News Is the Middle East's Troubles Linked to Israel?

[Aquamarine]

I will never forgive Israelis for this;

Here are pictures and video of Palestinians celebrating 9/11, which most supported:
http://humphrys.humanists.net/judaism.html#moderate.islam

Or cheering the killing of women and children in Israel:
http://humphrys.humanists.net/israel.conflict.html

 

[member 5645]

I will never forgive Israelis for this;

I can't believe your ignorance, bigotry, and refusal to enter into actual debate (instead opting for this hypocritical hatred).

 

[tumor]

I can't believe your ignorance, bigotry, and refusal to enter into actual debate (instead opting for this hypocritical hatred).

I'm not hatefull, people who do things like that are hatefull.What is worst what happened in those few pictures was done by proffesional Israeli Army not by some brainwashed suicide bomber.

 

[jcsd]

You have not subsantiated claims that most attack have come from Hebron, that this has occurred since Israel took control again or that Israel made the claim after that.

Neither have you given references for many other statements previously in this thread.

'Disproprtionate' does not mean most. The Israeli amry never really left Hebron, but they fully re-occuppoed the town at the end of 2002.

Hebron has a popuation of about 75,000 (almost eniterly Palestian), since the reoccupation 10 sucide bombers have strck Israel ain total at least 3 of them from Hebron.

The problem is your expecting me to fill in gaps in your knowledge when it is well know that the Hamas cell in hebron has been one of the most active cells. Basically find it out yourself rather thna relying on site slike US-Israel.

 

[omin]

But guys, you all forgot about one thing,very important thing;who pays Israels bills and gives them military equipment? USA of course,and your tax dollars end up hurting Palestinians.
We have to vote those *******s in White House out of the office or start revolt here, there is no easy way.Democrats or Republicans support Israeli policy 100%.
This country must be awaken from this intellectual coma in which we are now and do what for example French did in 1789 .Revolution is the only answer.

Yes. Anyone here can check there state exports online. Look how high Israel sits compared to others. Check the exports of those other countries compared to Israels.

 

[studentx]

Yes. Anyone here can check there state exports online. Look how high Israel sits compared to others. Check the exports of those other countries compared to Israels.

Thats because the Palestinians live there too, exporting terror.

 

[tumor]

Thats because the Palestinians live there too, exporting terror.

What you talking about?
Palestinians only fight with jews(ocupiers) and maybe some of those mother ****ing "settlers" from New York.

 

[studentx]

What you talking about?
Palestinians only fight with jews(ocupiers) and maybe some of those mother ****ing "settlers" from New York.

Actually, they fight with small Israeli children and pregnant women. That jpg you posted is probably one of the victims of a palestinian serial killer.

 

[tumor]

Both sides lie all the time,but remember Israeli story about Palestinian ambulances carrying home made rockets which of course was totall fabrication. Israelis are masters of deception any way, I never trust them.

 

[member 5645]

Both sides lie all the time,but remember Israeli story about Palestinian ambulances carrying home made rockets which of course was totall fabrication. Israelis are masters of deception any way, I never trust them.

More unvalidated claims on you behalf. No links? Afraid to rebut my posts earlier in this threaD?


Some of you have edged the line, and others crossed it, of pure bigotry and/or antisemitism

 

[jcsd]

More unvalidated claims on you behalf. No links? Afraid to rebut my posts earlier in this threaD?


Some of you have edged the line, and others crossed it, of pure bigotry and/or antisemitism

The problem is phatmonkey there is a general ignorance of the conflict here. The accusation that UN ambulances were used to carry rockets caused a huge furproe both in Israel and internationally, however Isarel later admitted it really did not have evidence that this was the case and what they claimed was a blurrily photgrahed rocket could of equally of been a stretcher.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/484003.html

http://www.turkishpress.com/turkishpress/news.asp?ID=30696


Accustaions of antisemtism have unfortunately almost become completely devalued due to the politcized nature. The IDF have certainly shown a total disregard for human life and should be criticzed on the strongets terms, but I'll so add that some of the patrticualr incodents of wrongdoings illustarted on this thread have not been exclusively carried out by Jewish mebers of the IDF, for example the soldier who admitted shooting children to keep himself amused was infact a Bedouin Arab.

 

[russ_watters]

Those articles are merely propaganda (you could of choosen a less obvious source than US-Israel), there has never been any direct evidnec offered of Palestian miltnats inetinally using Palestina civlains as 'human shields'.

That question is largely moot, since the terrorists use civilians, including women and children as human bombs.

But it does also seem like you are arguing semantics: are you claiming that the terrorists don't ever hide amongst civilians? Say, for example, in camps?

Also you might like to contast the diproptionate number of suicde bombers who have come from Hebron a town where the IDF is solely responsible for law and order and the prevntion of terrorism.

Are you claiming that the terrorists are there because the IDF is there? Does that mean you think its a coincidence that the IDF picked that town to conduct operations in? C'mon - the IDF is there because the terrorists are there, not the other way around.

...they blame the PA for not preventing Hamas carrying out attacks even though they have fialed completely in this task themselves.

Well, the IDF isn't the PA - if the PA wants to claim they have some "A" then they need to show it. Otherwise, what purpose do they serve except to be a mouthpiece for terrorists? Not much point in anyone negotiating with the PA then, is there? Are you also claiming that the only way to keep control/order is by force? If so, doesn't that mean Israel is right for not negotiating since the failure of the talks a few years back?

 

[jcsd]

That question is largely moot, since the terrorists use civilians, including women and children as human bombs.

No it's acrually moot, becauuse it's beeing used to justify israeli attaclks on palestian civlians. In fact the terrorists jhave not used women and children as human bombs; apart form the incident above where the Idf claims that the terorists tried to detonate explosives carried by a young mule, there have been a handful of suicde attacks carried out by 16 and 17 year olds. Groups like Hamas for their part have actually discouraged attacks by those under the age of 18.

But it does also seem like you are arguing semantics: are you claiming that the terrorists don't ever hide amongst civilians? Say, for example, in camps?

Are they in the camps? certainly. Are they in the camps tin order to use civilains as cover? certainly not. In case you haven't noiced we're not tlaking about an organistaion with secret hide-outs inside volcanoes etc. Due to the fac that Paalestians have been ghettoized by the Israelis the areas which Palestians are restricted are some of the most densely populated in the world (In the Gaza Strip we're talking about a popuation density that is getting onto approximately twice that of Washington DC).

Are you claiming that the terrorists are there because the IDF is there? Does that mean you think its a coincidence that the IDF picked that town to conduct operations in? C'mon - the IDF is there because the terrorists are there, not the other way around. Well, the IDF isn't the PA - if the PA wants to claim they have some "A" then they need to show it. Otherwise, what purpose do they serve except to be a mouthpiece for terrorists? Not much point in anyone negotiating with the PA then, is there? Are you also claiming that the only way to keep control/order is by force? If so, doesn't that mean Israel is right for not negotiating since the failure of the talks a few years back?

This exactly the kind of ignorance I was talking about, your unaware of the issue, but your ready to jump in anyway and dogmatically defend Israel.

No they did not choose Hebron because of this reason, infact they never left Hebron in the firts place, there has always beena strong IDf presecnce in the town and they never gave the PA full control over the town, the reason Hebron receives so much attention is the prescence of the settlers there.

The probelm is that on the one hand Israel attacks PA buildings, it's policemna and tries to destroy it's authority, but on the other hand it expects it to deal with groups like Hamas in order to prevent bombings in israel. In fact an Israeli Minister specifcally cited an attack carried out by a bomber from IDF-controlled Hebron as evidence that the PA wer not clamping down on miltants

 

[russ_watters]

Are they in the camps? certainly. Are they in the camps tin order to use civilains as cover? certainly not.

Hiding amongst civilians is a choice they make and that choice is the choice to use human shields. One of the reasons the Geneva conventions exist is to protect civilians in battle and one of the reasons the terrorists are terrorists is they don't follow the Geneva conventions: they hide amongst civilians, they wear civilian clothes, and they carry concealed weapons around civilians. All of those things are against the Geneva conventions specifically because they put civilians in danger. Yes, its a convenient decision to not leave a camp, but the Geneva conventions (and morality itself) are not that generous. Convenience is not an excuse for murder.

This exactly the kind of ignorance I was talking about, your unaware of the issue, but your ready to jump in anyway and dogmatically defend Israel.

No they did not choose Hebron because of this reason, infact they never left Hebron in the firts place...

When, precisely was "the first place?" When did they go to Hebron, and why - and why did they never leave?

The probelm is that on the one hand Israel attacks PA buildings, it's policemna and tries to destroy it's authority, but on the other hand it expects it to deal with groups like Hamas in order to prevent bombings in israel. In fact an Israeli Minister specifcally cited an attack carried out by a bomber from IDF-controlled Hebron as evidence that the PA wer not clamping down on miltants

You're stuck on the idea that the PA needs to be fighting the militants. That's not "Authority." Authority is people listening to you for no other reason than that you have authority. When your mother tells you to wash your hands for dinner, you do it not because you fear a beating, but because she's your mother and you respect her authority. If the PA has no authority, Israel should not be expected to deal with them. And the reason Israel has fought against the PA is pretty simple: the PA has demonstratd that they are, actually, the mouthpiece for terrorists. Quite the opposite of authority, they are a sock-puppet at best.

My question to you is: is there a Palestinian authority? And I don't mean the PA, I mean a real authority. Is there a person or a body that terrorists will actually listen to then he/it tells them to do something? If the answer to that question is no, you know what that means, right? There is only one way to deal with people who won't listen to authority...

 

[tumor]

The probelm is that on the one hand Israel attacks PA buildings, it's policemna and tries to destroy it's authority, but on the other hand it expects it to deal with groups like Hamas in order to prevent bombings in israel. In fact an Israeli Minister specifcally cited an attack carried out by a bomber from IDF-controlled Hebron as evidence that the PA wer not clamping down on miltants

I could not say better my self,100% correct.
I guess you saw what Jewish army did to Palestinian infrastructure?simply barbaric behavior!I have no words for it!
They destroy water and sewer pipes, electric lines not to mention daily humiliation ,and then they are surprised when anger and frusration boils over and Palestinians fight back with all means available.
In those circumstances Palestinians in my view have every right to resist and fight.
Some Palestinians from this frustration might go to far,but we can say thanks to our BIG friend Sharon and his fifth column in the USA.
PS.Jews have also history of heroic uprisings when they were treated almost like Palestinians ,one of the most bloody was Warsaw Jewish ghetto uprising in 1944.Terrorists Hmmm?

 

[jcsd]

Hiding amongst civilians is a choice they make and that choice is the choice to use human shields. One of the reasons the Geneva conventions exist is to protect civilians in battle and one of the reasons the terrorists are terrorists is they don't follow the Geneva conventions: they hide amongst civilians, they wear civilian clothes, and they carry concealed weapons around civilians. All of those things are against the Geneva conventions specifically because they put civilians in danger. Yes, its a convenient decision to not leave a camp, but the Geneva conventions (and morality itself) are not that generous. Convenience is not an excuse for murder. When, precisely was "the first place?" When did they go to Hebron, and why - and why did they never leave? You're stuck on the idea that the PA needs to be fighting the militants. That's not "Authority." Authority is people listening to you for no other reason than that you have authority. When your mother tells you to wash your hands for dinner, you do it not because you fear a beating, but because she's your mother and you respect her authority. If the PA has no authority, Israel should not be expected to deal with them. And the reason Israel has fought against the PA is pretty simple: the PA has demonstratd that they are, actually, the mouthpiece for terrorists. Quite the opposite of authority, they are a sock-puppet at best.

My question to you is: is there a Palestinian authority? And I don't mean the PA, I mean a real authority. Is there a person or a body that terrorists will actually listen to then he/it tells them to do something? If the answer to that question is no, you know what that means, right? There is only one way to deal with people who won't listen to authority...

Your missing the point Russ, they're not delibrately hiding among civilians andf they do not have a choice about whether or not they're in the camps, where else would you expect them to be? I don't think your entirely aware of the geography both polical and physical of the occupied territories. Th emiltants certainly have diregraded sections of the varoous Gneva conventions, but not by being in the camps; Israel has shown nothing but contempt for interantinal humatarian law.

Again you're showing your ignorance, it is Israel that has demanded that the PA clamp down on the militants using force, Iw a spointing out the hypocrisy of this demand. You are ight in the sense that PA no longer has a great amount of authority in the OT, but this is entirely Israel's doing; the Sharon government have pursued a policy of eroding the PA's authority in the teroritroies.

The PA while certainly sympathetic with the terorist groups in some instances is not merely a mouthpiece for them. The internal politics of the PA are complex to say the least, sveral of the PA's mebers are regraded as targets by miltants.

The whole of Palestine including Hebron was under total Israeli martial law (i.e. miltary rule) form 1967 until the mid-1990's, th settlers in Hebron arrived in Hebron in 1967. There has been an Israeli army garrison there since abotu 1968 I believe. The Jewish settlers there are religouis fundmanetalists who are also virulent racists (neraly all of Israel's most famous extremists have hailed form there: Goldstein, Kahane and also I believe the man who assasinated Rabin) and have terrorized the civilians of the town since arriving there. The settlemnt at Hebron was the epicentre for Jewish terrorists groups like Kach and the depravities of the settlers in that town including the 1996 massacre of Muslim worshippers by settler Baruch Goldstein have always made it prime ground for recruitments by Palestinian militants. By the Hebron accords in 1997 most of the town was handed over to Palestian control, but the Israeli army still controlled the old city.

 

[russ_watters]

Your missing the point Russ, they're not delibrately hiding among civilians andf they do not have a choice about whether or not they're in the camps...

I'm sorry, that's just not the way it works. What you are saying is very similar, morally, to the "just following orders" defense at Nurenberg. It fails for the same reason: there is always a choice.

...where else would you expect them to be?

Its a conundrum, surely, but its not my problem, its theirs. They choose to fight, they choose to hide amongst civilians, and they choose to not make themselves identifiable (convenient, isn't it?), so that means they choose to put those civilians in danger. If they choose to stop fighting, those civilians won't be in danger anymore, will they? The problem is that they prefer fighting to trying to find a peaceful solution. Which leads into the next point:

Again you're showing your ignorance, it is Israel that has demanded that the PA clamp down on the militants using force, Iw a spointing out the hypocrisy of this demand. You are ight in the sense that PA no longer has a great amount of authority in the OT, but this is entirely Israel's doing; the Sharon government have pursued a policy of eroding the PA's authority in the teroritroies.

No, its not ignorance - you're missing the point again: the PA and Hamas do talk to each other. But during the US's last attempt to broker a peace deal, Hamas never got onboard with the negotiations, and thus the talks failed.

Israel deals with the PA because they have to deal with someone. But Israel's patience is thin because the supposed authority doesn't really exist: Israel wants to talk to the authority - the entity or person who speaks for the militants and who can broker a deal on behalf of the militants. That should be obvious - Israel's primary concern is getting the terrorism to stop. The PA proports to be that authority but they are not (or, perhaps they are, but they are just being devious...?).

That the PA has to be fighting the militants at all is just further evidence that they have none of the authority hey claim to have - in my view, Israel shouldn't even ackhowledge the PA's existence: they are irrelevant.

But Israel is taking a different tack: trying to get the PA to fight against the terrorists. In my view, that's a losing battle because, it just further decreases the PA's already thin authority. But I understand Israel's logic: they want the PA to show them something - anything to show that they are worth talking to.

Now as to the conflict between the PA and Israel, its sticky: the trouble is the Israelis don't trust the PA. And that's understandable - the PA has shown that it is either inept or actually a front for the terrorists (more likely, a combination of the two).

The PA while certainly sympathetic with the terorist groups in some instances is not merely a mouthpiece for them. The internal politics of the PA are complex to say the least, sveral of the PA's mebers are regraded as targets by miltants.

Yes, it was certainly a lot simpler when it was just Arafat: you could trust him to be nothing more than the voice of Hamas. Now, you have a mixture and Israel doesn't know who to trust.

The whole of Palestine including Hebron was under total Israeli martial law (i.e. miltary rule) form 1967 until the mid-1990's, th settlers in Hebron arrived in Hebron in 1967. There has been an Israeli army garrison there since abotu 1968 I believe.

Ok, and they never left because... the town never settled down after the war?

 

[kat]

th settlers in Hebron arrived in Hebron in 1967

I think you meant returned. As in returned after having been kicked out of the homes their families had lived in for centuries until Jordan occupied Hebron and the Arabs kicked all of the Jews out of all of the Arab countries, and occupied territories...thus giving rise to an increased population in Israel... and amazingly helping to contribute to the growth of the very country they wanted to destroy.

 

[jcsd]

I'm sorry, that's just not the way it works. What you are saying is very similar, morally, to the "just following orders" defense at Nurenberg. It fails for the same reason: there is always a choice. Its a conundrum, surely, but its not my problem, its theirs. They choose to fight, they choose to hide amongst civilians, and they choose to not make themselves identifiable (convenient, isn't it?), so that means they choose to put those civilians in danger. If they choose to stop fighting, those civilians won't be in danger anymore, will they? The problem is that they prefer fighting to trying to find a peaceful solution.

Remeber it is the Israreli army that are doing the most to endanger the lievs of Palestian civlains not Palestian miltants. One of the main problem is that the Palestians have little option on how they can fight the Israelis and with the exception of Labor in the nineties no Isreali government has ever been willing to consider peace.

Which leads into the next point: No, its not ignorance - you're missing the point again: the PA and Hamas do talk to each other. But during the US's last attempt to broker a peace deal, Hamas never got onboard with the negotiations, and thus the talks failed.

Again you prove my point IT IS IGNORANCE, Israel refused to allow Hamas to be involvedint he peace process in anyway during those talks, howvere the PA for their part negoiated a semi-ceasefire with Hamas (in which they agreed not to attack civilian targets in Israel) which Israel refused to recognize officially (though itdid scale back operatins aginst Hamas). However Hamas ended the ceasefire after a Hamas student leader was shot in the back whilst in the custody of the Israeli border police.

Israel deals with the PA because they have to deal with someone. But Israel's patience is thin because the supposed authority doesn't really exist: Israel wants to talk to the authority - the entity or person who speaks for the militants and who can broker a deal on behalf of the militants. That should be obvious - Israel's primary concern is getting the terrorism to stop. The PA proports to be that authority but they are not (or, perhaps they are, but they are just being devious...?).

Isreal though has tried to destroy the PA rather than allow it to be in a psotion where it can meet Israeli demands. If you can't see the hypocrisy in that...

That the PA has to be fighting the militants at all is just further evidence that they have none of the authority hey claim to have - in my view, Israel shouldn't even ackhowledge the PA's existence: they are irrelevant.

But the point is that Sharon, from the very beginning has always tried to undermine the PA, they were certaintly the authority in palestine, but mainly due to the efforts of Israel that is not hte case anymore (you have to rember that Sharon has always been against negoitaing with Palestians and even to get him into the roadmap which he paid only lip service to from the start took major diplomatic pressure from the US who at the time he accused of 'appeasing terror')

But Israel is taking a different tack: trying to get the PA to fight against the terrorists. In my view, that's a losing battle because, it just further decreases the PA's already thin authority. But I understand Israel's logic: they want the PA to show them something - anything to show that they are worth talking to.

Sure that is part of Israel's logic, but the problem is that Israel shgould also support them rather than atatck them if it wants them to do this.

Now as to the conflict between the PA and Israel, its sticky: the trouble is the Israelis don't trust the PA. And that's understandable - the PA has shown that it is either inept or actually a front for the terrorists (more likely, a combination of the two). Yes, it was certainly a lot simpler when it was just Arafat: you could trust him to be nothing more than the voice of Hamas. Now, you have a mixture and Israel doesn't know who to trust. Ok, and they never left because... the town never settled down after the war?

The Palestians do not trust Israel either, so there must be some sort of bilateral movemnt rather than putting the expectaions on the Palestians who after all are more sinnined agianst than sinners. The PA has many problems, but it certainly was not a front for terroirst (though it certainl does have mebers involved in miltant organistaions), Arafat was alawys Israels best chance for peace yet they have tried to destoy him.

And again we come back to my point about you making things up as you go along, they did not leave beacsue of the settlement there (they neve left any of the settlemnts, but the Hebron settelemnt is unique in that it is ditributed throughout a Palestinian town), as simple as that.

 

[jcsd]

I think you meant returned. As in returned after having been kicked out of the homes their families had lived in for centuries until Jordan occupied Hebron and the Arabs kicked all of the Jews out of all of the Arab countries, and occupied territories...thus giving rise to an increased population in Israel... and amazingly helping to contribute to the growth of the very country they wanted to destroy.

The previous settlemnt arrived in the 1830's and left in the 1920's during the race riot (after the Hebron massacre) , the latest settlemnt started in 1967, the vast majority of these settlers had absolutekly no connection with the previous ettlemnt (as evinced by the fact that the previus settelers were Mizari whereas the current settlemnt is predomiantely Ashkenazi immigrants, many from the US).

 

[russ_watters]

Remeber it is the Israreli army that are doing the most to endanger the lievs of Palestian civlains not Palestian miltants.

To some extent, the Israelis are faced with the same choice as the militants: fight or not fight. Since not fighting means not protecting their civilians from terrorism, the decision is a fairly easy one. The decision on where to fight is made by the militants, so its the militants who are responsible for the civilian deaths in the camps. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but that's the way it works. The same applied in Iraq to Saddam garrisoning troops in civilian areas: and he's going to answer for that.

One of the main problem is that the Palestians have little option on how they can fight the Israelis

You makes your choices and accepts your consequences. If the terrorists are ok with being terrorists (and clearly they are), then they are going to have to accept the consequences. One of those consequences is the possibility of a war crimes tribunal.

and with the exception of Labor in the nineties no Isreali government has ever been willing to consider peace.

That is, of course, absurd - obviously, the one and only reason the Israelis are fighting is because they want the constant terrorists attacks to end: peace is their only goal. Contrast that with the goals of the terrorists: 1. establish a Palestinian state. 2. Kill all the Jews. Clearly, #2 is the overriding goal, as they had #1 given to them and chose #2 instead. Decades of failure at both is starting to change some attitudes though...

Again you prove my point IT IS IGNORANCE, Israel refused to allow Hamas to be involvedint he peace process in anyway during those talks, howvere the PA for their part negoiated a semi-ceasefire with Hamas (in which they agreed not to attack civilian targets in Israel) which Israel refused to recognize officially (though itdid scale back operatins aginst Hamas). However Hamas ended the ceasefire after a Hamas student leader was shot in the back whilst in the custody of the Israeli border police.

Its a bit like the IRA and Sinn Fein - it is perfectly legitimate to not ever deal directly with terrorists, and it is also perfectly legitimate to deal with the political wing only when the political wing shows they can speak for/have authority over the terrorists. The Palestinians are choosing to play that game, not the Israelis: if Hamas ever became civilized, they themselves would be invited to the neotiating table. Its a catch-22 and the terrorists are, by their on choices, on the short end of it.

Isreal though has tried to destroy the PA rather than allow it to be in a psotion where it can meet Israeli demands. If you can't see the hypocrisy in that...

Why should Israel believe that the PA has either the desire or the ability o do that? When have they ever demonstrated it in the past?

But the point is that Sharon, from the very beginning has always tried to undermine the PA, they were certaintly the authority in palestine, but mainly due to the efforts of Israel that is not hte case anymore (you have to rember that Sharon has always been against negoitaing with Palestians and even to get him into the roadmap which he paid only lip service to from the start took major diplomatic pressure from the US who at the time he accused of 'appeasing terror')

Sharon is a hard-liner, its true - but he's justified in being demanding to people that are killing his civilians on a virtually daily basis. His lack of trust to people who have never shown that they are worthy of trust is quite understandable.

The Palestians do not trust Israel either, so there must be some sort of bilateral movemnt rather than putting the expectaions on the Palestians who after all are more sinnined agianst than sinners.

Well, that's the rub, isn't it? Who'se fault is it? Is it the people who are blowing up busses full of civilians who are more at fault, or the people who are defending themselves against this terrorism who are at fault? Remember, if the Arabs hadn't chosen this path, we wouldn't be on it.

Until the Arabs recognize that killing civilians for the sake of killing civilians is wrong, there won't be an end to this conflict.

The PA has many problems, but it certainly was not a front for terroirst (though it certainl does have mebers involved in miltant organistaions),

That's self-contradictory.

I'll drop the Hebron issue - I must admit you know more of the history than I do. But I still think (as kat showed), you're only reading half the history. People of different races, ethnicities, religions live side-by-side in cities all over the US and the civilized world. Why not in the middle-east? Why does the presence of a Jew (or a Christian, for that matter) near an arab require the arab to kill the Jew?

 

[jcsd]

To some extent, the Israelis are faced with the same choice as the militants: fight or not fight. Since not fighting means not protecting their civilians from terrorism, the decision is a fairly easy one.

So what should the Palestinians do? They have a stae that refuses to negoiate with them, kills it's civilains destoys their homes and steals their land. Anyone in this situation would fight back.

The decision on where to fight is made by the militants, so its the militants who are responsible for the civilian deaths in the camps.

Hardly, it is the Israeli army who come into these areas to fight, also you seem completely unconcerned by the complete disregard of civilain life shown by the Israeli army or that many of the civlians killed were not even killed during opertaions agianst milatnts but during protests.

I'm sorry if you don't like it, but that's the way it works. The same applied in Iraq to Saddam garrisoning troops in civilian areas: and he's going to answer for that. You makes your choices and accepts your consequences.

Rubbish you say it is that way because you say it is that way. You are seeming to give Israel a carte blanche to commit atrocities.

If the terrorists are ok with being terrorists (and clearly they are), then they are going to have to accept the consequences. One of those consequences is the possibility of a war crimes tribunal.

While of course Israel should suffer no consequences for it's actions

That is, of course, absurd - obviously, the one and only reason the Israelis are fighting is because they want the constant terrorists attacks to end: peace is their only goal.

Again rubbish what do you think those settlemnts are there for? why do you think that they are perfectly happy to abandon Gaza which is the main base of the milinats yet not move out of the West Bank?

Contrast that with the goals of the terrorists: 1. establish a Palestinian state. 2. Kill all the Jews. Clearly, #2 is the overriding goal, as they had #1 given to them and chose #2 instead.

Israel did not offer a fair deal, you cannot expect them, just to take any dela whether it is fair or not. infact the dela did not even end the occupation entirely. I see you have choosen to repeat the propaganda of the Israeli extreme right i.e. " they wnat to kill all Jews", thsat is simply unfounded nonasense to obsecure thereal cause of the conflict.

Decades of failure at both is starting to change some attitudes though... Its a bit like the IRA and Sinn Fein - it is perfectly legitimate to not ever deal directly with terrorists, and it is also perfectly legitimate to deal with the political wing only when the political wing shows they can speak for/have authority over the terrorists.[.quote]
The PAlestians have many, many legitamte grievances against isarel and the behaviour of the IDf has hardly been any better than the terrorist groups. You cannot expect peace when you refuse tp negoiate.

The Palestinians are choosing to play that game, not the Israelis: if Hamas ever became civilized, they themselves would be invited to the neotiating table. Its a catch-22 and the terrorists are, by their on choices, on the short end of it. Why should Israel believe that the PA has either the desire or the ability o do that? When have they ever demonstrated it in the past?

You have to rmeber that Israel also has nnevr shown any desire for peace, so unles some trust can built there never will be peace.

Sharon is a hard-liner, its true - but he's justified in being demanding to people that are killing his civilians on a virtually daily basis. His lack of trust to people who have never shown that they are worthy of trust is quite understandable.

comapre the staistics: this year for every single Israel civilain killed by a Palestian (49) the IDF has killed two Palestina children (112 children killed by the IDf inbetween jan and sept this year), it's completely dispropotionate, you simply cannot compare what the IDF are doing to the PAlestians to what Palestian terorist have done to Israel.

Well, that's the rub, isn't it? Who'se fault is it? Is it the people who are blowing up busses full of civilians who are more at fault, or the people who are defending themselves against this terrorism who are at fault? Remember, if the Arabs hadn't chosen this path, we wouldn't be on it.

Israel has also made it's choices, but what other paths were avaiable to the Arabs, consideing that Israel has contiunally shown beligenrce anmd has only on rare occasion shown any inetrest in peace.

Until the Arabs recognize that killing civilians for the sake of killing civilians is wrong, there won't be an end to this conflict.

So why is killing Israel civlians worse than killing Arab civilains?

That's self-contradictory.

No it isn't the PA does not function as a moutpice for the miltants its a simp,e as that.

 

[kat]

The previous settlemnt arrived in the 1830's and left in the 1920's during the race riot (after the Hebron massacre) , the latest settlemnt started in 1967, the vast majority of these settlers had absolutekly no connection with the previous ettlemnt (as evinced by the fact that the previus settelers were Mizari whereas the current settlemnt is predomiantely Ashkenazi immigrants, many from the US).

jcsd, your history needs some revision (or maybe that's the issue and it needs to be UN-revised) Let's start with the return of the Jewish community upon Mamelukes' conquest of the city in 1260 where they lived until the Ottoman Turks' conquest of the city in 1517 when there were violent pogroms which included deaths, rapes, and robbing/destruction of Jewish homes. The Jews that survived fled to Beirut until 1533 when they then returned to rebuild their community.

Despite the progoms of 1517, and the poverty of the Jewish community (not to mention a disabling plague in 1619) the Jewish community in Hebron continued to grow and in 1540 a group of Jewish exiles from Spain purchased the site of the "Court of the Jews" and built the Avraham Avinu synagogue.

During the Turkish period of 1517 thru 1917, groups of Jews from other parts of Israel as well as the Diaspora moved to Hebron and joined the existing community. The city became a world renowned "rabbinic center".

Then, violence struck the Hebron Jewish community again when they suffered from a "blood libel" in 1776. The Jews were falsely accused of murdering the son of a sheikh and the jewish community was made to pay a huge fine which increased poverty and decreased their economic standing. In spite of its poverty the Jewish community still managed in 1807 to purchase the lot where the city's wholesale market stands today and then again in 1811 over 200 acres of land were purchased for the cemetery. By about 1817 the Jewish community numbered around 500, and by 1838, it had grown to about 700, DESPITE the pogrom which took place in 1834 as a result of Mohammed's rebellion against the Ottomans.


In 1870, a rich Turkish Jew moved to Hebron and purchased a plot of land and built the "Beit Romano". The Beit Romano later held a synagogue until it was taken over by the Turks. During the Mandatory period of the british occupation the building was held by the British as a police station and court house.

In 1893 Beit Hadassah was built by the Hebron Jewish community as a clinic, and a second floor was added in 1909. The Hadassah organization helped pay the salaries of the medical staff, which served both Jews and Arabs.

During World War I before the British occupation the Jewish community lived under the Turkish administration and their young men were forced into the Turkish army. When the British occupied in 1918 the Hebron Jewish community had been reduced to under 500 people. Under the occupation of the British the populaiton began to recover and in 1925, Rabbi Mordechai Epstein established a new yeshiva. By 1929, the population had returned to about 700.

Then in August of 1929 local Arabs absolutely devastated Hebrons Jewish community through a large-scale, organized, pogrom.

Of the 67 victims 23 had been murdered in one house alone and then dismembered by the arabs. The surviving Jews fled to Jerusalem. There were heroic Arabs during this period such as Haj Issa who hid almost 3 dozen jews in his basement to protect them from rioting mobs.
In 1931 thirty one Jewish families returned to Hebron and reestablished their community. Then again, as a result of rising tenstions and afraid of another Arab massacre of Jews in April 1936 the British evacuated Jews from their homes in the community.

In 1948, with the invasion by Arab armies Hebron was captured and occupied by the Jordanians and until 1967, Jews were not permitted to live in the city, or despite the Armistice Agreement visit or pray at the Jewish holy sites in the city.

 

[MiGUi]

We have to do something to blow muslims from the map. Its they or us.

 

[jcsd]

jcsd, your history needs some revision (or maybe that's the issue and it needs to be UN-revised) Let's start with the return of the Jewish community upon Mamelukes' conquest of the city in 1260 where they lived until the Ottoman Turks' conquest of the city in 1517 when there were violent pogroms which included deaths, rapes, and robbing/destruction of Jewish homes. The Jews that survived fled to Beirut until 1533 when they then returned to rebuild their community.

Despite the progoms of 1517, and the poverty of the Jewish community (not to mention a disabling plague in 1619) the Jewish community in Hebron continued to grow and in 1540 a group of Jewish exiles from Spain purchased the site of the "Court of the Jews" and built the Avraham Avinu synagogue.

During the Turkish period of 1517 thru 1917, groups of Jews from other parts of Israel as well as the Diaspora moved to Hebron and joined the existing community. The city became a world renowned "rabbinic center".

Then, violence struck the Hebron Jewish community again when they suffered from a "blood libel" in 1776. The Jews were falsely accused of murdering the son of a sheikh and the jewish community was made to pay a huge fine which increased poverty and decreased their economic standing. In spite of its poverty the Jewish community still managed in 1807 to purchase the lot where the city's wholesale market stands today and then again in 1811 over 200 acres of land were purchased for the cemetery. By about 1817 the Jewish community numbered around 500, and by 1838, it had grown to about 700, DESPITE the pogrom which took place in 1834 as a result of Mohammed's rebellion against the Ottomans.


In 1870, a rich Turkish Jew moved to Hebron and purchased a plot of land and built the "Beit Romano". The Beit Romano later held a synagogue until it was taken over by the Turks. During the Mandatory period of the british occupation the building was held by the British as a police station and court house.

In 1893 Beit Hadassah was built by the Hebron Jewish community as a clinic, and a second floor was added in 1909. The Hadassah organization helped pay the salaries of the medical staff, which served both Jews and Arabs.

During World War I before the British occupation the Jewish community lived under the Turkish administration and their young men were forced into the Turkish army. When the British occupied in 1918 the Hebron Jewish community had been reduced to under 500 people. Under the occupation of the British the populaiton began to recover and in 1925, Rabbi Mordechai Epstein established a new yeshiva. By 1929, the population had returned to about 700.

Then in August of 1929 local Arabs absolutely devastated Hebrons Jewish community through a large-scale, organized, pogrom.

Of the 67 victims 23 had been murdered in one house alone and then dismembered by the arabs. The surviving Jews fled to Jerusalem. There were heroic Arabs during this period such as Haj Issa who hid almost 3 dozen jews in his basement to protect them from rioting mobs.
In 1931 thirty one Jewish families returned to Hebron and reestablished their community. Then again, as a result of rising tenstions and afraid of another Arab massacre of Jews in April 1936 the British evacuated Jews from their homes in the community.

In 1948, with the invasion by Arab armies Hebron was captured and occupied by the Jordanians and until 1967, Jews were not permitted to live in the city, or despite the Armistice Agreement visit or pray at the Jewish holy sites in the city.

I'd like to know wher you get this from, because a lot of that is highly contentious to say the least. The crusaders destroyed Hebron's Jewish population when they arrived in the 13th century. After the Crusaders left there wer sevral Jewish settlemnts of Hebron, but there is no evidnce of continious Jewish settlemnt of Hebron throughout this period until the arrival in the 19th century of a Jewish community from what is now the Gaza Strip.

I have to admitt that I didn't know there was small jewish settelmt between 1931 and 1935

 

[tumor]

We have to do something to blow muslims from the map. Its they or us.

Looks to me like in your veins still flows little bit of that reconquista blood.

 

[kat]

I'd like to know wher you get this from, because a lot of that is highly contentious to say the least. The crusaders destroyed Hebron's Jewish population when they arrived in the 13th century. After the Crusaders left there wer sevral Jewish settlemnts of Hebron, but there is no evidnce of continious Jewish settlemnt of Hebron throughout this period until the arrival in the 19th century of a Jewish community from what is now the Gaza Strip.

I have to admitt that I didn't know there was small jewish settelmt between 1931 and 1935

I actually pulled this off my hard drive, it's something I had put together awhile ago. I believe it came primarily from the discovery channel, pbs, israel myths and facts and the israeli ministry of affairs. I try to use multiple sources to check one another and confirm each other. I'm curious as to what specificly you find "highly contentious"?

 

[kat]

We have to do something to blow muslims from the map. Its they or us.

There's just no room for this type of crap. A majority of muslims just want to live their lives like everyone else, work, raise their famlies and in general get along with their neighbors. I think it'd be far more productive to just blow all of the bigots off the face of the Earth and then see if maybe we can all get some peace and quiet for awhile.

 

[Jenab]

Well, you got one thing right: [almost] All of the trouble in the middle east comes from the arabs' desire to annihilate Israel. A little comes from the corruption that goes with having oil though.

They have reason. The Arabs were living on the land, albeit under the oppression of the Turks, as the 20th century began. Then the British came with WW1, chased away the Turks and made promises to the Arabs in Palestine as well as contrary promises to the Jews in London. Guess which promises were kept? All that has changed, really, is that the USA took over as the Zionists' major backer. The game all along has been Jews push, Arabs fall down. Jews shoot, Arabs throw a few rocks. Jews kill 10 Arabs, 3 of them children, while Arabs kill maybe 1 Jew in reprisal. And when there's an occasional Westerner who gets in the way, as Rachel Corrie and Tab Hurndall did, the Zionist international propaganda machine goes into high gear with lies and distortions.

My impression is that the Arabs are in the moral right. Violent they may be, but I'd be violent too, were I in their place.

Jerry Abbott

 

[studentx]

My impression is that the Arabs are in the moral right. Violent they may be, but I'd be violent too, were I in their place.

You would also be violent as an Israeli, confronted with a violent arab. You would kill you wife for cheating on you, your daughter for having premarital intercourse. Hey we can all understand why you'd want to kill them all, but its WRONG.

 

[Hurkyl]

The game all along has been Jews push, Arabs fall down. Jews shoot, Arabs throw a few rocks.

Really? So you're saying the Arabs never started any wars with Israel? They've mostly been doormats letting Israelis do whatever they want?

 

[gravenewworld]

All 3 arab-israeli wars were either a) started by Israel or b) started by Arab countries in response to Israeli agression. People have an image of Arabs being terrorist because of suicide bombers etc. but what is the difference between a suicide bomber and an israeli tank running over a house? Honestly what the hell gave Israel the right to invade Lebanon and pound Beirut inthe 80's ?

 

[MiGUi]

Looks to me like in your veins still flows little bit of that reconquista blood.

Hmm, maybe. In 14-15-16th century, here we knew very well how to do with that people. Today maybe not.

 

[member 5645]

All 3 arab-israeli wars were either a) started by Israel or b) started by Arab countries in response to Israeli agression. People have an image of Arabs being terrorist because of suicide bombers etc. but what is the difference between a suicide bomber and an israeli tank running over a house? Honestly what the hell gave Israel the right to invade Lebanon and pound Beirut inthe 80's ?

Firstly, you are now back tracking, and I am pointing it out. You just changed your original statement. ARAB COUNTRIES HAVE ATTACKED ISRAEL FIRST. Now you add the caveat of "Israeli Aggression", but we'll get back to that flawed hypocritical justification in a second.

To educate you, the reason that Israel invaded Lebanon in the 1980's was, to use YOUR words, ARAB aggression. More specifically the PLO training forces, stationing and stockpiling in Southern Lebanon, and then breaking the 11 month cease fire (the most notable of incidents that resumed fighting being the killing of an Israeli officer).The attempted assasination of Israel's ambassador led to the pounding of Beirut, where the strongholds were. The response to this pounding was shelling of Israeli cities with mortars. Israel then invaded to cut off the artillery and mortar attacks.

You justify the Arab actions, by citing Israeli aggression, but then do not condemn the Arabs for their aggression.

Both sides are in the wrong. I am going to flat out say that ANYONE who thinks otherwise is an ignorant fool. To continually try to justify one side or the other is to ignore the facts, and the possibility of a solution.

 

[Mirabilia]

Israel should just give up the land the "Arabs" want! Why not?

 

[member 5645]

Israel should just give up the land the "Arabs" want! Why not?

Sure, that's all the reasoning in the world that is needed.
Guess what, I want Canada to be part of the USA. They should just give it up. Why not?

 

[kawikdx225]

Sure, that's all the reasoning in the world that is needed.
Guess what, I want Canada to be part of the USA. They should just give it up. Why not?

Nooooooooo!

 

[member 5645]

Nooooooooo!

Shutup, give us your pountine and Tim Horton's!

 

[kawikdx225]

Shutup, give us your pountine and Tim Horton's!

The reason I said Noooo is because I'm from the US. lol

Take-off...eh

 

[russ_watters]

kat, all that is pretty interesting, but I'm mostly concerned with what happened after WWII. I don't think it changes the basic problem though: the Jews are there and the Arabs don't want them there, so the Arabs are (depending on which ones you ask) trying to drive them out or trying to kill them.

 

[Qyamat]

Oh yaaa i accept what tumor says.It is a state in which the palestinians are desparate and they don't know what to do and the world calls this terrorism but no heed is paid what israili soldiers do. We must see what motivates these palestinians to blow them selves.It is simply the life which they r facing.They think it is better to die like a lion than to stay hiding and act as a jackle.

 

[russ_watters]

They think it is better to die like a lion than to stay hiding and act as a jackle.

There is nothing even remotely honorable about murder.

 

[Smurf]

Which is why bush should be arrested.