aggressor. For Arafat's people, Morris has apparently lost all pity. (check the link TranceGiant posted)
|
|
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by evil_bastard
But in my eyes, "terrorism" and "surgigcal strikes against government buildings" are just as bad if the 'killers' share a scant regard for human life in their attempts to achieve political reform.
I am very concerned that the IDF and Israeli police are being trusted by millions of people, like Yoepus, to "breach and clear" Palestine.
|
If you can't trust your own nation to protect you then who can you trust? The IDF is Israels Defense Force, altought I am not sure it is doing 100% in protecting the lives of all Palestinians, I am defininetly sure it is doing 100% in protecting the life of all Israelis (again exagerations, approximations, but still remains true to core).
Again Israel tried everything with the Palestinians people; Gave them their own control (still terror.. own control means withdrew from occupation), tried to create a peace plan with them (still terror), tried to cordinate security with them (still terror), tried to do nothing in the face of terror (still terror). Therefore, having exhausted all other means, they are in to enforce the laws the Palestinians were unable (this is a proven, Israel has not yet been unproven to enforce these laws there yet), and will dismantle the terrorist infrastructure.
All those who critize this must understand that this is a last resort, and that all other means have been exhausted. Again, we do not know if it will work, but that does not mean that we should not try. Give it some time, 2-3 weeks we will know.
Also as far as I know, so far in this operation not one innocent civilians has been killed. This defies all odds, and I am very impressed, and the IDF should be exulerated at the restraint which it has doen this.
Also investigations are conducted by the army when violations occur, to make a request to recieve the findings, be an Israeli citizen and visit: http://www.idf.il/hebrew/shonot/meida/meida.stm
They appearently do not translate every single one of these reports into English however, so get a translator too.
Yoepus
I had a girlfriend once, but then she changed her screenname... |
|
|
|
|
