<strong>Bad analogy on my part, perhaps, but it wasn't meant to mirror the situation exactly (since finding a perfect analogy for the Israel/Palestine conflict isn't easy).
Also, I don't remember Israel ever fighting a proper war with Palestine, so I don't think that Israel has to fight them for "power". Wasn't this just about terrorism, or IS it really about control of the area?
I remember there being war with a bunch of other Arab nations, though, so why isn't Israel setting up shop in Egypt, Syria, etc... if it's really about keeping their wartime enemies at bay?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Dude, there has never been a 'Palestine' before, the west bank and Gaza were parts of Jordan and Egypt respectively. these countries fought Israel for its life ( Along with other Arab nations like Syria) in 1948, 1967, and 1973. Today however Israel has peace treaties with both these countries and is the only state in the region willing to accept Palestinian self determination.
You seem pretty dim on the history so let me just refresh your memory.
Arafat ( along with his militias) was kicked out of Jordan in the 70s in what was later called Black September this was done by Jordan's King Hussein. read these if you want to learn a thing or two.
Arafat was then kicked out of Lebanon by the Israelis and the Lebanese and then when he was hiding away in far away Tunisia he was invited by Israel back into the occupied territories to try and give him and his people what no Arab nation has ever offered them - a free Palestinian state .
successive Israeli governments were negotiating with the newly created Palestinian Authority all along the nineties, some times despite terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians by extreme Islamic organisations. The Israeli people have even lost one of their most popular prime ministers ( Yitzhak Rabin) in the search for peace, he was assassinated by an extreme Jewish right winger. but despite this Israel continued negotiations and withdrew from most of the occupied territories.
In September 2000 then Israeli PM met with Arafat for the Camp David summit where he offered the Palestinians a final settlement - 97% of the occupied territories and a comprehensive compensation for the rest plus joint management of Jerusalem ( effectively dividing the city between the two nations). this offer was supported by the US and the EU but Arafat rejected it and instead launched his Intefada.
How do you expect Israelis to believe Palestinians when they say all they want is an end to occupation ? they had that offered to them on a platter and rejected it .... many Israelis feel all they really want is to push all the Jews back to the sea where they came from .... in other words to destroy Israel.
BTW you might find my post at the top of this thread interesting and also the ones I posted in pages 15 and 16 of the other Israel/Palestine thread....
I'll summarize what you just said and we'll see if we can find the flaws, ok?
1. There has never been a Palestine.
2. The West Bank and Gaza belonged to Jordan and Egypt respectively.
3. The Palestinians were kicked out of Jordan for being naughty.
4. The Jews gave them the West Bank and Gaza to hang out in. But somehow the Palestinians wanted to kill all the innocent Israelis for giving them land so kindly.
Questions:
- If there has never been a Palestine, where did the name Palestinian come from?
- What was the region called before Israel was there?
- How were the West Bank and Gaza the Jews' to give if they belong to Jordan and Egypt?
I hope you're well meaning and genuinely confused about this, because what you're saying just doesn't make sense as a statement by itself, nonetheless by using historical fact against it.
Oh, wait wait wait:
"97% of the occupied territories and a comprehensive compensation for the rest plus joint management of Jerusalem"
What does "occupied territory" mean?
You made it seem as if it was Israel's to give out of the charity, not that it was land captured in war.
Here's what happened:
Israel offered Palestine 97% of the land it had taken from the Palestinians and they rightly said no. They wanted 100% of their land back, as any reasonable group of people would. If I took your house and said, "All right, you can have everything but the kitchen." would you jump for joy or demand I get the hell out of your kitchen?
As for all this "West Bank and Gaza" belonging to Jordan and Egypt (yet with Israel having the power to give it away and YET FURTHER that it was deemed an occupied territory by Israel) is a load of shit.
Fact: That land belonged to the Ottoman Empire before World War I and after WWI went to the English who in turn turned it over to the UN to decide what to do with it.
A chunk of the British mandate land in the area was carved off in 1948 to make Israel. The remainder was for Arabs. It's fact.
Jews (>1/3 of the population) and Arabs (2/3 of the population) lived in the area called Palestine before that. It's fact.
This came up in the other thread: Palestine comes from the Biblical word "Philistine," who were probably Greeks. We're talking about earlier than 10,000 BC now, so it's not clear who they were. But they probably weren't Arabs.
If you want to go back that far, Hebrew Israel was the first real state or kingdom there. The Canaanites were in the area first, but were never a united nation. Actually, the Biblical Hebrew kingdom of David was probably the only real, united nation that has ever existed in that area. It was otherwise always ruled by someone else - Romans or Arabs from Damascus or Baghdad, or finally the British.
In modern times (i.e., the 19th and 20th centuries), Jews and Arabs were considered Palestinians. But there just has never been a people (i.e., with a language and ethnic or religious commonality) who were "Palestinianns." Even Arafat, who's considered "the" Palestinian, is actually Egyptian.
The West Bank was taken by Jordan after the 1948 war, and Egypt took Gaza at the same time. You're right, it wasn't theirs to begin with - it was theirs between 1948 and 1967.
[quote]And as for arrogance, you may want to take a long look in the mirror there Samantha Joanne Ollendale. You are usually very haughty in your posts, and overbearing for the most part. Even you name for posting the forums speaks volumes. Why the full huge name and not something short and sweet? You may say, well it is my name and that's it, but it seems to be part and parcel with the rest of your posting. Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike
you, heck, I don't even know much about you outside of this board, you might be a very kind person. But here in this forum and others you can be a bit much.<hr></blockquote>
Whatever...when someone resorts to personal accusations in a forum regarding a complete stranger, based on misinterpretation....oh well...
(my quote)
Why did I lose you at the end? That last paragraph was most specific, in that I was quoting words that were uttered by President Bush, who I am sure you support, from reading your posts. Or are you saying that you support terrorism by those with whom you sympathise? Or are you so in denial that you feel that the USA is always morally uninpeachable in its actions? Or are you saying that it is impossible for Israel to commit acts of terrorism, no matter what they do?
Noah's:
[quote]Any words uttered out of context can be made to stand for that which they were not intended.<hr></blockquote>
Are you are referring to that reference on terrorism? In my view, terrorism is terrorism is terrorism. I do not differentiate one iota who does it; it is wrong, period.
[quote]Someone so down on "christians" that do that with scripture should be able to see the parallel quite quickly.<hr></blockquote>
Is it so wrong to be down on fakes and charlatans? In making your point, you ascribe my skepticism of those people to be a negative, or unjustified critisicm.
[quote]However, it suits your definition of
terrorism and you can make it look as though Israel is the bad guy picking on poor Palestine using that quote in your chosen context.<hr></blockquote>
Since when did I say that was my definition of terrorism??? The definition I quoted was that of the U.S. Department of Defense, upon which I presume our "war against terror" is being based. Or does the fact that certain friends and allies of the United States resort to tactics that can only be described as "terrorism" according to the DD definition make you feel uncomfortable? Or is the 'terrorism label" ascribed to activities funded and condoned by this country too politically incorrect for you? If you have a more comfortable definition of terrorism than that provided, then lets have it.
[quote]I disagree with the premise of your post at the end, that Israel is the terrorist nation for defending itself against terrorism that is so rampant that it is a DAILY event most weeks.<hr></blockquote>
That was not the premise of my post. Yet again you have twisted and misrepresented what I said to suit your own opinions. The premise of my post was the flagrant double standards involved. If you actually *read* my post, I very plainly refer to BOTH SIDES as being guilty of terrorism, using that US Department of Defense definition as a guideline. Why are you in such a huff about that?
[quote]Put it in context of what they have to deal with, day in and day out and if you still believe that they are wrong in their actions then move over there and be a suicide bomber, become a martyr and you too can have your face on a t-shirt and win the $25,000 jackpot for your family.<hr></blockquote>
Why is it, that because I mentioned Ariel Sharon's (horrendous) past, or some bad stuff done by the Israelis, that I am automatically in support of the Palestinian cause? I you read my post, I refer to Hamas, al Aqsa and Hezbollah as *terrorist organizations*, and they very plainly are. I understand that Yasser Arafat has for years used terror tactics, and has also encouraged others to do so. I have never implied anything other than that. Or is that not good enough for you?
This blind "taking sides", together with the inequitable and inconsistent attitude and behavior of the world's only superpower, are a part of why this conflict will never be resolved. There are plenty of others but as soon as even mentioned there's always some lame 'conspiracy theory' response.
[quote](was that too far over the line? I bet it was....)<hr></blockquote>
It's OK, I am kind of getting used to it. Keep it up.
<strong>I'll summarize what you just said and we'll see if we can find the flaws, ok?
1. There has never been a Palestine.
2. The West Bank and Gaza belonged to Jordan and Egypt respectively.
3. The Palestinians were kicked out of Jordan for being naughty.
4. The Jews gave them the West Bank and Gaza to hang out in. But somehow the Palestinians wanted to kill all the innocent Israelis for giving them land so kindly.
____________________________
Israel offered Palestine 97% of the land it had taken from the Palestinians and they rightly said no. They wanted 100% of their land back, as any reasonable group of people would. If I took your house and said, "All right, you can have everything but the kitchen." would you jump for joy or demand I get the hell out of your kitchen?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok ,....LOL you are soo very funny twisting my words and making them sound more extreme then I originaly said them...I hope you're enjoying yourself ....
Yes there has never been a Palestine as a state of the Arab Palestinian people but I as an Israeli think there should be!
Let me instead of flaming you simply ask you few questions and I belive your reply will be very interesting .
1. Do you believe that Israel has a right to exist at all as a home for the Jewish people ? I mean from what you say its basicaly sitting on stolen land ...
2. If you believe that all Palestinians who lost their homes should be allowed back into every inch of land they used to live in what about 800,000 jews and their decendants ( today numbering over 4 million) who were expeled/escaped from Arab countries when Israel ws established ? do they not at least deserve any compensation or the same recognition that Palestinians get ?
this but one example, search the web a little if you are interested
3. Why do you completly ignore the Jewish comunities who were always a part of the land ? In places like Hebron, Jerusalem, Zfat, Acre etc there were ancient jewish comunities who lived there consistantly since biblical times.
4. If you are so concerned about the rights of Palestinians why aren't you concerned about the millions of Native Americans who died as as direct result of the white settlement of the US ?
And isn't Texas basicaly a piece of land occupied by the US from Mexico ?
[quote]Ok ,....LOL you are soo very funny twisting my words and making them sound more extreme then I originaly said them...I hope you're enjoying yourself ....<hr></blockquote>
No, you essentially said those exact sentences. Mind if I quote you?
(My summary sentences in bold, your quotes in italics)
1. There has never been a Palestine.
Dude, there has never been a 'Palestine' before...
2. The West Bank and Gaza belonged to Jordan and Egypt respectively.
... the west bank and Gaza were parts of Jordan and Egypt respectively.
*note* Those two sentences of yours are connected.
3. The Palestinians were kicked out of Jordan for being naughty.
Arafat ( along with his militias) was kicked out of Jordan in the 70s in what was later called Black September this was done by Jordan's King Hussein.
4. The Jews gave them the West Bank and Gaza to hang out in. But somehow the Palestinians wanted to kill all the innocent Israelis for giving them land so kindly.
...he was invited by Israel back into the occupied territories to try and give him and his people what no Arab nation has ever offered them - a free Palestinian state .
successive Israeli governments were negotiating with the newly created Palestinian Authority all along the nineties, some times despite terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians by extreme Islamic organisations.
How exactly did I make any of your statements more extreme? All I did was make them more concise.
[quote]Yes there has never been a Palestine as a state of the Arab Palestinian people but I as an Israeli think there should be!<hr></blockquote>
Interesting way the Israelis have of going about establishing an Arab Palestinian state, by occupying it with military forces, putting sections under Israeli rule and flattening Palestinian villages for Israeli settlement. (I linked to a map of Israeli settlements in the Palestinians' land)
[quote]1. Do you believe that Israel has a right to exist at all as a home for the Jewish people ? I mean from what you say its basicaly sitting on stolen land ...<hr></blockquote>
That's a stupid question, of course Israel has a right to exist. That's the kind of bullshit red-herring questions you simpletons ask as if everyone who disagrees with the IDF massacres must be an anti-Semite.
There are many Israeli settlements that are currently on stolen land, but the state of Israel outlined in the 1947 partition plan isn't stolen at all.
[quote]2. If you believe that all Palestinians who lost their homes should be allowed back into every inch of land they used to live in what about 800,000 jews and their decendants ( today numbering over 4 million) who were expeled/escaped from Arab countries when Israel ws established ? do they not at least deserve any compensation or the same recognition that Palestinians get ?<hr></blockquote>
You ignorantly assume I think Israel has no right to exist. Israel should withdraw to her proper borders immediately.
[quote]3. Why do you completly ignore the Jewish comunities who were always a part of the land ? In places like Hebron, Jerusalem, Zfat, Acre etc there were ancient jewish comunities who lived there consistantly since biblical times.<hr></blockquote>
Jews shouldn't be run out of Palestinian land but Israeli law should not influence any part of Palestinian land. The IDF should not occupy any part of these lands if they fall in non-Israeli territory.
[quote]4. If you are so concerned about the rights of Palestinians why aren't you concerned about the millions of Native Americans who died as as direct result of the white settlement of the US ?<hr></blockquote>
Because this is going on right now and we killed off the Indians well over a century ago. Now unless you've built me a time machine I fail to see how that's anything but a moronic question.
[quote]And isn't Texas basicaly a piece of land occupied by the US from Mexico ?<hr></blockquote>
Nope, Texas won a war of independence, was its own nation and voted democratically to become part of the U.S.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>Whatever...when someone resorts to personal accusations in a forum regarding a complete stranger, based on misinterpretation....oh well...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not based on misinterpretation, but observation. And I stated as much. Am I entitled to an opinion? I apologize for being so harsh, it was a really bad day (hence my final statement), but I stand by many of the assertions. I really do have a hard time understanding how you believe much of what you say.
[quote]<strong>Are you are referring to that reference on terrorism? In my view, terrorism is terrorism is terrorism. I do not differentiate one iota who does it; it is wrong, period. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I can accept that. What I do not agree with is you basic premise that Israel is performing terrorist acts. Neither one of us is over there and much of what we hear comes from the media. My opinion is that the media is biased against Israel for the most part. And don't give me any crap about Jews running the media sothey could not possibly be biased. I know plenty of Born-In-The-USA types who have had the good life, all their life, who contstantly rip on and generally despise America.
[quote]<strong>Is it so wrong to be down on fakes and charlatans? In making your point, you ascribe my skepticism of those people to be a negative, or unjustified critisicm</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, I don't. That is your misinterpretation. I feel as you do that those who twist the scriptures as fakes and charlatans are vile. However when you yourself quote laws, then put forth the premise that said law applies, in this instance, to Israel which makes them terrorist nation then I say the law is being applied out of context and therefore inappropriately.
[quote][/qb]Since when did I say that was my definition of terrorism??? The definition I quoted was that of the U.S. Department of Defense, upon which I presume our "war against terror" is being based. Or does the fact that certain friends and allies of the United States resort to tactics that can only be described as "terrorism" according to the DD definition make you feel uncomfortable? Or is the 'terrorism label" ascribed to activities funded and condoned by this country too politically incorrect for you? If you have a more comfortable definition of terrorism than that provided, then lets have it. [/qb]<hr></blockquote>
You felt comfortable enough with that definition of terrorism, to put it down inthis forum. You wrote it inyour post under your name. No qulaifiers that this is not my definition, and is only being used to make a point. Thus I logically drew the conclusion that you agreed with it. Is that a bad way to draw conclusions?
<a href="http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=terrorism"; target="_blank">The Definition of Terrorism.</a> Palestinians are doing this when they join hamas and get their explosive belt, walk downtown and blow up a diner full of people. Israeli retribution for that act is not terrorism, at the worst I would say it is revenge, and at best I would say it is a deterrant to make other would be bombers think twice before they endager their loved ones.
[quote]<strong>That was not the premise of my post. Yet again you have twisted and misrepresented what I said to suit your own opinions. The premise of my post was the flagrant double standards involved. If you actually *read* my post, I very plainly refer to BOTH SIDES as being guilty of terrorism, using that US Department of Defense definition as a guideline. Why are you in such a huff about that?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Youre quote from the post in question:
The Israeli military have used terrorist tactics against Palestinian civilians on a large scale, supplied and funded by U.S. money and weapons. "Moral clarity" is a phrase that has been used over and over by Bush since 9-11. Moral clarity means in this case "fighting terrorism wherever and whenever it occurs". It seems that our "moral clarity" isn't quite so clear as it could, or should be..
So you are saying that the USA should be fighting Israel, not necessarily militarily, maybe even through withdrawl of our support, because they use what you see to be terrorist tactics. They are terrorists and should be treated as such is the impression I get. Especially if we are not to employ double standards.
I disagree that they are terrorosts. I disagree they they purposely target innocent civilians. I disagree that they use terrorist tactics. However, that is not to say that I do not weep for the innocent victims caught between Israel and Hamas/Arafat.
[quote]<strong>Why is it, that because I mentioned Ariel Sharon's (horrendous) past, or some bad stuff done by the Israelis, that I am automatically in support of the Palestinian cause? I you read my post, I refer to Hamas, al Aqsa and Hezbollah as *terrorist organizations*, and they very plainly are. I understand that Yasser Arafat has for years used terror tactics, and has also encouraged others to do so. I have never implied anything other than that. Or is that not good enough for you?
This blind "taking sides", together with the inequitable and inconsistent attitude and behavior of the world's only superpower, are a part of why this conflict will never be resolved. There are plenty of others but as soon as even mentioned there's always some lame 'conspiracy theory' response.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, I can hardly believe I posted that myself. Let that be a lesson to me, never post in anger or aggravation. I ask your forgiveness on this point. I am sorry.
[quote]<strong>It's OK, I am kind of getting used to it. Keep it up.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, it was wrong to post so flagrantly disregarding of your feelings. However, I still disagree strongly with many of your points.
>Bin Laden said quite a few times in his taped propaganda speeches that our helping Israel occupy and settle Palestinian land while killing Palestinians was definitely part of the motive.<
That was the final tape he made, when he realized there was no arab support for what he did. Come on now, a journalism major should know whats going on in the world. He never mentioned palestinians at all until then.
>No, we should abandon our allies if our allies refuse to act in a peaceful manner and if they violently occupy other people's lands.
I don't have anything against Israel or Israelis inherently, but the current actions of the IDF are abhorrent.<
Refuse to act in a peaceful manner? They should accept getting blown to bits by lunatics and do nothing about it? Come on
>They need to pull out so Palestinians no longer have a reason to blow themselves up at an Israeli discotheque.
I'll leave the rest of your racist diatribe alone.<
Seems like you're the racist here if you think Jews should just die and keep their mouths shut.
>nteresting... what made the IDF go on a murderous rampage in Jenin?<
Could it be that its because Jenin is the base for the terrorists? The Israleis are targeting terrorists, just like we aree doing..........................
>Israel offered Palestine 97% of the land it had taken from the Palestinians and they rightly said no. They wanted 100% of their land back, as any reasonable group of people would. If I took your house and said, "All right, you can have everything but the kitchen." would you jump for joy or demand I get the hell out of your kitchen?<
Since when does the defeated party dictate the terms os a treay? Israel doesn't have to give them squat, so when a good deal like that came along he should've taken it. But, then, what reason would he have to kill people? Its all he knows..................
[quote]So you are saying that the USA should be fighting Israel, not necessarily militarily, maybe even through withdrawl of our support, because they use what you see to be terrorist tactics. They are terrorists and should be treated as such is the
impression I get. Especially if we are not to employ double standards.<hr></blockquote>
It seems that a large portion of the rest of the world, specially the Arab world, are viewing Israel's treatment of the Palestinian people as 'brutal', 'unacceptable', 'outside of international law' judging by reactions in foreign media, by people who have been there, by the U.N. envoy, by relief workers etc. Those descriptions encompass most peoples' perception of terrorist activity, including that definition that the U.S.D.D. quotes.. The fact that it is carried out by a well-equipped military force, (the worlds 4th largest) rather than a ragtag band of gunmen, should not cloud one's judgement.
It is so easy for us here, from our armchairs in comfortable middle class America to blandly throw labels around. Just put yourself in the position of your average Palestinian family (and no. I'm not talking about terrorists here, just ordinary, families attempting to raise children in the occupied territories....unless you feel that *all* Palestinians are terrorists, because they are Palestinian?): How would you react if the military suddenly rolled up outside your home with tanks and bulldozers and systematically demolished your property for no reason leaving you homeless in the street with nowhere to turn? That is that is exactly what has been happening in the occupied territories for years and years, in any Palestinian home, farm, village, town or city you care to mention. Life in the occupied territories means arbitrary searches, detention/imprisonment without trial, summary executions, disappearances, property destruction and confiscation with no recourse to compensation, little freedom of movement, etc etc. (for what it's worth, my mother was a voluntary worker with the I.R.C. for some 15 years and the stuff she saw was horrific beyond your wildest nightmares). This activity is not reported in the U.S. media, not because it is some "Jewish Conspiracy" as you rather cynically imply that I feel it might be, but because it is not a story that hasn't interested us that much here in America until the current unrest re-focussed attention in that area. Sex scandals and other assorted trivia sell far more copy and don't make us feel too uncomfortable.
The pictures from "ground zero" of the recent disaster in Jenin suggest something far in excess of "measures taken to combat terrorism". The destruction is more complete than that from a major earthquake, and "the whole place stinks of death, from rotting corpses in the rubble".
Now, as reported on CNN (fwiw) the Bush Administration refuses to endorse an independent team of assessors to go in there to find out just what happened there, and how many folk were killed.
How is the rest of the world, including bunch of already fuming and angry Arab nations going to view that kind of attitude towards what they view as a blatant example or state-sponsored terrorism, or worse. We are trying to maintain an international coalition aimed at eradicating all forms of terrorism, and what do they see that we doing over there? Answer: sponsoring terror/war crimes, and then blocking relief efforts. This really is not the best way of keeping those shifty and volatile arab states on our side.
[quote]I disagree that they are terrorosts. I disagree they they purposely target innocent civilians. I disagree that they use terrorist tactics. However, that is not to say that I do not weep for the innocent victims caught between Israel and Hamas/Arafat.<hr></blockquote>
Many of the tactics used by the IDF plainly fall within the US definition of terrorism. Just because they are a large, well-organized, well-equipped, efficient army using American made weapons doesn't automatically make them morally superior or immune to doing bad stuff. Ever since the PLO was first organized under Arafat in the 60s, the words "terrorist" and "PLO" have gone together like like cheese and crackers, and for good reason...they committed acts of terror on a regular basis, and still do. When we hear the word "Palestine"/"Palestinian", we automatically think "terrorist", as a conditioned reflex. We don't have that same psychological association between Israel and terrorism since Israel is a democratic nation, a close ally of America, and the (corporate) media here doesn't report on life under occupation in the O.T. Even thse massacres at Sabra, Shatila and elsewhere in S. Lebanon in 1982, partially planned and endorsed by Sharon and the Israeli military were largely unreported, despite the horrific loss of life (estimated between 2,500 and 70,000 over a 6 month period).
So, yes, I do think that Israel is guilty of terrorism. (But I imagine you will disagree with me to the end of the earth on that one, even if Sharon starts using nukes). And so are those Palestinian extremist organizations that do suicide bombings. And, according to the President Bush, so is anyone who harbors and sponsors terrorism. I guess, according to our own definition, that means us also.
The US definition of terrorism has always been a changing thing. The Founding Fathers were viewed by the British as terrorists, but we saw/see them in a different light of course. Native Americans were seen as terrorists by the US and white settlers during the 19th cen. Mujahadden (sp?) in Afganastan were viewed by us as freedom fighters when it was in our best interest to view them as such, but that changed (rightfully so) after 9/11. I'm sure there are other examples and the US isn't alone in anything we've do or have done. Most nations do it. I just find it funny and sad how anything can be justifed.
[quote]That was the final tape he made, when he realized there was no arab support for what he did.<hr></blockquote>
No support in the Arab world? Are you stoned?
A poll done in March in Muslim nations found that only 18% thought that Arabs were responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
[quote]Refuse to act in a peaceful manner? <hr></blockquote>
Occupying territory illegally is not helping matters.
[quote]Seems like you're the racist here if you think Jews should just die and keep their mouths shut.<hr></blockquote>
How does me saying Israel should follow international law make me racist?
I think you need to look "racist" up in the dictionary.
[quote]Could it be that its because Jenin is the base for the terrorists? The Israleis are targeting terrorists, just like we aree doing<hr></blockquote>
Interesting, so they go in there for over a week not letting international press in so they can weed out terrorists?
And that entire city is just a training ground for terrorists? All those homes with women and children were just props, eh?
[quote]Since when does the defeated party dictate the terms os a treay? Israel doesn't have to give them squat, so when a good deal like that came along he should've taken it. But, then, what reason would he have to kill people?<hr></blockquote>
International law (mandated by the entity that created Israel) dictates that you cannot occupy territory taken in war.
Look at U.N. Security Coucil Resolution #497 for details if you need some proof from me.
---
Rashumon:
Can't respond to my post so you paste an article? That's weak.
---
Outsider:
I can certainly see both sides. The occupation of Palestinian territory and suicide bombing attacks on Israeli citizens are both horrible actions to be condemned.
I certainly hope there can be peace in the region with two separate states recognizing the other as a valid entity and respecting each other's territorial rights, even though they don't share a religion.
There are many Israeli settlements that are currently on stolen land, but the state of Israel outlined in the 1947 partition plan isn't stolen at all.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You know, I have been thinking about this for a little bit and I think that funny enough we basically agree.
I too agree that Israel should withdraw from the occupied territories ( as do 80% of Israelis) and though there is no paractical way to go back on all 100% of the land i do think bikering over 3-4 % is a little pathetic.. dont you agree.
My question though is this - Say Israel withdraws and the Palestinians have their state, what if the suicides don't stop ? what should Israel do then?
I mean organisations like Hamas, Jihad Islami, some factions of Fatah say they will never actually accept any form of a jewish state in any part of what they call Palestine...
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
It seems that a large portion of the rest of the world, specially the Arab world, are viewing Israel's treatment of the Palestinian people as 'brutal', 'unacceptable', 'outside of international law' judging by reactions in foreign media, by people who have been there, by the U.N. envoy, by relief workers etc. Those descriptions encompass most peoples' perception of terrorist activity, including that definition that the U.S.D.D. quotes.. The fact that it is carried out by a well-equipped military force, (the worlds 4th largest) rather than a ragtag band of gunmen, should not cloud one's judgement.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Interesting to read this from an American ( i think ) Most of these countries have simmilar criticism against the US for its offensive in Afghanistan and Iraq. what is morally repugnant is for EU and US who killed THOUSANDS of innocent civilians in Afghanistan while bombing the Taliban
And who according to UN data are using sanctions against Iraq which has resulted in the death of half a million chidren.
Even if you consider Israel to be heavy handed, it's no where near as brutal as these nubers suggest the US/EU are, so how can you seriously sit there and be so hipocritical ?
(dont mis-understand me I an NOT against US action in these cases I'm just pointing out the double standards)
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
The pictures from "ground zero" of the recent disaster in Jenin suggest something far in excess of "measures taken to combat terrorism". The destruction is more complete than that from a major earthquake, and "the whole place stinks of death, from rotting corpses in the rubble".</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why is this Israel's fault ? Is it Isreal's fault that the terrorists boobytrapped all of these houses and when these went off houses colapsed ?
Is it Israel's fault that the millitants choose to hide in heavily populated civilian areas ?
Have you seen the distruction done to Kabool or Kandahar by US carpet bombing.
Have you seen how many civilans have been killed and how much of Kosovo has been ruined as a direct result of NATO bombing which was supposed to help these civilians ?
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
media here doesn't report on life under occupation in the O.T. Even thse massacres at Sabra, Shatila and elsewhere in S. Lebanon in 1982, partially planned and endorsed by Sharon and the Israeli military were largely unreported, despite the horrific loss of life (estimated between 2,500 and 70,000 over a 6 month period). </strong><hr></blockquote>
Wow talk about twisting of facts ...let me get this staright !
1. Israel had nothing to do with Sbara and Shatila the massacre was performed by Arabs (Lebanese christians) against Arabs ( Palestinian muslims)
no Israeli took part or was even in the camps when this ws going on.
2. The total estimated real casualties of these massacres was around 800 not 70,000 as you rediculesly suggest.
3. Sharon was indeed found partly responsible ( by an Israeli enqiery into the massacres) for not stopping the massacres not for actually commiting or planing them, his hands are not clean I would agree to that but to call him a war criminal or a murderer will taint almost any American or other general who was serving in- Vietnam, Iraq, Kosovo, etc... where masscres have happened as well.
4. The massacres happed over one day not 6 monthes as you describe.
All i'm saying is that war is war is war .. it's evil and dirty and innocents die and thats sad ! But Israel didn't start this, and calling its actions terrorisn is calling all warring nations (including the US and EU) terrorist.
[quote]i do think bikering over 3-4 % is a little pathetic.. dont you agree.<hr></blockquote>
Absolutely not, if that 3-4% includes your home then it's pretty important to you.
There is no reason at all that Israel shouldn't give back 100% of the land it illegally took.
If the terrorism continues it should be an issue turned over to a U.N. taskforce (which will not be castrated by the U.S.'s previous attempts to stymie U.N. action in the area). Israel has shown that it is unable to reasonably deal with issues like this.
Also, Israel out of Palestinian territory and mutual recognition will take away a lot of motive for terrorist attacks.
Whatever is to be done about terrorism, occupation is ineffective and it must end now.
[edit]
The U.S. has not killed thousands of Afghani civilians.
Absolutely not, if that 3-4% includes your home then it's pretty important to you.
There is no reason at all that Israel shouldn't give back 100% of the land it illegally took.
If the terrorism continues it should be an issue turned over to a U.N. taskforce (which will not be castrated by the U.S.'s previous attempts to stymie U.N. action in the area). Israel has shown that it is unable to reasonably deal with issues like this.
Also, Israel out of Palestinian territory and mutual recognition will take away a lot of motive for terrorist attacks.
Whatever is to be done about terrorism, occupation is ineffective and it must end now.
[edit]
The U.S. has not killed thousands of Afghani civilians.
Theres no reason that israel shouldn't give back 100% of the land? How about security. Yes, Israelis are entitled to security.
Turn over to a UN taskforce!? bwahahahaha that is just laughable and ignorant at the same time. The UN can do nothing-they are ineffective morons. What are they going to do to prevent terrorists attacks? What happens when the terrorist attacks continue and the UN is stuck in the middle? Why should Israel trust a body that is anti-Israeli? A stupid idea.
Take away motives for terrorist attacks? The Arabs will find a motive for terrorist attacks. They will make one up. There are many other motives for them to think of besides Israel. Bin laden struck the US because of our troops in Saudi Arabia. Terrorists would strike if we move against Iraq. If that isn't reason enough they will strike over kashmir, somehow finding a way to link us to the conflict. Etc, etc, etc.
Its a shame that as an American you can take the side of the murderers who killed over 3,000 innocent civilians. Ask the victims families if you are placing the blame where it deserves to be. .................................................. .......
Comments
<strong>Bad analogy on my part, perhaps, but it wasn't meant to mirror the situation exactly (since finding a perfect analogy for the Israel/Palestine conflict isn't easy).
Also, I don't remember Israel ever fighting a proper war with Palestine, so I don't think that Israel has to fight them for "power". Wasn't this just about terrorism, or IS it really about control of the area?
I remember there being war with a bunch of other Arab nations, though, so why isn't Israel setting up shop in Egypt, Syria, etc... if it's really about keeping their wartime enemies at bay?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Dude, there has never been a 'Palestine' before, the west bank and Gaza were parts of Jordan and Egypt respectively. these countries fought Israel for its life ( Along with other Arab nations like Syria) in 1948, 1967, and 1973. Today however Israel has peace treaties with both these countries and is the only state in the region willing to accept Palestinian self determination.
You seem pretty dim on the history so let me just refresh your memory.
Arafat ( along with his militias) was kicked out of Jordan in the 70s in what was later called Black September this was done by Jordan's King Hussein. read these if you want to learn a thing or two.
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1095000/1095221.stm"; target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1095000/1095221.stm</a>;
<a href="http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/bravo/blacksept1970.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/bravo/blacksept1970.htm</a>;
<a href="http://www.multied.com/mideast/BlkSept.html"; target="_blank">http://www.multied.com/mideast/BlkSept.html</a>;
( very interesting stuf btw)
Arafat was then kicked out of Lebanon by the Israelis and the Lebanese and then when he was hiding away in far away Tunisia he was invited by Israel back into the occupied territories to try and give him and his people what no Arab nation has ever offered them - a free Palestinian state .
successive Israeli governments were negotiating with the newly created Palestinian Authority all along the nineties, some times despite terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians by extreme Islamic organisations. The Israeli people have even lost one of their most popular prime ministers ( Yitzhak Rabin) in the search for peace, he was assassinated by an extreme Jewish right winger. but despite this Israel continued negotiations and withdrew from most of the occupied territories.
In September 2000 then Israeli PM met with Arafat for the Camp David summit where he offered the Palestinians a final settlement - 97% of the occupied territories and a comprehensive compensation for the rest plus joint management of Jerusalem ( effectively dividing the city between the two nations). this offer was supported by the US and the EU but Arafat rejected it and instead launched his Intefada.
How do you expect Israelis to believe Palestinians when they say all they want is an end to occupation ? they had that offered to them on a platter and rejected it .... many Israelis feel all they really want is to push all the Jews back to the sea where they came from .... in other words to destroy Israel.
BTW you might find my post at the top of this thread interesting and also the ones I posted in pages 15 and 16 of the other Israel/Palestine thread....
1. There has never been a Palestine.
2. The West Bank and Gaza belonged to Jordan and Egypt respectively.
3. The Palestinians were kicked out of Jordan for being naughty.
4. The Jews gave them the West Bank and Gaza to hang out in. But somehow the Palestinians wanted to kill all the innocent Israelis for giving them land so kindly.
Questions:
- If there has never been a Palestine, where did the name Palestinian come from?
- What was the region called before Israel was there?
- How were the West Bank and Gaza the Jews' to give if they belong to Jordan and Egypt?
I hope you're well meaning and genuinely confused about this, because what you're saying just doesn't make sense as a statement by itself, nonetheless by using historical fact against it.
Oh, wait wait wait:
"97% of the occupied territories and a comprehensive compensation for the rest plus joint management of Jerusalem"
What does "occupied territory" mean?
You made it seem as if it was Israel's to give out of the charity, not that it was land captured in war.
Here's what happened:
Israel offered Palestine 97% of the land it had taken from the Palestinians and they rightly said no. They wanted 100% of their land back, as any reasonable group of people would. If I took your house and said, "All right, you can have everything but the kitchen." would you jump for joy or demand I get the hell out of your kitchen?
As for all this "West Bank and Gaza" belonging to Jordan and Egypt (yet with Israel having the power to give it away and YET FURTHER that it was deemed an occupied territory by Israel) is a load of shit.
Fact: That land belonged to the Ottoman Empire before World War I and after WWI went to the English who in turn turned it over to the UN to decide what to do with it.
A chunk of the British mandate land in the area was carved off in 1948 to make Israel. The remainder was for Arabs. It's fact.
Jews (>1/3 of the population) and Arabs (2/3 of the population) lived in the area called Palestine before that. It's fact.
<a href="http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html"; target="_blank">My Source - The United Nations</a>
<a href="http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/qpal/maps/M0082c.gif"; target="_blank">The original partition map, September of 1947, made and posted by The United Nations.</a>
(I don't know where the hell you get this idea that the freakin' West Bank and Gaza belonged to Jordan and Egypt.)
<a href="http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/qpal/maps/M0547_I.gif"; target="_blank">Map of the Armistice lines after the 1949 war</a>
<a href="http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/qpal/maps/M3014.gif"; target="_blank">Map of territory Israel occupied after 1967 war until 1980s</a>
<a href="http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/qpal/maps/M3243r2.gif"; target="_blank">Occupied territory as of 1991</a>
Compare that of 1947 to what Israel has occupied on those maps. Starting to see where the Palestinians aren't happy?
[edit]
<a href="http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/qpal/maps/m3070r17.gif"; target="_blank">Israeli settlements on Palestinian land</a>
All provided by the UN.
[ 04-19-2002: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>
If you want to go back that far, Hebrew Israel was the first real state or kingdom there. The Canaanites were in the area first, but were never a united nation. Actually, the Biblical Hebrew kingdom of David was probably the only real, united nation that has ever existed in that area. It was otherwise always ruled by someone else - Romans or Arabs from Damascus or Baghdad, or finally the British.
In modern times (i.e., the 19th and 20th centuries), Jews and Arabs were considered Palestinians. But there just has never been a people (i.e., with a language and ethnic or religious commonality) who were "Palestinianns." Even Arafat, who's considered "the" Palestinian, is actually Egyptian.
The West Bank was taken by Jordan after the 1948 war, and Egypt took Gaza at the same time. You're right, it wasn't theirs to begin with - it was theirs between 1948 and 1967.
you, heck, I don't even know much about you outside of this board, you might be a very kind person. But here in this forum and others you can be a bit much.<hr></blockquote>
Whatever...when someone resorts to personal accusations in a forum regarding a complete stranger, based on misinterpretation....oh well...
(my quote)
Why did I lose you at the end? That last paragraph was most specific, in that I was quoting words that were uttered by President Bush, who I am sure you support, from reading your posts. Or are you saying that you support terrorism by those with whom you sympathise? Or are you so in denial that you feel that the USA is always morally uninpeachable in its actions? Or are you saying that it is impossible for Israel to commit acts of terrorism, no matter what they do?
Noah's:
[quote]Any words uttered out of context can be made to stand for that which they were not intended.<hr></blockquote>
Are you are referring to that reference on terrorism? In my view, terrorism is terrorism is terrorism. I do not differentiate one iota who does it; it is wrong, period.
[quote]Someone so down on "christians" that do that with scripture should be able to see the parallel quite quickly.<hr></blockquote>
Is it so wrong to be down on fakes and charlatans? In making your point, you ascribe my skepticism of those people to be a negative, or unjustified critisicm.
[quote]However, it suits your definition of
terrorism and you can make it look as though Israel is the bad guy picking on poor Palestine using that quote in your chosen context.<hr></blockquote>
Since when did I say that was my definition of terrorism??? The definition I quoted was that of the U.S. Department of Defense, upon which I presume our "war against terror" is being based. Or does the fact that certain friends and allies of the United States resort to tactics that can only be described as "terrorism" according to the DD definition make you feel uncomfortable? Or is the 'terrorism label" ascribed to activities funded and condoned by this country too politically incorrect for you? If you have a more comfortable definition of terrorism than that provided, then lets have it.
[quote]I disagree with the premise of your post at the end, that Israel is the terrorist nation for defending itself against terrorism that is so rampant that it is a DAILY event most weeks.<hr></blockquote>
That was not the premise of my post. Yet again you have twisted and misrepresented what I said to suit your own opinions. The premise of my post was the flagrant double standards involved. If you actually *read* my post, I very plainly refer to BOTH SIDES as being guilty of terrorism, using that US Department of Defense definition as a guideline. Why are you in such a huff about that?
[quote]Put it in context of what they have to deal with, day in and day out and if you still believe that they are wrong in their actions then move over there and be a suicide bomber, become a martyr and you too can have your face on a t-shirt and win the $25,000 jackpot for your family.<hr></blockquote>
Why is it, that because I mentioned Ariel Sharon's (horrendous) past, or some bad stuff done by the Israelis, that I am automatically in support of the Palestinian cause? I you read my post, I refer to Hamas, al Aqsa and Hezbollah as *terrorist organizations*, and they very plainly are. I understand that Yasser Arafat has for years used terror tactics, and has also encouraged others to do so. I have never implied anything other than that. Or is that not good enough for you?
This blind "taking sides", together with the inequitable and inconsistent attitude and behavior of the world's only superpower, are a part of why this conflict will never be resolved. There are plenty of others but as soon as even mentioned there's always some lame 'conspiracy theory' response.
[quote](was that too far over the line? I bet it was....)<hr></blockquote>
It's OK, I am kind of getting used to it. Keep it up.
[ 04-19-2002: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</p>
<strong>I'll summarize what you just said and we'll see if we can find the flaws, ok?
1. There has never been a Palestine.
2. The West Bank and Gaza belonged to Jordan and Egypt respectively.
3. The Palestinians were kicked out of Jordan for being naughty.
4. The Jews gave them the West Bank and Gaza to hang out in. But somehow the Palestinians wanted to kill all the innocent Israelis for giving them land so kindly.
____________________________
Israel offered Palestine 97% of the land it had taken from the Palestinians and they rightly said no. They wanted 100% of their land back, as any reasonable group of people would. If I took your house and said, "All right, you can have everything but the kitchen." would you jump for joy or demand I get the hell out of your kitchen?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok ,....LOL you are soo very funny twisting my words and making them sound more extreme then I originaly said them...I hope you're enjoying yourself ....
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Yes there has never been a Palestine as a state of the Arab Palestinian people but I as an Israeli think there should be!
Let me instead of flaming you simply ask you few questions and I belive your reply will be very interesting .
1. Do you believe that Israel has a right to exist at all as a home for the Jewish people ? I mean from what you say its basicaly sitting on stolen land ...
2. If you believe that all Palestinians who lost their homes should be allowed back into every inch of land they used to live in what about 800,000 jews and their decendants ( today numbering over 4 million) who were expeled/escaped from Arab countries when Israel ws established ? do they not at least deserve any compensation or the same recognition that Palestinians get ?
<a href="http://www.hsje.org/second_exodus.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.hsje.org/second_exodus.htm</a>;
this but one example, search the web a little if you are interested
3. Why do you completly ignore the Jewish comunities who were always a part of the land ? In places like Hebron, Jerusalem, Zfat, Acre etc there were ancient jewish comunities who lived there consistantly since biblical times.
4. If you are so concerned about the rights of Palestinians why aren't you concerned about the millions of Native Americans who died as as direct result of the white settlement of the US ?
And isn't Texas basicaly a piece of land occupied by the US from Mexico ?
BTW your president sure doesn't think like you do
<a href="http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=153483&contrassID=2&subContrass ID=1&sbSubContrassID=0" target="_blank">http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=153483&contrassID=2&subContrass ID=1&sbSubContrassID=0</a>
No, you essentially said those exact sentences. Mind if I quote you?
(My summary sentences in bold, your quotes in italics)
1. There has never been a Palestine.
Dude, there has never been a 'Palestine' before...
2. The West Bank and Gaza belonged to Jordan and Egypt respectively.
... the west bank and Gaza were parts of Jordan and Egypt respectively.
*note* Those two sentences of yours are connected.
3. The Palestinians were kicked out of Jordan for being naughty.
Arafat ( along with his militias) was kicked out of Jordan in the 70s in what was later called Black September this was done by Jordan's King Hussein.
4. The Jews gave them the West Bank and Gaza to hang out in. But somehow the Palestinians wanted to kill all the innocent Israelis for giving them land so kindly.
...he was invited by Israel back into the occupied territories to try and give him and his people what no Arab nation has ever offered them - a free Palestinian state .
successive Israeli governments were negotiating with the newly created Palestinian Authority all along the nineties, some times despite terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians by extreme Islamic organisations.
How exactly did I make any of your statements more extreme? All I did was make them more concise.
[quote]Yes there has never been a Palestine as a state of the Arab Palestinian people but I as an Israeli think there should be!<hr></blockquote>
Interesting way the Israelis have of going about establishing an Arab Palestinian state, by occupying it with military forces, putting sections under Israeli rule and flattening Palestinian villages for Israeli settlement. (I linked to a map of Israeli settlements in the Palestinians' land)
[quote]1. Do you believe that Israel has a right to exist at all as a home for the Jewish people ? I mean from what you say its basicaly sitting on stolen land ...<hr></blockquote>
That's a stupid question, of course Israel has a right to exist. That's the kind of bullshit red-herring questions you simpletons ask as if everyone who disagrees with the IDF massacres must be an anti-Semite.
There are many Israeli settlements that are currently on stolen land, but the state of Israel outlined in the 1947 partition plan isn't stolen at all.
[quote]2. If you believe that all Palestinians who lost their homes should be allowed back into every inch of land they used to live in what about 800,000 jews and their decendants ( today numbering over 4 million) who were expeled/escaped from Arab countries when Israel ws established ? do they not at least deserve any compensation or the same recognition that Palestinians get ?<hr></blockquote>
You ignorantly assume I think Israel has no right to exist. Israel should withdraw to her proper borders immediately.
[quote]3. Why do you completly ignore the Jewish comunities who were always a part of the land ? In places like Hebron, Jerusalem, Zfat, Acre etc there were ancient jewish comunities who lived there consistantly since biblical times.<hr></blockquote>
Jews shouldn't be run out of Palestinian land but Israeli law should not influence any part of Palestinian land. The IDF should not occupy any part of these lands if they fall in non-Israeli territory.
[quote]4. If you are so concerned about the rights of Palestinians why aren't you concerned about the millions of Native Americans who died as as direct result of the white settlement of the US ?<hr></blockquote>
Because this is going on right now and we killed off the Indians well over a century ago. Now unless you've built me a time machine I fail to see how that's anything but a moronic question.
[quote]And isn't Texas basicaly a piece of land occupied by the US from Mexico ?<hr></blockquote>
Nope, Texas won a war of independence, was its own nation and voted democratically to become part of the U.S.
<strong>Whatever...when someone resorts to personal accusations in a forum regarding a complete stranger, based on misinterpretation....oh well...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not based on misinterpretation, but observation. And I stated as much. Am I entitled to an opinion? I apologize for being so harsh, it was a really bad day (hence my final statement), but I stand by many of the assertions. I really do have a hard time understanding how you believe much of what you say.
[quote]<strong>Are you are referring to that reference on terrorism? In my view, terrorism is terrorism is terrorism. I do not differentiate one iota who does it; it is wrong, period. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I can accept that. What I do not agree with is you basic premise that Israel is performing terrorist acts. Neither one of us is over there and much of what we hear comes from the media. My opinion is that the media is biased against Israel for the most part. And don't give me any crap about Jews running the media sothey could not possibly be biased. I know plenty of Born-In-The-USA types who have had the good life, all their life, who contstantly rip on and generally despise America.
[quote]<strong>Is it so wrong to be down on fakes and charlatans? In making your point, you ascribe my skepticism of those people to be a negative, or unjustified critisicm</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, I don't. That is your misinterpretation. I feel as you do that those who twist the scriptures as fakes and charlatans are vile. However when you yourself quote laws, then put forth the premise that said law applies, in this instance, to Israel which makes them terrorist nation then I say the law is being applied out of context and therefore inappropriately.
[quote][/qb]Since when did I say that was my definition of terrorism??? The definition I quoted was that of the U.S. Department of Defense, upon which I presume our "war against terror" is being based. Or does the fact that certain friends and allies of the United States resort to tactics that can only be described as "terrorism" according to the DD definition make you feel uncomfortable? Or is the 'terrorism label" ascribed to activities funded and condoned by this country too politically incorrect for you? If you have a more comfortable definition of terrorism than that provided, then lets have it. [/qb]<hr></blockquote>
You felt comfortable enough with that definition of terrorism, to put it down inthis forum. You wrote it inyour post under your name. No qulaifiers that this is not my definition, and is only being used to make a point. Thus I logically drew the conclusion that you agreed with it. Is that a bad way to draw conclusions?
<a href="http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=terrorism"; target="_blank">The Definition of Terrorism.</a> Palestinians are doing this when they join hamas and get their explosive belt, walk downtown and blow up a diner full of people. Israeli retribution for that act is not terrorism, at the worst I would say it is revenge, and at best I would say it is a deterrant to make other would be bombers think twice before they endager their loved ones.
[quote]<strong>That was not the premise of my post. Yet again you have twisted and misrepresented what I said to suit your own opinions. The premise of my post was the flagrant double standards involved. If you actually *read* my post, I very plainly refer to BOTH SIDES as being guilty of terrorism, using that US Department of Defense definition as a guideline. Why are you in such a huff about that?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Youre quote from the post in question:
The Israeli military have used terrorist tactics against Palestinian civilians on a large scale, supplied and funded by U.S. money and weapons. "Moral clarity" is a phrase that has been used over and over by Bush since 9-11. Moral clarity means in this case "fighting terrorism wherever and whenever it occurs". It seems that our "moral clarity" isn't quite so clear as it could, or should be..
So you are saying that the USA should be fighting Israel, not necessarily militarily, maybe even through withdrawl of our support, because they use what you see to be terrorist tactics. They are terrorists and should be treated as such is the impression I get. Especially if we are not to employ double standards.
I disagree that they are terrorosts. I disagree they they purposely target innocent civilians. I disagree that they use terrorist tactics. However, that is not to say that I do not weep for the innocent victims caught between Israel and Hamas/Arafat.
[quote]<strong>Why is it, that because I mentioned Ariel Sharon's (horrendous) past, or some bad stuff done by the Israelis, that I am automatically in support of the Palestinian cause? I you read my post, I refer to Hamas, al Aqsa and Hezbollah as *terrorist organizations*, and they very plainly are. I understand that Yasser Arafat has for years used terror tactics, and has also encouraged others to do so. I have never implied anything other than that. Or is that not good enough for you?
This blind "taking sides", together with the inequitable and inconsistent attitude and behavior of the world's only superpower, are a part of why this conflict will never be resolved. There are plenty of others but as soon as even mentioned there's always some lame 'conspiracy theory' response.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, I can hardly believe I posted that myself.
[quote]<strong>It's OK, I am kind of getting used to it. Keep it up.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, it was wrong to post so flagrantly disregarding of your feelings. However, I still disagree strongly with many of your points.
That was the final tape he made, when he realized there was no arab support for what he did. Come on now, a journalism major should know whats going on in the world. He never mentioned palestinians at all until then.
>No, we should abandon our allies if our allies refuse to act in a peaceful manner and if they violently occupy other people's lands.
I don't have anything against Israel or Israelis inherently, but the current actions of the IDF are abhorrent.<
Refuse to act in a peaceful manner? They should accept getting blown to bits by lunatics and do nothing about it? Come on
>They need to pull out so Palestinians no longer have a reason to blow themselves up at an Israeli discotheque.
I'll leave the rest of your racist diatribe alone.<
Seems like you're the racist here if you think Jews should just die and keep their mouths shut.
>nteresting... what made the IDF go on a murderous rampage in Jenin?<
Could it be that its because Jenin is the base for the terrorists? The Israleis are targeting terrorists, just like we aree doing..........................
Since when does the defeated party dictate the terms os a treay? Israel doesn't have to give them squat, so when a good deal like that came along he should've taken it. But, then, what reason would he have to kill people? Its all he knows..................
This war tells us more about Europe than the Middle East
By Mark Steyn
(Filed: 14/04/2002)
'THE whole world is demanding that Israel withdraws," said Kofi Annan in Madrid
last week, standing alongside various panjandrums from the EU, UN, US and
Russia. "I don't think the whole world, including the friends of the Israeli
people and government, can be wrong."
Oh, I don't know. The "whole world" has a pretty good track record of being
wrong, especially where Jews are concerned. Fifty million Frenchmen can be
wrong, and never more so than when they're teamed with Chris Patten, Mary
Robinson, the European Parliament (which has demanded sanctions against
Israel), the German government (which has announced an arms embargo against
Israel), the brand-new International Criminal Court (which - in its very first
24 hours! - started mulling the question of "Israeli war crimes"), the
Norwegian Parliament (which had a visitor thrown out of the building for
wearing a provocative Star of David on his lapel), never mind the members of
Calgary's "Palestinian community" who marched through the streets carrying
placards emblazoned "Death To The Jews", a timeless slogan but not hitherto a
burning issue on the prairies.
The only question now is whether the US is a member of the Kofi set in good
standing or whether it's a member mainly in the sense that Saudi Arabia is a
member of the coalition against terror. A week ago, asked to define what
Washington meant by Israeli withdrawal "without delay", Colin Powell replied
that the Administration "does expect something to happen soon with respect to
bringing this operation to some culminating point where you can start to see a
movement in the other direction". Somehow I don't think that's what Kofi and
Chris had in mind.
On the other hand, by midweek, with nothing happening to bring to culmination
the point for starting to move in the other direction, it was General Powell
who was in reverse: both terrorism and a "response to terrorism" (his phrase)
had to stop, he said, as neither was getting us anywhere.
On the other other hand, by week's end, after Yasser had laid on the
traditional incendiary Palestinian welcome, General Powell postponed his
meeting with "Chairman" Arafat and gave him yet another "last chance" to
denounce terrorism.
It was unclear at the time of writing whether this was his last "last chance".
By the time you read this, he may have been given another "last chance", or,
amazingly, it may turn out that that last "last chance" was, indeed, the final
one.
Either way, the Chairman cannot denounce terrorism, not when Saudi television
has just had a hugely successful charity telethon raising £37 million for the
families of Palestinian "martyrs". King Fahd and Crown Prince Abdullah both
chipped in. One Saudi Princess donated both her Rolls and her ox, a double
jackpot sure to inspire any West Bank suicide bomber hoping to transform his
relicts into a two-car family. Maybe they'll make it a weekly show: Who Wants
To Be A Million Air Particles?
So General Powell will be flying home, his mission a failure in its stated
goals and thus (say the Beltway Machiavels) a grand success in its unstated
ones - to buy time, to allow Sharon to clean out the terrorist enclaves while
stalling Syria from using Lebanon to broaden the war.
From Washington's point of view, the peace mission was necessary because of a
scheduling conflict over scheduling conflicts: they'd booked the Middle East
for a war with Iraq only to discover the joint being used for some other guys'
war. In an ideal world, the US would like to restore peace in the Middle East
in order to launch a massive conflagration there.
Conversely, the Iraqis and Saudis need to keep this war going in order to
postpone the next one - hence, their generous subvention of the extensive
infrastructure required to keep Palestinian schoolgirls loaded up with Semtex.
The Arabs, ever since King Hussein sacked Sir John Glubb (the only general who
ever won anything for 'em), only lose conventional wars. They advance in
unconventional ways, the suicide bomber being merely the latest method. Araby
has effectively designated the entire West Bank as one big suicide bomb to take
out the Jews, and it's going so swimmingly that the last thing they want to do
is go back to primitive weaponry like tanks.
Meanwhile, what have we learned from this last extraordinary month? Not much
about the Middle East, but quite a lot about Europe. What happens when
Palestinian civilians strap on plastic explosives and head for Israeli pizza
parlours? Europe says Israeli checkpoints for Palestinians are "humiliating".
Palestinian Red Crescent ambulances permit themselves to be used as
transportation for bombs and explosives - and Europe attacks Israel for
refusing them free movement.
Documents are found authorising Palestinian Authority funding for a suicide
bombing on a young girl's bar mitzvah, signed by Arafat himself - and members
of the Nobel committee publicly call for taking back the 1994 Peace Prize, from
Shimon Peres. Synagogues are firebombed in France, Belgium and Finland - and
the EU deplores the wanton destruction of property, in Ramallah.
"Ah, those Jews," an attractive, intelligent, sophisticated Parisienne sighed
over dinner with me the other night. "They cause problems everywhere they are."
Actually, they don't. Of the 30 ongoing conflicts in the world today, the
Muslims are involved in 28 of them. There are no Jews in Kashmir or the Sudan,
so the Muslims make do with Hindus and Christians. What the Europeans
call "Muslim-Jewish tensions" on the Continent do not involve Jewish gangs
attacking mosques or beating up women in hejabs, only Muslim gangs attacking
synagogues and stoning a bus of Jewish schoolchildren.
"No matter what is happening in the Middle East," said Lionel Jospin, "anti-
Semitic acts are totally unacceptable" - a formulation which, even as it
condemns the assaults, somehow manages to validate their motivation. For, as
Messieurs Jospin, Chirac and Vedrine have assured us, "what is happening in the
Middle East" is the fault of the famously "shitty little country".
France's leaders and their excitable Arab youth are, to that extent, on the
same song sheet. Perhaps that's why they don't feel the need to expend undue
effort investigating these incidents. The reason why there has been no similar
epidemic in the US is because the relevant jurisdictions don't appear, at least
implicitly, to license it.
This is not virulently anti-Jew, just the familiar European urge to appease.
France has nearly five million Muslims. If, from one million Palestinians,
Hamas and co can recruit enough to blow up a couple of dozen Israelis every 48
hours, how many recruits could they find in France from an unassimilated
population five times the size?
The Europeans are scared of their Muslim populations, scared of what perceived
slight might turn them from shooting up kosher butchers to shooting up targets
of more, shall we say, concern to the general population. When the war with
Iraq starts, we'll find out. No wonder Paris and Brussels are as keen to
postpone it as Baghdad and Riyadh. The "whole world" is agreed that if anybody
has to be blown up it might as well be the Israelis. Ah, those Jew
troublemakers: why won't they just lie there and take it?
impression I get. Especially if we are not to employ double standards.<hr></blockquote>
It seems that a large portion of the rest of the world, specially the Arab world, are viewing Israel's treatment of the Palestinian people as 'brutal', 'unacceptable', 'outside of international law' judging by reactions in foreign media, by people who have been there, by the U.N. envoy, by relief workers etc. Those descriptions encompass most peoples' perception of terrorist activity, including that definition that the U.S.D.D. quotes.. The fact that it is carried out by a well-equipped military force, (the worlds 4th largest) rather than a ragtag band of gunmen, should not cloud one's judgement.
It is so easy for us here, from our armchairs in comfortable middle class America to blandly throw labels around. Just put yourself in the position of your average Palestinian family (and no. I'm not talking about terrorists here, just ordinary, families attempting to raise children in the occupied territories....unless you feel that *all* Palestinians are terrorists, because they are Palestinian?): How would you react if the military suddenly rolled up outside your home with tanks and bulldozers and systematically demolished your property for no reason leaving you homeless in the street with nowhere to turn? That is that is exactly what has been happening in the occupied territories for years and years, in any Palestinian home, farm, village, town or city you care to mention. Life in the occupied territories means arbitrary searches, detention/imprisonment without trial, summary executions, disappearances, property destruction and confiscation with no recourse to compensation, little freedom of movement, etc etc. (for what it's worth, my mother was a voluntary worker with the I.R.C. for some 15 years and the stuff she saw was horrific beyond your wildest nightmares). This activity is not reported in the U.S. media, not because it is some "Jewish Conspiracy" as you rather cynically imply that I feel it might be, but because it is not a story that hasn't interested us that much here in America until the current unrest re-focussed attention in that area. Sex scandals and other assorted trivia sell far more copy and don't make us feel too uncomfortable.
The pictures from "ground zero" of the recent disaster in Jenin suggest something far in excess of "measures taken to combat terrorism". The destruction is more complete than that from a major earthquake, and "the whole place stinks of death, from rotting corpses in the rubble".
Now, as reported on CNN (fwiw) the Bush Administration refuses to endorse an independent team of assessors to go in there to find out just what happened there, and how many folk were killed.
How is the rest of the world, including bunch of already fuming and angry Arab nations going to view that kind of attitude towards what they view as a blatant example or state-sponsored terrorism, or worse. We are trying to maintain an international coalition aimed at eradicating all forms of terrorism, and what do they see that we doing over there? Answer: sponsoring terror/war crimes, and then blocking relief efforts. This really is not the best way of keeping those shifty and volatile arab states on our side.
[quote]I disagree that they are terrorosts. I disagree they they purposely target innocent civilians. I disagree that they use terrorist tactics. However, that is not to say that I do not weep for the innocent victims caught between Israel and Hamas/Arafat.<hr></blockquote>
Many of the tactics used by the IDF plainly fall within the US definition of terrorism. Just because they are a large, well-organized, well-equipped, efficient army using American made weapons doesn't automatically make them morally superior or immune to doing bad stuff. Ever since the PLO was first organized under Arafat in the 60s, the words "terrorist" and "PLO" have gone together like like cheese and crackers, and for good reason...they committed acts of terror on a regular basis, and still do. When we hear the word "Palestine"/"Palestinian", we automatically think "terrorist", as a conditioned reflex. We don't have that same psychological association between Israel and terrorism since Israel is a democratic nation, a close ally of America, and the (corporate) media here doesn't report on life under occupation in the O.T. Even thse massacres at Sabra, Shatila and elsewhere in S. Lebanon in 1982, partially planned and endorsed by Sharon and the Israeli military were largely unreported, despite the horrific loss of life (estimated between 2,500 and 70,000 over a 6 month period).
So, yes, I do think that Israel is guilty of terrorism. (But I imagine you will disagree with me to the end of the earth on that one, even if Sharon starts using nukes). And so are those Palestinian extremist organizations that do suicide bombings. And, according to the President Bush, so is anyone who harbors and sponsors terrorism. I guess, according to our own definition, that means us also.
[ 04-19-2002: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</p>
<strong>
Many of the tactics used by the IDF plainly fall within the US definition of terrorism.
[ 04-19-2002: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
The US definition of terrorism has always been a changing thing. The Founding Fathers were viewed by the British as terrorists, but we saw/see them in a different light of course. Native Americans were seen as terrorists by the US and white settlers during the 19th cen. Mujahadden (sp?) in Afganastan were viewed by us as freedom fighters when it was in our best interest to view them as such, but that changed (rightfully so) after 9/11. I'm sure there are other examples and the US isn't alone in anything we've do or have done. Most nations do it. I just find it funny and sad how anything can be justifed.
No support in the Arab world? Are you stoned?
A poll done in March in Muslim nations found that only 18% thought that Arabs were responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
[quote]Refuse to act in a peaceful manner? <hr></blockquote>
Occupying territory illegally is not helping matters.
[quote]Seems like you're the racist here if you think Jews should just die and keep their mouths shut.<hr></blockquote>
How does me saying Israel should follow international law make me racist?
I think you need to look "racist" up in the dictionary.
[quote]Could it be that its because Jenin is the base for the terrorists? The Israleis are targeting terrorists, just like we aree doing<hr></blockquote>
Interesting, so they go in there for over a week not letting international press in so they can weed out terrorists?
And that entire city is just a training ground for terrorists? All those homes with women and children were just props, eh?
[quote]Since when does the defeated party dictate the terms os a treay? Israel doesn't have to give them squat, so when a good deal like that came along he should've taken it. But, then, what reason would he have to kill people?<hr></blockquote>
International law (mandated by the entity that created Israel) dictates that you cannot occupy territory taken in war.
Look at U.N. Security Coucil Resolution #497 for details if you need some proof from me.
---
Rashumon:
Can't respond to my post so you paste an article? That's weak.
---
Outsider:
I can certainly see both sides. The occupation of Palestinian territory and suicide bombing attacks on Israeli citizens are both horrible actions to be condemned.
I certainly hope there can be peace in the region with two separate states recognizing the other as a valid entity and respecting each other's territorial rights, even though they don't share a religion.
<strong>
There are many Israeli settlements that are currently on stolen land, but the state of Israel outlined in the 1947 partition plan isn't stolen at all.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You know, I have been thinking about this for a little bit and I think that funny enough we basically agree.
I too agree that Israel should withdraw from the occupied territories ( as do 80% of Israelis) and though there is no paractical way to go back on all 100% of the land i do think bikering over 3-4 % is a little pathetic.. dont you agree.
My question though is this - Say Israel withdraws and the Palestinians have their state, what if the suicides don't stop ? what should Israel do then?
I mean organisations like Hamas, Jihad Islami, some factions of Fatah say they will never actually accept any form of a jewish state in any part of what they call Palestine...
What would you have us doo then ?
<strong>
It seems that a large portion of the rest of the world, specially the Arab world, are viewing Israel's treatment of the Palestinian people as 'brutal', 'unacceptable', 'outside of international law' judging by reactions in foreign media, by people who have been there, by the U.N. envoy, by relief workers etc. Those descriptions encompass most peoples' perception of terrorist activity, including that definition that the U.S.D.D. quotes.. The fact that it is carried out by a well-equipped military force, (the worlds 4th largest) rather than a ragtag band of gunmen, should not cloud one's judgement.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Interesting to read this from an American ( i think ) Most of these countries have simmilar criticism against the US for its offensive in Afghanistan and Iraq. what is morally repugnant is for EU and US who killed THOUSANDS of innocent civilians in Afghanistan while bombing the Taliban
And who according to UN data are using sanctions against Iraq which has resulted in the death of half a million chidren.
Even if you consider Israel to be heavy handed, it's no where near as brutal as these nubers suggest the US/EU are, so how can you seriously sit there and be so hipocritical ?
(dont mis-understand me I an NOT against US action in these cases I'm just pointing out the double standards)
[ 04-20-2002: Message edited by: rashumon ]</p>
<strong>
The pictures from "ground zero" of the recent disaster in Jenin suggest something far in excess of "measures taken to combat terrorism". The destruction is more complete than that from a major earthquake, and "the whole place stinks of death, from rotting corpses in the rubble".</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why is this Israel's fault ? Is it Isreal's fault that the terrorists boobytrapped all of these houses and when these went off houses colapsed ?
Is it Israel's fault that the millitants choose to hide in heavily populated civilian areas ?
Have you seen the distruction done to Kabool or Kandahar by US carpet bombing.
Have you seen how many civilans have been killed and how much of Kosovo has been ruined as a direct result of NATO bombing which was supposed to help these civilians ?
[ 04-20-2002: Message edited by: rashumon ]</p>
<strong>
media here doesn't report on life under occupation in the O.T. Even thse massacres at Sabra, Shatila and elsewhere in S. Lebanon in 1982, partially planned and endorsed by Sharon and the Israeli military were largely unreported, despite the horrific loss of life (estimated between 2,500 and 70,000 over a 6 month period). </strong><hr></blockquote>
Wow talk about twisting of facts ...let me get this staright !
1. Israel had nothing to do with Sbara and Shatila the massacre was performed by Arabs (Lebanese christians) against Arabs ( Palestinian muslims)
no Israeli took part or was even in the camps when this ws going on.
2. The total estimated real casualties of these massacres was around 800 not 70,000 as you rediculesly suggest.
3. Sharon was indeed found partly responsible ( by an Israeli enqiery into the massacres) for not stopping the massacres not for actually commiting or planing them, his hands are not clean I would agree to that but to call him a war criminal or a murderer will taint almost any American or other general who was serving in- Vietnam, Iraq, Kosovo, etc... where masscres have happened as well.
4. The massacres happed over one day not 6 monthes as you describe.
All i'm saying is that war is war is war .. it's evil and dirty and innocents die and thats sad ! But Israel didn't start this, and calling its actions terrorisn is calling all warring nations (including the US and EU) terrorist.
[ 04-20-2002: Message edited by: rashumon ]</p>
Absolutely not, if that 3-4% includes your home then it's pretty important to you.
There is no reason at all that Israel shouldn't give back 100% of the land it illegally took.
If the terrorism continues it should be an issue turned over to a U.N. taskforce (which will not be castrated by the U.S.'s previous attempts to stymie U.N. action in the area). Israel has shown that it is unable to reasonably deal with issues like this.
Also, Israel out of Palestinian territory and mutual recognition will take away a lot of motive for terrorist attacks.
Whatever is to be done about terrorism, occupation is ineffective and it must end now.
[edit]
The U.S. has not killed thousands of Afghani civilians.
[ 04-20-2002: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>
<strong>
Absolutely not, if that 3-4% includes your home then it's pretty important to you.
There is no reason at all that Israel shouldn't give back 100% of the land it illegally took.
If the terrorism continues it should be an issue turned over to a U.N. taskforce (which will not be castrated by the U.S.'s previous attempts to stymie U.N. action in the area). Israel has shown that it is unable to reasonably deal with issues like this.
Also, Israel out of Palestinian territory and mutual recognition will take away a lot of motive for terrorist attacks.
Whatever is to be done about terrorism, occupation is ineffective and it must end now.
[edit]
The U.S. has not killed thousands of Afghani civilians.
[ 04-20-2002: Message edited by: groverat ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Theres no reason that israel shouldn't give back 100% of the land? How about security. Yes, Israelis are entitled to security.
Turn over to a UN taskforce!? bwahahahaha that is just laughable and ignorant at the same time. The UN can do nothing-they are ineffective morons. What are they going to do to prevent terrorists attacks? What happens when the terrorist attacks continue and the UN is stuck in the middle? Why should Israel trust a body that is anti-Israeli? A stupid idea.
Take away motives for terrorist attacks? The Arabs will find a motive for terrorist attacks. They will make one up. There are many other motives for them to think of besides Israel. Bin laden struck the US because of our troops in Saudi Arabia. Terrorists would strike if we move against Iraq. If that isn't reason enough they will strike over kashmir, somehow finding a way to link us to the conflict. Etc, etc, etc.
Its a shame that as an American you can take the side of the murderers who killed over 3,000 innocent civilians. Ask the victims families if you are placing the blame where it deserves to be. .................................................. .......