Originally Posted by Greg Lance-Watkins

Hi,

yes but we are ALL well aware of your opinion of others:

"The public is an ass!"

"People are stupid, which is why we have leaders, unfortunately, now the people can be leaders,"

Your signature speaks volumes of you!

Regards,
Greg L-W.

That is my opinion on the absurdity of democracy, I also fail to see what your point is.

Originally Posted by Kiwi 1691

So because they put "anti-terror infront of the name it's acceptable to you?

No, his point was that if the wall wasn't there then terrorism within Israel would increase dramatically. Do you seriously think the Israelis want a wall there? The Wall has cost Israelis too, the communities nearby have been forced to leave their homes and businesses have closed down.

Their land, their homes are being taken every day. They are deprived of food, water, communications etc, plus they are being killed. Can you seriously blame them for standing up to Israel?

Israel's withdrawal from Gaza, unlaterally I might add, was proof that they're willing to work for peace. They were only deprived of food and fuel when they decided to declare war on Israel, as would happen in any other war. Israel is in fact almost unique in that it supplies aid to its enemies during a time of war. If Hamas had not launched rockets, had not kidnapped soldiers, then Gaza would have all the aid it needed.

Are you a moron? When on this thread do we denigrate Jews? Zionism is a force for evil, as is Israel. If you any intellect whatsoever (though you have proven you don't). You would realise to be anti-semitic you have to insult Jews, not the evilness of the Terrorist state of Israel.

Greg did, he is attempting to create a difference between Zionism and other Jews, but Zionism is fundamentally a Jewish concept. What's more while some Jews object to the way that Israel acts in regards to fighting terrorism on occasion, the vast, VAST majority support Israel as a state and its right to protect its citizens. Greg has also expressed support for the genocide of Israel, which as Barry points out is both shocking and anti-semitic.

Originally Posted by pauli007001

Palistinians could drill for their own Water, grow their own food and develop their own Communications industries, but they are too busy committing acts of terror against their neighbours and being lazy whilst the Neighbours subsidise their terror.Israel should give em nothing and defend itself from the terror of these lazy

ungratfull

people.

Considering that Gaza has one of the highest populations densities in the world (4000-5000 people per square mile), and if they want to get supplies from the west bank they need to go through Israel. They are quite limited Pauli, I'd love to see you grow enough food to feed the populace in Gaza.

Originally Posted by pauli007001

All people who disagree with you are morons KIWI.

No, people like you are morons, and just happen to disagree with me. DCFGS3, and I disagree but he is along way from being a Moron, just misguided. Midas, another person I disagree with, I would never label him as a moron.

Originally Posted by pauli007001

Semetic youdont just have to insult Jews(says something about your intellect).Be a good laddie and look up the definition of Semetic peoples, i hope you

dont

feel too silly, even though you look it!!

Dis-liking the Terrorist state that is Israel is not anti Semitic. Disliking the evil force of Zionism is not anti Semitic. Though many Israel supporters label people that oppose it as anti-Semitic.

You call me silly, even though you fail to comprehend the meaning of anti-Semitic. The term anti-Semitic has come to mean dislike of Jew, or prejudice etc towards Jews. It's roots may be broader than that, but so what. That is the meaning of the word currently. Something you fail to comprehend is the English language is evolutionary, it changes over time.

You have to feel sorry for Israel and the zionist Israelis. They flood into Palestine, engage in a campaign of terrorism against British forces who are attempting to control immigration and prevent unrest between Palestians, Jews and Christians, the incomers then declare an independent Jewish state despite most of the land witihn that state being owned by the native Palestinian population, much of the Palestinian population flee the fighting between between Israeli forces and those of neighbouring Arabic states whilst more still are ethnically cleansed. Israel later expands its boarders and occupies more Palestinian land.

The civilian Palestinian population of the occupied territories is then systematically oppressed by Israeli forces: land they have owned for generations is taken from them and occupied by Israelis (illegally), their stone throwing is met by IDF bullets, relatives of "terrorist" suspects are routinely demolished as an extra judicial punishment, Israel routinely murders / engages in "targetted killing" of suspects, Israel creates road-blocks throughout the occupied territories that result in a 10 mile journey taking upwards of 4-5 hours, Palestinians are refused (illegally) the right to return to their homes within the state of Israel whilst Jews from across the world are encouraged to come and settle. Over the years upwards of 10,000 Palestinians have been killed by the IDF, many of them women and children, Gaza is effectively under siege, collective punishment by Israel is the norm, the UN finds that the IDF committed war crimes and the slightest resistance by Palestinian groups is met by massive and wholly disproportionate military action. Now why on earth would the Palestinians resist such treatment.....

Of course Israel's supporters decry "terrorist, terrorist", but who is the real terrorist here? Suicide bombings are acts of terrorism, but they are also the desperate acts of the oppressed, the dispossessed and hopeless. Israel's supports also cite that Israel is a democratic state, but is it? Israel refuses to allow Palestinian refugees the right to return to their homes within Israel; to allow those with a legal right to return do so would create a majority Palestinian population, this despite years of Israel encouraging anyone of Jewish heritage to settle. So much for democracy - Israel is a democracy in much the same way South Africa was 20 years ago.

That Israel would falsify and use passports of friendly nations in order to commit a murder speaks volumes as to the type of nation it is.

Originally Posted by The Untalented Mr Ripley

You have to feel sorry for Israel and the zionist Israelis. They flood into Palestine, engage in a campaign of terrorism against British forces who are attempting to control immigration and prevent unrest between Palestians, Jews and Christians, the incomers then declare an independent Jewish state despite most of the land witihn that state being owned by the native Palestinian population, much of the Palestinian population flee the fighting between between Israeli forces and those of neighbouring Arabic states whilst more still are ethnically cleansed. Israel later expands its boarders and occupies more Palestinian land.

The civilian Palestinian population of the occupied territories is then systematically oppressed by Israeli forces: land they have owned for generations is taken from them and occupied by Israelis (illegally), their stone throwing is met by IDF bullets, relatives of "terrorist" suspects are routinely demolished as an extra judicial punishment, Israel routinely murders / engages in "targetted killing" of suspects, Israel creates road-blocks throughout the occupied territories that result in a 10 mile journey taking upwards of 4-5 hours, Palestinians are refused (illegally) the right to return to their homes within the state of Israel whilst Jews from across the world are encouraged to come and settle. Over the years upwards of 10,000 Palestinians have been killed by the IDF, many of them women and children, Gaza is effectively under siege, collective punishment by Israel is the norm, the UN finds that the IDF committed war crimes and the slightest resistance by Palestinian groups is met by massive and wholly disproportionate military action. Now why on earth would the Palestinians resist such treatment.....

Of course Israel's supporters decry "terrorist, terrorist", but who is the real terrorist here? Suicide bombings are acts of terrorism, but they are also the desperate acts of the oppressed, the dispossessed and hopeless. Israel's supports also cite that Israel is a democratic state, but is it? Israel refuses to allow Palestinian refugees the right to return to their homes within Israel; to allow those with a legal right to return do so would create a majority Palestinian population, this despite years of Israel encouraging anyone of Jewish heritage to settle. So much for democracy - Israel is a democracy in much the same way South Africa was 20 years ago.

That Israel would falsify and use passports of friendly nations in order to commit a murder speaks volumes as to the type of nation it is.

I have already responded to all the points made here, but you seem to refuse to acknowledge them.

Originally Posted by DCFGS3

No they weren't, Palestine, and Palestinian self determination, was secured with the UN treaty, the one they chose to flout in favor of war.

The plain fact is that Palestinian land, that is land legally owned by individual Palestinians was arbitrarily handed to incoming zionists in order to create a state, and to do so expressly and explicitly against the wishes of the majority of the incumbant population and against the wishes of neigbhouring states. Certainly Palestinians supported the fight to prevent their land from being taken by the zionists and indeed from being force to live in a zionist state, however, the subsequent war was fought between Israel and her neighbours, not between Israel and the Palestinian people; a very important distinction. So, precisely how did the Palestinian people bring the current situation on their own heads? Even if they were against a war, the Syrians and Egyptians and most likely the, Iraqis would have pursued one anyway.

They had only coexisted peacefully because the population had been so low. And yes, genocide was certainly on the table. The chairman of the Arab Higher Committee, the grand Mufti of Jerusalem, was a Nazi sympathiser, who actually asked the Axis powers in help "to settle the question of Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries in accordance with the national and racial interests of the Arabs and along the lines similar to those used to solve the Jewish question in Germany and Italy." He was asking their help in genociding the Jews, and not just the Zionists, the Jews that had been there for hundreds of years as well. What's more rhetoric from a wide variety of places called for the genocide, giving real fears to the Israelis.

I imagine that Christian, Jew and Muslim co-existed so peacefully because the racial / religious population of Palestine had evolved and stablised over many many generations. It was upset by mass immigration, that of the zionists.

The Grand Mufti was one voice, and certainly some amongst the Palestinian population supported the Germans purely because they were fighting the colonial occupier, Britain and wished for a free Palestinian state. Trawl the history books and you can find Jews who collaborated with the Nazis; are we therefore to assume that because one or two collaborated that the entire Jewish people were pro-Nazi? That appears to be the logic of your argument. You also overlook the point that the Grand Mufti appeared at least in part to be concerned with the increased immigration into Palestine of alien Europeans (Jews) that threatened the age old peaceful co-existance of Jew, Muslim and Christian.

Over the course of war. What's more this land is now part of Israel, or under occupation. Returning the thousands of Palestinians to those homes in this occupied territory would be A: Difficult at a logistical level in terms of transportation, B: Impossible in terms of working out actual ownership, C: Unwise due to the tentative hold which the Palestinian Authroity has over the current population, and D: Outright dangerous for the average Israeli citizen. Returning the Palestinians to the remaining Palestinian land is simply impossible while the conflict continues. The fact is you have large hostile communities, who right now are safely out of harms way, and while the may be very angry, aren't much of a real threat to any peace process. Moving them into the West Bank (considering Gaza is now out of the question) would be both difficult to achieve and present a real threat to the Israelis, to the Palestinians currently living there, to the peace process and indeed to the refugees themselves.

With respect, I believe you are well aware of the real reason why Israel refuses, illegally, to allow Palestinian refugees to return: numbers. If the refugees were all allowed to return Jews would be in the minority and Israel would cease to be a zionist state. Have you ever paused to wonder why the refugees and other Palestinians are so angry (albeit their anger I beleive has generally been overstated, many would simply like to live their lives freely and in peace) - Israel has created this anger and simply seeks to wash its hands of the mess it created.

We do have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight from the safety of our computer screens. Were they somewhat responsibile for the safety of the Palestinians and Lebanese inside those towns? Yes, but things on the ground can be very different. On another note, Ariel Sharon resigned over the issue, and an investigation was carried out. If the revrse had happened, and Hamas had massacred Jews while the PLO surrounded towns, there would be no investigation, rather a 'Mission Accomplished' speech, and probably promotions rather than resignations. The fact remians that Israel conducts itself far better than any Palestinian group during conflict.

Ifs, buts and maybes. In war their is a both a legal and moral responsibility to avoid civilian casualties; the history of the IDF is littered with the bodies of civilian men, women and children: entire towerblocks bombed because the IDF suspected someone might be using it as a look-out point.......a war crime is a war crime is a war crime.

As for Ariel Sharon resigning...poor return, an Israeli "investigation", a resignation and 100s dead; all murdered whilst the IDF stood by, neglecting their legal duty and obligation to protect the civilian population. More Palestinian bodies, more blood on Sharon and the IDF's hands.

In terms of Israel's conduct vs that of the Palestinians; F-16s, battle tanks, laser guided weapons, heavy cannon vs WWII rockets and AK-47s....you want a fair fight? If the Palestinians are so blood thirsty, why are there usually something like 30-50 Palestinian casualities for every Israeli casualty. Israel's conduct is that of a repressive imperialist power who gives little thought to the rights of those who live under her domination, and you criticise the Palestinians for resisting an illegal occupation - I take it that those blood-thirsty Tibetans were asking for it as well?

Again, the group was banned in Israel. And both sides have cases to answer for in pre-1948 conflicts, yet it is the Palestinians who have continued to use terrorism

So it is only the Palestinians who have used terrorism? Israel is known to have undertaken numerous acts of terrorism; murders in third countries, the torture of suspects, demolision of property belonging the PLO / Hamas suspects, land theft, the deaths of 1,000s of civilians in Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon, the wilful destruction of civilian infrastructure in Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon....sorry, could you remind me again who is the terrorist?

Umm, no, if there are militants firing at soldiers out of your house, you leave the house. You can't expect any army in the world to go through every building checking for civilians before an airstrike or blowing it up, especially if there are snipers firing from its windows. Militants fire out of civilian apartment blocks, they put their bases under hospitals and launch rockets from schoolyards and football fields, they deliberately bring the conflict to civilians to cause casualties to use as evidence against Israel, which is not what the Boers did. That's what Human shield means.

I've heard all that from the IDF as well - strange how no one can ever verify it, whereas there are numerous credible witnesses, including UN personnel, who have witnessed what amount to Israel war crimes - most recently in Gaza.
Also the concept of human shield doesn't really register with the IDF; they don't appear to care, they just bomb and fire away with gay abandon - that appears to be the UN view anyway. I guess the numerous dead civilians kind of support that view.

No, and you're just being dramatic. The fact is the Palestinian elections were a referendum on war. Israel had made a peace offering, in fact peace looked in sight, and the Palestinians voted for war. This means that it isn't just the terrorists within the Palestinian territories stirring up trouble with Israel. At a grass roots level, the people want war. I don't quite understand why they then call Israel's invasion of Gaza unjust when the Government they voted for is at war with Israel. Do they think that they can fire rockets at Israeli kindergardens and then not be invaded?

The fact is that the Palestinians chose, in democratic elections, a non-corrupt political party with an extensive social care program: the West didn't like the Palestinian's democratic choice and promptly decided to pull the plug on funds.

The result was not a vote for war, a vote for resistance against an occupier certainly, but Hamas is not a single issue party, and to suggest that the civilian population voted expressly for war is a total nonsense and seeks only to try to attribute all blame for the IDF's excesses and war crimes, and the politicial pig-headedness of Israel at the foot of the very people Israel occupies and oppresses. Remember, Israeli is oppressing and repressing these people, this is not an even match.

As for Israeli peace offerings, well, they have always been unreasonable and solely to Israel's advantage, Israeli politicians are certainly far smarter than their Palestinian opponents.

I do so like the concern the supporters of the racist state of Israel have for Israeli children, re: missiles at kindergardens. I wonder why the life of a Palestinian child is worth so much less?

Many are speaking and have an opinion on this thorny issue, including myself, so I decided that before I commented further I would do some research and actually look into this whole situation.

I hope that what I present below helps others to understand what is happening there and to perhaps shift their gaze slightly and be more open and less judgemental of all parties involved. The quotes below come from a book written by a Polish Rabbi who survived death camps and pogroms of the Warsaw ghetto. He later became the Senior Rabbi at the Hebrew Theological Centre in Illinois. The book was published originally in 1961 and was banned by Israel. The ban was lifted in 2008 as it was felt the book was "now irrelevant"

Originally Posted by ההיסטוריה של יהודה (The History of Judah) by Rabbi Selig STARR (1893-1989)

Much has been written on the history of Judah and the Israeli people, but much of this is biased toward Israel and Jewish agenda's of the modern times. The truth is the people of Israel have never had a land of their own throughout their history. When the exodus took place from Egypt the Jewish people settled in Philistine as the only people who would allow them any permanent settlement where the Philistines. Over time the area that the Jewish people occupied became known as Judah, meaning "of the Jewish". When the Romans took control of the region they incorrectly attributed the name to a region that encompassed much of Philistine and Pheonecia.

Interesting, I was not aware of that part of the history of the region.

Originally Posted by ההיסטוריה של יהודה (The History of Judah) by Rabbi Selig STARR (1893-1989)

This decision almost certainly had political and military origins as the Jewish peoples were the only ones who actually welcomed the Roman occupation, and it was the Romans who gave these early Jewish Leaders the powers that later came to be so despised by the early Christians.

Seems to me this support backfired on the Jewish population, but it does explain why they were treated less harshly in general than the other groups who lived there at the time and managed to retain power and wealth.

Originally Posted by ההיסטוריה של יהודה (The History of Judah) by Rabbi Selig STARR (1893-1989)

Judah reached it's maximum size between the years 78BC and 112BC when it encompassed all of the area now covered by Lebanon, Israel (Including the West Bank and Gaza strip[inserted by me for clarification of locations])) and large tracts of modern day Jordan and the Sinai peninsula..

Interesting, I have often wonder how big Judea was and exactly what area it encompassed.

Originally Posted by ההיסטוריה של יהודה (The History of Judah) by Rabbi Selig STARR (1893-1989)

In these days the Pheonecian and Philistine populations lived in peace with their Jewish brethren, all were seen as Judaic and thus brothers against the Roman occupation.

Perhaps they should all remember this and start to work together??

Originally Posted by ההיסטוריה של יהודה (The History of Judah) by Rabbi Selig STARR (1893-1989)

Even during the crusades waged by the European Pope the, by now, Islamic followers and the Jewish populations of the region lived in reasonable harmony and were united against the Christian invaders.

I remember this from doing the history of the Crusades at School.

Originally Posted by ההיסטוריה של יהודה (The History of Judah) by Rabbi Selig STARR (1893-1989)

The modern problem in Palestine, which is a Hebrew spelling of the old Philistine name, was caused by an influx of European Jews who had little knowledge or understanding of their own peoples history. Some of this was caused by bias in their education but some was caused by their bias against the Islamic people of the region. Many Jewish people took up arms against the British who now controlled the region and inflicted many senseless deaths on both the civilian Palestinian and British populations of the region. Even during the war in Europe it is know that many Jewish "freedom fighters" colluded with German forces in the middle East to help overcome the British control of the region.

I had heard comments in the past about Jewish collaboration with the German Forces in the region but had always dismissed it, but here is a senior and respected Rabbi making a similar claim. I suppose if those in Palestine were unaware of exactly what was happening in Europe then they likely saw the Germans as a hope for a free Jewish State. I bet those who survived the war felt a little like traitors after when the truth came out.

Originally Posted by ההיסטוריה של יהודה (The History of Judah) by Rabbi Selig STARR (1893-1989)

Israel is nation that was not founded in the spirit of our faith, it was founded by murderers and despots and they played on the guilt felt by the European and American peoples for the events that took place under Hitler and the fascist sympathisers in Europe. Persecution of the Palestinian people is akin to the persecution that Jewish people have suffered themselves over the millennia. A solution to this problem must be found, but the Palestinian peoples now do not trust Jewish people and this cannot change until both sides agree to lay down the gun. Israel must not persecute the Palestinian peoples and must work with the Arab nations to discover a long term and workable people for the region that must involve a free and Palestinian controlled homeland, only this can guarantee any form of peace in the region.

How prophetic this man was, and how honest. He accepted that people of the Jewish faith had made some mistakes and that they needed to work with the Palestinians and the people of the other Arab nations to solve this thorny issue.

Also, see below, the following information I have taken from the Israeli Foreign Affairs Website, the comments I have inserted in bold is information I have managed to find about the attacks on the net when the information can be relied upon to be independent and accurate.

While the Palestinians claim that terrorism is a response to "occupation," the fact is that Palestinian terrorism predates Israel's presence in the territories. Numerous terrorist attacks murdered and maimed Israeli civilians during the two decades before 1967 (and even before the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948). Therefore, terrorism was and still is nothing less than a tool intended to eventually bring about the destruction of Israel itself.

There is no independent verification of acts of terror against Jewish populations prior to 1947, although there are accounts of physical beatings by Palestinian Police employed by the British.

Jan 1, 1952 - Jerusalem
7 armed terrorists attacked and killed a 19 year-old girl in her home, in the neighborhood of Beit Yisrael. (Witnesses did not identify the men involved and independent investigations indicated that robbery may have been the motive. It was confirmed the girl was Palestinian working in a wealthy Jewish home and had been raped by at least two persons. Palestinians later identified three Palestinians and two European Jews involved in the crime, all were shot by Palestinian Police during an attempt to arrest them. It was later shown these same individuals had been involved in numerous crimes against both Jewish and Palestinian homes.)

June 9, 1953 - Lod and Hadera
Terrorists killed a resident of Lod, after throwing hand grenades and spraying gunfire in all directions. On the same night, another group of terrorists attacked a house in Hadera.( Those attacked have independently been linked to organised crime and corruption, it has never been shown who carried out the murders, but evidence gathered at the time indicates Europeans from the ammunition cases left at the scene. At this time European weapons were not available to Palestinians)

Jun 11, 1953 - Kfar Hess
Terrorists attacked a young couple in their home and shot them to death.(Terrorism not proved. Burglary seems the most likely cause. No suspects identified.)

Mar 17, 1954 - Maale Akrabim
Terrorists ambushed a bus traveling from Eilat to Tel Aviv, opening fire at short range. The terrorists boarded the bus, and shot each passenger, one by one, murdering 11. (Terrorist attack on off duty IDF personnel)

Jan 2, 1955 - Judean Desert
2 hikers killed by terrorists. (Three German and one English later identified as the killers and the motive appears to have been robbery and not politics or religion. The three were later shot dead in Egypt when attempting to escape after robbing an off duty Policeman at gun point who was shot and wounded in the incident)

Mar 24, 1955 - Patish
1 young woman killed and 18 wounded when terrorists threw hand grenades and opened fire on a crowded wedding celebration. (The wounded were all Palestinians, only one Jewish person injured. Conflict was between families and not political)

Apr 7, 1956 - Ashkelon
1 young woman killed when terrorists threw 3 hand grenades into her house. (No Information available)

Apr 7, 1956 - Kibbutz Givat Chaim
2 killed when terrorists opened fire on a car. (No Information available)

Apr 11, 1956 - Shafrir (Kfar Chabad)
3 children and 1 youth worker killed, and 5 injured, when terrorists opened fire on a synagogue full of children and teenagers. (Witnesses identified 5 IDF personnel outside the Synagogue at the time of the attack. One was killed and this is believed to be the "Youth Worker". )

Sep 12, 1956 - Ein Ofarim
Terrorists killed 3 Druze guards. (Confirmed)

Sep 23, 1956 - Kibbutz Ramat Rachel
4 archaeologists killed and 16 wounded when terrorists opened fire from a Jordanian position. (It is believed the attack may have been undertaken by Jordanian Border Guards and not Terrorists. Many feel this may have been an attempt to goad Israel into attacking Jordanian positions)

Oct 4, 1956 - Sdom
5 Israeli workers killed.(No Information available)

Oct 9, 1956 - Neve Hadasah
2 workers were killed in an orchard of the youth village.(No Information available)

Nov 8, 1956 - Terrorists opened fire on a train, attacked cars and blew up wells, in the north and center of Israel. 6 Israelis were wounded.(Confirmed)

Feb 18, 1957 - Nir Yitzhak
2 civilians killed by terrorist landmines. (The landmine was actually a British one laid during WWII in case of German attack. Confirmed after reference to maps held by the British and submitted to the UN investigation)

Apr 16, 1957 - Kibbutz Mesilot
2 guards killed by terrorists who infiltrated from Jordan.(Confirmed)

May 29, 1957 - Kibbutz Kisufim
1 killed and 2 wounded when their vehicle struck a landmine.(The landmine was actually a British one laid during WWII in case of German attack. Confirmed after reference to maps held by the British and submitted to the UN investigation)

Aug 23, 1957 - Kibbutz Beit Govrin
2 guards of the Israeli Mekorot water company killed.(Robbery appears to have been the motive, but not enough evidence for either conclusion)

Feb 11, 1958 - Kfar Yona
Terrorists killed a resident of Moshav Yanov.(Confirmed. Moshav Yanov identified as an operative The Institute for Intelligence and Special Operations (Mossad))

Apr 5, 1958 - Tel Lachish
Terrorists lying in ambush shot and killed 2 people.(Confirmed)

May 26, 1958 - Jerusalem
4 Israeli police officers killed in a Jordanian attack on Mt. Scopus.(Confirmed)

Nov 17, 1958 - Mt. of the Beatitudes | Syrian terrorists killed the wife of the British air attache in Israel, who was staying at the guesthouse of the Italian Convent.(Confirmed)

Dec 3, 1958- Kibbutz Gonen
A shepherd killed and 31 civilians wounded in an artillery attack.

Feb 1, 1959 - Moshav Zavdiel
3 civilians killed by a terrorist landmine.(The landmine was actually a British one laid during WWII in case of German attack. Confirmed after reference to maps held by the British and submitted to the UN investigation)

Apr 27, 1959 - Masada
2 hikers shot and killed at close range.(Confirmed)

Apr 26, 1960 - Ashkelon
Terrorists killed a resident of the city.
Jan 1, 1965 - Palestinian terrorists attempted to bomb the National Water Carrier - the first attack carried out by the PLO's Fatah faction.(Confirmed)

July 5, 1965 - Mitzpe Massua
A Fatah cell planted explosives near Beit Guvrin, and on the railroad tracks to Jerusalem near Kfar Battir.(Confirmed)

May 16, 1966 - Northern Galilee region. 2 Israelis killed when their jeep hit a terrorist landmine. Tracks led into Syria.(The landmine was actually a British one laid during WWII in case of German attack. Confirmed after reference to maps held by the British and submitted to the UN investigation)

Jul 13, 1966 - Almagor
2 soldiers and 1 civilian killed when their truck struck a terrorist landmine.(The landmine was actually a British one laid during WWII in case of German attack. Confirmed after reference to maps held by the British and submitted to the UN investigation)

I think shows that both sides need to stop playing devils advocate with the truth, and sit and talk. They will solve nothing whilst they lie about each other, distort the truth and simply refuse to talk.

Originally Posted by The Untalented Mr Ripley

The plain fact is that Palestinian land, that is land legally owned by individual Palestinians was arbitrarily handed to incoming zionists in order to create a state, and to do so expressly and explicitly against the wishes of the majority of the incumbant population and against the wishes of neigbhouring states. Certainly Palestinians supported the fight to prevent their land from being taken by the zionists and indeed from being force to live in a zionist state, however, the subsequent war was fought between Israel and her neighbours, not between Israel and the Palestinian people; a very important distinction. So, precisely how did the Palestinian people bring the current situation on their own heads? Even if they were against a war, the Syrians and Egyptians and most likely the, Iraqis would have pursued one anyway.

Not prior to 1948. Prior to 1948 no land was stolen, Jews arrived and bought land or settled on uninhabited land, often away from Arab settlements. The land 'stealing' bit occurred when Israel took land in the 1948 war, and again in 1967, essentially as both a buffer zone that became inhabited and as war reparations. A point to make was that Palestinians left this land to flee the violence, but were more willing to do so based on Arab promises of being able to return when they had won. Those Arabs that remained were allowed to become citizens of Israel. And yes, the Palestinians were part of the conflict. The 1948 war was essentially the second phase of an ongoing conflict which had started in 1947 with the declaration of the two state solution and an end to the British Mandate. Arab groups began rioting which quickly escalated into civil war.

I imagine that Christian, Jew and Muslim co-existed so peacefully because the racial / religious population of Palestine had evolved and stablised over many many generations. It was upset by mass immigration, that of the zionists.

I would largely agree with that. However I would also point out that immigration was initially encouraged by the King of the Ottoman Empire, until its dissolvement, and then became the only means of escaping the Genocide.

The Grand Mufti was one voice, and certainly some amongst the Palestinian population supported the Germans purely because they were fighting the colonial occupier, Britain and wished for a free Palestinian state. Trawl the history books and you can find Jews who collaborated with the Nazis; are we therefore to assume that because one or two collaborated that the entire Jewish people were pro-Nazi? That appears to be the logic of your argument. You also overlook the point that the Grand Mufti appeared at least in part to be concerned with the increased immigration into Palestine of alien Europeans (Jews) that threatened the age old peaceful co-existance of Jew, Muslim and Christian.

The Grand Mufti was one voice yes, but a very powerful one, not just as Grand Mufti, but also as what was essentially second in command of the Pan-Arabic Armies. And yes, some Jewish groups colluded or attempted to to fight the British, however, they were fighting what they saw as occupiers, not on a racial basis. The Mufti wanted Palestine to become another Islamic State. Also I hardly see how genocide is an acceptable reaction to over immigration.

With respect, I believe you are well aware of the real reason why Israel refuses, illegally, to allow Palestinian refugees to return: numbers. If the refugees were all allowed to return Jews would be in the minority and Israel would cease to be a zionist state. Have you ever paused to wonder why the refugees and other Palestinians are so angry (albeit their anger I beleive has generally been overstated, many would simply like to live their lives freely and in peace) - Israel has created this anger and simply seeks to wash its hands of the mess it created.

Yes, I do believe there are groups within Israel that believe that. However, there does remain the fundamental problems I have stated. Palestinian refugees could not return even if Israel wanted them to. Another issue is that the majority of these refugees come from inside the 1967 borders. That land is now the country of Israel (as opposed to occupied land), so any returning Palestinians would have to become citizens of Israel, rather than citizens of Palestine.

Ifs, buts and maybes. In war their is a both a legal and moral responsibility to avoid civilian casualties; the history of the IDF is littered with the bodies of civilian men, women and children: entire towerblocks bombed because the IDF suspected someone might be using it as a look-out point.......a war crime is a war crime is a war crime.

Yes there is, from both sides. However the war is essentially unique in the world. What you have here is basically an almost full scale war being waged right on top of high concentration urban areas. So naturally civilian deaths are comparatively going to be higher than other wars. Imagine the entire of both the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars going on in populated cities. Another point is that the Palestinian groups intentionally endanger civilians. They fire their rockets from playgrounds and snipe from occupied houses, therefore putting civilians in even more danger than they already are. What's more Israel actually does more than any other state to protect civilian life, including warning of impending strikes which would also give the militants time to get away.

As for Ariel Sharon resigning...poor return, an Israeli "investigation", a resignation and 100s dead; all murdered whilst the IDF stood by, neglecting their legal duty and obligation to protect the civilian population. More Palestinian bodies, more blood on Sharon and the IDF's hands.

Again, that is exceedingly better than how the PLO, Hamas and other groups conduct themselves.

In terms of Israel's conduct vs that of the Palestinians; F-16s, battle tanks, laser guided weapons, heavy cannon vs WWII rockets and AK-47s....you want a fair fight? If the Palestinians are so blood thirsty, why are there usually something like 30-50 Palestinian casualities for every Israeli casualty. Israel's conduct is that of a repressive imperialist power who gives little thought to the rights of those who live under her domination, and you criticise the Palestinians for resisting an illegal occupation - I take it that those blood-thirsty Tibetans were asking for it as well?

So you want Israel to use WWII rockets (which are exceedingly inaccurate which would kill more civilians) and AK-47s because the Palestinians are using them? Maybe they should adopt Palestinian tactics as well, that seems only fair. They should stop trying to kill so many militants and just blow up schools and kindergardens. And really, screw giving them warning or aid, let them starve. Maybe some suicide bombers for good measure, hell, they should even move the IDF headquarters into a school or maybe under a hospital. And I think all the IDF should wear masks, they should probably be issued with women and children as shields too.

So it is only the Palestinians who have used terrorism? Israel is known to have undertaken numerous acts of terrorism; murders in third countries, the torture of suspects, demolision of property belonging the PLO / Hamas suspects, land theft, the deaths of 1,000s of civilians in Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon, the wilful destruction of civilian infrastructure in Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon....sorry, could you remind me again who is the terrorist?

Terroism: Deliberate targeting of civilians and their infrastructure to achieve a political, economic or ideological aim.

Considering it isn't IDF policy to kill civilians, that gets them one up on Hamas. Also Murders in Third World countries is not terrorism, neither is torture of suspects, or demolition of enemy infrastructure, or technically land theft, and the vast majority of civilian deaths were accidental (which is again, one up on Hamas and other groups attacks, in which 100% of civilian deaths were intentional).

I've heard all that from the IDF as well - strange how no one can ever verify it, whereas there are numerous credible witnesses, including UN personnel, who have witnessed what amount to Israel war crimes - most recently in Gaza.
Also the concept of human shield doesn't really register with the IDF; they don't appear to care, they just bomb and fire away with gay abandon - that appears to be the UN view anyway. I guess the numerous dead civilians kind of support that view.

Actually Hamas themselves have admitted to using human shields, so there. And yes, it does register with the IDF, that's why they littered streets with pamplets warning of impending bombings, made hundreds of thousands of phonecalls to residents warning of the bombings, why they call off thousands on airstrikes against targets because of civilian casualty risk. But as I said before, simply due to the number of civilians. Here's a good example of the UN ignoring evidence of Hamas using civilians as shields, this is a quote from Alan Dershowitz, talking about Colonel Desomond Travers, who was on the Goldstone committee;

Travers came to the job having already made up his mind not to believe anything Israel said and to accept everything Hamas put forward. For example, Israel produced hard photographic evidence that Gaza mosques were used to store rockets and other weapons. Other photographs taken by journalists, also proved what everybody now acknowledges to be true: namely that Hamas, as its leaders frequently boasted, routinely use mosques as military munitions depots. When confronted with this photographic evidence, Travers said "I don't believe the photographs."

The fact is that the Palestinians chose, in democratic elections, a non-corrupt political party with an extensive social care program: the West didn't like the Palestinian's democratic choice and promptly decided to pull the plug on funds.

Not quite, Hamas is listed as a terrorist organisation by most Western Countries, so supplying it with funds would be illegal under their own laws.

The result was not a vote for war, a vote for resistance against an occupier certainly, but Hamas is not a single issue party, and to suggest that the civilian population voted expressly for war is a total nonsense and seeks only to try to attribute all blame for the IDF's excesses and war crimes, and the politicial pig-headedness of Israel at the foot of the very people Israel occupies and oppresses. Remember, Israeli is oppressing and repressing these people, this is not an even match.

Israel did not occupy Gaza (Hamas' strongest area of operations and support) at the time of the vote, in fact they had withdrawn two years previously, so that clearly isn't a vote to fight a non-existant occupier.

As for Israeli peace offerings, well, they have always been unreasonable and solely to Israel's advantage, Israeli politicians are certainly far smarter than their Palestinian opponents.

How was the withdrawal from Gaza to Israel's advantage? Or the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners?

I do so like the concern the supporters of the racist state of Israel have for Israeli children, re: missiles at kindergardens. I wonder why the life of a Palestinian child is worth so much less?

It isn't, the difference is that the Israelis don't intend to kill children, and apologise when they do. Hamas makes it their business to kill children.

Originally Posted by DCFGS3

Not prior to 1948. Prior to 1948 no land was stolen, Jews arrived and bought land or settled on uninhabited land, often away from Arab settlements. The land 'stealing' bit occurred when Israel took land in the 1948 war, and again in 1967, essentially as both a buffer zone that became inhabited and as war reparations. A point to make was that Palestinians left this land to flee the violence, but were more willing to do so based on Arab promises of being able to return when they had won. Those Arabs that remained were allowed to become citizens of Israel. And yes, the Palestinians were part of the conflict. The 1948 war was essentially the second phase of an ongoing conflict which had started in 1947 with the declaration of the two state solution and an end to the British Mandate. Arab groups began rioting which quickly escalated into civil war.

At the time of Israel's creation, the majority of the land within that state was Palestinian owned; now it isn't and the Israelis didn't pay for most of it, they merely took it. You call it what you want, but many of us call taking something that isn't yours, not paying for it and keeping it, theft.

Irrespective as to who wanted who to win, many Palestinians fled the fighting, more were ordered at zionist gun point to leave. It is inaccurate to say there was a civil war: certainly the majority Palestinian population were against the creation of the alien state on their land, but situation did not escalate to civil war - perhaps it would have done if Syria, Egypy, Jordan et al had not attacked. Again, you seek to blame the civilian population for the war between the zionists and their Arabic neighbours, I don't really understand why other to make Israel's actions slightly less repulsive.

The Grand Mufti was one voice yes, but a very powerful one, not just as Grand Mufti, but also as what was essentially second in command of the Pan-Arabic Armies. And yes, some Jewish groups colluded or attempted to to fight the British, however, they were fighting what they saw as occupiers, not on a racial basis. The Mufti wanted Palestine to become another Islamic State. Also I hardly see how genocide is an acceptable reaction to over immigration.

What genocide? It appears that one man, the Grand Mufti, saw what was coming and wanted it stopped in order for a Palestinian state to be created - hardly surprising seeing as for over 1,000 years the land had been Palestinian albeit occupied by various powers and wished to engage in self-determination. It appears you are happy to support the zionist occupation of another people's land and their subsequent self-determination, yet wish to deny the same for the native population, why? As for the zionists, they have a lovely history of nazi collaboration, terrorism and murder; something you appear gloss over.

Yes, I do believe there are groups within Israel that believe that. However, there does remain the fundamental problems I have stated. Palestinian refugees could not return even if Israel wanted them to. Another issue is that the majority of these refugees come from inside the 1967 borders. That land is now the country of Israel (as opposed to occupied land), so any returning Palestinians would have to become citizens of Israel, rather than citizens of Palestine.

With respect, this is a rather tired line used by zionists and their allies. Of course the refugees could return (which is the refugees legal right) if Israel wished it, but the Israelis don't want to allow a right of return because doing so would create a majority Palestinian population; I don't know what you call that, but I call it naked racism.

Terroism: Deliberate targeting of civilians and their infrastructure to achieve a political, economic or ideological aim.

Considering it isn't IDF policy to kill civilians, that gets them one up on Hamas. Also Murders in Third World countries is not terrorism, neither is torture of suspects, or demolition of enemy infrastructure, or technically land theft, and the vast majority of civilian deaths were accidental (which is again, one up on Hamas and other groups attacks, in which 100% of civilian deaths were intentional).

Deliberate targetting such as destroying roads, bridges, civilian airports.....is that terrorism? If so, could I draw your attention to Israel's activities in Lebanon.

Irrespective as to what the IDF's stated policy is, given that the IDF have killed 1,500 Palestinian children since 1990 it really seems a moot point as to whether they were deliberately targetted or not. Deliberate or reckless - the result is the same.

Actually Hamas themselves have admitted to using human shields, so there. And yes, it does register with the IDF, that's why they littered streets with pamplets warning of impending bombings, made hundreds of thousands of phonecalls to residents warning of the bombings, why they call off thousands on airstrikes against targets because of civilian casualty risk. But as I said before, simply due to the number of civilians. Here's a good example of the UN ignoring evidence of Hamas using civilians as shields, this is a quote from Alan Dershowitz, talking about Colonel Desomond Travers, who was on the Goldstone committee;

This doesn't remove or negate Israel's legal or moral responsibilities. The IRA used to give warnings in Northern Ireland before detonating bombs in civilian areas - I take it any deaths were down to the British for not getting civilians out in time? As for Dershowitz....ha ha ha, what really open-minded and objective observer he is, I actually feel a sense of shame to be of the same species as that creature, still at least he's heard of the Goldstone committee so perhaps there is some slight modicum of hope for him.

Not quite, Hamas is listed as a terrorist organisation by most Western Countries, so supplying it with funds would be illegal under their own laws.

How convenient. The problem with democracy is that the West is only happy with it when the "right" people get in.

Israel did not occupy Gaza (Hamas' strongest area of operations and support) at the time of the vote, in fact they had withdrawn two years previously, so that clearly isn't a vote to fight a non-existant occupier.

True about the occupation: they control all boarders, airspace, sea access, they control what goes into and out of Gaza, they engage in "targetted" killings, but no they didn't occupy..... The West Bank of course is a different matter altogether.

I think you'll also find that the Palestinian people, not just the Gazans, voted in Hamas and to say that a vote for Hamas was a vote for war is a ridiculous over simplification.

It isn't, the difference is that the Israelis don't intend to kill children, and apologise when they do. Hamas makes it their business to kill children.

Really, 1,500 "accidental" killings of children by the IDF since 1990.........yes, a great deal of difference.....

OK, a little off-topic I know......

ההיסטוריה של יהודה (The History of Judah) by Rabbi Selig STARR (1893-1989)
Much has been written on the history of Judah and the Israeli people, but much of this is biased toward Israel and Jewish agenda's of the modern times. The truth is the people of Israel have never had a land of their own throughout their history. When the exodus took place from Egypt the Jewish people settled in Philistine as the only people who would allow them any permanent settlement where the Philistines. Over time the area that the Jewish people occupied became known as Judah, meaning "of the Jewish". When the Romans took control of the region they incorrectly attributed the name to a region that encompassed much of Philistine and Pheonecia.

Whilst the first and second sentences of that extract are undoubtedly correct, factually there is zero evidence for the biblical version of the history of the Israelites. Despite well over 100 years of archaeological exploration, not one single trace of any exodus from Egypt has been found. Mounting archaeological evidence from within modern Palestine and Israel themselves over the last few years now shows that the most likely early history of the Israelites is that they were little more than bands of outcasts and dissidents from the city states in both Judea and Canaan, driven out by rising social discontent within both countries, who migrated to the uplands round the Dead Sea and the Sea of Galilee to start a new life. They settled there, and over centuries, in common with several other cultures originating from largely dispossessed people, told stories about a mythical past history to give themselves a greater validity as to how they came to be there. Even the major biblical scholars from universities within Israel itself now accept this as being the far most likely origin of their people because it's based on factual evidence, not simply an unsupported biblical legend.

Originally Posted by Kiwi 1691

Considering that Gaza has one of the highest populations densities in the world (4000-5000 people per square mile), and if they want to get supplies from the west bank they need to go through Israel. They are quite limited Pauli, I'd love to see you grow enough food to feed the populace in Gaza.




No, people like you are morons, and just happen to disagree with me. DCFGS3, and I disagree but he is along way from being a Moron, just misguided. Midas, another person I disagree with, I would never label him as a moron.



Dis-liking the Terrorist state that is Israel is not anti Semitic. Disliking the evil force of Zionism is not anti Semitic. Though many Israel supporters label people that oppose it as anti-Semitic.

You call me silly, even though you fail to comprehend the meaning of anti-Semitic. The term anti-Semitic has come to mean dislike of Jew, or prejudice etc towards Jews. It's roots may be broader than that, but so what. That is the meaning of the word currently. Something you fail to comprehend is the English language is evolutionary, it changes over time.

No Anti Semetic is an innacuratly applied term, semetic peoples are not exclusivly Jews.Hatred of some groups that originated in the Middle east is also Anti Semetic.

As for being a Moron, i believe that a nation has the right to Defend itself, you also believe that, exept in the case of the Israelis. DC has stated much of what i have said, word for word on the issue of Israel, but he is not a Moron??Yup you make a lot of Sense.

How would you resolve the Issue?

When in your mind did Israel become a Terrorist state?

Do you agree with Hamas, Iran and other such nations/organisations and groups who believe that Israel should be wiped off the map?

Does Israel have a right to Exist and if not why?

Should Israel sit back and allow its citizens to the murdered daily by a hidden enemy?

These are the questions i always ask, no one can ever answer them in a meaningfull manner.You spout hatred of Israel, you agree then with Iranian leaders and the leaders of Hamas, they have voiced the desire to wipe Israel off the map by Violence, your opinion is the same as theirs, you agree with them.

Originally Posted by The Untalented Mr Ripley

At the time of Israel's creation, the majority of the land within that state was Palestinian owned; now it isn't and the Israelis didn't pay for most of it, they merely took it. You call it what you want, but many of us call taking something that isn't yours, not paying for it and keeping it, theft.

Not if it was occupied by an enemy state, I believe they call that war reparations.

Irrespective as to who wanted who to win, many Palestinians fled the fighting, more were ordered at zionist gun point to leave. It is inaccurate to say there was a civil war: certainly the majority Palestinian population were against the creation of the alien state on their land, but situation did not escalate to civil war - perhaps it would have done if Syria, Egypy, Jordan et al had not attacked. Again, you seek to blame the civilian population for the war between the zionists and their Arabic neighbours, I don't really understand why other to make Israel's actions slightly less repulsive.

Excuse me, but how are firefights in the street, massacres committed by both sides as well as bombings not civil war? The conflict even escalated to the point where the Haganah and Palestinian groups (if less organised) were launching structured attacks and counter attacks to seize land. Palestine was essentially almost at the point of anarchy.

What genocide? It appears that one man, the Grand Mufti, saw what was coming and wanted it stopped in order for a Palestinian state to be created - hardly surprising seeing as for over 1,000 years the land had been Palestinian albeit occupied by various powers and wished to engage in self-determination. It appears you are happy to support the zionist occupation of another people's land and their subsequent self-determination, yet wish to deny the same for the native population, why? As for the zionists, they have a lovely history of nazi collaboration, terrorism and murder; something you appear gloss over.

I don't, the Palestinians should have self determination and soverignty, just not of Israeli land. And I was talking about the genocide that was threatened against the Jews by the Arabs, and actively sought after by the Grand Mufti (who as I mentioned, was running this show), so in 1948, the Israelis were quite literally fighting for their lives.

With respect, this is a rather tired line used by zionists and their allies. Of course the refugees could return (which is the refugees legal right) if Israel wished it, but the Israelis don't want to allow a right of return because doing so would create a majority Palestinian population; I don't know what you call that, but I call it naked racism.

Well be sure to let us know when you figure out how to overcome these problems without either Israel or Palestine descending into even more violence.

Deliberate targetting such as destroying roads, bridges, civilian airports.....is that terrorism? If so, could I draw your attention to Israel's activities in Lebanon.

That depends, do you class the bombings of airports, roads and bridges in virtually every other war as terrorism?

Irrespective as to what the IDF's stated policy is, given that the IDF have killed 1,500 Palestinian children since 1990 it really seems a moot point as to whether they were deliberately targetted or not. Deliberate or reckless - the result is the same.

Not quite, if they were deliberately killing them, that would be terrorism and the number would be a lot higher. Also my point still stands that due to the fact that this is a major war which has been waged almost exclusively in populated cities, it's only thanks to Israel's care to avoid civilian casualties by the methods mentioned, as well as calling of thousands of attacks, that the casualty rate has not been higher.

This doesn't remove or negate Israel's legal or moral responsibilities. The IRA used to give warnings in Northern Ireland before detonating bombs in civilian areas - I take it any deaths were down to the British for not getting civilians out in time? As for Dershowitz....ha ha ha, what really open-minded and objective observer he is, I actually feel a sense of shame to be of the same species as that creature, still at least he's heard of the Goldstone committee so perhaps there is some slight modicum of hope for him.

Except in that ticking bomb scenario it's only down to the police (the only ones to receive the warning) to clear the area, and are often given limited time. In the IDF situation, every resident is aware of the danger and should leave. What's more while terrible, the Troubles were never all out war, Northern Ireland was never declared a warzone, Palestine is.
And what's your problem with Dershowitz? He's one of the world's most famous civil rights lawyers and has been commended as such by many institutions.

How convenient. The problem with democracy is that the West is only happy with it when the "right" people get in.

Are you denying Hamas is a terrorist organisation?

True about the occupation: they control all boarders, airspace, sea access, they control what goes into and out of Gaza, they engage in "targetted" killings, but no they didn't occupy..... The West Bank of course is a different matter altogether.

That's because Hamas has this unfortunate habit of importing weapons to kill civilians with. And what's your problem with targeted killings? Or do I need to explain the concept of War to you as well?

I think you'll also find that the Palestinian people, not just the Gazans, voted in Hamas and to say that a vote for Hamas was a vote for war is a ridiculous over simplification.

Again, this is odd, considering many towns in the West Bank are free. What's more despite the occupation there, things have improved dramatically since the election, without Hamas interfering.

Really, 1,500 "accidental" killings of children by the IDF since 1990.........yes, a great deal of difference.....

It is actually, one side tries to kill as many as possible, and only fails in this endeavour because a blockade keeps more powerful weapons out of their hands, while the other tries to avoid such deaths and apologises when they do happen.

Originally Posted by pauli007001

No Anti Semetic is an innacuratly applied term, semetic peoples are not exclusivly Jews.Hatred of some groups that originated in the Middle east is also Anti Semetic.

The meaning of words change, the term anti-semitic relates to Jews, the origins of the word may have been broader.

Originally Posted by pauli007001

As for being a Moron, i believe that a nation has the right to Defend itself, you also believe that, exept in the case of the Israelis. DC has stated much of what i have said, word for word on the issue of Israel, but he is not a Moron??Yup you make a lot of Sense.

DC is highly intelligent but is misguided, you most definitely are a moron.

Originally Posted by pauli007001

How would you resolve the Issue?

The most practical way is for Israel to give back all the land stolen since 1948, then rebuild all that they have taken. If they wish to fight Hamas, killing people doesn't work. The more people Israel kills the more support there is for Hamas. Your inability to see that is one way you are a moron. If Israel changes its actions to create support among the Palestinian population Hamas will find recruitment far harder. Israel's current path is what created Hamas, the longer they continue the current path the stronger Hamas will get.

Originally Posted by pauli007001

When in your mind did Israel become a Terrorist state?

Since they bombed schools, homes. Since they cut supplies of to the civilian population. Since even the press and UN are not safe from murder by the IDF. Yes the IDF not only murders Palestinians, they also murder western reporters and kill UN observers.

Originally Posted by pauli007001

Do you agree with Hamas, Iran and other such nations/organisations and groups who believe that Israel should be wiped off the map?

I won't condone Hamas's actions, but I will not condemn them.

Originally Posted by pauli007001

Does Israel have a right to Exist and if not why?

No, the UN had no right to create Israel.

Originally Posted by pauli007001

Should Israel sit back and allow its citizens to the murdered daily by a hidden enemy?

Israel states that they kill Palestinians because a few Israelis are killed. Well why do you think the brave Palestinians fight? The brave Palestinians fight because they have no other option, they fight because they see their friends being killed every day.

Originally Posted by Kiwi 1691

The meaning of words change, the term anti-semitic relates to Jews, the origins of the word may have been broader.



DC is highly intelligent but is misguided, you most definitely are a moron.



The most practical way is for Israel to give back all the land stolen since 1948, then rebuild all that they have taken. If they wish to fight Hamas, killing people doesn't work. The more people Israel kills the more support there is for Hamas. Your inability to see that is one way you are a moron. If Israel changes its actions to create support among the Palestinian population Hamas will find recruitment far harder. Israel's current path is what created Hamas, the longer they continue the current path the stronger Hamas will get.



Since they bombed schools, homes. Since they cut supplies of to the civilian population. Since even the press and UN are not safe from murder by the IDF. Yes the IDF not only murders Palestinians, they also murder western reporters and kill UN observers.



I won't condone Hamas's actions, but I will not condemn them.



No, the UN had no right to create Israel.



Israel states that they kill Palestinians because a few Israelis are killed. Well why do you think the brave Palestinians fight? The brave Palestinians fight because they have no other option, they fight because they see their friends being killed every day.

So Ok you deny the existence of other Semetic peoples,isnt that some kind of genocidal desire, denying that an entire group of people exist??What does that make you?


So to "wipe israel off the map is your second point?What then do we do with all the israeli citizens (born after 1948) we know what the palestinians would do , they have stated their desire to kill em all, you must also wish for that, so to desire the death of all Jews in Israel/palestine is not in any way Anti semetic yet when Hitler wished the same in Europe it was Anti semetic. Now I get it Genocide, racism and hate are defined in a different way depending on geographical Location?Murdering huge numbers of Jews(particulary targeting Kids, as Hamas often, in fact mostly Do(the MSM tend not to report that one, the prime targets of Hamas rockets are schools, the IDF do not specifically target civvies, Hamas only targets civvies) is not genocide in the Middle east but to do the same in Europe is genocide???????


You people make no sense!!!

Its like the old loony left argument that 911 happened because America Invaded Iraq, despite the Invasion of Iraq happening 2 years after 911 (now I know you say i am a Moron but explain that one to me, you lefties being so smart I am sure you can give clarification on that one)!!

Name one incident where a journalist or a UN worker was targeted and Murdered by an IDF soldier (do lets follow generally accepted rules and laws governing what constitutes murder and then political will directing such action).

Israelis see their KIDS schools under rocket attack daily by the savage and Brutal regime of the Palestinian Government.
Look to the state controlled TV that Kids in Palestine are subjected to, encouraging them to wish for nothing more in life then to become a martyr(suicide bomber) it is taught at school, at home and on the TV By the parents of very young palestinian kids, such is the desire of Palestinians to exterminate all Jews in the middle east.

Originally Posted by pauli007001

So Ok you deny the existence of other Semetic peoples,isnt that some kind of genocidal desire, denying that an entire group of people exist??What does that make you?

Not what I said.

Originally Posted by pauli007001

So to "wipe israel off the map is your second point?What then do we do with all the israeli citizens (born after 1948) we know what the palestinians would do , they have stated their desire to kill em all, you must also wish for that, so to desire the death of all Jews in Israel/palestine is not in any way Anti semetic yet when Hitler wished the same in Europe it was Anti semetic. Now I get it Genocide, racism and hate are defined in a different way depending on geographical Location?Murdering huge numbers of Jews(particulary targeting Kids, as Hamas often, in fact mostly Do(the MSM tend not to report that one, the prime targets of Hamas rockets are schools, the IDF do not specifically target civvies, Hamas only targets civvies) is not genocide in the Middle east but to do the same in Europe is genocide???????

I never wrote "wipe Israel off the map"

Originally Posted by pauli007001

You people make no sense!!!

At Least I don't make stuff up.

Originally Posted by pauli007001

Its like the old loony left argument that 911 happened because America Invaded Iraq, despite the Invasion of Iraq happening 2 years after 911 (now I know you say i am a Moron but explain that one to me, you lefties being so smart I am sure you can give clarification on that one)!!

Who says that 911 was a reaction to the invasion of Iraq, (unless you mean the original one).

Originally Posted by pauli007001

Name one incident where a journalist or a UN worker was targeted and Murdered by an IDF soldier (do lets follow generally accepted rules and laws governing what constitutes murder and then political will directing such action).

Reporters

Raffaele Ciriello
Imad Abu Zahra
Issam Tillawi
Nazih Darwazeh
James Miller
Mohamed Abu Halima
Basil Ibrahim Faraj
Fadel Shana

Fadel Shana


Reuters

April 16, 2008, in Gaza Strip, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory



Cameraman Shana, 23, was killed and soundman Wafa Abu Mizyed was wounded after they stopped their vehicle to film Israeli military forces several hundred feet away, Reuters reported. Shana was using a tripod-mounted camera when an Israeli tank fired on the men. Eight other bystanders, most under the age of 16, were killed.
The Reuters cameraman was wearing a flak jacket marked "Press" and had gotten out of a sport-utility vehicle bearing the markings "TV." A spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told Reuters: "In our operations we try to be as surgical as possible and make every effort not to see innocent people caught up in the fighting."


James Miller


freelance

May 2, 2003, in Rafah, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory


Miller, a British freelance cameraman and film director with U.K.-based Frostbite Films, was fatally shot in the Gaza Strip. An award-winning documentary filmmaker, the journalist was with a crew in the town of Rafah in southern Gaza near the Egyptian border filming an HBO documentary on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That evening, he and his four-person crew were in a Palestinian home filming the army's demolition of houses in the area that the Israeli army alleged contained tunnels used to smuggle arms.

According to published testimonies of eyewitnesses and an Associated Press Television News cameraman who was filming in the same house, the incident occurred between 11 p.m. and 11:30 p.m., when the group decided to leave. Miller, his producer Saira Shah, and translator Abdul Rahman Abdullah attempted to identify themselves to the Israeli troops in the area while they were leaving. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) troops were in armored personnel carriers (APCs) about 330 feet (100 meters) away from the house where the journalists had been filming.

The journalists were wearing jackets and helmets marked "TV." Abdullah waved a white flag while Miller used a flashlight to illuminate the flag. As they approached the APCs, the journalists shouted "Hello," and then a shot was fired. The journalists yelled that they were British journalists, and a second shot was fired immediately after. In video footage of the incident, it appears that that the second shot hit Miller, who was struck in the neck. Several more shots followed.

An Israeli army spokesman was quoted as saying that troops in the area returned fire after being fired on by rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs). Later, the army said that Miller was struck by a bullet from behind, claiming that he may have been hit by Palestinian fire.

A detailed onsite investigation sponsored by Miller's colleagues, friends, and family and conducted by British security consultant Chris Cobb-Smith of Chiron Resources Limited security company (www.chiron-resources.com) concluded that Miller and his crew "were consciously and deliberately targeted by the IDF soldiers." The report added that it is not clear "whether this action is a deliberate policy by the IDF or whether this incident is a result of ill discipline and malicious intent by the junior soldiers." A copy of the investigation is available at a Web site hosted by James Miller's family, www.justice4jamesmiller.com.

According to the investigation, the area where Miller's crew was operating was quiet for about an hour before he was killed. Prior to that time, witnesses heard only sporadic gunfire, but not in the journalists' vicinity. The report concluded that the IDF must have known that the journalists were in the area.

After viewing the video taken of the incident, Cobb-Smith discounted the IDF's claim that RPG fire had occurred before the troops opened fire on the journalists and observed that the shots were fired without warning. Based on the trajectory of the bullets fired, as well as the unanimous testimony of eyewitnesses who said the fire came from the direction of the APC's, Cobb-Smith also disagrees with suggestions from Israeli officials that the shots came from behind the crew.

As of press time, an Israeli military police investigation into the incident was under way, and the IDF's investigation had not been made public.

UN, there have been plenty of attacks on the UN by Israel

Some well known ones
1996 shelling of Qana - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
CNN.com - U.N.: Israeli airstrike hits U.N. observer post - Jul 26, 2006

There are plenty of others if you look.

Originally Posted by pauli007001

Israelis see their KIDS schools under rocket attack daily by the savage and Brutal regime of the Palestinian Government.

Savage and brutal regime, how?

There are not rocket attacks every day, the number of rocket attacks aren't that high and the fatalities are even lower. Though obviously you value the lives of a few Israelis higher than thousands of Palestinians.

Originally Posted by pauli007001

Look to the state controlled TV that Kids in Palestine are subjected to, encouraging them to wish for nothing more in life then to become a martyr(suicide bomber) it is taught at school, at home and on the TV By the parents of very young palestinian kids, such is the desire of Palestinians to exterminate all Jews in the middle east.

They are occupied and oppressed, the only option they see that they have left is to fight. Imagine if someone occupied massachusetts Pauli. Schools and homes were bombed continuously, they shut down your power, water, food. They stopped your ability to get around freely. Would you sit there contently?

Pauli and Kiwi, can you two please not resort to personal insults and get the thread back to the original topic!

Originally Posted by DCFGS3

Not if it was occupied by an enemy state, I believe they call that war reparations.


Excuse me, but how are firefights in the street, massacres committed by both sides as well as bombings not civil war? The conflict even escalated to the point where the Haganah and Palestinian groups (if less organised) were launching structured attacks and counter attacks to seize land. Palestine was essentially almost at the point of anarchy.

I admire your ability to avoid the point: the Israeli state forced, often at gun point, 10,000s of Palestinian civilians from homes their families had occupied, often for several generations. The Israelis then occupied those homes, that land and once the fighting had finished they refused to allow the refugees to return and turned over Palestinian property to zionist settlers: theft pure and simple.

War reparations: what, the zionists want the Palestinians to pay with their land and homes for a war the Israelis knew they were provoking by declaring a Jewish Zionist state on territory where the Palestinians were the majority population and owned the vast majority of the land. War reparations, if any were required, surely must be made between nation states, not the civilian population who were resident in the state that won the war - albeit they did not wish for that state to exist and where subsequently barred from returning to it or membership of it because they were not Jewish.

Calling the sporatic fighting between the zionists, Palestinians and British a civil war is overstepping the mark, but even if true, your point? You seek to punish non-combatants from the majority ethnic group at that time because they opposed an essessentially European Jewish Zionist state being formed by the minority of the population who had recently flooded into the territory; for their opposition to the minority the majority must be punished by loosing their homes and their rights?

Excuse me, but how are firefights in the street, massacres committed by both sides as well as bombings not civil war? The conflict even escalated to the point where the Haganah and Palestinian groups (if less organised) were launching structured attacks and counter attacks to seize land. Palestine was essentially almost at the point of anarchy.

You portray a partial picture. There certainly were a number of incidents and crimes committed by both sides, not in my book - but even if there was such a civil war, the actual war when it came was fought between nation states.

I don't, the Palestinians should have self determination and soverignty, just not of Israeli land. And I was talking about the genocide that was threatened against the Jews by the Arabs, and actively sought after by the Grand Mufti (who as I mentioned, was running this show), so in 1948, the Israelis were quite literally fighting for their lives.

The Palestinians threatened the alien state of Israel, a state set up on Palestinian land and against the wishes of the majority population who resided within what became Israel's boarders. There were numerous threats made by both sides and from what I can gather, the primary aim of the neighbouring Arab states was to invade Israel and eject the recent immigrants - hardly genocide. Also seeking to attribute collective responsibility to the entire Palestinian population for the musings of one man is somewhat flawed and unreasonable, imho. You also take the Grand Mufti (can there be a more amusing title to possess) out of context: mass European Jewish immigration, with these Jews being zionists intent on creating a Zionist, ergo Jewish supremist, state - his words may well have been ill advised, but he clearly saw the threat to the Palestinian population and their legitimate aspirations for statehood on land they had own for over a millenia.

Well be sure to let us know when you figure out how to overcome these problems without either Israel or Palestine descending into even more violence.



Deliberate targetting such as destroying roads, bridges, civilian airports.....is that terrorism? If so, could I draw your attention to Israel's activities in Lebanon.


That depends, do you class the bombings of airports, roads and bridges in virtually every other war as terrorism?



Irrespective as to what the IDF's stated policy is, given that the IDF have killed 1,500 Palestinian children since 1990 it really seems a moot point as to whether they were deliberately targetted or not. Deliberate or reckless - the result is the same.


Not quite, if they were deliberately killing them, that would be terrorism and the number would be a lot higher. Also my point still stands that due to the fact that this is a major war which has been waged almost exclusively in populated cities, it's only thanks to Israel's care to avoid civilian casualties by the methods mentioned, as well as calling of thousands of attacks, that the casualty rate has not been higher.

Firstly: it is not my problem to solve, it is Israels: over the years their actions in the form of "targetted killings", building on Palestinian land, unlawfully evicting Palestinians from their own land, demolishing property belonging to relatives of suspected terrorists, disenfranchisement, torture, etc. has done nothing but fuel anger and resentment. Israel has not sought to solve the problem, it has sought to perpetuate it.

In terms of destroying Lebanon's infrastructure: I do not classify Israel's attack on a sovereign state because of military activitiy in an area not controlled by the Lebanese Government as constituting a war. Israel took out targets not of direct usefulness to Hezbollah, the IDF were punishing the Lebanese for being weak, a position they found themselves in (in part) due to the activities of Israel and Syria. Much of Israels actions in Lebanon clearly constituted terrorism.

As for a war in Gaza: Israel has been the occupying force in Gaza, it controls Gaza and its boarders: the Palestinians there are resisting Israeli oppression. In terms of casualities, yes they could have been worse, but Israel was utterly reckless, fought with a blatant disregard for civilian life, they stand accused of war crimes by the UN, and managed to kill more civilians than Hamas fighters. The arrogance and disregard for innocent life is breathtaking.

Except in that ticking bomb scenario it's only down to the police (the only ones to receive the warning) to clear the area, and are often given limited time. In the IDF situation, every resident is aware of the danger and should leave. What's more while terrible, the Troubles were never all out war, Northern Ireland was never declared a warzone, Palestine is.
And what's your problem with Dershowitz? He's one of the world's most famous civil rights lawyers and has been commended as such by many institutions.

Semantics. The IDF cannot absolve themselves of the responsibility to protect the civilian population. As for Dershowitz, I can well believe that he has received many accolades from many right-wing and pro-Israel institutions: the man is rapidly pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian, his concerns for civil rights appears limited to zionists.

Are you denying Hamas is a terrorist organisation?




True about the occupation: they control all boarders, airspace, sea access, they control what goes into and out of Gaza, they engage in "targetted" killings, but no they didn't occupy..... The West Bank of course is a different matter altogether.


That's because Hamas has this unfortunate habit of importing weapons to kill civilians with. And what's your problem with targeted killings? Or do I need to explain the concept of War to you as well?



I think you'll also find that the Palestinian people, not just the Gazans, voted in Hamas and to say that a vote for Hamas was a vote for war is a ridiculous over simplification.


Again, this is odd, considering many towns in the West Bank are free. What's more despite the occupation there, things have improved dramatically since the election, without Hamas interfering.

Per se, no I do not believe that Hamas are a terrorist organisation. I despite many of their methods and condemn their attacks on civilian targets, but it is legitimate for them to resist Israeli occupation and oppression.

Targetted killings = extra judicial killings = murder.

As for explaining war to me, yes please, I would like to know how the civilian population resisting an occupation is constituted as being a war.

Oh, towns in the West Bank are free from the occupation are they: so Israel doesn't control what goes into or out of those towns, it doesn't have forces standing by waiting to go in, it allows freedom of movement does it......hardly.

It is actually, one side tries to kill as many as possible, and only fails in this endeavour because a blockade keeps more powerful weapons out of their hands, while the other tries to avoid such deaths and apologises when they do happen.

The numbers suggest otherwise. The IDF's hands drip with the blood of murdered Palestinian children.

Originally Posted by The Untalented Mr Ripley

I admire your ability to avoid the point: the Israeli state forced, often at gun point, 10,000s of Palestinian civilians from homes their families had occupied, often for several generations. The Israelis then occupied those homes, that land and once the fighting had finished they refused to allow the refugees to return and turned over Palestinian property to zionist settlers: theft pure and simple.

Obviously they refused to allow them to return, they were citizens of an enemy state and would have posed a serious risk to Israeli security.

War reparations: what, the zionists want the Palestinians to pay with their land and homes for a war the Israelis knew they were provoking by declaring a Jewish Zionist state on territory where the Palestinians were the majority population and owned the vast majority of the land. War reparations, if any were required, surely must be made between nation states, not the civilian population who were resident in the state that won the war - albeit they did not wish for that state to exist and where subsequently barred from returning to it or membership of it because they were not Jewish.

They were barred because they were the enemy. Enemy civilians, maybe, but as we've seen in this war in particular, civilian does not mean harmless. Now that Nation state did pay war reparations, Palestine gave up quite a few pieces of land. Now you might be wondering what happened to this Palestine, well that became part of Jordan and Egypt. The Israelis were quite willing (and in most cases continue to be) to live with a Palestinian state, however it appears Palestine's Arab neighbours weren't...

Calling the sporatic fighting between the zionists, Palestinians and British a civil war is overstepping the mark, but even if true, your point? You seek to punish non-combatants from the majority ethnic group at that time because they opposed an essessentially European Jewish Zionist state being formed by the minority of the population who had recently flooded into the territory; for their opposition to the minority the majority must be punished by loosing their homes and their rights?

My point was that is was these people who had previously been supportive of the destruction of Israel, and in many cases aided in achieving that goal. They were the enemy, and it was a threat to Israeli security to allow them back into their homes, especially considering the war really wasn't over.

The Palestinians threatened the alien state of Israel, a state set up on Palestinian land and against the wishes of the majority population who resided within what became Israel's boarders. There were numerous threats made by both sides and from what I can gather, the primary aim of the neighbouring Arab states was to invade Israel and eject the recent immigrants - hardly genocide. Also seeking to attribute collective responsibility to the entire Palestinian population for the musings of one man is somewhat flawed and unreasonable, imho. You also take the Grand Mufti (can there be a more amusing title to possess) out of context: mass European Jewish immigration, with these Jews being zionists intent on creating a Zionist, ergo Jewish supremist, state - his words may well have been ill advised, but he clearly saw the threat to the Palestinian population and their legitimate aspirations for statehood on land they had own for over a millenia.

As I have said before, Israel was going to happen. Over 30% of the population was Jewish who controlled the majority of the wealth and were highly organised and motivated, as it seemed not even the whole pan-Arabic armies could stop them forming their state, so it seemed logical for the UN to try and sort out a peaceful, fair solution to the problem. What you're saying is simply 'might is right', that just because the majority wanted something everyone else should go along with that.
Now why do I think the Grand Mufti was a serious threat to Israel's people? Because he was not just 'one man', he was the second in command of the Arab armies, and considering the King of Jordan's actual goals, he was the one who was really taking on Israel. Arab media was full of threats of genocide, and here was the man in charge who had sort a Jewish genocide before the war had even begun. The Israelis had just come out of genocide, so this was a real life or death situation for not just the soldiers, but also the women and children of Israel. And you complain about Jewish over immigration to the region, but the majority of this immigration was legal, that which wasn't was understandable considering there was the holocaust going on. So it seems to me you might have some friends in the BNP.

Firstly: it is not my problem to solve, it is Israels: over the years their actions in the form of "targetted killings", building on Palestinian land, unlawfully evicting Palestinians from their own land, demolishing property belonging to relatives of suspected terrorists, disenfranchisement, torture, etc. has done nothing but fuel anger and resentment. Israel has not sought to solve the problem, it has sought to perpetuate it.

They did solve it. They didn't allow the enemy back into their country, even if they were civilians. You can sit there and criticise about how the Israelis shouldn't have done this or that, but you can't say what they should have done. these were a people who had just come out of a genocide, and had just finished fighting off people who were going in for a second one. Caring for the people who had months earlier been calling for said genocide and violence was not on their priority list, nor should it have been.

In terms of destroying Lebanon's infrastructure: I do not classify Israel's attack on a sovereign state because of military activitiy in an area not controlled by the Lebanese Government as constituting a war. Israel took out targets not of direct usefulness to Hezbollah, the IDF were punishing the Lebanese for being weak, a position they found themselves in (in part) due to the activities of Israel and Syria. Much of Israels actions in Lebanon clearly constituted terrorism.

Lebanon was a hellhole. What wasn't controlled by Israel or their allies was controlled by Hezbollah or Syria, both enemies of Israel. The Israelis weren't attacking Lebanon, they were attacking those forces which sort to tear Lebanon apart.

As for a war in Gaza: Israel has been the occupying force in Gaza, it controls Gaza and its boarders: the Palestinians there are resisting Israeli oppression. In terms of casualities, yes they could have been worse, but Israel was utterly reckless, fought with a blatant disregard for civilian life, they stand accused of war crimes by the UN, and managed to kill more civilians than Hamas fighters. The arrogance and disregard for innocent life is breathtaking.

And if it didn't control Gaza's borders weapons would flood in. As for teh civilian casualities, I have already pointed out, this is a war fought on top of civilians against a group who intentionally put civilian lives in danger. It's only through Israel's unique care to avoid civilian deaths that casualty rate has not been higher.

Semantics. The IDF cannot absolve themselves of the responsibility to protect the civilian population. As for Dershowitz, I can well believe that he has received many accolades from many right-wing and pro-Israel institutions: the man is rapidly pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian, his concerns for civil rights appears limited to zionists.

No they can't, which is why they pour Gaza full of leaflets and phonecalls, as well as limiting their war so as to avoid deaths.

Per se, no I do not believe that Hamas are a terrorist organisation. I despite many of their methods and condemn their attacks on civilian targets, but it is legitimate for them to resist Israeli occupation and oppression.

Then you are at odds with every other rational human being on this planet. Hamas would qualify for a resistance group or freedom fighters title if they targeted exclusively IDF personnel and infrastructure. In fact it seems they do the opposite, they deliberately target civilians.

Targetted killings = extra judicial killings = murder.

As you know, Israel can't exactly fight this war like a normal one. I'm sure you'd be the first to complain if the IDF went marching into Gaza, searching homes and Mosques, making arrests and in all honesty turning the whole thing into a long and bloody nightmare. So to avoid unnecessary bloodshed, it kills it's enemies from afar, as effective? No. Likely to avoid civilian deaths? Yes. And really, doesn't that make every American airstrike in Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan murder?

As for explaining war to me, yes please, I would like to know how the civilian population resisting an occupation is constituted as being a war.

Umm, when someone picks up a gun with the intention of doing others harm they no longer become a civilian, they're the enemy. When they shelter these people in their homes, they're also the enemy.

Oh, towns in the West Bank are free from the occupation are they: so Israel doesn't control what goes into or out of those towns, it doesn't have forces standing by waiting to go in, it allows freedom of movement does it......hardly.

Considering what a large portion of the population would do if they got their hands on weapons, monitoring what goes in and out seems like a fair thing to me.

The numbers suggest otherwise. The IDF's hands drip with the blood of murdered Palestinian children.

That's because of two reasons. One, Hamas just loves having children around when they fire their rockets or go to meetings, two, the IDF have bigger guns than Hamas, which cause more damage, and yes, kill more people. But considering what Hamas would do if it ever got its hands on F16s and gunships, I think Israel is easily the one in the right.

Originally Posted by DCFGS3

Obviously they refused to allow them to return, they were citizens of an enemy state and would have posed a serious risk to Israeli security.


They were barred because they were the enemy. Enemy civilians, maybe, but as we've seen in this war in particular, civilian does not mean harmless. Now that Nation state did pay war reparations, Palestine gave up quite a few pieces of land. Now you might be wondering what happened to this Palestine, well that became part of Jordan and Egypt. The Israelis were quite willing (and in most cases continue to be) to live with a Palestinian state, however it appears Palestine's Arab neighbours weren't...


My point was that is was these people who had previously been supportive of the destruction of Israel, and in many cases aided in achieving that goal. They were the enemy, and it was a threat to Israeli security to allow them back into their homes, especially considering the war really wasn't over.

I can sum up the actual position quite succinctly: the Israelis will not allow the Palestinians displaced or forced out of / from their homes because to do so would alter the "ethnic" balance overwhelmingly in the Palestinians favour and Israel would no-longer be a Zionist/Jewish supremacist state. I appreciated that as a self-proclaimed fascist you do not agree with democracy, but Israel was created against the express wishes of the majority of the population living within Israel's original boarders: the Palestinian population was not seeking the destruction of Israel, they were seeking for it not to be created at all and for the majority to be given what most people crave, the right to self-determination.

As I have said before, Israel was going to happen. Over 30% of the population was Jewish who controlled the majority of the wealth and were highly organised and motivated, as it seemed not even the whole pan-Arabic armies could stop them forming their state, so it seemed logical for the UN to try and sort out a peaceful, fair solution to the problem. What you're saying is simply 'might is right', that just because the majority wanted something everyone else should go along with that.
Now why do I think the Grand Mufti was a serious threat to Israel's people? Because he was not just 'one man', he was the second in command of the Arab armies, and considering the King of Jordan's actual goals, he was the one who was really taking on Israel. Arab media was full of threats of genocide, and here was the man in charge who had sort a Jewish genocide before the war had even begun. The Israelis had just come out of genocide, so this was a real life or death situation for not just the soldiers, but also the women and children of Israel. And you complain about Jewish over immigration to the region, but the majority of this immigration was legal, that which wasn't was understandable considering there was the holocaust going on. So it seems to me you might have some friends in the BNP.

The Arab media full of threats against the creation of an alien state run by recent immigrants and against the wishes of the native majority population: threats were made, in practice the Israelis are the ones who have repeatedly inflicted mass casualties upon the civilian populations of neighbouring states and Palestinians within the occupied territorities. I don't honestly know if most of the immigration was legal or not, I know that the majority of Zionist immigrants went to Palestine after WWII and many did so despite the British Government's best efforts, their reward being the Stern Gang and others committing acts of terrorism.

Concerning the question of unchecked mass immigration, I imagine that every political party in Britian other than the Labour Party and a couple of far left nutty ones believe in controlled immigration, so I probably would have friends in the BNP...........and the Liberal Democrates and the Conservatives, etc.

Firstly: it is not my problem to solve, it is Israels: over the years their actions in the form of "targetted killings", building on Palestinian land, unlawfully evicting Palestinians from their own land, demolishing property belonging to relatives of suspected terrorists, disenfranchisement, torture, etc. has done nothing but fuel anger and resentment. Israel has not sought to solve the problem, it has sought to perpetuate it. They did solve it. They didn't allow the enemy back into their country, even if they were civilians. You can sit there and criticise about how the Israelis shouldn't have done this or that, but you can't say what they should have done. these were a people who had just come out of a genocide, and had just finished fighting off people who were going in for a second one. Caring for the people who had months earlier been calling for said genocide and violence was not on their priority list, nor should it have been.

What should they have done? Not occupied Gaza or the West Bank and oppressed the civilian population, they should have sought actively to make peace, involved the US and the EU to police a no-mans land between Israel and her neighbours and not sought to colonise land that was not theirs: Israel is paying for her mistakes, and I suspect that when the Israeli Palestinian population reaches 50+% of Israel's populations, the Zionists will pay a heavy price for their past misdeeds.

In terms of destroying Lebanon's infrastructure: I do not classify Israel's attack on a sovereign state because of military activitiy in an area not controlled by the Lebanese Government as constituting a war. Israel took out targets not of direct usefulness to Hezbollah, the IDF were punishing the Lebanese for being weak, a position they found themselves in (in part) due to the activities of Israel and Syria. Much of Israels actions in Lebanon clearly constituted terrorism. Lebanon was a hellhole. What wasn't controlled by Israel or their allies was controlled by Hezbollah or Syria, both enemies of Israel. The Israelis weren't attacking Lebanon, they were attacking those forces which sort to tear Lebanon apart.

Really, both Israel and Syria have a long history of destabalising Lebanon and are both guilty of allowing Lebanon to be so weak that her military cannot compete or take on Hezbollah. Israel bombed civilian infrastructure not to harm an enemy but to collectively punish a population for having a weak government and weaker military. Isn't collective punishment a war crime, oh no, not if its Israel committing it.....

As for a war in Gaza: Israel has been the occupying force in Gaza, it controls Gaza and its boarders: the Palestinians there are resisting Israeli oppression. In terms of casualities, yes they could have been worse, but Israel was utterly reckless, fought with a blatant disregard for civilian life, they stand accused of war crimes by the UN, and managed to kill more civilians than Hamas fighters. The arrogance and disregard for innocent life is breathtaking. And if it didn't control Gaza's borders weapons would flood in. As for teh civilian casualities, I have already pointed out, this is a war fought on top of civilians against a group who intentionally put civilian lives in danger. It's only through Israel's unique care to avoid civilian deaths that casualty rate has not been higher.



Semantics. The IDF cannot absolve themselves of the responsibility to protect the civilian population. As for Dershowitz, I can well believe that he has received many accolades from many right-wing and pro-Israel institutions: the man is rapidly pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian, his concerns for civil rights appears limited to zionists.


No they can't, which is why they pour Gaza full of leaflets and phonecalls, as well as limiting their war so as to avoid deaths.

.....and yet the civilian deaths mount....as they always have done when Israel lauches attacks in densely populated areas where the civilian population have no safe place to flee to.

Per se, no I do not believe that Hamas are a terrorist organisation. I despite many of their methods and condemn their attacks on civilian targets, but it is legitimate for them to resist Israeli occupation and oppression. Then you are at odds with every other rational human being on this planet. Hamas would qualify for a resistance group or freedom fighters title if they targeted exclusively IDF personnel and infrastructure. In fact it seems they do the opposite, they deliberately target civilians.



Targetted killings = extra judicial killings = murder.


As you know, Israel can't exactly fight this war like a normal one. I'm sure you'd be the first to complain if the IDF went marching into Gaza, searching homes and Mosques, making arrests and in all honesty turning the whole thing into a long and bloody nightmare. So to avoid unnecessary bloodshed, it kills it's enemies from afar, as effective? No. Likely to avoid civilian deaths? Yes. And really, doesn't that make every American airstrike in Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan murder?

You seek to simplify what Hamas is, stands for and its support base, in order to portray it as just another terrorist organisation. It is an organisation that provides free health care, justice systems, social support, pensions. Granted it attacks Israeli civilians, which I condemn totally and whole heartedly, yet the French and Dutch resistance during WWII attacked German civilians - were they terrorists too or were they not because they were on the "right" side?

Targetted killings; whether they are murder or not depends on the circumstances, but to do so in civillian areas that you have invaded and occupied without any attempt to capture and pursue legal means is tantamount to murder.

Oh, towns in the West Bank are free from the occupation are they: so Israel doesn't control what goes into or out of those towns, it doesn't have forces standing by waiting to go in, it allows freedom of movement does it......hardly.
Considering what a large portion of the population would do if they got their hands on weapons, monitoring what goes in and out seems like a fair thing to me.



The numbers suggest otherwise. The IDF's hands drip with the blood of murdered Palestinian children.


That's because of two reasons. One, Hamas just loves having children around when they fire their rockets or go to meetings, two, the IDF have bigger guns than Hamas, which cause more damage, and yes, kill more people. But considering what Hamas would do if it ever got its hands on F16s and gunships, I think Israel is easily the one in the right.

Yup, after donkey's years of occupation, harassment, oppression, murder, torture, dispossession and land theft, why should the Palestinians not love their Israeli occupiers?

Originally Posted by The Untalented Mr Ripley

I can sum up the actual position quite succinctly: the Israelis will not allow the Palestinians displaced or forced out of / from their homes because to do so would alter the "ethnic" balance overwhelmingly in the Palestinians favour and Israel would no-longer be a Zionist/Jewish supremacist state. I appreciated that as a self-proclaimed fascist you do not agree with democracy, but Israel was created against the express wishes of the majority of the population living within Israel's original boarders: the Palestinian population was not seeking the destruction of Israel, they were seeking for it not to be created at all and for the majority to be given what most people crave, the right to self-determination.

As I have said, I have no doubt that that is the case for some within the Israeli politic, but at the same time, the alternative remains impossible for the reasons I have stated. Now Israel was happening. That was quite apparent to anybody with half a brain. The UN, the Arabs nor even the US could stop the Israelis founding their state. What they could do is try to arrange a peaceful setup to avoid bloodshed. This was something the Arabs could not allow.

The Arab media full of threats against the creation of an alien state run by recent immigrants and against the wishes of the native majority population: threats were made, in practice the Israelis are the ones who have repeatedly inflicted mass casualties upon the civilian populations of neighbouring states and Palestinians within the occupied territorities. I don't honestly know if most of the immigration was legal or not, I know that the majority of Zionist immigrants went to Palestine after WWII and many did so despite the British Government's best efforts, their reward being the Stern Gang and others committing acts of terrorism.

Unintentionally. Israel nor the IDF seek to deliberately harm civilians. Civilian casualties are high compared to other wars yes, but as I have stated, this is a war fought in populated cities against people who have no issue with hiding amongst civilians. To expect that the casualty rate will be the same as either Afghanistan or Iraq is absurd.

What should they have done? Not occupied Gaza or the West Bank and oppressed the civilian population, they should have sought actively to make peace, involved the US and the EU to police a no-mans land between Israel and her neighbours and not sought to colonise land that was not theirs: Israel is paying for her mistakes, and I suspect that when the Israeli Palestinian population reaches 50+% of Israel's populations, the Zionists will pay a heavy price for their past misdeeds.

Except they didn't occupy either Gaza or the West Bank, the Egyptians and Jordanians did. And what's more you've shown exactly why the Israelis shouldn't allow the return of Palestinians in the short to medium term, because of the resulting violence.

Really, both Israel and Syria have a long history of destabalising Lebanon and are both guilty of allowing Lebanon to be so weak that her military cannot compete or take on Hezbollah. Israel bombed civilian infrastructure not to harm an enemy but to collectively punish a population for having a weak government and weaker military. Isn't collective punishment a war crime, oh no, not if its Israel committing it.....

Actually I don't quite understand how you think Israel was meddelling in Lebanon. The violence was largely instigated by the arrival of the PLO in fact, which for all intents and purposes took control of large portions of the country. They then began attacking Israel with rockets and incursions from inside Lebanon, with the Lebanese Government unable to contain the situation, the only acceptable response was for Israel to neutralise the militia themselves.

.....and yet the civilian deaths mount....as they always have done when Israel lauches attacks in densely populated areas where the civilian population have no safe place to flee to.

That's a sad fact of this war, but Israel has very little option in fighting this war, it can either just lie down and let Hamas kill civilians, or it can defend itself, albeit causing civilian deaths, although as I have shown, it limits the civilian deaths in any way it can.

You seek to simplify what Hamas is, stands for and its support base, in order to portray it as just another terrorist organisation. It is an organisation that provides free health care, justice systems, social support, pensions. Granted it attacks Israeli civilians, which I condemn totally and whole heartedly, yet the French and Dutch resistance during WWII attacked German civilians - were they terrorists too or were they not because they were on the "right" side?

Yes I know Hamas does support the Palestinian people as a surprisingly effective Government, however that does not excuse the fact that its main operations and goals are to kill Israeli civilians. What's more while I'm not aware of the killing of German civilians by the Marqi or other groups, I would condemn them as terrorists if they did. As I consider that Nelson Mandela was a terrorist, even though his goals might have been noble.

Targetted killings; whether they are murder or not depends on the circumstances, but to do so in civillian areas that you have invaded and occupied without any attempt to capture and pursue legal means is tantamount to murder.

Trying to capture Hamas militants would in all likelihood break out into street fights, or fail completely.

Yup, after donkey's years of occupation, harassment, oppression, murder, torture, dispossession and land theft, why should the Palestinians not love their Israeli occupiers?

I'm not asking them to love Israel, I'm asking them to respect its right to exist, its sovereignty, and its right to defend itself.

Originally Posted by DCFGS3

As I have said, I have no doubt that that is the case for some within the Israeli politic, but at the same time, the alternative remains impossible for the reasons I have stated. Now Israel was happening. That was quite apparent to anybody with half a brain. The UN, the Arabs nor even the US could stop the Israelis founding their state. What they could do is try to arrange a peaceful setup to avoid bloodshed. This was something the Arabs could not allow.

It is quite possible, albeit no doubt a long, slow and difficult process, for Israel to meet its obligations under international law and allow those who fled or were forced to leave their homes to return to their homes and their. The Israeli courts seem to have no problem in evicting Palestinians who have been living in what were, upwards of 60 years previously, Jewish homes. The fundamental issue is not that it would be difficult to integrate or accommodate returing Palestinians refugees, which it would, it is that to allow the refugees to return would mean Jewish Zionists would cease to form the majority of the Israeli population. This alone equates to racist and illegal behaviour (but as Israel is a friend of the US their will be no invasions, no sanctions, etc), but when one considers that at the very time when Palestinians are being denied their legal right to return because they are no Jewish, the state of Israel has been encouraging anyone of Jewish heritage to settle: how on earth can any right minded person argue that this is not absolutely blatant racism.


As for preventing the creation of the state of Israel, probably Britian and France could have, but lacked the political will and both nations were effectively bankrupt after fighting the Germans for 6 years. That no western State did not actively seek to prevent the Zionist State of Israel from being created does not detract from the fact that the state of Israel was forced upon the majority of the population, done so against their express will, against the wishes of all neighbouring states and done so in order to accommodate European Jews who in practice had little if any connection with Palestine. How could the neighbouring Arab states possibly live with the creation of a completely alien state resulting from mass immigration that essentially disenfranchinsed the native Palestinian Arab population?

Unintentionally. Israel nor the IDF seek to deliberately harm civilians. Civilian casualties are high compared to other wars yes, but as I have stated, this is a war fought in populated cities against people who have no issue with hiding amongst civilians. To expect that the casualty rate will be the same as either Afghanistan or Iraq is absurd.

You seek to equivocate Israels actions with those of the "allies" in Afghanistan and Iraq: whether one agrees with the Afghan or Iraq wars, they were wars against nation states and the armed forces of those states; Israel has occupied Gaza and the West Bank, subjegated the civilian population, colonised the West Bank and has been engaged in fighting against groups of resistance fighters. As for casualties, the high number of civilian deaths and maimings would put off most civilised nations from attempting to fight a conventional war in densely populated civilian areas, but not of course the Israelis, after all it is only Palestinians and Lebanese civilians who die, not Zionist Jews.

Except they didn't occupy either Gaza or the West Bank, the Egyptians and Jordanians did. And what's more you've shown exactly why the Israelis shouldn't allow the return of Palestinians in the short to medium term, because of the resulting violence.

Territory has swopped hands a few times, but it is acknowledged under international law that Gaza is illegally occupied by Israel. As for violence, if you raise a child with regular beatings, you over control them, punishment severely for any infraction whilst treating your other children decently, you shouldn't really expect anything other than your abused child eventually seeking to give you a bloody nose: again, Israel is remeniscent of the child who murders his parents then demands sympathy for being an orphan.

Actually I don't quite understand how you think Israel was meddelling in Lebanon. The violence was largely instigated by the arrival of the PLO in fact, which for all intents and purposes took control of large portions of the country. They then began attacking Israel with rockets and incursions from inside Lebanon, with the Lebanese Government unable to contain the situation, the only acceptable response was for Israel to neutralise the militia themselves.

Perhaps you don't think repeated invasions, routine cross boarder incursions, supporting pro-Israelis militia and frequent bombings constitute meddling........

That's a sad fact of this war, but Israel has very little option in fighting this war, it can either just lie down and let Hamas kill civilians, or it can defend itself, albeit causing civilian deaths, although as I have shown, it limits the civilian deaths in any way it can.

This is not a "war", this is a civilian population resisting occupation - a clear and obvious distinction. History has shown us that as best Israel is indifferent about civilian casualties; the sheer number of dead women, children and elderly testify to that, and as for allowing Hamas to kill civilians, the last Gaza attacks were instigated by Israel itself, who broke ceasefire terms regarding boarder crossings from Gaza into Israel. Israel instigated the fighting, commits war crimes ("oh no, the UN is biased against us, we did nothing wrong, etc") and then demands sympathy and understanding for having to deal with the "terrorism" that her actions created.

Yes I know Hamas does support the Palestinian people as a surprisingly effective Government, however that does not excuse the fact that its main operations and goals are to kill Israeli civilians. What's more while I'm not aware of the killing of German civilians by the Marqi or other groups, I would condemn them as terrorists if they did. As I consider that Nelson Mandela was a terrorist, even though his goals might have been noble.

German, French and Dutch civilians (who collaborated with the Germans) were killed by resistance groups: these groups are no termed terrorist primarily because (a) they were on our side and (b) their primary aim was to free themselves from occupation and oppression...see any similarities?

Trying to capture Hamas militants would in all likelihood break out into street fights, or fail completely.

Heaven forbid that Israel actually seeks to adhere to the rule or law or indeed seek peace with Hamas - it has previously arranged long-term ceasefires with Hamas, so why not a longer term peace? Hamas's constitution calls for Israel to be erradicated (that is, ceasing to be a nation state), but it is well known that they are not unreasonable and can be negotiated with even to the extent that they will grudgingly accept Israels right to exist. Still, Israel does seem intent on prolonging Palestinian suffering and alienating the civilian population for as long as possible.

I'm not asking them to love Israel, I'm asking them to respect its right to exist, its sovereignty, and its right to defend itself.

Given the history of Israel why should it respect her right to exist? It appears that Hamas, in practice, are quite practical and would cease fighting if an equitable peace plan were negotiated. The problem is that Israel wishes to hold onto to her illegal settlements in the West Bank, to control the water sources there and to dominate the Palestinians. Until Israel can behave in a civilised fashion (i.e. not committing murders left right and centre) she will only continue to jeapodise her long-term future by alienating and angering the Palestinians. Ultimately, why should anyone respect Israels right to exist when it continues to behave like a rogue state?

Originally Posted by Midas

OK, a little off-topic I know......



Whilst the first and second sentences of that extract are undoubtedly correct, factually there is zero evidence for the biblical version of the history of the Israelites. Despite well over 100 years of archaeological exploration, not one single trace of any exodus from Egypt has been found. Mounting archaeological evidence from within modern Palestine and Israel themselves over the last few years now shows that the most likely early history of the Israelites is that they were little more than bands of outcasts and dissidents from the city states in both Judea and Canaan, driven out by rising social discontent within both countries, who migrated to the uplands round the Dead Sea and the Sea of Galilee to start a new life. They settled there, and over centuries, in common with several other cultures originating from largely dispossessed people, told stories about a mythical past history to give themselves a greater validity as to how they came to be there. Even the major biblical scholars from universities within Israel itself now accept this as being the far most likely origin of their people because it's based on factual evidence, not simply an unsupported biblical legend.

On reading the book, bear in mind it was written more than 40 years ago before much of the modern research, there is no hint that he was claiming the Israeli's of that period settled only in Philistine or that they were this massive crowd on a biblical scale (pardon the pun). He seemed to hint that he thought they were small bands who set off in different directions. He did not appear to adhere to the 7 tribes of Israel myth. I am sure if he wrote the book today it would be pretty damning to the Israeli perspective on it's homeland.

Originally Posted by Midas

Pauli and Kiwi, can you two please not resort to personal insults and get the thread back to the original topic!

Sorry what are you talking about, i have never once made a personal insult against KIWI, why bring me into this, he is the only one hurling his vitriolic abuse here.
Where did I post any insult on this thread?
Perhaps i should consider this false accusation by you to be a Personal attack on my integrity, how should I properly Address this attack?

Originally Posted by Kiwi 1691

Not what I said.




I never wrote "wipe Israel off the map"



At Least I don't make stuff up.



Who says that 911 was a reaction to the invasion of Iraq, (unless you mean the original one).



Reporters
UN, there have been plenty of attacks on the UN by Israel

Some well known ones
1996 shelling of Qana - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
CNN.com - U.N.: Israeli airstrike hits U.N. observer post - Jul 26, 2006

There are plenty of others if you look.






Savage and brutal regime, how?

There are not rocket attacks every day, the number of rocket attacks aren't that high and the fatalities are even lower. Though obviously you value the lives of a few Israelis higher than thousands of Palestinians.



They are occupied and oppressed, the only option they see that they have left is to fight. Imagine if someone occupied massachusetts Pauli. Schools and homes were bombed continuously, they shut down your power, water, food. They stopped your ability to get around freely. Would you sit there contently?

So what do you do with Israel, if it dosnt defend itself its people will be annihilated by the palestinian terrorists.But only Palestinians matter, to hell with them Jews(cos all Israelis are Jews Right)?

The occupation of Palestine was in 1948 was not by Israel it was by an agreement of many nations.At the time the land was abandoned and in ruins.The Israelis worked to Irrigate and make the land usable( a few nomads who once passed through got their crybaby heads on out of jealosy and decided to settle around the land the motivated Israelis were developing.They demanded food and water and welfare from the Israelis and the Israelis handed it all over(they are good neighbours you see).Then the Palestinians(what the Nomads decided to call themselves) decided to do was demand the homes and lands of the people who turned a dessert into a flower garden, when the hard working and motivated Israelis refused the Lazy and jealous palestinians began an organised attempt to kill them in order to take their land(that was a dessert before they Irrigated and cultivated it).The palestinians had no interest in the Land until the motivated made it valuable, if the land was so importaint to them why didnt the Palestinians get off their lazy arses and fix it up, oh thats it, they are too LAZY, far better to beg from the Israelis and Kill a few on occasion in order to scare a bit more welfare money out of em.

You still havnt shown evidence supporting your claim that Israeli forced have Murdered UN or Press personell.Perfec evidence would be recordings/ transcripts of verbal or written orders from Israeli Command telling their troops to target UN or Press personell for execution, another might be evidence showing IDF individuals planning to kill the above mentioned personell.Posting the names of people killed Accidentally is clutching at straws on your part, I guess you have no argument.

Now what would you recomend to fix the problem, you accuse and rant and hurl abuse but can offer no Ideas that could alleviate the situation, perhaps all you want is to curse the Israelis?

Originally Posted by The Untalented Mr Ripley

It is quite possible, albeit no doubt a long, slow and difficult process, for Israel to meet its obligations under international law and allow those who fled or were forced to leave their homes to return to their homes and their. The Israeli courts seem to have no problem in evicting Palestinians who have been living in what were, upwards of 60 years previously, Jewish homes. The fundamental issue is not that it would be difficult to integrate or accommodate returing Palestinians refugees, which it would, it is that to allow the refugees to return would mean Jewish Zionists would cease to form the majority of the Israeli population. This alone equates to racist and illegal behaviour (but as Israel is a friend of the US their will be no invasions, no sanctions, etc), but when one considers that at the very time when Palestinians are being denied their legal right to return because they are no Jewish, the state of Israel has been encouraging anyone of Jewish heritage to settle: how on earth can any right minded person argue that this is not absolutely blatant racism.

This makes two assumptions, one is that the Palestinians would return peacefully, which given both their own disposition toward Israel, is unlikely. And two, that they would be happy to become contributing citizens of Israel, which is again unlikely. What's more working out exactly where each Palestinian lived is simply impossible, the only solution would be to newly build large suburbs for these returning refugees, which achieves nothing except moving the Palestinian camps inside Israel and endangering Israelis. The only acceptable outcome is a gradual movement by Palestinians into a newly created Palestinian state.

As for preventing the creation of the state of Israel, probably Britian and France could have, but lacked the political will and both nations were effectively bankrupt after fighting the Germans for 6 years. That no western State did not actively seek to prevent the Zionist State of Israel from being created does not detract from the fact that the state of Israel was forced upon the majority of the population, done so against their express will, against the wishes of all neighbouring states and done so in order to accommodate European Jews who in practice had little if any connection with Palestine. How could the neighbouring Arab states possibly live with the creation of a completely alien state resulting from mass immigration that essentially disenfranchinsed the native Palestinian Arab population?

The immigration itself never disenfranchised the population, if anything it benefited them as the Jews brought capital to the region and were the only ones to actively develop the Palestine region. What's more I again ask, why do the Palestinians have a right to deny the Israelis sovereignty just because they were the majority (I've already pointed out that their traditional ownership claim is pretty flawed).

You seek to equivocate Israels actions with those of the "allies" in Afghanistan and Iraq: whether one agrees with the Afghan or Iraq wars, they were wars against nation states and the armed forces of those states; Israel has occupied Gaza and the West Bank, subjegated the civilian population, colonised the West Bank and has been engaged in fighting against groups of resistance fighters. As for casualties, the high number of civilian deaths and maimings would put off most civilised nations from attempting to fight a conventional war in densely populated civilian areas, but not of course the Israelis, after all it is only Palestinians and Lebanese civilians who die, not Zionist Jews.

The Israeli-Palestine War is against a nation-state and the armed forces of that state. The state in question is Palestine, the armed forces are its various terror groups. And you seem to think that Israel is trying to fight a conventional war, in most cases it isn't. That's why they use targetted killings and airstrikes rather than sending troops into the streets. What's more Israeli civilians do die, almost always intentionally. The reason they're not dying in such high numbers is A: The war isn't fought in areas of high Israeli civilian population, and B: The weapons used against them are largely inaccurate or not very highly powered. This would change if Israel allowed open air and sea borders with Gaza and the West Bank (although I think the West Bank borders are far more relaxed now).

Territory has swopped hands a few times, but it is acknowledged under international law that Gaza is illegally occupied by Israel. As for violence, if you raise a child with regular beatings, you over control them, punishment severely for any infraction whilst treating your other children decently, you shouldn't really expect anything other than your abused child eventually seeking to give you a bloody nose: again, Israel is remeniscent of the child who murders his parents then demands sympathy for being an orphan.

Except that child has done nothing but try and kill Israel for the past 70 years, civilian participation or no, elements within the Palestinian territories have almost constantly tried to harm Israel or her people, and the Government of those territories has either been unwilling or unable to stop those elements, or downright part of them.

Perhaps you don't think repeated invasions, routine cross boarder incursions, supporting pro-Israelis militia and frequent bombings constitute meddling........

These were provoked, Israel (unlike Syria) sees no political gain nor has any will to meddle in Lebanese affairs unless those affairs are leading to the deaths of Israelis.

This is not a "war", this is a civilian population resisting occupation - a clear and obvious distinction. History has shown us that as best Israel is indifferent about civilian casualties; the sheer number of dead women, children and elderly testify to that, and as for allowing Hamas to kill civilians, the last Gaza attacks were instigated by Israel itself, who broke ceasefire terms regarding boarder crossings from Gaza into Israel. Israel instigated the fighting, commits war crimes ("oh no, the UN is biased against us, we did nothing wrong, etc") and then demands sympathy and understanding for having to deal with the "terrorism" that her actions created.

This is a war, as elements within Palestine have been attacking Israel. Obviously this isn't a war with the Palestinian civilians, but rather the groups that hide among them.

German, French and Dutch civilians (who collaborated with the Germans) were killed by resistance groups: these groups are no termed terrorist primarily because (a) they were on our side and (b) their primary aim was to free themselves from occupation and oppression...see any similarities?

That depends on whether those who carried out such attacks were under the orders of the group they were part of, or acting on their own accord. It would still make them terrorists, it merely changes on whether or not the group is. Another consideration is what motivated such attacks. If it was merely for revenge, then it isn't terrorism, just murder.

Heaven forbid that Israel actually seeks to adhere to the rule or law or indeed seek peace with Hamas - it has previously arranged long-term ceasefires with Hamas, so why not a longer term peace? Hamas's constitution calls for Israel to be erradicated (that is, ceasing to be a nation state), but it is well known that they are not unreasonable and can be negotiated with even to the extent that they will grudgingly accept Israels right to exist. Still, Israel does seem intent on prolonging Palestinian suffering and alienating the civilian population for as long as possible.

Apparently not, as they have in recent years made many efforts to improve ties, including pulling out of Gaza and West Bank towns and releasing PoWs. Israel has no such obligation to deal with a group whose main objective is the destruction and possible genocide of Israel, and IMO should not do so. You can hardly expect to achieve peace until Hamas has renounced violence.

Given the history of Israel why should it respect her right to exist? It appears that Hamas, in practice, are quite practical and would cease fighting if an equitable peace plan were negotiated. The problem is that Israel wishes to hold onto to her illegal settlements in the West Bank, to control the water sources there and to dominate the Palestinians. Until Israel can behave in a civilised fashion (i.e. not committing murders left right and centre) she will only continue to jeapodise her long-term future by alienating and angering the Palestinians. Ultimately, why should anyone respect Israels right to exist when it continues to behave like a rogue state?

Hamas have proven on numerous occasions they are anything but practical when it comes to peace. Furthermore Israel would most likely give up most if not all settlements in the West Bank and return to 1967 borders if it felt it was safe enough. 4 years ago I believe it was seriously in that position, but thanks to Hamas' continuing aggression, an Israeli hardline has been elected. All Israel wants is to live in peace and safety, right now the only way to ensure that is to occupy and forcibly monitor Palestinian territories. Personally I believe a West Bank deal is quite reachable, I am less optimistic about a deal with Gaza without Hamas giving up violence and respecting Israel's right to exist.

Originally Posted by DCFGS3

This makes two assumptions, one is that the Palestinians would return peacefully, which given both their own disposition toward Israel, is unlikely. And two, that they would be happy to become contributing citizens of Israel, which is again unlikely. What's more working out exactly where each Palestinian lived is simply impossible, the only solution would be to newly build large suburbs for these returning refugees, which achieves nothing except moving the Palestinian camps inside Israel and endangering Israelis. The only acceptable outcome is a gradual movement by Palestinians into a newly created Palestinian state.

If Israel wants to stop Hamas, they need to undermine Hamas support. The public support Hamas, because of their personal suffering. If Israel worked to gain more support among the Palestinian populace, Hamas would find it harder to gain support.

Originally Posted by Kiwi 1691

If Israel wants to stop Hamas, they need to undermine Hamas support. The public support Hamas, because of their personal suffering. If Israel worked to gain more support among the Palestinian populace, Hamas would find it harder to gain support.

While at the same time it has to defend itself from Hamas rocket attacks. Now it can do this in two ways, A: Bomb Hamas bases and launch fields, but this can cause civilian casualties, particularly so considering Hamas loves to put civilians in danger, or B: Use boots on the ground to fight Hamas members and clear out strongholds, also causing civilian casualties as well as presenting the Palestinians as an occupied people. What's more it isn't just Hamas which causes problems for the Israelis. A good example of this is how recently Israel put Jewish Holy Sites on its list of Heritage sites (so they could be both protected and recieve additional funding). Some of these sites were inside the West Bank and Jerusalem, so it seemed like a good idea for Palestinian youths to hurl rocks at tourists visiting said sites and call for a third Intifada (Because the last one went so well).

Originally Posted by DCFGS3

This makes two assumptions, one is that the Palestinians would return peacefully, which given both their own disposition toward Israel, is unlikely. And two, that they would be happy to become contributing citizens of Israel, which is again unlikely. What's more working out exactly where each Palestinian lived is simply impossible, the only solution would be to newly build large suburbs for these returning refugees, which achieves nothing except moving the Palestinian camps inside Israel and endangering Israelis. The only acceptable outcome is a gradual movement by Palestinians into a newly created Palestinian state.

With respect I merely point out the legal position, that Israel is required under international law to allow the Palestinian refugees the right of return. In terms of practicalities, certainly much work is required on Israel's part, particularly given that her actions over the past 60 years have almost been designed to alienate and anger the refugee population, however as has been witnessed in South Africa and Northern Ireland, it is not an impossible task.

I also do not accept a racist two state solution, Jew one side of the fence, Arab the other, surely the only long-term solution (and one that is inevitable given the population trends within Israel itself) is an integrated secular society where Jew, Christian and Muslim can live as equals.

The immigration itself never disenfranchised the population, if anything it benefited them as the Jews brought capital to the region and were the only ones to actively develop the Palestine region. What's more I again ask, why do the Palestinians have a right to deny the Israelis sovereignty just because they were the majority (I've already pointed out that their traditional ownership claim is pretty flawed).

Why? Because in a democracy, the majority opinion wins or should do. The creation of Israel denied the Palestinians sovereignty of their own land (and the traditional ownership claim is a very strong one incidentally), what gives a minority the right to overrule the majority?

The Israeli-Palestine War is against a nation-state and the armed forces of that state. The state in question is Palestine, the armed forces are its various terror groups. And you seem to think that Israel is trying to fight a conventional war, in most cases it isn't. That's why they use targetted killings and airstrikes rather than sending troops into the streets. What's more Israeli civilians do die, almost always intentionally. The reason they're not dying in such high numbers is A: The war isn't fought in areas of high Israeli civilian population, and B: The weapons used against them are largely inaccurate or not very highly powered. This would change if Israel allowed open air and sea borders with Gaza and the West Bank (although I think the West Bank borders are far more relaxed now).

Palestine is not a state and there is no war, simply resistance to occupation, repression and oppression. The Palestinians fight for freedom and the right to self-determination, as the occupying power, Israel is fighting to control occupied land and an occupied population, to argue otherwise really is quite illogical.

Territory has swopped hands a few times, but it is acknowledged under international law that Gaza is illegally occupied by Israel. As for violence, if you raise a child with regular beatings, you over control them, punishment severely for any infraction whilst treating your other children decently, you shouldn't really expect anything other than your abused child eventually seeking to give you a bloody nose: again, Israel is remeniscent of the child who murders his parents then demands sympathy for being an orphan. Except that child has done nothing but try and kill Israel for the past 70 years, civilian participation or no, elements within the Palestinian territories have almost constantly tried to harm Israel or her people, and the Government of those territories has either been unwilling or unable to stop those elements, or downright part of them.

Shocking, that a dispossessed and oppressed people would resist occupation, would resist the creation of an alien state created against the wishes of the majority in order to satisfy the desires of recent immigrants with no connection to that land.

Perhaps you don't think repeated invasions, routine cross boarder incursions, supporting pro-Israelis militia and frequent bombings constitute meddling........ These were provoked, Israel (unlike Syria) sees no political gain nor has any will to meddle in Lebanese affairs unless those affairs are leading to the deaths of Israelis.

So they did meddle then? Provoked or not, Israel has a long history of meddling and interference.

This is not a "war", this is a civilian population resisting occupation - a clear and obvious distinction. History has shown us that as best Israel is indifferent about civilian casualties; the sheer number of dead women, children and elderly testify to that, and as for allowing Hamas to kill civilians, the last Gaza attacks were instigated by Israel itself, who broke ceasefire terms regarding boarder crossings from Gaza into Israel. Israel instigated the fighting, commits war crimes ("oh no, the UN is biased against us, we did nothing wrong, etc") and then demands sympathy and understanding for having to deal with the "terrorism" that her actions created. This is a war, as elements within Palestine have been attacking Israel. Obviously this isn't a war with the Palestinian civilians, but rather the groups that hide among them.

Israel is an occupying power, the Palestinians are merely resisting as is their right as an occupied and oppressed people. Again, there is no war, merely resistance.

German, French and Dutch civilians (who collaborated with the Germans) were killed by resistance groups: these groups are no termed terrorist primarily because (a) they were on our side and (b) their primary aim was to free themselves from occupation and oppression...see any similarities? That depends on whether those who carried out such attacks were under the orders of the group they were part of, or acting on their own accord. It would still make them terrorists, it merely changes on whether or not the group is. Another consideration is what motivated such attacks. If it was merely for revenge, then it isn't terrorism, just murder.

Your land, your home, your heritage are stolen from you and the recent (mass) immigrants bar you from returning to your home whilst encouraging Jews to come and settle in your land, what is your motivation? Freedom I would think.

Heaven forbid that Israel actually seeks to adhere to the rule or law or indeed seek peace with Hamas - it has previously arranged long-term ceasefires with Hamas, so why not a longer term peace? Hamas's constitution calls for Israel to be erradicated (that is, ceasing to be a nation state), but it is well known that they are not unreasonable and can be negotiated with even to the extent that they will grudgingly accept Israels right to exist. Still, Israel does seem intent on prolonging Palestinian suffering and alienating the civilian population for as long as possible. Apparently not, as they have in recent years made many efforts to improve ties, including pulling out of Gaza and West Bank towns and releasing PoWs. Israel has no such obligation to deal with a group whose main objective is the destruction and possible genocide of Israel, and IMO should not do so. You can hardly expect to achieve peace until Hamas has renounced violence.

The occupier's iron fist weakens a little, are the Palestinians to be grateful for this! The destruction of the state of Israel in its current form (Hamas to my knowledge have not said anything about genocide) is not, given the history of the land, an illegitimate aim for the Palestinian people - is it?

[QUOTEGiven the history of Israel why should it respect her right to exist? It appears that Hamas, in practice, are quite practical and would cease fighting if an equitable peace plan were negotiated. The problem is that Israel wishes to hold onto to her illegal settlements in the West Bank, to control the water sources there and to dominate the Palestinians. Until Israel can behave in a civilised fashion (i.e. not committing murders left right and centre) she will only continue to jeapodise her long-term future by alienating and angering the Palestinians. Ultimately, why should anyone respect Israels right to exist when it continues to behave like a rogue state? Hamas have proven on numerous occasions they are anything but practical when it comes to peace. Furthermore Israel would most likely give up most if not all settlements in the West Bank and return to 1967 borders if it felt it was safe enough. 4 years ago I believe it was seriously in that position, but thanks to Hamas' continuing aggression, an Israeli hardline has been elected. All Israel wants is to live in peace and safety, right now the only way to ensure that is to occupy and forcibly monitor Palestinian territories. Personally I believe a West Bank deal is quite reachable, I am less optimistic about a deal with Gaza without Hamas giving up violence and respecting Israel's right to exist. ][/QUOTE]

There will be no lasting peace until an equitable solution is found: this means returning to the 1967 boarders, it means East Jerusalem becoming the capital of the Palestinian state.

As for Hamas, it is the product of Israels unwillingness to reach an equitable solution and the longer Israel continues with its policy of control, occupation and enforcement the more it will breed and stoke-up hatred, bitterness and violence. Someone needs to break the cycle; practically, only Israel is in a position to do this.

The Hamas charter says:
MEMRI - Middle East Media Research Institute

If the 1967 borders were so acceptable, why was Israel attacked then?

Originally Posted by Barry

The Hamas charter says:
MEMRI - Middle East Media Research Institute

If the 1967 borders were so acceptable, why was Israel attacked then?

Six-Day War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by The Untalented Mr Ripley

With respect I merely point out the legal position, that Israel is required under international law to allow the Palestinian refugees the right of return. In terms of practicalities, certainly much work is required on Israel's part, particularly given that her actions over the past 60 years have almost been designed to alienate and anger the refugee population, however as has been witnessed in South Africa and Northern Ireland, it is not an impossible task.

In this case, as much as international law might require them to allow them to return, the reality is simply impossible, so international law is pretty moot.

I also do not accept a racist two state solution, Jew one side of the fence, Arab the other, surely the only long-term solution (and one that is inevitable given the population trends within Israel itself) is an integrated secular society where Jew, Christian and Muslim can live as equals.

The two state solution isn't racist, nor was it ever. You merely had two strong, nationalist movements each wanting independence, a situation that is largely unchanged.

Why? Because in a democracy, the majority opinion wins or should do. The creation of Israel denied the Palestinians sovereignty of their own land (and the traditional ownership claim is a very strong one incidentally), what gives a minority the right to overrule the majority?

However in the land divided, Jews were in the majority in the land allocated to them. What's more considering the high likelihood of an outbreak of war over the issue, the wishes of the majority must be given up in the interest of peace.

Palestine is not a state and there is no war, simply resistance to occupation, repression and oppression. The Palestinians fight for freedom and the right to self-determination, as the occupying power, Israel is fighting to control occupied land and an occupied population, to argue otherwise really is quite illogical.

If Israel was fighting to occupy and control land and population is seems confusing that it would give up its control of Gaza and West Bank towns. What's more Palestine is a state, albeit a mostly occupied one, in the same way Iraq remained a state during the American occupation.

Shocking, that a dispossessed and oppressed people would resist occupation, would resist the creation of an alien state created against the wishes of the majority in order to satisfy the desires of recent immigrants with no connection to that land.

The majority of Jews were Semite. Semites originate from Palestine. Ergo, Jews have a connection to that land. Also those oppressed people started this entire conflict, if they didn't start the conflict, they wouldn't be oppressed. Also the majority are descendant from Arabs, who have no ethnic (or even cultural, unlike the Jews) connection to Palestine, and again, large portions moved there the same time the Jews did.

So they did meddle then? Provoked or not, Israel has a long history of meddling and interference.

If consider 'meddling' defending themselves then yes. And in that case it's quite acceptable meddling.

Israel is an occupying power, the Palestinians are merely resisting as is their right as an occupied and oppressed people. Again, there is no war, merely resistance.

How can the Palestinians attack Israel, fail, then try to attack again and then occupied so they don't continue to attack, and then somehow become victims? Elements within Palestine attacked Israel, whatever authority that controlled Palestine refused to defend Israel from these elements. Irael had to defend itself.

Your land, your home, your heritage are stolen from you and the recent (mass) immigrants bar you from returning to your home whilst encouraging Jews to come and settle in your land, what is your motivation? Freedom I would think.

Your heritage, land etc was not stolen until you tried to steal from them first. Seems fair.

The occupier's iron fist weakens a little, are the Palestinians to be grateful for this! The destruction of the state of Israel in its current form (Hamas to my knowledge have not said anything about genocide) is not, given the history of the land, an illegitimate aim for the Palestinian people - is it?

Yes. They can't have everything in life. That's a simple fact. And because it was mostly Jews who made Palestine a remotely comfortable and prosperous place to live, I think they deserve some recognition. And no, that was not a weakening of the fist, that was an extension of the hand of goodwill. A hand promptly bitten in favour of war.

There will be no lasting peace until an equitable solution is found: this means returning to the 1967 boarders, it means East Jerusalem becoming the capital of the Palestinian state.

This is quite acceptable to almost every Israeli. Provided such a Palestinian state actively protected Israel from attacks by its people, and recognised Israel's right to exist and sovereignty over those lands.

As for Hamas, it is the product of Israels unwillingness to reach an equitable solution and the longer Israel continues with its policy of control, occupation and enforcement the more it will breed and stoke-up hatred, bitterness and violence. Someone needs to break the cycle; practically, only Israel is in a position to do this.

Apparently not, considering Hamas grew in strength when Israel lifted its occupation.

Originally Posted by DCFGS3

In this case, as much as international law might require them to allow them to return, the reality is simply impossible, so international law is pretty moot.

The reality is far from simply impossible; as has been discussed previously, reconciliation has been reached in other parts of the world, all that is needed is the desire for peace on equitable terms. Israel has consistently demonstrated that it does not want peace.

As for international law, true Israel treats it as pretty moot - and will do until it needs to rely on it, then it'll be a different matter.

I also do not accept a racist two state solution, Jew one side of the fence, Arab the other, surely the only long-term solution (and one that is inevitable given the population trends within Israel itself) is an integrated secular society where Jew, Christian and Muslim can live as equals. The two state solution isn't racist, nor was it ever. You merely had two strong, nationalist movements each wanting independence, a situation that is largely unchanged.

No connection to the state of Israel but you're Jewish = welcome to Israel and Israeli citizenship, thrown off your land inside what is now Israel, but your Palestinian = you're not welcome, you have no rights, you are dispossessed and disenfranchised. Not racist eh? Right.

Why? Because in a democracy, the majority opinion wins or should do. The creation of Israel denied the Palestinians sovereignty of their own land (and the traditional ownership claim is a very strong one incidentally), what gives a minority the right to overrule the majority? However in the land divided, Jews were in the majority in the land allocated to them. What's more considering the high likelihood of an outbreak of war over the issue, the wishes of the majority must be given up in the interest of peace.

Written like a true fascist. Those of us who clinge to liberal democracy believe in the right to self-determination by the majority (who, contrary to what you wrote, were the Palestinians) should prevail, particularly where the minority are recent immigrants with no real connection to the land.

Shocking, that a dispossessed and oppressed people would resist occupation, would resist the creation of an alien state created against the wishes of the majority in order to satisfy the desires of recent immigrants with no connection to that land. The majority of Jews were Semite. Semites originate from Palestine. Ergo, Jews have a connection to that land. Also those oppressed people started this entire conflict, if they didn't start the conflict, they wouldn't be oppressed. Also the majority are descendant from Arabs, who have no ethnic (or even cultural, unlike the Jews) connection to Palestine, and again, large portions moved there the same time the Jews did.

The connection between the European Jews and Palestine was weak at best, and following your argument the UK needs to be handed back to the picts; an ancient history does not equate to a connection.

The conflict was started through mass immigration of the European Jews into Palestine, they then declared an independent Jewish state against the wishes of the majority. The Palestinians had been resident on the land in question for nearly 2,000 years - you might not consider that much of a connection: I suspect you might be in the minority on that front.

So they did meddle then? Provoked or not, Israel has a long history of meddling and interference. If consider 'meddling' defending themselves then yes. And in that case it's quite acceptable meddling.

The word disproportionate springs to mind.

Israel is an occupying power, the Palestinians are merely resisting as is their right as an occupied and oppressed people. Again, there is no war, merely resistance. How can the Palestinians attack Israel, fail, then try to attack again and then occupied so they don't continue to attack, and then somehow become victims? Elements within Palestine attacked Israel, whatever authority that controlled Palestine refused to defend Israel from these elements. Irael had to defend itself.

I'm sure the Germans used the same argument during WWII, it was probably far from convincing then as well.

Your land, your home, your heritage are stolen from you and the recent (mass) immigrants bar you from returning to your home whilst encouraging Jews to come and settle in your land, what is your motivation? Freedom I would think. Your heritage, land etc was not stolen until you tried to steal from them first. Seems fair.

Amazing, wanting to keep your land is now considered as theft: those Palestinians are fiendishly clever it would appear. Of course they should have immediately gifted their land, their homes, their future to the recent mass immigrants, why, failing to do so is theft! Amazing.

The occupier's iron fist weakens a little, are the Palestinians to be grateful for this! The destruction of the state of Israel in its current form (Hamas to my knowledge have not said anything about genocide) is not, given the history of the land, an illegitimate aim for the Palestinian people - is it? Yes. They can't have everything in life. That's a simple fact. And because it was mostly Jews who made Palestine a remotely comfortable and prosperous place to live, I think they deserve some recognition. And no, that was not a weakening of the fist, that was an extension of the hand of goodwill. A hand promptly bitten in favour of war.

The hand of goodwill.....oh, how merciful the Israeli's are; they steal your land, kill your children, oppress you and when they weaken their oppression you are expected to be grateful. Merciful indeed.......

There will be no lasting peace until an equitable solution is found: this means returning to the 1967 boarders, it means East Jerusalem becoming the capital of the Palestinian state. This is quite acceptable to almost every Israeli. Provided such a Palestinian state actively protected Israel from attacks by its people, and recognised Israel's right to exist and sovereignty over those lands.

Recent events in Israel (further development in East Jerusalem) appears to disprove your theory, as if the history of the past 30 years hadn't provided enough evidence already.

As for Hamas, it is the product of Israels unwillingness to reach an equitable solution and the longer Israel continues with its policy of control, occupation and enforcement the more it will breed and stoke-up hatred, bitterness and violence. Someone needs to break the cycle; practically, only Israel is in a position to do this. Apparently not, considering Hamas grew in strength when Israel lifted its occupation.

Hamas had been steadily growing for many years: it came to power in part due the Fatah's chronic corruption and the inability of the PLO to gain an equitable peace from the Israelis. As for occupation; control of Gaza's boarders, control of what goes in and out control of its airspace, military intervention at will.....sounds a lot like occupation to me.

Hi,


let us hope that the continued vile behaviour of the odious Zionists raises the reasoned and acceptable hatred and disgust of the world more rapidly that they may be driven into the sea (to be collected and dispersed around the world from whence they came) to leave the Palestinian peoples at peace in Palestine be they Jews, Christians, Moslems or whatever other irrational superstition they may have invented that suits their psychie.

Then perhaps the peoples of Jordan may know peace and economic expansion, Egypt can stabilise in peace not rivalry, The Lebanon can rebuild from the obscene damage inflicted by the sordid Zionists and the region can dismantle the Zionist nuclear arsenal which has so ramped up the risks they would use the weapons against decent peoples.

May the peoples of the region return to a less damaging rivalry than the butchery and abuse that has been all too prevalent as a result of the obscene Zionist behaviour which has cause such murders and destabilisation based on greed which in its turn has caused such misery for Jews around the world who have leagely been falsely blamed for the brutality of the Zionist terrorists.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

Originally Posted by The Untalented Mr Ripley

The reality is far from simply impossible; as has been discussed previously, reconciliation has been reached in other parts of the world, all that is needed is the desire for peace on equitable terms. Israel has consistently demonstrated that it does not want peace.

As for international law, true Israel treats it as pretty moot - and will do until it needs to rely on it, then it'll be a different matter.

Well if it is then the returning Palestinians will need to accept living in Israel as Israeli citizens.

No connection to the state of Israel but you're Jewish = welcome to Israel and Israeli citizenship, thrown off your land inside what is now Israel, but your Palestinian = you're not welcome, you have no rights, you are dispossessed and disenfranchised. Not racist eh? Right.

As far as I'm aware there isn't actually anything keeping the Palestinians from immigrating to Israel. It's simply that they'll have to go through the normal processes to do so.

Written like a true fascist. Those of us who clinge to liberal democracy believe in the right to self-determination by the majority (who, contrary to what you wrote, were the Palestinians) should prevail, particularly where the minority are recent immigrants with no real connection to the land.

So you support Burma's denial of minorities autonomy because that's the decision of the majority? You support the Sri Lankan's denial of Tamul autonomy because that's what the majority wants, and you support the dismantling of Taiwan and it being absorbed into mainland China, because that's what the majority wants? Should the Jews have just gone along with the oppression under the Nazis because that was the wish of the majority?

The connection between the European Jews and Palestine was weak at best, and following your argument the UK needs to be handed back to the picts; an ancient history does not equate to a connection.

No it doesn't. Which is why I don't consider either party has a cause for traditional ownership. And considering the Palestinians are made of primarily Gulf Arabs and Nomadic peoples from all over the Middle East, their own connection to Palestine is tenuous at best.

The conflict was started through mass immigration of the European Jews into Palestine, they then declared an independent Jewish state against the wishes of the majority. The Palestinians had been resident on the land in question for nearly 2,000 years - you might not consider that much of a connection: I suspect you might be in the minority on that front.

I don't consider traditional ownership any kind of claim to land.

The word disproportionate springs to mind.

Why? The Israelis were just making a thorough job of killing their enemies.

I'm sure the Germans used the same argument during WWII, it was probably far from convincing then as well.

I have no idea what you're talking about. If you're talking about the German claims that Poland attacked first then I'd agree with you. Except it is extremely well documented that almost every conflict in the region was started by either Palestinians or the Arab states supporting them.

Amazing, wanting to keep your land is now considered as theft: those Palestinians are fiendishly clever it would appear. Of course they should have immediately gifted their land, their homes, their future to the recent mass immigrants, why, failing to do so is theft! Amazing.

Except, as I have pointed out, their land was theirs, and going to remain theirs until they decided to attack Israel.

The hand of goodwill.....oh, how merciful the Israeli's are; they steal your land,

After you or those who represent you attack them.

kill your children,

By accident in a war which unfortunately is of high risk of civilian casualties due to its location, a risk heightened by the actions of those who are meant to be fighting for you.

oppress you

In order to stop the violence being waged against them in the name of your people.

and when they weaken their oppression you are expected to be grateful. Merciful indeed.......

Not grateful, but accept it as a sign of goodwill and a want for peace.

Recent events in Israel (further development in East Jerusalem) appears to disprove your theory, as if the history of the past 30 years hadn't provided enough evidence already.

Why? Some of those homes were pre-approved before the moratorium on building, and the most recent of approvals were part of Netanyahu's need to save face at home with his far right coalition, while at the same time giving the Palestinians breathing room, as the new developments won't be built within a year, and hopefully negotiations will have improved enough by then to have them stopped. Netanyahu, arguably like Abbas, has been weakened by the strength of the rise in the right wing at home. It would be like blaming Abbas for Hamas aggression. He has very little control over the right, and if he wants to stay in power and keep them in check, he will have to manage them, as he doesn't have Abbas' advantage of geography.

Hamas had been steadily growing for many years: it came to power in part due the Fatah's chronic corruption and the inability of the PLO to gain an equitable peace from the Israelis. As for occupation; control of Gaza's boarders, control of what goes in and out control of its airspace, military intervention at will.....sounds a lot like occupation to me.

Or smart measures placed to stop a rogue group gaining weapons. Opening the borders would be like if the world just let anybody sell whatever they wanted to Al Qaeda.

Originally Posted by DCFGS3

Well if it is then the returning Palestinians will need to accept living in Israel as Israeli citizens.


As far as I'm aware there isn't actually anything keeping the Palestinians from immigrating to Israel. It's simply that they'll have to go through the normal processes to do so.

I think you'll find that Palestinians are effectively barred from immigration to Israel, unless of course they happen to be Jewish........not that that's racist of course, one rule for Jews another for the Palestinians........ As I have repeatedly stated, the Israelis will not allow the Palestinians to return, to do so would ensure that Zionist Jews became the minority and Israel would cease to exist as a Zionist supremist state - do you honestly believe that this is not the main reason why the Israels have, and will always seek to, prevent the Palestinians from returning to their homes? The truth is that Israel is as per pre-democratic South Africa, a racist state constructed to ensure the supremacy of one particular people over another.

Written like a true fascist. Those of us who clinge to liberal democracy believe in the right to self-determination by the majority (who, contrary to what you wrote, were the Palestinians) should prevail, particularly where the minority are recent immigrants with no real connection to the land. So you support Burma's denial of minorities autonomy because that's the decision of the majority? You support the Sri Lankan's denial of Tamul autonomy because that's what the majority wants, and you support the dismantling of Taiwan and it being absorbed into mainland China, because that's what the majority wants? Should the Jews have just gone along with the oppression under the Nazis because that was the wish of the majority?

In a democracy, the rights of minorities are protected, but not to the extent that they overrule the rights of the majority. Burma is a totalitarian state, how do you or anyone else know what the majority wants (other than democracy of course)? Yes I would deny Sri Lanka essentially becoming a two-nation state and Taiwan has made a democratic decision not to join with China. Your point? Of course, if you were concerned with rights, you would be keen on the Palestinians being able to exercise their lawful right to return to their homes, so why are you so opposed to this?

The creation of a nation state, created by and for recent mass immigrant to the the exclusion of the majority population (who own the majority of the land within that newly created state) who oppose such creation, has nothing to do with Burma or Taiwan and only a little with Sri Lanka (the Tamils being immigrants to Sri Lanka). You cite the recent immigrants right to self-determination, but what of the majority Palestinian population, where were their rights to self-determination: sacrificed by the UN to appease a small European minority?

The connection between the European Jews and Palestine was weak at best, and following your argument the UK needs to be handed back to the picts; an ancient history does not equate to a connection. No it doesn't. Which is why I don't consider either party has a cause for traditional ownership. And considering the Palestinians are made of primarily Gulf Arabs and Nomadic peoples from all over the Middle East, their own connection to Palestine is tenuous at best.



The conflict was started through mass immigration of the European Jews into Palestine, they then declared an independent Jewish state against the wishes of the majority. The Palestinians had been resident on the land in question for nearly 2,000 years - you might not consider that much of a connection: I suspect you might be in the minority on that front.


I don't consider traditional ownership any kind of claim to land.

You are 100% wrong re: your gulf Arab claim; there is ample research and literature demonstrating that Palestinians have resided in Palestine and Jordan for over 2,000 years. Whilst they are Arabs, they merely form one branch of the Arabic family, gulf Arabs included (who are a separate sub-group). Do you still think the Palestinians link to Palestine tenuous?

As for traditional ownership, well it is respected in other nations and also, of course, many Palestinians hold legal documentation proving ownership.

The word disproportionate springs to mind. Why? The Israelis were just making a thorough job of killing their enemies.



I'm sure the Germans used the same argument during WWII, it was probably far from convincing then as well.


I have no idea what you're talking about. If you're talking about the German claims that Poland attacked first then I'd agree with you. Except it is extremely well documented that almost every conflict in the region was started by either Palestinians or the Arab states supporting them.

If you mean that civilian infrastructure and Palestinian / Lebanese civilians are enemies, then yes, the Israelis are pretty effective. As for the WWII analogy, the Germans were an occupying power who blamed those they occupied for resisting them, I thought this a clearly made point.

Except, as I have pointed out, their land was theirs, and going to remain theirs until they decided to attack Israel.


The hand of goodwill.....oh, how merciful the Israeli's are; they steal your land,


After you or those who represent you attack them.



kill your children,


By accident in a war which unfortunately is of high risk of civilian casualties due to its location, a risk heightened by the actions of those who are meant to be fighting for you.


oppress you


In order to stop the violence being waged against them in the name of your people.


and when they weaken their oppression you are expected to be grateful. Merciful indeed.......


Not grateful, but accept it as a sign of goodwill and a want for peace.

Israeli is an occupying power. The arguments and debates start and end there: the Israelis complain about being attacked by the Palestinians and cite the need for self-defence, yet they have created the bitterness, the hatred, the desire for revenge amongst the Palestinian population. Rather than address legitimate concerns and grievances, the Israels have continued to oppress, they have continued to steal and develop Palestinian land, they have continued to bomb, shoot and kill whilst simultaneously failing to engage, to have meaningful talks, to compromise, to respect that the Palestinians have rights.

Israel has created the current mess and unless she comes to her senses she will face a bloody end: the Palestinian population within Israel is increasing at a much faster rate than the Jewish population, within 50 years the Palestinians will form the majority of Israel's population, then we shall see how the years of Zionist oppression are repaid.

Recent events in Israel (further development in East Jerusalem) appears to disprove your theory, as if the history of the past 30 years hadn't provided enough evidence already.
Why? Some of those homes were pre-approved before the moratorium on building, and the most recent of approvals were part of Netanyahu's need to save face at home with his far right coalition, while at the same time giving the Palestinians breathing room, as the new developments won't be built within a year, and hopefully negotiations will have improved enough by then to have them stopped. Netanyahu, arguably like Abbas, has been weakened by the strength of the rise in the right wing at home. It would be like blaming Abbas for Hamas aggression. He has very little control over the right, and if he wants to stay in power and keep them in check, he will have to manage them, as he doesn't have Abbas' advantage of geography.

The Israels continue to build on land that simply is not theirs, you and other Israel supporters might not believe that land is the Palestinians, but under international law it is and the international community (even Israel's arch-supporters, the USA, accepts) accepts this is the case. Again, Israel is an occupying power and has legal and moral responsibilites, responsibilities it has consistently ignored and periodically stomped all over: Israel has a responsibility not to steal and colonise land it occupies, but what does it do? Of course the development concerned is for Palestinian citizens of Israel.....oh no, it is for Jews only. Again.

Hamas had been steadily growing for many years: it came to power in part due the Fatah's chronic corruption and the inability of the PLO to gain an equitable peace from the Israelis. As for occupation; control of Gaza's boarders, control of what goes in and out control of its airspace, military intervention at will.....sounds a lot like occupation to me. Or smart measures placed to stop a rogue group gaining weapons. Opening the borders would be like if the world just let anybody sell whatever they wanted to Al Qaeda.

You accept my point concerning occupation then.

Hi,

am I alone in being unable to access page 3?

I feel something like the Palestinian prisoner held as a slave in a Zionist run Mazuzza factory who kept putting messages in the mazuzzas saying:
'Help I'm a prisoner in a mazuzza factory'
Little realising that mazuzzas are never opened they are just iconic aspects of superstition.

For if no one can reach page 3 this message will never be read!
Regards,
Greg L-W,

Originally Posted by DCFGS3

Israel is a democracy, ergo not fascist.
And no, they're not genociding the Arabs. That's why there are no gas chambers, death camps or shooting squads. That's why the IDF drops thousands of leaflets on houses warning of impending bombing attacks. There is no genocide except the one Hamas and other Arab terrorists want to commit against Israel.

Hi,

Palestine is NOT a democracy the Country has been swamped with Zionist aliens and the indigenous peoples whatever their chosen superstitions have been forced out by an obscene and morally reprehensible scale of displacement.

The people who it seems the plan is to displace have been forced into a Warsaw style ghetto behind chain link fencing and concrete walls where they have been denied all sorts of humanitarian aid and fundamental human rights.

Zionist sponsored terrorists have confined them bulldozed their homes, shot them used helicopter gun ships on them and generally terrorised them in a style of genocide that brings shame on mankind.

Palestine has been denied democracy and abused in a clearly fascist manner that has heaped shame and hatred on the international Jewish diaspora by the vile and cruel inhuman zionists.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

Ah, the peace-loving, democratic Israel: Jail ordeal of hundreds of Palestinian children arrested for throwing stones | World news | The Observer

Originally Posted by The Untalented Mr Ripley

I think you'll find that Palestinians are effectively barred from immigration to Israel, unless of course they happen to be Jewish........not that that's racist of course, one rule for Jews another for the Palestinians........ As I have repeatedly stated, the Israelis will not allow the Palestinians to return, to do so would ensure that Zionist Jews became the minority and Israel would cease to exist as a Zionist supremist state - do you honestly believe that this is not the main reason why the Israels have, and will always seek to, prevent the Palestinians from returning to their homes? The truth is that Israel is as per pre-democratic South Africa, a racist state constructed to ensure the supremacy of one particular people over another.

No, the Israelis won't let the Palestinians return to their own land, because it isn't their's anymore. They can live in Israel fine, as long as they immigrate like everybody else (Jews excluded). Furthermore Israel is nothing like South Africa. Arabs within Israel are treated just like normal Israeli citizens because that's what they are. And as I have stated, the reasons they haven't just opened the flood gates to a massive Palestinian return are quite obvious and legitimate. The Israelis don't want massive amounts of Palestinians flooding back in and demanding 'their' land back because the Palestinians want to kill them. Seems simple.

In a democracy, the rights of minorities are protected, but not to the extent that they overrule the rights of the majority. Burma is a totalitarian state, how do you or anyone else know what the majority wants (other than democracy of course)? Yes I would deny Sri Lanka essentially becoming a two-nation state and Taiwan has made a democratic decision not to join with China. Your point? Of course, if you were concerned with rights, you would be keen on the Palestinians being able to exercise their lawful right to return to their homes, so why are you so opposed to this?

The creation of a nation state, created by and for recent mass immigrant to the the exclusion of the majority population (who own the majority of the land within that newly created state) who oppose such creation, has nothing to do with Burma or Taiwan and only a little with Sri Lanka (the Tamils being immigrants to Sri Lanka). You cite the recent immigrants right to self-determination, but what of the majority Palestinian population, where were their rights to self-determination: sacrificed by the UN to appease a small European minority?

Except the Jews were the majority in their areas, just like the Taiwanese are the majority in their's. Taiwan is still part of China geographically and indeed culturally, just like the Jewish settlements were. And there was a real threat that the Jews were going to be oppressed by an Arab state. It was backed by people such as the Mufti, and their had been violence between the two before, as well as it wanting to declare itself an 'Arab' state.

You are 100% wrong re: your gulf Arab claim; there is ample research and literature demonstrating that Palestinians have resided in Palestine and Jordan for over 2,000 years. Whilst they are Arabs, they merely form one branch of the Arabic family, gulf Arabs included (who are a separate sub-group). Do you still think the Palestinians link to Palestine tenuous?

I don't doubt many have lived there for quite some time. However many have only arrived as recently as the Jews, and while they may have similiar cultural and ethnic ties to the Arabs already within Palestine, their families have not lived there for any considerable time. The actual Semite people (the only real claimants to original ownership) are only a very small minority among the Palestinians.

As for traditional ownership, well it is respected in other nations and also, of course, many Palestinians hold legal documentation proving ownership.

It's a nice little thing people use when they try to live in the past and think it gives them any kind of entitlement in the future. And legal documentation, if it could even be proved it was real, is pretty much mooted by the war.

If you mean that civilian infrastructure and Palestinian / Lebanese civilians are enemies, then yes, the Israelis are pretty effective. As for the WWII analogy, the Germans were an occupying power who blamed those they occupied for resisting them, I thought this a clearly made point.

Israel does not deliberately kill civilians. Civilians die because of the **** situation they're in and the bastards who hide among them using them as shields and media fodder. I still don't understand your German analogy.

Israeli is an occupying power. The arguments and debates start and end there: the Israelis complain about being attacked by the Palestinians and cite the need for self-defence, yet they have created the bitterness, the hatred, the desire for revenge amongst the Palestinian population. Rather than address legitimate concerns and grievances, the Israels have continued to oppress, they have continued to steal and develop Palestinian land, they have continued to bomb, shoot and kill whilst simultaneously failing to engage, to have meaningful talks, to compromise, to respect that the Palestinians have rights.

Yes. Palestine is an occupied country. However, it is painfully obvious that occupation is what is required to secure Israeli safety. Look what happened when they pulled out of Gaza, Hamas attacked as soon as it had been allowed to operate openly.

Israel has created the current mess and unless she comes to her senses she will face a bloody end: the Palestinian population within Israel is increasing at a much faster rate than the Jewish population, within 50 years the Palestinians will form the majority of Israel's population, then we shall see how the years of Zionist oppression are repaid.

Actually the Palestinians created the current mess.

The Israels continue to build on land that simply is not theirs, you and other Israel supporters might not believe that land is the Palestinians, but under international law it is and the international community (even Israel's arch-supporters, the USA, accepts) accepts this is the case. Again, Israel is an occupying power and has legal and moral responsibilites, responsibilities it has consistently ignored and periodically stomped all over: Israel has a responsibility not to steal and colonise land it occupies, but what does it do? Of course the development concerned is for Palestinian citizens of Israel.....oh no, it is for Jews only. Again.

A tiny proportion of the West Bank is under Jewish development, and as I said, that is being carried out by the hardline Jews, supported by the far right, who are now very strong thanks to Hamas' war. What's more Israel clearly is more moral than Hamas or the PLO.

You accept my point concerning occupation then.

Yes they occupied (if only partially in Gaza) however that is required for Israeli safety.

Originally Posted by Greg Lance-Watkins

Hi,

Palestine is NOT a democracy the Country has been swamped with Zionist aliens and the indigenous peoples whatever their chosen superstitions have been forced out by an obscene and morally reprehensible scale of displacement.

The people who it seems the plan is to displace have been forced into a Warsaw style ghetto behind chain link fencing and concrete walls where they have been denied all sorts of humanitarian aid and fundamental human rights.

Zionist sponsored terrorists have confined them bulldozed their homes, shot them used helicopter gun ships on them and generally terrorised them in a style of genocide that brings shame on mankind.

Palestine has been denied democracy and abused in a clearly fascist manner that has heaped shame and hatred on the international Jewish diaspora by the vile and cruel inhuman zionists.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

Greg you really don't have any perspective or credibility in this matter nor even Humanity IMO because your solution to the conflict is to drown 7 and a half million people in the sea.

Originally Posted by DCFGS3

No, the Israelis won't let the Palestinians return to their own land, because it isn't their's anymore. They can live in Israel fine, as long as they immigrate like everybody else (Jews excluded). Furthermore Israel is nothing like South Africa. Arabs within Israel are treated just like normal Israeli citizens because that's what they are. And as I have stated, the reasons they haven't just opened the flood gates to a massive Palestinian return are quite obvious and legitimate. The Israelis don't want massive amounts of Palestinians flooding back in and demanding 'their' land back because the Palestinians want to kill them. Seems simple.

Of course it isn't the Palestinian's land anymore: the Israelis stole it from them and have made it absolutely clear that no matter how illegal or immoral that theft is, the Palestinians must remain dispossessed and uncompensated, who says that crime doesn't pay......

Strangely enough, all this the ownership business is even more one sided than first appearances suggest: there is a project, American funded of course, that trawls through Palestinian neighbourhoods and old records looking for Palestinian homes that were once Jewish but whose Jewish owners fled fighting in the 1940s and 50s. The Zionist project then seeks to gain repossession through legal means (Israeli legal means of course) in a direct effort to rid Israel of those troubling Palestinian neighbourhoods. Ghost, one rule for Zionists and one for Palestinians - not that this is racist of course.

Whilst we're on the subject of those psychopathic blood-thirsty Palestinians who want to slaughter the Jews, you know though those Arabs who manage to live in peace with their Israeli neighbours within Israeli itself........why is it that so many Palestinian Israelis can manage not to routinely murder their Jewish neighbours - clearly they don't know what you do. As for the small minority of Palestinians who would like to commit mass murder (a number I imagine on a bar with the number of excessively right-wing Jewish settlers who would like to commit mass murder of Palestinians), now why on earth would they want to kill the people they hold responsible for theft, murder, humiliation and years of oppression? Behaviour breeds behaviour; something the Israelis appear either to have forgotten or never learned.

As for why some Palestinians are allowed to remain and vote - well, so long as they're a minority thats ok isn't it: after all the South African whites let a few mixed-race and Asian people have citizenship and vote......perhaps Israel isn't quite so unlike South Africa after all.

In a democracy, the rights of minorities are protected, but not to the extent that they overrule the rights of the majority. Burma is a totalitarian state, how do you or anyone else know what the majority wants (other than democracy of course)? Yes I would deny Sri Lanka essentially becoming a two-nation state and Taiwan has made a democratic decision not to join with China. Your point? Of course, if you were concerned with rights, you would be keen on the Palestinians being able to exercise their lawful right to return to their homes, so why are you so opposed to this?

The creation of a nation state, created by and for recent mass immigrant to the the exclusion of the majority population (who own the majority of the land within that newly created state) who oppose such creation, has nothing to do with Burma or Taiwan and only a little with Sri Lanka (the Tamils being immigrants to Sri Lanka). You cite the recent immigrants right to self-determination, but what of the majority Palestinian population, where were their rights to self-determination: sacrificed by the UN to appease a small European minority? Except the Jews were the majority in their areas, just like the Taiwanese are the majority in their's. Taiwan is still part of China geographically and indeed culturally, just like the Jewish settlements were. And there was a real threat that the Jews were going to be oppressed by an Arab state. It was backed by people such as the Mufti, and their had been violence between the two before, as well as it wanting to declare itself an 'Arab' state.

I think you'll find that the Palestinians remained the majority within the boarders proposed by the UN and they certainly owned the vast majority of the land. As for the Palestinians, hardly unreasonable that the majority long-established population would wish to declare a state in line with the ethnic make-up of the area. As for China and Taiwan, I think you'll find China and Tibet a better comparison.

You are 100% wrong re: your gulf Arab claim; there is ample research and literature demonstrating that Palestinians have resided in Palestine and Jordan for over 2,000 years. Whilst they are Arabs, they merely form one branch of the Arabic family, gulf Arabs included (who are a separate sub-group). Do you still think the Palestinians link to Palestine tenuous? I don't doubt many have lived there for quite some time. However many have only arrived as recently as the Jews, and while they may have similiar cultural and ethnic ties to the Arabs already within Palestine, their families have not lived there for any considerable time. The actual Semite people (the only real claimants to original ownership) are only a very small minority among the Palestinians.

Sorry, you appear not to be getting this: the Palestinians have been in Palestinians for at least 2,000 years, just how much of a link between the Palestinian people and their land to you want? Contrary to Israeli lies and propaganda, there were people living in Palestine before the mass Jewish immigration, the people living in Palestine had been there for at least two milenia, the European Jews who voluntarily went to and settled in Palestine did so to create a Jewish supremist state irrespective as to the wishes or rights of self-determination of the native Palestinian population.

As for traditional ownership, well it is respected in other nations and also, of course, many Palestinians hold legal documentation proving ownership. It's a nice little thing people use when they try to live in the past and think it gives them any kind of entitlement in the future. And legal documentation, if it could even be proved it was real, is pretty much mooted by the war.

Really, under what law is that then - the one you've just made up, which goes against the law as it is understood in every civilised nation?

If you mean that civilian infrastructure and Palestinian / Lebanese civilians are enemies, then yes, the Israelis are pretty effective. As for the WWII analogy, the Germans were an occupying power who blamed those they occupied for resisting them, I thought this a clearly made point. Israel does not deliberately kill civilians. Civilians die because of the **** situation they're in and the bastards who hide among them using them as shields and media fodder. I still don't understand your German analogy.

When you kill as many civilians as Israel does, intention becomes somewhat moot: deliberate or reckless, the result is the same and yet the Israelis still recite the old line "we don't target civilians" - they don't have to, they're so reckless that their intentions simply don't matter. As for the German analogy, I think it is pretty clear.

Israeli is an occupying power. The arguments and debates start and end there: the Israelis complain about being attacked by the Palestinians and cite the need for self-defence, yet they have created the bitterness, the hatred, the desire for revenge amongst the Palestinian population. Rather than address legitimate concerns and grievances, the Israels have continued to oppress, they have continued to steal and develop Palestinian land, they have continued to bomb, shoot and kill whilst simultaneously failing to engage, to have meaningful talks, to compromise, to respect that the Palestinians have rights. Yes. Palestine is an occupied country. However, it is painfully obvious that occupation is what is required to secure Israeli safety. Look what happened when they pulled out of Gaza, Hamas attacked as soon as it had been allowed to operate openly.

Yes, they pulled out and not a lot of activity for quite some time.

Israel has created the current mess and unless she comes to her senses she will face a bloody end: the Palestinian population within Israel is increasing at a much faster rate than the Jewish population, within 50 years the Palestinians will form the majority of Israel's population, then we shall see how the years of Zionist oppression are repaid. Actually the Palestinians created the current mess.

Cool - so it wasn't the mass migration, the creating a country against the will of the majority or its neighbours, it wasn't the actions of Israel, of Egypt, of Syria, or Jordan, it wasn't Israeli occupation of territory, no, it was the Palestinian civilian population.........

A tiny proportion of the West Bank is under Jewish development, and as I said, that is being carried out by the hardline Jews, supported by the far right, who are now very strong thanks to Hamas' war. What's more Israel clearly is more moral than Hamas or the PLO.


You accept my point concerning occupation then.


Yes they occupied (if only partially in Gaza) however that is required for Israeli safety.

Tiny proportion - does that include the road networks too? Israel is indeed a very moral country, if you overlook the 1,000s of civilian deaths, the numerous kidnappings, murders, etc that she commits, if one overlooks the theft of land, the refusal to adhere to international law and UN resolutions. Very moral.

Originally Posted by DCFGS3

Greg you really don't have any perspective or credibility in this matter nor even Humanity IMO because your solution to the conflict is to drown 7 and a half million people in the sea.

Hi,

Please identify where I have made such an allegation against the Zionists whose OFFICIAL stance is to set up a ghetto build chain link & concrete walls around the peoples they have driven off the land and deny their liberty, access to their work and lands and many modern services bombing & rocket attacking from the air and using helicopter gun ships fire on them whilst intimidating them with armed, trained terrorist whilst bulldozing many properties.

I repeat that the sooner the zionists are driven into the sea and collected and dispersed around the world from whence they came the sooner the Jews, Muslims, Christians and those sane enough not to base their lives on fanciful faith based superstitions can live in relative harmony once more.

There would be no greater act to bring peace to our streets around the world than the demise of the zionist attrocities in Palestine and an end to their vile behaviour with them being driven into the sea and disbursed. Much terrorism around the world is based upon zionist terrorism.

As for credibility - is there ANY humanity in ANY of your comments on this subject as it is clear to me that like many of the deniers of the holocaust you seem to be able to blank out or justify any act however obscene.

Are you equally as intollerant and unpleasant in real life or do you just get carried away on a key board?

Regards,
Greg L-W.

'Britain to expel Israeli diplomat over Dubai hit' - Israel News, Ynetnews
Interesting development.
Watch for the announcement at 15:30 today, if there is one.

Originally Posted by The Untalented Mr Ripley

Of course it isn't the Palestinian's land anymore: the Israelis stole it from them and have made it absolutely clear that no matter how illegal or immoral that theft is, the Palestinians must remain dispossessed and uncompensated, who says that crime doesn't pay......

Israel took most of the land as recompense for Palestine and the other Arab nations invading them in 1948. You don't get to try and destroy a country and then just get your land back scot free. The only land that should become Palestine is the West Bank and Gaza.

Strangely enough, all this the ownership business is even more one sided than first appearances suggest: there is a project, American funded of course, that trawls through Palestinian neighbourhoods and old records looking for Palestinian homes that were once Jewish but whose Jewish owners fled fighting in the 1940s and 50s. The Zionist project then seeks to gain repossession through legal means (Israeli legal means of course) in a direct effort to rid Israel of those troubling Palestinian neighbourhoods. Ghost, one rule for Zionists and one for Palestinians - not that this is racist of course.

While the zoning and housing laws in Jerusalem under the Israelis are discriminatory, the simple fact remains that while the Israelis are trying to dominate the city with residency laws and zoning restrictions, that is far cry from the Arabs trying to dominate it with rockets and suicide bombers.

Whilst we're on the subject of those psychopathic blood-thirsty Palestinians who want to slaughter the Jews, you know though those Arabs who manage to live in peace with their Israeli neighbours within Israeli itself........why is it that so many Palestinian Israelis can manage not to routinely murder their Jewish neighbours - clearly they don't know what you do. As for the small minority of Palestinians who would like to commit mass murder (a number I imagine on a bar with the number of excessively right-wing Jewish settlers who would like to commit mass murder of Palestinians), now why on earth would they want to kill the people they hold responsible for theft, murder, humiliation and years of oppression? Behaviour breeds behaviour; something the Israelis appear either to have forgotten or never learned.

Well obviously those who want to commit mass murder are in the majority, Hamas was voted in by a majority wasn't it?

As for why some Palestinians are allowed to remain and vote - well, so long as they're a minority thats ok isn't it: after all the South African whites let a few mixed-race and Asian people have citizenship and vote......perhaps Israel isn't quite so unlike South Africa after all.

Except there isn't any discrimination on voting for any race, so your point is moot.

I think you'll find that the Palestinians remained the majority within the boarders proposed by the UN and they certainly owned the vast majority of the land. As for the Palestinians, hardly unreasonable that the majority long-established population would wish to declare a state in line with the ethnic make-up of the area. As for China and Taiwan, I think you'll find China and Tibet a better comparison.

Irrelavent, even if they were the majority, the fact remains peace was not possible. Under an Arab state (which is what it would have become) the Jews would have been discriminated against, oppressed and quite possibly there would have been a second holocaust. In 1948 There would be no single state solution. It was two or none, and everybody knew that. If they wanted peace, then why did they reject it?

Sorry, you appear not to be getting this: the Palestinians have been in Palestinians for at least 2,000 years, just how much of a link between the Palestinian people and their land to you want? Contrary to Israeli lies and propaganda, there were people living in Palestine before the mass Jewish immigration, the people living in Palestine had been there for at least two milenia, the European Jews who voluntarily went to and settled in Palestine did so to create a Jewish supremist state irrespective as to the wishes or rights of self-determination of the native Palestinian population.

No they haven't. Prior to 1850, Palestine was largely uninhabited, Jerusalem was no bigger than 30, 000 people. The ancient Palestinian people are today in the minority in comparison to Gulf Arabs and the Nomads.

Really, under what law is that then - the one you've just made up, which goes against the law as it is understood in every civilised nation?

My point was that war clouds things to a point where anything that has gone before can be treated as suspect. The lands outside the West Bank and Gaza are no longer Palestinian, irrelevant of any paperwork they may have.

When you kill as many civilians as Israel does, intention becomes somewhat moot: deliberate or reckless, the result is the same and yet the Israelis still recite the old line "we don't target civilians" - they don't have to, they're so reckless that their intentions simply don't matter. As for the German analogy, I think it is pretty clear.

Nevertheless, if Israel wants to defend itself then civilians are going to die. It's either just lay down and let rockets kill your people, and don't harm those nice Palestinians who voted in the people firing the rockets, or do what every other nation is entitled to do and defend yourself.

Cool - so it wasn't the mass migration, the creating a country against the will of the majority or its neighbours, it wasn't the actions of Israel, of Egypt, of Syria, or Jordan, it wasn't Israeli occupation of territory, no, it was the Palestinian civilian population.........

In fairness the unrestricted immigration was a sign of the times, all over the world, however it was the responsibility of the Ottomans to control any immigration, and they in fact encouraged it. So really the over immigration was their fault. And then of course when restrictions were put in place the Holocaust occurred which makes immigration understandable. So it was the German's fault in that regard. What's more it was the Palestinians who started the 1920s riots, and the first massacres. It was also them who attacked the embryonic Israel in 1947 and continued to through to 1949.

Israel is indeed a very moral country, if you overlook the 1,000s of civilian deaths

Understandable considering the context of the war which I have already explained.

the numerous kidnappings

Arrests of suspected terrorists.

murders

Killing the enemy.

theft of land

Either being the recompense paid by the aggressor, or occupied to protect Israel from terrorists.

the refusal to adhere to international law and UN resolutions.

International Law is rarely applied anywhere and is subjective. What's more the UN is generally biased against Israel these days.

Originally Posted by Greg Lance-Watkins

Please identify where I have made such an allegation against the Zionists whose OFFICIAL stance is to set up a ghetto build chain link & concrete walls around the peoples they have driven off the land and deny their liberty, access to their work and lands and many modern services bombing & rocket attacking from the air and using helicopter gun ships fire on them whilst intimidating them with armed, trained terrorist whilst bulldozing many properties.

Here;

I welcome the day when the Zionists are driven into the sea

Now Zionists are good at a lot of things, but even they can't breath water.

I repeat that the sooner the zionists are driven into the sea and collected and dispersed around the world from whence they came the sooner the Jews, Muslims, Christians and those sane enough not to base their lives on fanciful faith based superstitions can live in relative harmony once more.

Unlikely considering the official policy of the Palestinian Government is to establish an Islamic state. And Islamic states have really been known for their tolerance of other religions haven't they? What's more Hamas has repeatedly used anti-semitic rhetoric, and desires to kill all Jews irrelevant of their origin (The first Arab massacres in the 1920s killed mostly Yishuv Jews who had been there longer than the Arabs had). What's more as I have pointed out, Israel is now the home of millions of people, you can't just up and lift them out, nobody would take them.

There would be no greater act to bring peace to our streets around the world than the demise of the zionist attrocities in Palestine and an end to their vile behaviour with them being driven into the sea and disbursed. Much terrorism around the world is based upon zionist terrorism.

No it isn't. In fact I think it's in the minority compared to Islamic and Christian...

As for credibility - is there ANY humanity in ANY of your comments on this subject as it is clear to me that like many of the deniers of the holocaust you seem to be able to blank out or justify any act however obscene.

I admit that Palestinian civilians have been killed, and don't dispute the numbers. I just wonder why a shell missing its target and killing 3 schoolchildren is a sad accident in Afghanistan, but a war crime in Palestine.

Are you equally as intollerant and unpleasant in real life or do you just get carried away on a key board?

Nice end there, resulting to personal insults. Real professional for someone who apparently runs so many political blogs.

Hi,

I note no apology for your dishonesty DCFGS3 but I note you do concede that you lied when you claimed I had advocated the killing of 7,000,000 Jews.
Clearly sir you are an habitual liar on this matter and I do appreciate your determination to justify the vile behaviour of Zionists.

I repeat that the sooner the zionists are driven into the sea and collected and dispersed around the world from whence they came the sooner the Jews, Muslims, Christians and those sane enough not to base their lives on fanciful faith based superstitions can live in relative harmony once more.

That extremist Muslims have been encouraged by the serial outrages of Zionists is indisputable.

The difference between the unfortunate death of 3 children in the Afghanistan war zone and the obscene criminality of the Zionist terrorists committing a Crime Against Humanity by attacking indigenous peoples, largely unarmed, with sophisticated military weapons is plain to see.

The vile manner in which Zionists and their supporters hide behind Judaism as they screech anti semite at any criticism has brought immense suffering upon the honest decent Jews internationally who renounce the obscene and fascist style brutality of Zionists and their terrorist forces of the IDF.

There will never be peace in Palestine for as long as Zionists are tolerated as it is not peace they want it is POWER.

The vile behaviour of Zionists particularly in Palestine has been at the root of the burgeoning of Muslim extremism around the world as nations are perceived to have misguidedly and foolishly have supported Zionism in any shape, manner or form - including the intimidatory lobbying that has been found in unrelated situations.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

From UK-Israeli relations sink over forged passports - Diplomacy : news, world | euronews :

The diplomatic fallout from January’s killing of a Hamas military commander in a Dubai hotel room continues to injure relations between the UK and Israel.

London is convinced Tel Aviv was behind the assassination and consequently the forging of six British passports used by the suspected killers.

The British government is now seeking assurances that the affair will never be repeated, but not before expelling an Israeli diplomat.

Britain’s Foreign Secretary, David Miliband told parliament:

“Such misuse of British passports is intolerable. It presents a hazard for the safety of British nationals in the region. It also represents a profound disregard for the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. The fact that this was done by a country which is a friend, with significant diplomatic, cultural, business and personal ties to the UK only adds insult to injury.”

Britain’s actions could put pressure on other countries whose passports were also cloned to take similar steps.

For its part Israel has neither confirmed nor denied involvement in the Dubai killing.

The UK’s Foreign Office has also taken the unusual step of warning UK travellers to Israel to handover their passports to officials there only when absolutely necessary.

Originally Posted by DCFGS3

Israel took most of the land as recompense for Palestine and the other Arab nations invading them in 1948. You don't get to try and destroy a country and then just get your land back scot free. The only land that should become Palestine is the West Bank and Gaza.

Israel took the land because it wanted to, just as the Zionists had declared an independent Jewish state against the wishes to the majority of the population and against the wishes of the neighbouring nations because they wanted to. Israel may well view the occupied territories as being recompense for Arab nations fighting for the rights of self-determination for their Palestinian bretheran and to prevent an alien state being created in their backyards. Israel occupies Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem illegally and this illegality is recognised as such by the international community; Israel has no case, either moral or legal, to remain in the occupied territories.

While the zoning and housing laws in Jerusalem under the Israelis are discriminatory, the simple fact remains that while the Israelis are trying to dominate the city with residency laws and zoning restrictions, that is far cry from the Arabs trying to dominate it with rockets and suicide bombers.

What precisely are you against here: the Israeli theft and settlement of East Jerusalem, the Palestinians resisting an occupying power who is intent of permanently stealing and colonising their land or the method the Palestinians believe they are forced to use? The central point in all discussions regarding Israel and Palestine is that Israel is occupying Palestinian lands unlawfully, is has committed numerous human rights violations against the Palestinians, it allows if not actively encourages the colonisation of Palestinian land and blames everyone but themselves for the God awful mess they have created by their desire to enlarge their own boarders.

Well obviously those who want to commit mass murder are in the majority, Hamas was voted in by a majority wasn't it?

I beleive that you are aware of what a gross oversimplification your above statement is. Hamas were voted in for a variety of reasons, not least the incompetence and corruption of Fatah: at least Palestinian and Israeli politicians have something in common in that regard. Again, whilst I deplore the tactics Hamas use, the Palestinian people are entitled to resist with force the illegal occupation by and oppression of the Israelis. In terms of mass murder, it is a bit rich bemoaning Hamas given the IDF's history of civilian casualities, many of which resulted from the somewhat "relaxed" attitude the Israelis have towards non-Jewish civilian deaths.

Except there isn't any discrimination on voting for any race, so your point is moot.

No discrimination......which is why Israel will not comply with international law and allow the Palestinian refugees the right of return whilst simultaneously encouraging anyone deemed Jewish to come and settle.....no discrimination there then, glad we cleared that one up.....

Irrelavent, even if they were the majority, the fact remains peace was not possible. Under an Arab state (which is what it would have become) the Jews would have been discriminated against, oppressed and quite possibly there would have been a second holocaust. In 1948 There would be no single state solution. It was two or none, and everybody knew that. If they wanted peace, then why did they reject it?

Ifs, buts and maybes; thats the great thing about speculation, you can create an theoretical argument for or about anything, also, is has no term being created for the use of the world 'holocaust' when debating or discussion any matter concerning Israel? As for your theory of Jewish oppression by the Palestinians you might have a half-decent point were it not for the fact that for over 1,000 years Muslims, Christians and Jews had co-existed peaceful in Palestine, this position only changed as a result of the mass migration to Palestine by European Jewish Zionists who were intent on creating a Jewish-supremest state.

Sorry, you appear not to be getting this: the Palestinians have been in Palestinians for at least 2,000 years, just how much of a link between the Palestinian people and their land to you want? Contrary to Israeli lies and propaganda, there were people living in Palestine before the mass Jewish immigration, the people living in Palestine had been there for at least two milenia, the European Jews who voluntarily went to and settled in Palestine did so to create a Jewish supremist state irrespective as to the wishes or rights of self-determination of the native Palestinian population. No they haven't. Prior to 1850, Palestine was largely uninhabited, Jerusalem was no bigger than 30, 000 people. The ancient Palestinian people are today in the minority in comparison to Gulf Arabs and the Nomads.

I think you've been looking at too many nutty extreme right-wing pro-Israeli websites, the fact is that Palestine has been continuously inhabited for 1,000s of years, estimates of the population vary but very few dispute the central point that Palestine has been permanently settled. Even if the majority of Palestinian people of today are not 100% ethnic Palestinians so what? How many Britons, Germans, French, Australians are 100% "ethnically pure" and why on earth should it matter? Either way, the ethnically impure Palestinians still have a damned stronger link to the land that is currently Israel than the Israelis do, and how many Israelis are actually ethnically pure Jews, not that it actually matters?

My point was that war clouds things to a point where anything that has gone before can be treated as suspect. The lands outside the West Bank and Gaza are no longer Palestinian, irrelevant of any paperwork they may have.

The lands within Israel are no longer Palestinian owned because they have been illegally stolen from the Palestinians by Zionist settlers aided and abetted by the State of Israel itself which places huge hurdles in the way of any Palestinian foolish enough to try and use Israeli law to get their land and homes back. In this regard Israel maintains the law of the powerful and of the bully, not justice, not fairness and it wonders why the Palestinians continue to resist them.....

Nevertheless, if Israel wants to defend itself then civilians are going to die. It's either just lay down and let rockets kill your people, and don't harm those nice Palestinians who voted in the people firing the rockets, or do what every other nation is entitled to do and defend yourself.

If Israel wants to defend herself she should seek a peaceful and equitable solution, but she will not do so because her politicians and a majority of the Jewish-Israeli population do not want to withdraw from East Jerusalem or the occupied territories and learn to live with each other. Again, Israel is an occupier and one that appears to have gone out of her way to antagonise, alienate and incite hatred from the Palestinian population, Israel continues to occupy, to oppress, to kill, to colonise and when she is met by resistance in the form of aging and inaccurate WWII rockets she and complains of "terrorism" and launches air-strikes on densely populated areas knowing full well that numerous civilian deaths will occur.

When Israel "defends" herself she does so in a gross disproportionate manner an in a way where mass civilian casualties are inevitable, her recklessness has been well documented as have her war crimes. Still, your comments suggest that you hold the Palestinian population responsible for the attacks: they are not and to punish them in the manner that Israel is doing in Gaza constitutes a collective punishment and is in of itself a war crime.

In fairness the unrestricted immigration was a sign of the times, all over the world, however it was the responsibility of the Ottomans to control any immigration, and they in fact encouraged it. So really the over immigration was their fault. And then of course when restrictions were put in place the Holocaust occurred which makes immigration understandable. So it was the German's fault in that regard. What's more it was the Palestinians who started the 1920s riots, and the first massacres. It was also them who attacked the embryonic Israel in 1947 and continued to through to 1949.

Despite Israeli spin and invoking the memory of the holocaust, the Palestinians are the true victims in all of this: denied the right of self-determination, their land swamped by alien incomers, they have been dispossessed, denied their legal and moral rights and have suffered for over 60 years at the hands of the Israelis. It is grossly insulting to portray the Palestinians as having brought this disaster about their heads, it is the Zionists who have much to apologise for.

Israel is indeed a very moral country, if you overlook the 1,000s of civilian deaths


Understandable considering the context of the war which I have already explained.



the numerous kidnappings


Arrests of suspected terrorists.



murders


Killing the enemy.



theft of land


Either being the recompense paid by the aggressor, or occupied to protect Israel from terrorists.

I think you are arguing against internation law and basic human rights.

the refusal to adhere to international law and UN resolutions. International Law is rarely applied anywhere and is subjective. What's more the UN is generally biased against Israel these days.

I think you'll find that the right world to describe international law is objective, and indeed the UN is generally biased against Israel in much the same way the Police are biased against criminals.