Hamas use of Civilians as shields

[namvet]

Hamas Use of Civilians as Human Shields

A short film presenting visual evidence of the long-standing Hamas tactic of exploiting civilians as human shields, and civilian buildings as cover for terrorist attacks.


link (http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Terror+Groups/Hamas_Exploitation_Civilians_Jan_2009.htm)

of note: number 13. IDF combat footage documenting an anti-aircraft gun and heavy weapons cache in a local mosque in the Zeitun neighborhood of Gaza, 13 Jan 2009. a ground zero look alike???

the top link "download" to the desktop
bottom link opens your default vid player

[Agnapostate]

Hamas's armed wing is a regional insurgency in Gaza. They are by and large the ordinary citizens of the small patch of land engaging in guerrilla armed struggle. Where exactly are they supposed to go?

[namvet]

Hamas's armed wing is a regional insurgency in Gaza. They are by and large the ordinary citizens of the small patch of land engaging in guerrilla armed struggle. Where exactly are they supposed to go?


Where exactly are they supposed to go?

you really want us to answer this ???? :laugh:

[Agnapostate]

you really want us to answer this ???? :laugh:

You can't go where you already are. :slap:

[Sweetchuck]

If Hamas or any one of these organizations wanted peace, they would work toward peace. Using the "we have no where to go" excuse is much like using civilians as shields - another inappropriate excuse to act uncivilly.

[namvet]

A friend of mine just started his own business, making landmines that look like prayer mats.

It’s doing well. He says Prophets are going through the roof.

[Agnapostate]

A friend of mine just started his own business, making landmines that look like prayer mats.

It’s doing well. He says Prophets are going through the roof.

Be more original. :poke:

[Alias.258]

It happens in Afghanistan and I'm pretty sure it happened in Iraq.

Article written in February during the Assault on Marjah
http://www.military.com/news/article/taliban-use-human-shields-official-says.html

Terrorist use civilians as human shields because they have a general idea of the Rules of Engagement used by Counter Terrorism Forces.

[namvet]

its a violation of the Geneva convention to use human shields. but since when did Hamas qualify as human ????

[Agnapostate]

its a violation of the Geneva convention to use human shields. but since when did Hamas qualify as human ????

The armed wing of Hamas is not a national military, since Gaza is not an internationally recognized country, and since they have therefore not ratified the Geneva Convention, the international treaty is therefore not applicable to them, which should be of interest to the same people who point out that the Israeli government need not comply with the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Your comment about human shields doesn't make sense otherwise. If it's a matter of not qualifying as human, you're either claiming that's applicable to the aforementioned civilians, in which the comment is irrelevant, or you're claiming that it's applicable to the Hamas insurgents, in which it's a matter of combatants being targeted, not civilians. The so-called "human shields" are civilians, following this thread's train of thought, so what does Hamas's non-humanity even have to do with them?

And the issue is flawed in deeper ways. Members of Hamas are typically ordinary members of the community involved in guerrilla insurgency. Of course they'd go back to their houses and normal lives.

[namvet]

The armed wing of Hamas is not a national military, since Gaza is not an internationally recognized country, and since they have therefore not ratified the Geneva Convention, the international treaty is therefore not applicable to them, which should be of interest to the same people who point out that the Israeli government need not comply with the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Your comment about human shields doesn't make sense otherwise. If it's a matter of not qualifying as human, you're either claiming that's applicable to the aforementioned civilians, in which the comment is irrelevant, or you're claiming that it's applicable to the Hamas insurgents, in which it's a matter of combatants being targeted, not civilians. The so-called "human shields" are civilians, following this thread's train of thought, so what does Hamas's non-humanity even have to do with them?

And the issue is flawed in deeper ways. Members of Hamas are typically ordinary members of the community involved in guerrilla insurgency. Of course they'd go back to their houses and normal lives.

never knew you supported terrorism or killing of innocents. glad you can sleep at night.

its a violation of the Geneva convention to use human shields. regardless of where they are.

they are not human. they are animals who kill and eat they're own. there will be no peace until they are exterminated.

they're children are being trained to kill yours. I saw a vid of a 12 year old cutting off the head of a man. if you wanna see it let know and ill try and find for YOU??? sleep tight.

[Alias.258]

The armed wing of Hamas is not a national military, since Gaza is not an internationally recognized country, and since they have therefore not ratified the Geneva Convention, the international treaty is therefore not applicable to them, which should be of interest to the same people who point out that the Israeli government need not comply with the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Your comment about human shields doesn't make sense otherwise. If it's a matter of not qualifying as human, you're either claiming that's applicable to the aforementioned civilians, in which the comment is irrelevant, or you're claiming that it's applicable to the Hamas insurgents, in which it's a matter of combatants being targeted, not civilians. The so-called "human shields" are civilians, following this thread's train of thought, so what does Hamas's non-humanity even have to do with them?

And the issue is flawed in deeper ways. Members of Hamas are typically ordinary members of the community involved in guerrilla insurgency. Of course they'd go back to their houses and normal lives.

-Ive refrained from calling you an idiot on your other posts and i probably wouldn't be now if i still had my patience. Unfortunately for me, i don't. Are you really that ignorant? You seem to be the only one that didn't know what he meant. Or maybe you did, at this point i can't judge exactly what goes on in that brain of yours. But do you notice that every time you post something the discussion slowly turns into a fight? Just saying. You have turned a intelligent conversation into a frustrating one. Congratulations! You've done it again.

-Oh and your quote on the bottom, it sucks. A better one for someone who claims hes a communist is...
"The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency."--Vladimir Lenin
or...
"It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed." --Vladimir Lenin

-I know somebody who grew up in Communist Russia and i do not believe you fully understand what the conditions were near the end of the Soviet Union. I don't remember what post it was but you called somebody your "Comrade". In that situation unless you were voluntarily in the military or in the KGB involved in USSR's (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) government, it would have been extremely rare to have heard that used. You would probably have just called him your friend. I'm not even sure you know why they called them selves a Socialist nation instead of a Communist one.

-As for your arguments if you thought about what you were posting first, there wouldn't be so many people that didn't like you. I was okay with what you were doing until it ended up in a discussion that i was involved in. Argue your points like an adult by not insulting people, explaining your point, having something to back up your point, and having an intelligent rebuttal. Everything that you said above, somebody would say if they were looking for a fight. As for the Geneva convention not applying to them? That's semantics. There was a reason it was outlawed by a convention that is a huge part of history. Its a little something called immoral i don't know if you have ever heard of that word so here it is...

New Oxford American Dictonary:
immoral |i(m)ˈmôrəl; -ˈmärəl|
adjective
not conforming to accepted standards of morality...

USAGE: Immoral means 'failing to adhere to moral standards.' Amoral is a more neutral, impartial word meaning 'without, or not concerned with, moral standards.' An immoral person commits acts that violate society’s moral norms. An amoral person has no understanding of these norms, or no sense of right and wrong; the word may refer to a 'social deviant.' Amoral may also mean 'not concerned with, or outside the scope of morality' (following the pattern of apolitical, asexual). Amoral, then, may refer to a judicial ruling that is concerned only with narrow legal or financial issues. Whereas amoral may be simply descriptive, immoral is judgmental.

New Oxford American Dictonary:
morality |məˈralətē; mô-|
noun ( pl. -ties)
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

New Oxford American Dictonary:
moral |ˈmôrəl; ˈmär-|
adjective
concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character

Just in case your still confused...

Oxford American Writer's Thesaurus: (immoral)
unethical, bad, morally wrong, wrongful, wicked, evil, foul, unprincipled, unscrupulous, dishonorable, dishonest, unconscionable, iniquitous, disreputable, corrupt, depraved, vile, villainous, nefarious, base, miscreant; sinful, godless, impure, unchaste, unvirtuous, shameless, degenerate, debased, debauched, dissolute, reprobate, lewd, obscene, perverse, perverted; licentious, wanton, promiscuous, loose; informal shady, lowdown, crooked, sleazy. antonym ethical, chaste.

-I really cant say anything else here. Anybody FEEL FREE to add on to my argument, as for you Agnapostate I'm going to pretend i don't see your name on this thread and ignore a response to my post as i have been on here for less than two weeks and i am already extremely annoyed by you.

[Agnapostate]

never knew you supported terrorism or killing of innocents. glad you can sleep at night.

I could conclude that your boasts of participation in one phase of a campaign that ultimately involved the genocidal destruction of several million Indochinese constituted support of terrorism and killing of innocents, but really what's the use?


its a violation of the Geneva convention to use human shields. regardless of where they are.

The Geneva Convention is not applicable to Hamas, since they are not a national military. I'd suggest that you consider ethical criticism of them, by all means, but lose the legal fetishism.


they are not human. they are animals who kill and eat they're own. there will be no peace until they are exterminated.

Let me try to explain this to you again. You mentioned "human shields," and then said that Hamas was not "human," but that has no bearing on the "human shields," since your own claim is that they are civilians, not Hamas members.


they're children are being trained to kill yours. I saw a vid of a 12 year old cutting off the head of a man. if you wanna see it let know and ill try and find for YOU??? sleep tight.

The Palestinian struggle represents the last great resistance to an anomalously late-term manifestation of European colonialism. I hope that they succeed as so many other ravaged and destroyed peoples of the world did not.


-Ive refrained from calling you an idiot on your other posts and i probably wouldn't be now if i still had my patience. Unfortunately for me, i don't.

When calling people idiots, it's perhaps advisable to adhere to accepted standards of correct usage of the English language, such as proper grammar and punctuation.


Are you really that ignorant? You seem to be the only one that didn't know what he meant. Or maybe you did, at this point i can't judge exactly what goes on in that brain of yours. But do you notice that every time you post something the discussion slowly turns into a fight? Just saying. You have turned a intelligent conversation into a frustrating one. Congratulations! You've done it again.

There are not intelligent conversations on this board; there is an echo chamber in which morons repeat stupid talking points that they saw on Glenn Beck's TV show.


-Oh and your quote on the bottom, it sucks. A better one for someone who claims hes a communist is...
"The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency."--Vladimir Lenin
or...
"It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed." --Vladimir Lenin

I am an anarcho-communist. If you'd like a different Kropotkin quote, try, "Lenin is not comparable to any revolutionary figure in history. Revolutionaries have had ideals. Lenin has none. He is a madman, an immolator, wishful of burning, and slaughter, and sacrificing."


-I know somebody who grew up in Communist Russia and i do not believe you fully understand what the conditions were near the end of the Soviet Union. I don't remember what post it was but you called somebody your "Comrade". In that situation unless you were voluntarily in the military or in the KGB involved in USSR's (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) government, it would have been extremely rare to have heard that used. You would probably have just called him your friend. I'm not even sure you know why they called them selves a Socialist nation instead of a Communist one.

Reference to the USSR is utterly inapplicable to my anarchist ideology, except perhaps if you look for doctrines of significant opposition. Kropotkin himself was of this opinion:


Russia has already become a Soviet Republic only in name. The influx and taking over of the people by the 'party,' that is, predominantly the newcomers (the ideological communists are more in the urban centers), has already destroyed the influence and constructive energy of this promising institution - the soviets. At present, it is the party committees, not the soviets, who rule in Russia. And their organization suffers from the defects of bureaucratic organization. To move away from the current disorder, Russia must return to the creative genius of local forces which, as I see it, can be a factor in the creation of a new life.And the sooner that the necessity of this way is understood, the better. People will then be all the more likely to accept [new] social forms of life. If the present situation continues, the very word 'socialism' will turn into a curse. That is what happened to the conception of equality in France for forty years after the rule of the Jacobins.

This insight is utterly prescient and demonstrates substantial abilities of foresight. Kropotkin knew not only that the state capitalism of Lenin and the Bolsheviks was not "socialist"; he knew that it was in fact anti-socialist, and that its ruinous legacy would generate harsh damage to the socialist movement, creating a "guilt by association" of sorts for even those socialists (such as anarchists), who had quickly and vigilantly condemned the authoritarianism of state capitalism. Similarly opposed to this pseudo-socialism was Emma Goldman, deported from the U.S. to Russia for her political convictions and participation in radical activity, and initially optimistic about the Russian Revolution. This optimism turned to dismay after she witnessed the brutal suppression of the democratically motivated Kronstadt Rebellion in 1921 by the Red Army, and led to her 1923 publication of My Disillusionment in Russia, in which she railed against the nature of dictatorship in the USSR:


The STATE IDEA, the authoritarian principle, has been proven bankrupt by the experience of the Russian Revolution. If I were to sum up my whole argument in one sentence I should say: The inherent tendency of the State is to concentrate, to narrow, and monopolize all social activities; the nature of revolution is, on the contrary, to grow, to broaden, and disseminate itself in ever-wider circles. In other words, the State is institutional and static; revolution is fluent, dynamic. These two tendencies are incompatible and mutually destructive. The State idea killed the Russian Revolution and it must have the same result in all other revolutions, unless the libertarian idea prevail.

Goldman had no ability to know that the Soviet Union would eventually be dissolved many decades later and did not declare it anti-socialist only after its imminent destruction was apparent. She, as with other consistent anarchists, declared the Soviet Union and the authoritarian state capitalism that falsely masqueraded as socialism within it to be tyrannically monstrous and unjust even as it gained greater power:


Witness the tragic condition of Russia. The methods of State centralization have paralyzed individual initiative and effort; the tyranny of the dictatorship has cowed the people into slavish submission and all but extinguished the fires of liberty; organized terrorism has depraved and brutalized the masses and stifled every idealistic aspiration; institutionalized murder has cheapened human life, and all sense of the dignity of man and the value of life has been eliminated; coercion at every step has made effort bitter, labor a punishment, has turned the whole of existence into a scheme of mutual deceit, and has revived the lowest and most brutal instincts of man. A sorry heritage to begin a new life of freedom and brotherhood.

In the mid-to-late 1930's, the world saw the most expansive and important socialist revolution throughout history occur during the Spanish Civil War, as anarchists and libertarian workers organized and collectivized vast areas of land and numerous fixtures throughout Spain, establishing several thousand anarchist collectives among several million inhabitants of Spain, their hub being in the industrialized region of Catalonia and its capital of Barcelona, a city populated by 1.2 million residents. Unfortunately, the exigencies of the situation (a fascist military revolt against the republican government), led union leaders to organize an alliance with authoritarian "socialists" backed by the Soviet Union. These phony socialists considered the social revolution a counterproductive engagement, and moved to sabotage and destroy collectivization efforts through violent force, with Soviet "allies" deliberately depriving anarchist and libertarian Marxist military forces of necessary aid, critically undermining the war effort. The anarcho-syndicalist Rudolf Rocker offered this insighftul analysis into the reasons for this treachery:


For two decades the supporters of Bolshevism have been hammering it into the masses that dictatorship is a vital necessity for the defense of the so-called proletarian interests against the assaults of the counter-revolution and for paving the way for Socialism. They have not advanced the cause of Socialism by this propaganda, but have merely smoothed the way for Fascism in Italy, Germany, and Austria by causing millions of people to forget that dictatorship, the most extreme form of tyranny, can never lead to social liberation. In Russia, the so-called dictatorship of the proletariat has not led to Socialism, but to the domination of a new bureaucracy over the proletariat and the whole people…What the Russian autocrats and their supporters fear most is that the success of libertarian Socialism in Spain might prove to their blind followers that the much vaunted “necessity of a dictatorship” is nothing but one vast fraud which in Russia has led to the despotism of Stalin and is to serve today in Spain to help the counter-revolution to a victory over the revolution of the workers and peasants.

This anarchist criticism has continued to the present day, and saw a remarkable recent expression in Noam Chomsky's 1986 publication of his article The Soviet Union Versus Socialism:


The Leninist antagonism to the most essential features of socialism was evident from the very start. In revolutionary Russia, Soviets and factory committees developed as instruments of struggle and liberation, with many flaws, but with a rich potential. Lenin and Trotsky, upon assuming power, immediately devoted themselves to destroying the liberatory potential of these instruments, establishing the rule of the Party, in practice its Central Committee and its Maximal Leaders -- exactly as Trotsky had predicted years earlier, as Rosa Luxembourg and other left Marxists warned at the time, and as the anarchists had always understood. Not only the masses, but even the Party must be subject to "vigilant control from above," so Trotsky held as he made the transition from revolutionary intellectual to State priest. Before seizing State power, the Bolshevik leadership adopted much of the rhetoric of people who were engaged in the revolutionary struggle from below, but their true commitments were quite different. This was evident before and became crystal clear as they assumed State power in October 1917.

If you want to depict me as supportive of Leninism, at least be aware of the remarkably disingenuous nature of this association.


-As for your arguments if you thought about what you were posting first, there wouldn't be so many people that didn't like you. I was okay with what you were doing until it ended up in a discussion that i was involved in. Argue your points like an adult by not insulting people, explaining your point, having something to back up your point, and having an intelligent rebuttal. Everything that you said above, somebody would say if they were looking for a fight.

Oh, believe me, that doesn't work, not least because the smallminded rightists on this board are not legitimately interested in this debate pattern. For example, consider your advisory to not insult people in the same post that you included namecalling in. If you want an example of the failure of a reasonable, balanced approach, try this exchange (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29054-Obama-admin-halts-prosecution-of-USS-Cole-bomber&p=440118#post440118).


As for the Geneva convention not applying to them? That's semantics.

Uh, actually, it's international law. The Geneva Convention applies to countries that have ratified it, and Gaza is not a country.


There was a reason it was outlawed by a convention that is a huge part of history. Its a little something called immoral i don't know if you have ever heard of that word so here it is...

So condemn its immorality. It's very useless for posters here to suddenly pretend that they support international law when they ignore the numerous violations of UN resolutions that the Israeli government has engaged in.


-I really cant say anything else here. Anybody FEEL FREE to add on to my argument, as for you Agnapostate I'm going to pretend i don't see your name on this thread and ignore a response to my post as i have been on here for less than two weeks and i am already extremely annoyed by you.

It's the way of things. Rightists believe that I am a "liberal," and attempt to deploy their standard anti-"liberal" talking points. They fail because I am not a liberal. They then believe that I am a "Communist," and attempt to deploy their standard anti-"Communist" talking points. They fail because I am not a Communist. They become crudely aware that I am an anarchist, and since they do not have anti-anarchist talking points, they blindly flail at some sort of criticism, but never succeed because they know nothing about anarchism. Their failure naturally irritates them.

[abso]

never knew you supported terrorism or killing of innocents. glad you can sleep at night.

its a violation of the Geneva convention to use human shields. regardless of where they are.

they are not human. they are animals who kill and eat they're own. there will be no peace until they are exterminated.

they're children are being trained to kill yours. I saw a vid of a 12 year old cutting off the head of a man. if you wanna see it let know and ill try and find for YOU??? sleep tight.


its also a violation of Geneva convention to build settlements in a occupied territory,

its a violation of Geneva convention to move your civilian population to the occupied territory like whats happening in East Jerusalem.

its a violation of international law to use White phosphorus against human targets and although its a violation of international law it has been used by USA and israel in:
Iraq (2004)
Israel-Lebanon conflict (2006)
Gaza War (2008-2009)
Afghanistan (2009)

its a violation of international law for israel to deny the palestinian refugees their right to return to their country.

[abso]

If Hamas or any one of these organizations wanted peace, they would work toward peace. Using the "we have no where to go" excuse is much like using civilians as shields - another inappropriate excuse to act uncivilly.

and if israel wants peace, they their prime minister wont announce that he will continue violating international law by continue the building in East jerusalem which is occupied territory, that announcement came right in the middle of a direct negotiation, is that a man who wants peace !!!

he should have announced that if hamas will stop their violence, then he will get out of West Bank and East Jerusalem, that would be the talk of a man who wants peace.

[Kathianne]

and if israel wants peace, they their prime minister wont announce that he will continue violating international law by continue the building in East jerusalem which is occupied territory, that announcement came right in the middle of a direct negotiation, is that a man who wants peace !!!

he should have announced that if hamas will stop their violence, then he will get out of West Bank and East Jerusalem, that would be the talk of a man who wants peace.

If Palestinians wanted peace, they'd have started with Clinton's plan and gone from there. But they didn't and here we are.

[abso]

If Palestinians wanted peace, they'd have started with Clinton's plan and gone from there. But they didn't and here we are.

The CLinton Peace Plan, did not state that the annexation of the occupied areas should be cancelled, it just stated:

"The land annexed by Israel should be compensated by a land swap of 1-3 percent in addition to territorial arrangements such as a permanent safe passage."

and none can exchange his land with a permanent safe passage, its like a bully is threatening a student to give him his lunch to allow him to pass !!!

anything less that the return of East Jerusalem and West Bank can not be accepted, i dont think the palestinian are willing to give up their right and their land, while israel refuses to get out of East Jerusalem and consider it a part of israel now.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Since June 28, 1967, East Jerusalem has been under the law, jurisdiction, and administration of the State of Israel. The right of Israel to declare sovereignty over the entirety of Jerusalem is not recognized by the international community, which regarded the move as de facto annexation and deemed Israeli jurisdiction invalid in a subsequent non-binding United Nations General Assembly resolution. However in a reply to the resolution, Israel denied that these measures constitute annexation.

In the 1980 Basic Law, or "Jerusalem Law" Israel declared Jerusalem "complete and united", to be "the capital of Israel". The new law left the boundaries of Jerusalem unspecified. In response, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 478 (the U.S. abstained), declaring the law to be "null and void" and a violation of international law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

so where is the peace that israel wants while it refuses to give back the occupied land !!!

[Kathianne]

The CLinton Peace Plan, did not state that the annexation of the occupied areas should be cancelled, it just stated:

"The land annexed by Israel should be compensated by a land swap of 1-3 percent in addition to territorial arrangements such as a permanent safe passage."

and none can exchange his land with a permanent safe passage, its like a bully is threatening a student to give him his lunch to allow him to pass !!!

anything less that the return of East Jerusalem and West Bank can not be accepted, i dont think the palestinian are willing to give up their right and their land, while israel refuses to get out of East Jerusalem and consider it a part of israel now.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Since June 28, 1967, East Jerusalem has been under the law, jurisdiction, and administration of the State of Israel. The right of Israel to declare sovereignty over the entirety of Jerusalem is not recognized by the international community, which regarded the move as de facto annexation and deemed Israeli jurisdiction invalid in a subsequent non-binding United Nations General Assembly resolution. However in a reply to the resolution, Israel denied that these measures constitute annexation.

In the 1980 Basic Law, or "Jerusalem Law" Israel declared Jerusalem "complete and united", to be "the capital of Israel". The new law left the boundaries of Jerusalem unspecified. In response, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 478 (the U.S. abstained), declaring the law to be "null and void" and a violation of international law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

so where is the peace that israel wants while it refuses to give back the occupied land !!!

Right. Palestinians should get more land than would have been possible prior to war made on Israel. Get real. You all lost. But guess there will be a second go round, which sounds like what you want.

[abso]

Right. Palestinians should get more land than would have been possible prior to war made on Israel. Get real. You all lost. But guess there will be a second go round, which sounds like what you want.

Nope, war is not what i want, all i want is justice for everyone, peace and security for israel and its people, and peace and security and land for the people of palestine.

everyone should take whats his, and stop talking about wars that happened long ago, we are talking about now, the peace that we want it to happen now, and it will only happen when everyone gets his complete rights.

[Kathianne]

Nope, war is not what i want, all i want is justice for everyone, peace and security for israel and its people, and peace and security and land for the people of palestine.

everyone should take whats his, and stop talking about wars that happened long ago, we are talking about now, the peace that we want it to happen now, and it will only happen when everyone gets his complete rights.
Palestinians want land that was not theirs to begin with. When they lost lands after the war, the war they and others initiated and lost, they now want more.

They were fools not to take the lands offered for homeland in 1950's, which weren't in any worse shape at the time than what Israel had. Difference was, Israel concentrated on improving the land, at great costs, while Palestinians concentrated on destroying Israel. How's that working out?

[abso]

Palestinians want land that was not theirs to begin with. When they lost lands after the war, the war they and others initiated and lost, they now want more.

They were fools not to take the lands offered for homeland in 1950's, which weren't in any worse shape at the time than what Israel had. Difference was, Israel concentrated on improving the land, at great costs, while Palestinians concentrated on destroying Israel. How's that working out?

no, they doesnt want more than they already had, they just want West Bank and East Jerusalem, and even your government recognize those lands as occupied lands, and they should return to their rightful owners, they dont want anything more.

[Kathianne]

no, they doesnt want more than they already had, they just want West Bank and East Jerusalem, and even your government recognize those lands as occupied lands, and they should return to their rightful owners, they dont want anything more.

It's not 'our government's decision to make.

[abso]

It's not 'our government's decision to make.

i know, i am just saying that every country in the world, says that east jerusalem and west bank is occupied land, and should be returned to palestine, while israel refuses, so where is the peace that they are seeking, there is no peace in occupation

[Kathianne]

i know, i am just saying that every country in the world, says that east jerusalem and west bank is occupied land, and should be returned to palestine, while israel refuses, so where is the peace that they are seeking, there is no peace in occupation

I would agree with Israel, I just don't see Jerusalem being split as a good idea.