News Is Israel's Sacrifice of Territory for Ceasefire a Triumph for Terrorism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter schwarzchildradius
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Map
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on Israel's recent territorial concessions to Palestinians in exchange for a ceasefire, which was subsequently violated. Participants express concern that these actions may be perceived as a victory for terrorism and question the effectiveness of past peace efforts, particularly those initiated during Clinton's presidency. The conversation highlights the ongoing cycle of violence, with some arguing that Israel is losing the war on terror and that U.S. support for Israel is waning. There is a debate over the historical context of land ownership and the legitimacy of Palestinian claims, with some asserting that the Palestinians have consistently violated agreements. The emotional responses of individuals, including extreme views on violence, are examined, alongside the complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including the role of external powers and the historical failures of peace initiatives. The discussion reflects deep-seated frustrations and differing perspectives on the prospects for a lasting resolution to the conflict.
  • #31
Originally posted by kat
There would likely be less blind spots if you were to find occasion to back your statements up with more facts and references and less vitriolic hyperbole. FZ does a great job of interacting in civil discourse, he even occasionally changes my opinion on this topic as well as a few others, maybe you should consult with him on occasion. At any rate, I believe it is often less about being "right" and more often about an exchange of ideas. Civil discourse vs. hyperbole has a greater chance of allowing for productive exchanges.

Oh, btw, you need to have your eyes checked sweetie, a T, barefeet and polished toes are a natural match.:wink:

Yeah, I was a little over the top. Continue.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Originally posted by jcsd
The ROR was to be dealt with under resolution 242, but would of probably of been reliquinshed (the phrase was "a fair settlement").
Well, my memory has "a fair settlement" being mentioned on the one side and mention of ROR on the other, but surely you don't equate this ambigious statement "fair settlement" as a resolution to ROR and "covering all the concessions" Israel was looking for?

and once more I will ask you,
"You stated that the initiative covered "all the concessions" that the Israeli's were looking for, do you really believe promises of recognition, and statements of co-operation covers a statement such as "all the concessions"?'

Originally posted by jcsd

So it's ok for the Israelis to say "you can't live here because your an Arab", in the exam[ple you mentioned you were talking about the displacements of minorities, not the displacement of the majority.
If you want to ask this in a less simplistic manner, recognizing the nuances of the various situations I might be inclined to answer it. Arab's do live in Israel, as active members of the government and with full voting rights, so your question is an intentional "set up" I'm not buying into.

Originally posted by jcsd

Lebensraum is exactly analogous as it is the settlemnt and the displacemnt of the majority by the minority in order to rebuild some real or imagined homeland.

Ah, I. C. I suppose you are correct, there are parrallels to be made, except that I think you may have it a bit backwards and I still think it is better to avoid Nazi germany comparisions as they are unnecesary, distortive and rely on an appeal to emotionism that is particularly obnoxious when speaking of israel IMO


Bah, I've run out of time. I will get back to you on this later.
 
  • #33
Originally posted by kat
Well, my memory has "a fair settlement" being mentioned on the one side and mention of ROR on the other, but surely you don't equate this ambigious statement "fair settlement" as a resolution to ROR and "covering all the concessions" Israel was looking for?

and once more I will ask you,
"You stated that the initiative covered "all the concessions" that the Israeli's were looking for, do you really believe promises of recognition, and statements of co-operation covers a statement such as "all the concessions"?'

 If you want to ask this in a less simplistic manner, recognizing the nuances of the various situations I might be inclined to answer it. Arab's do live in Israel, as active members of the government and with full voting rights, so your question is an intentional "set up" I'm not buying into.



Ah, I. C. I suppose you are correct, there are parrallels to be made, except that I think you may have it a bit backwards and I still think it is better to avoid Nazi germany comparisions as they are unnecesary, distortive and rely on an appeal to emotionism that is particularly obnoxious when speaking of israel IMO


Bah, I've run out of time. I will get back to you on this later. [/B]

What other concessions do you expect them to make, conceding Israel's right to the pre-1967 land is a huge concession.

I am well aware of the Israeli constitutional situation in Israel (though Israeli citizen Arabs are subject to quite a lot of discrimanation and racism including laws targetted against them), I was referring to the fact israel has ruled over the Palestinians of the Occupied Territories for 35 years yet they have absolutely no rights.

The situation is analogous and is the only historical analogy I can tjink of, just because the perpetrators are Israeli doesn't make it right.
 
  • #34
Greetings !
Originally posted by jcsd
You say there never was such a country as Palestine (well actually there was, but it wasn't independant) but does that mean that someone can just come along and throw the Palestinians off their land because they don't have their own country or deny them basic human rights and attack their infrastructure
That is a lie. They were not thrown off their land, they did
have their own country for a very short while (on paper, at least)
they are not denied basic human rights and their infrastructure
is not attacked unless you mean their terrorist government
lead by Yaser Arafat, until now.
Originally posted by jcsd
I'm afraid the Saudi initiative was serious, though the Muslim countries did recognise that a Likud government was unlikely to accept it, even though it was pretty much exactly the same as a UN touted peace plan.
That is also a lie. Anyone with as considrable knowledge
as you appear to have should know that NEVER would a leading
Israeli political party and its government (whatever that
party is Likud/Labour) accept such an initiative. Which is
of course due the simple fact that Israel is a democratic
country and the majority of Israelis will NEVER support a
full retreat to the 1967 borders under current conditions.

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #35
Originally posted by jcsd
(though Israeli citizen Arabs are subject to quite a lot of discrimanation and racism including laws targetted against them),
That is a lie. There are no discriminating laws, there are
laws that are there for security reasons. You could call some
of them discriminating but that is a clear mistake and
ignores the reasons for these laws. If you had citizens inside
your country who don't want it, you wouldn't let them serve
in the military force that defends it or allow them access to
secret military installations. Since security means people's lives
I'd regard this as a lot less racial than for example immigration
laws in western countries which exist for political and economical
reasons.
Originally posted by jcsd
I was referring to the fact israel has ruled over the Palestinians of the Occupied Territories for 35 years yet they have absolutely no rights.
They granted basic human rights. Some violations may exist
when it comes to legal and government situation, but then
again, it's not like there's an alternative until the Palestinians
are ready to co-exist with Israel and form a reasonable
government that will not nagotiate through murder.
Originally posted by jcsd
The situation is analogous and is the only historical analogy I can think of, just because the perpetrators are Israeli doesn't make it right.
Well your analogy sucks. Which is probably also an indication
of the one who made it. Purhaps there weren't enough suicide
bombers blowing up on the streets of your country recently.
Not to mention what countries like the US or UK would do
if that happened.
 
Last edited:
  • #36
Originally posted by jcsd
I really do advise people to look more at the roots of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israel has consistently broken Un resolutions and has keeped what amounts to a third of the population it contols in a state of limbo with no legal rights.
The UN is a pethetic organization that clearly outlived it's
usefullness in the modern world. It is full of corruption
which is precisely the way it works. It is inconcievable that
Israel would even be able to pass a single resolution
condemning any arab state in even the littlest wrong doing
even if the arabs won and were butchering every last Israeli,
if it were not for US's support in the UN. The arab countries
are numerous and oil rules the world. No country cares about
countries a long distance away, each country just cares for
its own interests. It is fortunate that the US has the power
to stand as the world's example of a country that does
care about principles in the world, it is its interst in many
other fields too, but that doesn't change this basic fact.
The UN is further rediculous because in the modern world
of the 21st century it gives full rights to non-democratic
countries, to murderers and insane dictators while the
only reasonable way to deal with such regimes is to send'em
to hell. There is no reason whatsoever to trust the actual
validity and connection to reality of any resolution or claim
issued by the UN's corrupt officials and their pathetic
descision making process.
 
  • #37
Originally posted by kat



Ah, I. C. I suppose you are correct, there are parrallels to be made, except that I think you may have it a bit backwards and I still think it is better to avoid Nazi germany comparisions as they are unnecesary, distortive and rely on an appeal to emotionism that is particularly obnoxious when speaking of israel IMO

There are certain parallels...and while it is emotionally charged, it is also a fair comparison, since what we are discussing is the formation of country based on race and religion, that came out of the acts of a government who acted because of race and religion. Israel exists because of an idea parallel(but opposite0 to the Nazi idea; that Jewish people are different from other people, and should be segragated from other people.
 
  • #38
Originally posted by Zero
that Jewish people are different from other people, and should be segragated from other people.
Precisely the way any other nation on the globe feels. Except
that most of them were always on their homeland, even if conquered, rather than dispersed across many other countries while their land
was siezed by their enemies. Many nations that did suffer this
fate do not exist anymore. Jewdaism as a unifying religion
prevented this from happening to the Jewish people for 2
millenia.

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #39
Originally posted by drag
Precisely the way any other nation on the globe feels. Except
that most of them were always on their homeland, even if conquered, rather than dispersed across many other countries while their land
was siezed by their enemies. Many nations that did suffer this
fate do not exist anymore. Jewdaism as a unifying religion
prevented this from happening to the Jewish people for 2
millenia.

Live long and prosper.

To quote some of your political comrades...war is tough, the Israelis should get over it. especially since it happened over a thousand years ago.
 
  • #40
Originally posted by Zero
To quote some of your political comrades...war is tough, the Israelis should get over it. especially since it happened over a thousand years ago.
The Jews did get over it...:wink:
 
  • #41
Originally posted by drag
The Jews did get over it...:wink:

Hey Drag, how would you feel about the US staying out of the Middle East? Would you support:
A full withdrawl of all troops
No more weapons sales to anyone
No more financial support or aid
[Assuming of course that through the up and coming Hydrogen industry we no longer need the oil]

I'm not fishing here; just curious.
 
  • #42
Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

That is a lie. They were not thrown off their land, they did
have their own country for a very short while (on paper, at least)
they are not denied basic human rights and their infrastructure
is not attacked unless you mean their terrorist government
lead by Yaser Arafat, until now.


Yes there were several well reported clearances and massacres by Jewish defence and terrorist organisations and roughly 700,000 Arabs either fled or were expelled.

That is also a lie. Anyone with as considrable knowledge
as you appear to have should know that NEVER would a leading
Israeli political party and its government (whatever that
party is Likud/Labour) accept such an initiative. Which is
of course due the simple fact that Israel is a democratic
country and the majority of Israelis will NEVER support a
full retreat to the 1967 borders under current conditions.

Live long and prosper.

You do not understand Likud. Likud (or more correctly the two parties it was formed out of, one of themselevs an amalmation of two pre-1948 terrorist organisations) were a dying party until they started to support the settler movement, it is clear from their rhetoric especially of the right of the party that they do not wish to withdraw (infact an end to the conflict would certainly be a death-knell to figures like Netanyahu and Sharon who owe their postions to the shifting of Israeli politics to the right as a result of the conflict).
 
  • #43
Originally posted by drag
That is a lie. There are no discriminating laws, there are
laws that are there for security reasons. You could call some
of them discriminating but that is a clear mistake and
ignores the reasons for these laws. If you had citizens inside
your country who don't want it, you wouldn't let them serve
in the military force that defends it or allow them access to
secret military installations. Since security means people's lives
I'd regard this as a lot less racial than for example immigration
laws in western countries which exist for political and economical
reasons.

Recently groups such as HRW, have reported several laws that are specifically targetted against Israeli-Arabs, such as the reduction of child benefit to families who do not serve in the IDF (though the strict Orthodox Jews were also affected by this there exists a separate fund that they can claim from not accesible to Arabs). Also at the moment there is a row over a law that will stop someone from claiming automatic citzenship if they have a Palestinian parent, even if they meet all the other criteria.

They granted basic human rights. Some violations may exist
when it comes to legal and government situation, but then
again, it's not like there's an alternative until the Palestinians
are ready to co-exist with Israel and form a reasonable
government that will not nagotiate through murder.
Until a couple of years ago it was perfectly legal for the Israeli security services to torture Palestinas in their custody, even with reforms torture is still not illegal. Palestinians have virtually no legal protection against there land being taken by Israelis and against attacks by settler militias.

Well your analogy sucks. Which is probably also an indication
of the one who made it. Purhaps there weren't enough suicide
bombers blowing up on the streets of your country recently.
Not to mention what countries like the US or UK would do
if that happened.

I remember 'the troubles', so I am perfectly aware of what it's like to live with the threat of terrorism. The analogy is not unfair but I will not labour the point.
 
  • #44
Originally posted by drag
The UN is a pethetic organization that clearly outlived it's
usefullness in the modern world. It is full of corruption
which is precisely the way it works. It is inconcievable that
Israel would even be able to pass a single resolution
condemning any arab state in even the littlest wrong doing
even if the arabs won and were butchering every last Israeli,
if it were not for US's support in the UN. The arab countries
are numerous and oil rules the world. No country cares about
countries a long distance away, each country just cares for
its own interests. It is fortunate that the US has the power
to stand as the world's example of a country that does
care about principles in the world, it is its interst in many
other fields too, but that doesn't change this basic fact.
The UN is further rediculous because in the modern world
of the 21st century it gives full rights to non-democratic
countries, to murderers and insane dictators while the
only reasonable way to deal with such regimes is to send'em
to hell. There is no reason whatsoever to trust the actual
validity and connection to reality of any resolution or claim
issued by the UN's corrupt officials and their pathetic
descision making process.

Just because the UN does not agree with your point of view is no reason to rubbish it (particularly without pointing out a single unfair UNSC resolution), I couild point to other NGOs like AI and HRW.

I also remind you that no Arab countries have permanent seats on the UNSC and the spectre of an Arab oil cartel running the UN is just as absurd as the notion of ZOG.
 
  • #45
Originally posted by drag
The Jews did get over it...:wink:

If they did, there would be no Israel, and fewer problems in the Middle East. Of course, the world instead decided to create a state based on racism on Arab land.
 
  • #46
Originally posted by kat
I'm quite sure that I can speak for all of the people on this forum when I thank you for your absolutely unbiased and thought provoking comments, Mr. mentor. It is an absolute gift to have someone guiding this thread, nay, this forum, with such thought provoking comments as put forth by yourself. I applaud you and all of your "factually" based comments and your obvious support of open and productive, civil discourse. I'm equally grateful for you uncanny ability to read all of our minds, unite us together in one collective unit and aptly identify all of our faults and weaknesses! Thank you, thank you!
Seconded. Sig.
 
  • #47
Originally posted by Zero
If they did, there would be no Israel, and fewer problems in the Middle East. Of course, the world instead decided to create a state based on racism on Arab land.
Based on racism? Arabs in Israel have more rights than Arabs anywhere else in the Middle East. And only one side of this conflict has ever (and depending who you ask may still) had the goal of extermination of the other side.

Israel's existence isn't based on racism. Opposition to Israel (in the Middle East) is based on racism.
 
  • #48
Originally posted by russ_watters
Based on racism? Arabs in Israel have more rights than Arabs anywhere else in the Middle East. And only one side of this conflict has ever (and depending who you ask may still) had the goal of extermination of the other side.

Israel's existence isn't based on racism. Opposition to Israel (in the Middle East) is based on racism.

A Jewish state isn't based on race?!?
 
  • #49
Originally posted by Zero
A Jewish state isn't based on race?!?
Yes, I suppose a "Jewish state" would be based on race. Israel is not based on being Jewish so it is therefore not a "Jewish state".
 
  • #50
Originally posted by russ_watters
Yes, I suppose a "Jewish state" would be based on race. Israel is not based on being Jewish so it is therefore not a "Jewish state".

The Jewish homeland is not based on being Jewish?
 
  • #51
Greetings !
Originally posted by russ_watters
Seconded. Sig.
I agree.
Originally posted by Zero
A Jewish state isn't based on race?!?
Yes. It is not based on racism - which is a completely
different thing. It treats its citizens equally as is
reasonably possible and it is no more racist than the US
about Americans, the UK about British and so on.
Originally posted by russ_watters
Israel's existence isn't based on racism. Opposition to Israel (in the Middle East) is based on racism.
Precisely.
Originally posted by Zero
Of course, the world instead decided to create a state based on racism on Arab land.
The world had very little to do with this and it is NOT
arab land. Israel formed just a bit later than most
other countries in the region and earlier than others.
Originally posted by jcsd
Yes there were several well reported clearances and massacres by Jewish defence and terrorist organisations and roughly 700,000 Arabs either fled or were expelled.
Several ?! I specificly know of one. The arabs were not
expelled at all. Those that fled did it of their own
free will.
Originally posted by jcsd
You do not understand Likud. Likud (or more correctly the two parties it was formed out of, one of themselevs an amalmation of two pre-1948 terrorist organisations) were a dying party until they started to support the settler movement, it is clear from their rhetoric especially of the right of the party that they do not wish to withdraw (infact an end to the conflict would certainly be a death-knell to figures like Netanyahu and Sharon who owe their postions to the shifting of Israeli politics to the right as a result of the conflict).
You are completely ignoring what I'm telling you and
wasting time with irrelevant nonesense. Israelis will
NEVER agree to retreat to 1967 borders (including
the Golan Heights returned to Syria, aspecialy) in the
current or close to current situation. They were not even
fully prepared to do this in the optimistic time before
the current conflict. Israelis will NEVER, and this is under
ANY curcampstance, agree to accept the "right of return".
Originally posted by jcsd
Until a couple of years ago it was perfectly legal for the Israeli security services to torture Palestinas in their custody, even with reforms torture is still not illegal.
A fully relevant and acceptable means to deal with
constant high level of terrorism. Saving innocent lives, on
both sides is the most important thing. Same thing goes
for targeted bombings.
Originally posted by jcsd
Palestinians have virtually no legal protection against there land being taken by Israelis and against attacks by settler militias.
The Palestinians had no gevernment and later had one that
was impossible to reasonably deal with, as was later proved.
The settlements were initially constructed when Israelis were
called to protect the country against the terrorist organizations
and possible return of the defeated armies of surrounding arab
countries. There was nothing defined to deal with.

As for settlers they are being dealt with and sent to jail too.
It is not easy to deal with such people in such a situation
and in such no man's land territories where the IDF has to
deal with people on both sides.
Originally posted by jcsd
I remember 'the troubles', so I am perfectly aware of what it's like to live with the threat of terrorism.
You make me laugh.
Originally posted by jcsd
Recently groups such as HRW, have reported several laws that are specifically targetted against Israeli-Arabs, such as the reduction of child benefit to families who do not serve in the IDF (though the strict Orthodox Jews were also affected by this there exists a separate fund that they can claim from not accesible to Arabs). Also at the moment there is a row over a law that will stop someone from claiming automatic citzenship if they have a Palestinian parent, even if they meet all the other criteria.
As for the first that is a delibarate lie. This law is the
result of the economic crisys Israel currently experiences.
The law is NOT limmited to those who did not serve in the IDF
but to all the citizens. The law limmits the greatly exhagerated
payments to all families with many kids and was originally
passed through pressure of the religious segments of the
population who have many kids. The Jewish religious sections
are quite politicly influential despite the fact that they've
lost a lot of political power lately (which is why the law
was accepted), so they've more resources. On the other hand
the arab segments of the population are more indpendent.

As for the second law, the Palestinians are trying to receive
Israeli citizenship at all costs in consdirable amounts, many
threough illegal manipulations assisted by Israeli arabs.
This phenomenon is requires more strict control of the entire
process.
Originally posted by jcsd
Just because the UN does not agree with your point of
view is no reason to rubbish it
Yes it is, my point of view is right, according to the UN's
own long forgotten priciples of protection of human life.
Some necessary principles were not even part of its agenda
in the first place - like democracy, which is the reason
for its pathetic performance.
Originally posted by jcsd
(particularly without pointing out a single unfair UNSC resolution),
You mean resolutions that were incorrect according to
the basic principles modern democratic societies think
we should ussualy accept (except extreme curcampstance) -
of human life, rights and democracy ?
I'm afraid that the length of the server space of this
forum is insufficient for me to specify all such descicions
and lack of them when required. :wink:
Originally posted by jcsd
I also remind you that no Arab countries have permanent seats on the UNSC and the spectre of an Arab oil cartel running the UN is just as absurd as the notion of ZOG.
What's ZOG ?
You are trying to delibrately twist what I say, again.
I never said that the Arab countries "run the UN". I said
that their economical influence and their influence due
to pure numbers of people and countries (despite the fact that
almost all of these countries are not democratic - and never the less treated as equal to democratic which is one of the main clear absurdities in the UN) is quite sufficient to shift relativly
inconsequential (to most of the world) descisions in their
favour and against Israel due to the particuilar interests of
every voting member country. The same pathetic discision making
is ussualy made on all the other issues in the UN, when each
country ussualy votes for its own interests with complete
and often rather blunt disregard of any moral principles
much of the modern world claims to adopt. Further more,
countries often tend to obscure the true nature of such
votes by delibrately using and even supporting the ignorance
of their general public on the relevant issues.

Peace and long life.
 
  • #52
Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

Several ?! I specificly know of one. The arabs were not
expelled at all. Those that fled did it of their own
free will.


Shows what you know there were several well-recorded expulsions(e.g. Beit Nuba) and famous incidences of Irgun butchery such as the Deir Yassin massacre.

You are completely ignoring what I'm telling you and
wasting time with irrelevant nonesense. Israelis will
NEVER agree to retreat to 1967 borders (including
the Golan Heights returned to Syria, aspecialy) in the
current or close to current situation. They were not even
fully prepared to do this in the optimistic time before
the current conflict. Israelis will NEVER, and this is under
ANY curcampstance, agree to accept the "right of return".

Well the Palestinians will never accept anything less than a return to the 1967-borders, the settlements are founded on racist principals and while they are in the OT the rest of the world is always likely to view the Palestinians in a more favourable light than the Israelis.

Quite frankly if Israel is never going to offer a fair peace deal, then there will always be terrorism.

A fully relevant and acceptable means to deal with
constant high level of terrorism. Saving innocent lives, on
both sides is the most important thing. Same thing goes
for targeted bombings.
So surely if it's okay to kill people and bomb suspected miltants even when there with their families the Palestinians can justify suicide bombings as the level of suffering caused by Palestinian terrorist pales in comparison with the level of suffering caused by the IDF.

The Palestinians had no gevernment and later had one that
was impossible to reasonably deal with, as was later proved.
The settlements were initially constructed when Israelis were
called to protect the country against the terrorist organizations
and possible return of the defeated armies of surrounding arab
countries. There was nothing defined to deal with.

The PLO has been recognised as the legitmate government of Palestine since circa 1970 and PNC is even older. The settlements do nothing for Israels security and have been consistenly described by UNSC resolutions as 'an obstacle to peace'.

As for settlers they are being dealt with and sent to jail too.
It is not easy to deal with such people in such a situation
and in such no man's land territories where the IDF has to
deal with people on both sides.

Israel is responsible for the actions of the settlers yet it very rarely prosecutes them, and usually obstructs any investigation into wrong-doing by them (for example an Israeli soldier witnessed the murder of a Palestian by a group of settlers and Israeli security forces but was contiunely told to 'drop it').

You make me laugh.

Well, perhaps you should learn more about the conflict then.



As for the first that is a delibarate lie. This law is the
result of the economic crisys Israel currently experiences.
The law is NOT limmited to those who did not serve in the IDF
but to all the citizens. The law limmits the greatly exhagerated
payments to all families with many kids and was originally
passed through pressure of the religious segments of the
population who have many kids. The Jewish religious sections
are quite politicly influential despite the fact that they've
lost a lot of political power lately (which is why the law
was accepted), so they've more resources. On the other hand
the arab segments of the population are more indpendent.

No, this law was a specfic reduction of child benefit to all familes who didn't serve in the IDF and was generally called racist by human rights groups worldwide.

As for the second law, the Palestinians are trying to receive
Israeli citizenship at all costs in consdirable amounts, many
threough illegal manipulations assisted by Israeli arabs.
This phenomenon is requires more strict control of the entire
process.

No, this law will stop Palestinains who are LEGALLY entitled to live in Israel from claiming citzenship (for example they may have a Jewish or Israeli parents)
Yes it is, my point of view is right, according to the UN's
own long forgotten priciples of protection of human life.
Some necessary principles were not even part of its agenda
in the first place - like democracy, which is the reason
for its pathetic performance.

Again, ignorance.

You mean resolutions that were incorrect according to
the basic principles modern democratic societies think
we should ussualy accept (except extreme curcampstance) -
of human life, rights and democracy ?
I'm afraid that the length of the server space of this
forum is insufficient for me to specify all such descicions
and lack of them when required. :wink:

So again no specifc UNSC resolutions mentioned (even though the ones that passed did so wuth the tacit consent of the US), I think your just talking crap.

What's ZOG ?
You are trying to delibrately twist what I say, again.
I never said that the Arab countries "run the UN". I said
that their economical influence and their influence due
to pure numbers of people and countries (despite the fact that
almost all of these countries are not democratic - and never the less treated as equal to democratic which is one of the main clear absurdities in the UN) is quite sufficient to shift relativly
inconsequential (to most of the world) descisions in their
favour and against Israel due to the particuilar interests of
every voting member country. The same pathetic discision making
is ussualy made on all the other issues in the UN, when each
country ussualy votes for its own interests with complete
and often rather blunt disregard of any moral principles
much of the modern world claims to adopt. Further more,
countries often tend to obscure the true nature of such
votes by delibrately using and even supporting the ignorance
of their general public on the relevant issues.

This shows you no nothing about the internal politics of the UN, Arab countries are routinely criticized by the UN.

Peace and long life. [/QUOTE]
 
  • #53
Greetings !
Originally posted by jcsd
Shows what you know there were several well-recorded expulsions(e.g. Beit Nuba) and famous incidences of Irgun butchery such as the Deir Yassin massacre.
Even if that is true, these are small and isolated incidents with
the spicific perpetrators being the guilty ones.
Originally posted by jcsd
Well the Palestinians will never accept anything less than a return to the 1967-borders, the settlements are founded on racist principals and while they are in the OT the rest of the world is always likely to view the Palestinians in a more favourable light than the Israelis.
I disagree. I think they will. The settlements have nothing
to do with racist principles whatsoever, they were good
security for the country and good politics once, now they're
bad security and bad politics and full of fanatics.
Originally posted by jcsd
Quite frankly if Israel is never going to offer a fair peace deal, then there will always be terrorism.
And there is only ONE way to deal with terrorism.
Originally posted by jcsd
So surely if it's okay to kill people and bomb suspected miltants even when there with their families the Palestinians can justify suicide bombings as the level of suffering caused by Palestinian terrorist pales in comparison with the level of suffering caused by the IDF.
On some occasions inoccents do get hurt when targeted
assasinations take place and yet the IDF takes the greatest
care to avoid such casualties and sometimes deals with those that
make such severe mistakes if they were neglegent. Nevertheless,
this is the best method od dealing with terrorists.
The alternatives all envolve much greater potential casualty
rates on both sides and it is inconcievable that a terrorist
who is preparing an attack will not be stopped.
Originally posted by jcsd
The PLO has been recognised as the legitmate government of Palestine since circa 1970 and PNC is even older. The settlements do nothing for Israels security and have been consistenly described by UNSC resolutions as 'an obstacle to peace'.
They are. As for all those "international" organizations
I already expressed my opinion about the UN. :wink:
I remember those poor Belgians also wanted to put
Bush and others on trial until it was quite clearly suggested
to them that their whole pathetic deal with the "intrenational
court" will be dealt with appropriately and they "reconsidered".
Seriously, someone should put a lid on these pathetic weed smokers' "intrenational" parties who think they're the most
beautifull moral crystal clear peace flowers around. Who the
hell are they to tell who and what is right or wrong unless
they've been there, seen it and spilled their blood there.
Pathetic... Western Europe has stopped being the center
power of the world long ago, but some of the countries there still think that they, from the perspective of almost 0 experience in
real conflicts in the past half a century and their primary
EU problems being environmental issues, can dictate the rest
of the world how it should live. Where were they 60 years ago
with all that moral crap ?
The Russians should've kept on going a bit...:wink:
Originally posted by jcsd
Israel is responsible for the actions of the settlers yet it very rarely prosecutes them, and usually obstructs any investigation into wrong-doing by them (for example an Israeli soldier witnessed the murder of a Palestian by a group of settlers and Israeli security forces but was contiunely told to 'drop it').
Not true. Any reference to this case ?
Originally posted by jcsd
Well, perhaps you should learn more about the conflict then.
I was actually answering your claim of "being aware what it's
like".
Originally posted by jcsd
No, this law was a specfic reduction of child benefit to all familes who didn't serve in the IDF and was generally called racist by human rights groups worldwide.
I believe you are mistaken (though not entirely certain).
Originally posted by jcsd
No, this law will stop Palestinains who are LEGALLY entitled to live in Israel from claiming citzenship (for example they may have a Jewish or Israeli parents)
If a person has a Palestinian parent then why should he
recieve citizenship automaticly ?
"LEGALLY" ? Israel defines what is legal and what is not
the same as any other country and its immigration laws.
Originally posted by jcsd
Again, ignorance.
Of course anyone who actually cares about the truth and
lives of other human beings rather than his own pocket is
ignorant. That's why the UN's filled with "smart" people. :wink:
Originally posted by jcsd
So again no specifc UNSC resolutions mentioned (even though the ones that passed did so wuth the tacit consent of the US), I think your just talking crap.
No you are just talking crap and further more with your
level of knowledge it is also clear that you delibrately
lie. Here's a small taste on this issue from the first link
I found, there is a countless number of others like I said
and a great deal of others that are related to other
issues and other countries.
http://www.townhall.com/news/politics/200304/FOR20030422d.shtml
Originally posted by jcsd
This shows you no nothing about the internal politics of
the UN, Arab countries are routinely criticized by the UN.
"Criticized" ? They are dectatorships run by murederous
dictators and extreme Islamic fanatics they are not supposed
to be a part of any international organization much less make
discisions or head commities in such organizations in the 21st century. Spare me from this BS, please.

Peace and long life.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #54
HRW: Arabs second class citizens in Israel (includes the child benefit laws)


B'tselem: Israeli non-enforcement of the law with regards to settlers:

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/israel2/ISRAEL0901-13.htm

There quite a few massacres, Irgun who carried out the Deir Yassin massacre wher one of the largets Jewish militias fighting in the 1948 war and this was part of a wider policy to inspire terror in the Arabs in order that they would leave.

The IDF does not take any care to avoid civilian deaths, over hald the Palestinians it has killed have been non-combatants. 1/3 of the people killed in the targeted assasinations were also non-combatants, hardly "great care".

I do not know where yo acquired your dogmatic view that Israel can do no wrong.
 
  • #55
The development of Israel was indicative of a race, persecuted throughout the arab kingdom, throughout the area called Palestine, throughout europe. SO yes Israel was formed out of racism, as the one place possibly on Earth that they might escape to and live together safely after having been proven that it was not safe for them to depend on others to ensure their safety. That is the legacy of the beginning of Israel.

It's quite easy to figure out if the expulsions of the Arabs was really Zionist extermination philosophy or really a reaction to Arab violence, one can look to see if expressions of desire to expel Palestinians were always present among the leadership of the Zionist movement at about the same level, or if they increased substantially with increasing anti-Jewish attacks, especially the atrocities of the 1929 massacre which severely traumatized the Yishuv, and convinced many Jews that it was not possible to live with the Arabs. 1929 had the same effect on the Yishuv that Deir Yassin was to have on the Arab community in Palestine nearly 20 years later. The Arabs fled in terror after Deir Yassin. The Jews had NO PLACE to go after the 1929 massacres. All they could do was stay in place and suffer their increasing fears and terror.

Here is a quote of David Ben Gurion made in 1928, the year before the anti-Jewish massacres, to a gathering of Zionists in the Yishuv in Palestine: "Our sense of morality forbids us to deny the right of a single Arab child, even though by such denial we might attain all that we seek." now here is a quote from the SAME Zionist leader in 1929, just after the anti-Jewish atrocities: "We shall never be forgiven for the sin of weakness, should we even act as angels … Woe to the weak. That is the philosophy of history."

I know that you and Zero will simply discount these statements of Ben Gurion that don't fit your historical theories.
But there are many similar statements, made by the early Zionist leaders, that suggest the Zionists intention was NOT to evict or displace the Arabs, but to live in harmony with them. Victor Jacobson said in 1913 "the first article of our work-programme ought to be an entente with the Arabs." But after 1929, one finds more and more quotes that suggest fear, hatred and the desire to be separated from what was more and more seen as the enemy in a violent struggle for survival.


As to the Palestinians who were actually expelled by force in 1948, and those killed at Deir Yassin and Hebron ... gee, if the allegations are true, I guess they had just experienced what Jews had endured from Palestinian and other Arab majorities for more then fifty years until the Jews finally found a country of refuge in 1948, and nearly all left their homes, leaving everything behind and fled there.
 
Last edited:
  • #56
Greetings !
Originally posted by jcsd
The IDF does not take any care to avoid civilian deaths, over hald the Palestinians it has killed have been non-combatants. 1/3 of the people killed in the targeted assasinations were also non-combatants, hardly "great care".
According to YOUR understanding of the statistics ?
The IDF takes the greatest care of avoiding civilian casualties
in such a complex situation, more than any other military force in
the world. It is clear that you understand very little
about military conflicts, aspecialy such a complex one
as this dealing with fanatic suicide terrorists who attack
with total disregard for their own or any other lives.
Ever seen the statistics of NATO's bombings in Serbia a
few years ago ? The fast invasion and capture of Baghdad
with exteremely low casuualties is just one example of what
US military commanders learned while spending time in the
field with the IDF forces in Israel and learning their first
level tactics.
Originally posted by jcsd
I do not know where yo acquired your dogmatic view that
Israel can do no wrong.
My view is not that Israel can do wrong, it is that
Israel does little intentional wrong because most of its actions
are forced upon it by the lack of choice in this complex
situation of dealing with crazy propoganda washed minds
of fanatic Muslim extremests in such great amount (and the
other Arab countries in the past). Israel never wanted or
initiated any military conflict ever, except the cases when
it was no longer possible to avoid it and it did sometimes
manage to launch pre-emptive attacks. I won't even mention
the fact that those statitics are only partially correct
because when accidently an intellegence failure leads
to more people in the company of the targeted terrorist getting killed in a targeted assasination or people get shot "while peacefully walking" near an aggressive demonstartion or attack
of an IDF outpost with weapons in their hands or with snipers
hiding behind them as they throw stones and inflict damage,
these people are not exactly "innocent". You should see
the casualty statictics of the Israeli population.

The only dogmatic view I see here is yours and of people like
you who either know nothing or like you may know a lot and still
form their totally unjustified opinions by watching a
pelestinian who inspirationally shouts to the camera
that he's being massacared or scenes of mass funerals
of suicide bombers. Better watch the burnt remains of
the buses with the really innocent people who were on them.

P.S. What does your link have to do with what we've talked
about ? Not to mention that HRW is traditionally used to
condemn Israel on everything and not to further mention
that it condemns a huge amount of other countries for
many things. Did it condemn the Palestinian education system
as a terrorist educational institutionn which preaches murder
and extreme Muslim fanatism ? Hmm... I suppose that any
education will do for HRW as long as they get one, right ?
Did they mention that Jewish religious organizations get
a lot of money because of their misuse of their political
power and as wrong as that may seem to most other segments
in the Israeli population - Jewish or not Jewish, these
are internal political matters and exist in similar forms
in many other countries ?

Live long and prosper.
 
Last edited:
  • #57
What ever happened to David ben Gurion?
 
  • #58
Kat- it is clear from earlier writings of zionist leaders such as Thomas Herzl that the plans to expel the Arabs existed well before 1929 and it was infact this fear of being dispossesed that motivated the violence against zionist settlers as before zionism you have to go back to the crusader period for attacks on Jews in Palestine.


drag- If they take such great care (a claim that is not borne out by the reports of human rights groups), how come there is no significant difference between the ratio of Israeli civilians/Israelisecurity forces killed(0.63) and Palestinian non-combatants/Palestinian miltants(~0.55), except that the Palestinian death toll is three times higher.

You attack HRW without knowing anything about it, it routinely reports on corruption and torture in the PA and releases reports on the wrongdoings of Palestinian terrorists. Israel is only one concern out of many for HRW, whose head is incidently Jewish.

I see a pattern here you routinely make an assertation, it's proved false yo make another then again are forced to retreat from your postion, would it not be a good idea to become more knowledgeable on the subject before blindly defending everything that the Israeli government does?
 
  • #59
Originally posted by drag

The only dogmatic view I see here is yours and of people like
you who either know nothing or like you may know a lot and still
form their totally unjustified opinions by watching a
pelestinian who inspirationally shouts to the camera
that he's being massacared or scenes of mass funerals
of suicide bombers. Better watch the burnt remains of
the buses with the really innocent people who were on them.

So Palestinian children killed in missle attacks aren't innocent?
 
  • #60
Originally posted by jcsd
Kat- it is clear from earlier writings of zionist leaders such as Thomas Herzl that the plans to expel the Arabs existed well before 1929 and it was infact this fear of being dispossesed that motivated the violence against zionist settlers as before zionism you have to go back to the crusader period for attacks on Jews in Palestine.

JSCD- The Zionist dream of a jewish state was similar to so many other of the political utopian dreams of the same period. The real development had little similarity with the dream. Today with the ability to see the history in the making we can realize how unrealistic these visions were. However, the utopian visions of Theodore Herzl most certainly included Arabs living among the jews. Herzl describes how he sees the future in his book "Altneuland" and if you have read it then you already know that the future as Herzl believed it could be was one with jews and arabs living together in harmony. Herzl believed that they would happily accept his vision of a future and he wrote about this in his diaries and depicted this in his novel. Like all dreamers he underestimated the opposition that his ideas would bring BUT Herzl and his dreams did not call for ethnic cleansing of Arabs from Palestine.
Herzl invisioned a state that would be so advanced that it would replace the current feudalism and that the new Zionist society would be too advanced to support the feudal condition that supprted serfdom in a practical state of slavery. In fact in his diary Herzl relates his thoughts of how the displaced serfs would have to be given a new place to live BUT those thoughts are very clearly about the issue of the newly developed society that had no support for the slavery like sitution of serfs. It was NOT about the lack of place for ARABS.
I'm supposing that your historical education arises from the writing of Edward Said who quotes Herzl's words in a dishonest fashion by cutting out sections of his comments mid-sentence and distorting his statements.
This is the type of revisionist history (Said's) that arises when one's allegiance is with their own prejudicial beliefs and causes rather then objective analysis.
 

Similar threads

News Israel's Unilateral Steps: Sharon Warns of Border Creation
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
News Israel to Take Remaining 20,000 Jews from Ethiopia
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
News What Are the Strategic Goals and Tactics in the Gaza War?
  • · Replies 79 ·
3
Replies
79
Views
12K
News Is US Complicity in Yassin's Assassination Fueling a Religious War?
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
News Why Are Palestinians Protesting Against Hamas?
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
News The Israel Media Watch: A Threat to Freedom of Speech in Israel?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
News Renaissance and reaction to Islam.
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
7K
News The Roots of Terrorism and US Foreign Policy
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
5K