UN inquiry says Israel must end settlements

[jafar00]

When Obama mentioned that "Israel doesn't know what it's best interests are", he would have had this on his mind.

Israel is long overdue for a war crimes conviction. I hope this time there is some punitive action taken against them.


Investigators conclude all Israeli settlement activity in West Bank is unlawful and must cease 'immediately'.

Israeli settlements in the Occupied West Bank violate international law, and the country must "immediately" withdraw all settlers from such areas, United Nations human rights investigators have said.
"Israel must ... cease all settlement activities without preconditions [and] must immediately initiate a process of withdrawal of all settlers" from the occupied territories, a UN fact-finding mission concluded in a report released on Thursday.
The inquiry was led by French judge Christine Chanet.
The settlements contravene the 1949 Geneva Conventions forbidding the transfer of civilian populations into occupied
territory, which could amount to war crimes that fall under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC), it said.
In December, the Palestinians accused Israel in a letter to the United Nations of planning to commit further "war crimes" by expanding Jewish settlements after the Palestinians won de facto UN recognition of statehood and warned that Jerusalem must be held accountable.
Israel has not co-operated with the probe set up by the Human Rights Council last March to examine the impact of settlements in the territory, including East Jerusalem.
Israel says the forum has an inherent bias against it and defends its settlement policy by citing historical and Biblical links to the West Bank.
The independent UN investigators interviewed more than 50 people who came to Jordan in November to testify about confiscated land, damage to their livelihoods including olive trees, and violence by Jewish settlers, according to the report.
"The mission believes that the motivation behind this violence and the intimidation against the Palestinians as well
as their properties is to drive the local populations away from their lands and allow the settlements to expand," it said.
'Creeping annexation'
About 250 settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, have been established since 1967 and they hold an
estimated 520,000 settlers, according to the UN report.
The settlements impede Palestinian access to water resources and agricultural lands, it said. They were also "leading to a creeping annexation that prevents the establishment of a contiguous and viable Palestinian state and undermines the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination," it said.
Following the UN general assembly's vote to upgrade the Palestinians status at the world body, Israel said it would build 3,000 more settler homes in the West Bank and East Jerusalem - areas Palestinians wanted for a future state, along with the Gaza Strip.
The UN human rights inquiry said that the International Criminal Court had jurisdiction over the deportation or transfer
by the occupying power of its own population into the territory.
"Ratification of the [Rome] Statute by Palestine may lead to accountability for gross violations of human rights law and
serious violations of international humanitarian law and justice for victims," the report said, referring to the treaty
setting up the Hague-based UN tribunal, which prosecutes people for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/01/2013131101929493601.html?utm_content=automate&utm_campaign=Trial6&utm_source=NewSocialFlow&utm_term=plustweets&utm_medium=MasterAccount

[Marcus Aurelius]

The Useless Nations can say whatever the fuck they want. Doesn't make them right, or relevant.

Kinda like you, Jahil.

[aboutime]

When Obama mentioned that "Israel doesn't know what it's best interests are", he would have had this on his mind.

Israel is long overdue for a war crimes conviction. I hope this time there is some punitive action taken against them.


http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/01/2013131101929493601.html?utm_content=automate&utm_campaign=Trial6&utm_source=NewSocialFlow&utm_term=plustweets&utm_medium=MasterAccount

Obama has no room to talk. He has no idea what anyone's best interests are...unless they agree with him, and remind him how dangerous, ignorant, and stupid he is. But then...he doesn't keep company with anyone smarter than he is. Which makes STUPIDITY, HATRED, and DUMBNESS a common Obama trait.

[Drummond]

It's a bit rich, isn't it, for Palestinians to want 'punitive' measures taken against Israel ... and for there to be any suggestion of a charge of 'war crimes' against Israel ... when those same Palestinians would be content to support TERRORISTS firing MISSILES at Israel, and insist they're correct to continue to !!!

If we're going to start talking about 'war crimes', Jafar, how about getting all the Hamas leadership to face such a charge THEMSELVES ?

.. or would you much rather just 'overlook' this, Jafar, and fail to agree that such high-minded goals demand not just actions that you'd prefer to see, but instead, ACTIONS THAT JUSTICE DEMANDS.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

When Obama mentioned that "Israel doesn't know what it's best interests are", he would have had this on his mind.

Israel is long overdue for a war crimes conviction. I hope this time there is some punitive action taken against them.


http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/01/2013131101929493601.html?utm_content=automate&utm_campaign=Trial6&utm_source=NewSocialFlow&utm_term=plustweets&utm_medium=MasterAccount

Buck and Fan the U.N.!!--:gunner2:

[jafar00]

It's a bit rich, isn't it, for Palestinians to want 'punitive' measures taken against Israel ... and for there to be any suggestion of a charge of 'war crimes' against Israel ... when those same Palestinians would be content to support TERRORISTS firing MISSILES at Israel, and insist they're correct to continue to !!!

If we're going to start talking about 'war crimes', Jafar, how about getting all the Hamas leadership to face such a charge THEMSELVES ?

.. or would you much rather just 'overlook' this, Jafar, and fail to agree that such high-minded goals demand not just actions that you'd prefer to see, but instead, ACTIONS THAT JUSTICE DEMANDS.

If Hamas have committed war crimes, they should also be held accountable.

This is another example though of how Obama is right about Israel not knowing what is good for it. These illegal settlements have been a thorn in the side of peace for decades, and they have been expanding like an ever growing cancer. They are part of the reason for these rockets you seem so fond of mentioning without also mentioning Israeli artillery, tanks, helicopters, missiles, air strikes, collective punishment of occupied civilians etc.....

[bingster]

Obama has no room to talk. He has no idea what anyone's best interests are...unless they agree with him, and remind him how dangerous, ignorant, and stupid he is. But then...he doesn't keep company with anyone smarter than he is. Which makes STUPIDITY, HATRED, and DUMBNESS a common Obama trait.

Wow, of course, George W. was a rocket scientist

"Uh, er, fool me once... uh, er...."

Psychiatrists would call your accusations "projection".


If Hamas have committed war crimes, they should also be held accountable.

This is another example though of how Obama is right about Israel not knowing what is good for it. These illegal settlements have been a thorn in the side of peace for decades, and they have been expanding like an ever growing cancer. They are part of the reason for these rockets you seem so fond of mentioning without also mentioning Israeli artillery, tanks, helicopters, missiles, air strikes, collective punishment of occupied civilians etc.....

I'm sure it's also why Obama is not always seen as sympathetic enough regarding Israel. He knows Netanyahu's actions are sabotaging the peace in Israel with the settlement building. Without US outrage, or a resurgence of the Israel's Labor party, nothing is going to change.

[Drummond]

If Hamas have committed war crimes, they should also be held accountable.

This is another example though of how Obama is right about Israel not knowing what is good for it. These illegal settlements have been a thorn in the side of peace for decades, and they have been expanding like an ever growing cancer. They are part of the reason for these rockets you seem so fond of mentioning without also mentioning Israeli artillery, tanks, helicopters, missiles, air strikes, collective punishment of occupied civilians etc.....

This is laughable. Jafar, Hamas actually EXISTS to perpetrate such acts !!

On another thread, I've posted you a link that gives you a glimpse of the Hamas Charter. Their Charter commits Hamas to win out against Israel through JIHAD. They were always meant to be aggressors .. pure and simple. They don't see peace through negotiation as an available option to turn to under ANY circumstances. That includes whether OR NOT Israel gives way on settlements.

Yet, in the face of such remorseless and relentless terrorism, you, Jafar, are focused not on Hamas's disinterest in reasonable conduct, but what you want to say that ISRAEL is doing.

Your bias is transparent, Jafar ... your support for terrorist belligerence inexcusable.

[aboutime]

If Hamas have committed war crimes, they should also be held accountable.

This is another example though of how Obama is right about Israel not knowing what is good for it. These illegal settlements have been a thorn in the side of peace for decades, and they have been expanding like an ever growing cancer. They are part of the reason for these rockets you seem so fond of mentioning without also mentioning Israeli artillery, tanks, helicopters, missiles, air strikes, collective punishment of occupied civilians etc.....




jafar. Your hypocrisy, and bigotry are showing again. "IF"? Hamas did anything????? Making excuses, and pretending Hamas is so innocent..in your view?

What a true False Prophet, and Phony you are jafar.

And the comical part of your Intentionally Demonstrated Stupidity is. YOU BELIEVE IT.

[jafar00]

This is laughable. Jafar, Hamas actually EXISTS to perpetrate such acts !!

On another thread, I've posted you a link that gives you a glimpse of the Hamas Charter. Their Charter commits Hamas to win out against Israel through JIHAD. They were always meant to be aggressors .. pure and simple. They don't see peace through negotiation as an available option to turn to under ANY circumstances. That includes whether OR NOT Israel gives way on settlements.

Yet, in the face of such remorseless and relentless terrorism, you, Jafar, are focused not on Hamas's disinterest in reasonable conduct, but what you want to say that ISRAEL is doing.

Your bias is transparent, Jafar ... your support for terrorist belligerence inexcusable.

Do you think that charter would even exist if Israel would play by the rules of international law and humanity?

[Drummond]

Do you think that charter would even exist if Israel would play by the rules of international law and humanity?

OF COURSE I DO !!

Jafar, how many times do I have to ask you to READ the Hamas Charter, before you acknowledge that you HAVE ??

Though Hamas want - through people such as you ?? - to paint themselves, and 'their people', as repressed and otherwise treated shabbily by Israel, the TRUTH about Hamas is that it exists, as the thoroughly racist organisation it is, to see Israel destroyed !

Need I quote this AGAIN ??

From ...

http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm


"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).

"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."
Hamas is the aggressor. It wants the State of Israel destroyed. Its reason for being is to oppose that country's very existence, and it won't be satisfied until it ceases to exist entirely.

[aboutime]

Do you think that charter would even exist if Israel would play by the rules of international law and humanity?


jafar. You mean the CHARTER that declares Israel should be wiped off the map?? That Useless piece of Terrorist Toilet Paper????

[RoccoR]

jafar, et al,

I think it is fair to say that it has been known, since the first settlement in the Syrian Golan Heights (July 1967), that it was a wrong decision.




QUOTE: Para 2b(viii), Article 8 (War Crimes), Part 2 (Jurisdiction, Admissibility & Applicable Law), Rome Statues, ICC; For the purpose of this Statute, "war crimes" means:
The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory;


When Obama mentioned that "Israel doesn't know what it's best interests are", he would have had this on his mind.Israel is long overdue for a war crimes conviction. I hope this time there is some punitive action taken against them.

(COMMENT)

The Israelis have to come out of the box, and present a calm, clear, and understandable defense from a reasonable man point of view, as well as supported by legal precedence.

There is no question that Israel cannot put together a strategy under Article 51, and establish a special circumstance defense. The Israelis have to addresses, in no uncertain terms, that the causes of ICC RS violation, as well as incident patterns and trends, focus on the nature and cause of specific Palestinian criminal patterns, such as violence, terrorism, organized civil strife, and instigated public disorder on a criminal level to insight violence. It has to be presented in such a way that any reasonable man might have pursued a similar course of action in the protection of the nation and the establishment of secure territorial integrity.

The Palestinian Hostile Actions over six decades have an impact - and it has effected the national security of Israel on multiple levels. The Israel must also show a demonstrated history of association with other International Activities that have been recognized as a threat in the past and is being treated as a threat today - by its neighbors. One such association is Iran, but also, in Osama bin Laden's open letter to America, he stated that part of the al-Qaeda Agenda is to harm Israel and its allies for its establishment in the Middle East.

This requires a top flight legal team and Madison Avenue presentation. It can be done.

Israel is going to have to accept that some reparations and compensations are going to be assessed against them and awards made to the Palestinians (in all probability). There is no question that, if the "reasonable man" defense mitigates the violations (and there are several), so it is that a "reasonable man" is going to recognize (through its presentation) that Israel has made some very poor judgment calls. And that will cost them.

It is not a slam dunk for either side. Both sides have dirty hands.

Most Respectfully,
R

[aboutime]

jafar, et al,

I think it is fair to say that it has been known, since the first settlement in the Syrian Golan Heights (July 1967), that it was a wrong decision.





(COMMENT)

The Israelis have to come out of the box, and present a calm, clear, and understandable defense from a reasonable man point of view, as well as supported by legal precedence.

There is no question that Israel cannot put together a strategy under Article 51, and establish a special circumstance defense. The Israelis have to addresses, in no uncertain terms, that the causes of ICC RS violation, as well as incident patterns and trends, focus on the nature and cause of specific Palestinian criminal patterns, such as violence, terrorism, organized civil strife, and instigated public disorder on a criminal level to insight violence. It has to be presented in such a way that any reasonable man might have pursued a similar course of action in the protection of the nation and the establishment of secure territorial integrity.

The Palestinian Hostile Actions over six decades have an impact - and it has effected the national security of Israel on multiple levels. The Israel must also show a demonstrated history of association with other International Activities that have been recognized as a threat in the past and is being treated as a threat today - by its neighbors. One such association is Iran, but also, in Osama bin Laden's open letter to America, he stated that part of the al-Qaeda Agenda is to harm Israel and its allies for its establishment in the Middle East.

This requires a top flight legal team and Madison Avenue presentation. It can be done.

Israel is going to have to accept that some reparations and compensations are going to be assessed against them and awards made to the Palestinians (in all probability). There is no question that, if the "reasonable man" defense mitigates the violations (and there are several), so it is that a "reasonable man" is going to recognize (through its presentation) that Israel has made some very poor judgment calls. And that will cost them.

It is not a slam dunk for either side. Both sides have dirty hands.

Most Respectfully,
R


RoccoR. Maybe you aren't aware of how Israel attempted to do JUST WHAT YOU SAID several years ago, and Hamas...the controlling authority of Palestinians..REJECTED all Israeli offers like that.
Instead. The loaded up, or stocked up on more Iranian weapons like shoulder launched rockets....and pretended they weren't aimed toward Israel.

In other words. Hamas, and the Palestinian people want NOTHING TO DO WITH PEACE.

[RoccoR]

aboutime, et al,

Yes I am aware.


RoccoR. Maybe you aren't aware of how Israel attempted to do JUST WHAT YOU SAID several years ago, and Hamas...the controlling authority of Palestinians..REJECTED all Israeli offers like that.
Instead. The loaded up, or stocked up on more Iranian weapons like shoulder launched rockets....and pretended they weren't aimed toward Israel.

In other words. Hamas, and the Palestinian people want NOTHING TO DO WITH PEACE.
(COMMENT)

And this actually works in Israel's defense. It is part of an establish pattern.

Most Respectfully,
R

[logroller]

Do you think that charter would even exist if Israel would play by the rules of international law and humanity? I am inclined to agree with you jafar. The caveat being that you likewise accept Israel as a legitimate state according to said international law. Do you...could you? I realize this may go against what you believe to be right, but in the interest of peace, can you accept adjusted pre-1967 boundaries?

[jafar00]

I am inclined to agree with you jafar. The caveat being that you likewise accept Israel as a legitimate state according to said international law. Do you...could you? I realize this may go against what you believe to be right, but in the interest of peace, can you accept adjusted pre-1967 boundaries?

I would accept Israel if the Palestinians did. It is after all, their decision to make.

[Voted4Reagan]

If Hamas have committed war crimes, they should also be held accountable.

This is another example though of how Obama is right about Israel not knowing what is good for it. These illegal settlements have been a thorn in the side of peace for decades, and they have been expanding like an ever growing cancer. They are part of the reason for these rockets you seem so fond of mentioning without also mentioning Israeli artillery, tanks, helicopters, missiles, air strikes, collective punishment of occupied civilians etc.....

Is launching a Qa'Sam Rocket into a civilian population a war crime?

[jafar00]

Is launching a Qa'Sam Rocket into a civilian population a war crime?

If it's in retaliation for artillery fired from an occupying army during wartime, no.

[Voted4Reagan]

If it's in retaliation for artillery fired from an occupying army during wartime, no.

when has Israel used artillery except in response to unprovoked attacks?

list us all the times... please.

[darin]

There are few things more beautiful to me than seeing an American-Made Apache helicopter, branded with the Star of David, pounding the shit out of some arab-terrorist rat hole.<!-- google_ad_section_end -->

:clap:

[Abbey Marie]

I would accept Israel if the Palestinians did. It is after all, their decision to make.

Knowing they never will accept it, this is a meaningless statement for you to make.

[Voted4Reagan]

:clap:



http://israeli-weapons.com/weapons/aircraft/f-15/f-15_6.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/F16Netz107pic003.jpg/800px-F16Netz107pic003.jpg

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I am inclined to agree with you jafar. The caveat being that you likewise accept Israel as a legitimate state according to said international law. Do you...could you? I realize this may go against what you believe to be right, but in the interest of peace, can you accept adjusted pre-1967 boundaries?

Just who the hell is offering going back to pre-1967 boundaries? A certifiably insane offer ! So far nothing Israel has given back has stopped any of the unprovoked aggression from those savages. F-them!--Tyr

[Abbey Marie]

Ahem.


JERUSALEM (AP) — Gaza militants on Tuesday fired a rocket into Israel
for the first time in three months, rattling a cross-border truce that
has held since Israel's military offensive against the Hamas-run
territory.
...


http://news.yahoo.com/first-gaza-rocket-3-months-rattles-cease-fire-122743134.html

[Voted4Reagan]

Ahem.



http://news.yahoo.com/first-gaza-rocket-3-months-rattles-cease-fire-122743134.html

Ummmmmm... Jafar? hello??

Are you there Jafar??

Helllllllllllooooooooo?

So.... now that a negotiated 3 month truce has been discarded by Hamas....

Is this act of Unprovoked Rocket Fire a WAR CRIME on the Part of HAMAS?

[jimnyc]

Why don't they just keep saying "Hamas" instead of gaza militants, it's obvious who is behind the bombings. Israel put up with about 2,000 of them or so last time before they attacked in return. Curiously, Jafar, you generally say that Palestinians only attack in response - can you show us what this was in response too?

[Drummond]

Ummmmmm... Jafar? hello??

Are you there Jafar??

Helllllllllllooooooooo?

So.... now that a negotiated 3 month truce has been discarded by Hamas....

Is this act of Unprovoked Rocket Fire a WAR CRIME on the Part of HAMAS?:clap::clap:

You beat me to it .... I'm looking forward to Jafar's response.

Adding to this, though .. Jafar, you posted this at post #17 >


I would accept Israel if the Palestinians did. It is after all, their decision to make.

This defies the evidence I posted previously, proving that what's driving the Palestinians, in the shape of Hamas, is permanently uncompromising belligerence. There is no, repeat, NO, interest whatever in giving ground, accepting any parity. Hamas is committed to its belligerence, and we now see an instance of it.

I should remind you of what I posted before. See post #11 on this thread .. and since this 'apparently' passed you by, Jafar, I'll try a bigger font this time ...


From ...

http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory)

"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."
The attack Hamas has launched is entirely consistent with their Charter. They have no interest in peace, much less lasting peace. Hamas's action was unprovoked, Jafar, but nonetheless, IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THEIR TERRORIST MANDATE. Oh, I'm sure that Hamas want to put the blame on Israel, but instead, they've lost patience and reverted to type.

So, what's your response to what's now occurred ? Do you have one ?

[logroller]

I would accept Israel if the Palestinians did. It is after all, their decision to make.
Just earlier you appealed to the authority of international influence and humanitarian desires; so while it may be a decision that direct parties need to accept, the international community have a stake in the outcome and the influence of international opinion serves an essential role. If we just left it up to Palestinians and Israelis, what do you think would happen? I assure you, I would not be a favorable outcome for any party.

[DragonStryk72]

I would accept Israel if the Palestinians did. It is after all, their decision to make.

no it isn't, any more than its Mexico's choice whether Texas belongs to the US or not. They may have owned it at one time, but that time has come and gone.

you act as though Palestine has been entirely reasonable and compliant thru all of this, and they clearly have not. its not for nothing that elementary teachers in Israel pack assault rifles. what, did the kids earn it too?

[Drummond]

Just earlier you appealed to the authority of international influence and humanitarian desires; so while it may be a decision that direct parties need to accept, the international community have a stake in the outcome and the influence of international opinion serves an essential role. If we just left it up to Palestinians and Israelis, what do you think would happen? I assure you, I would not be a favorable outcome for any party.

Consider the birth of Israel, after the Second World War. That came out of 'international influence and humanitarian desires', did it not ?

Did everyone accept this solution ? Or, did war break out in the region shortly afterwards ?

Palestinian belligerence persists. The break in the 3-month long ceasefire is only typical of the Palestinian side being unable, ultimately, to restrain its belligerence. Nobody MADE this attack happen, other than the terrorists who launched this rocket attack.

Jafar's reaction in response to Voted4Reagan's post, if we ever see it, will be interesting ...

[Voted4Reagan]

Consider the birth of Israel, after the Second World War. That came out of 'international influence and humanitarian desires', did it not ?

Did everyone accept this solution ? Or, did war break out in the region shortly afterwards ?

Palestinian belligerence persists. The break in the 3-month long ceasefire is only typical of the Palestinian side being unable, ultimately, to restrain its belligerence. Nobody MADE this attack happen, other than the terrorists who launched this rocket attack.

Jafar's reaction in response to Voted4Reagan's post, if we ever see it, will be interesting ...



JAFAR???

WHERE ARE YOU BUDDY??

We're Waiting.

[jafar00]

Ahem.



http://news.yahoo.com/first-gaza-rocket-3-months-rattles-cease-fire-122743134.html

It was a revenge attack.

Ahem...ahem...from the same story you posted but omitted....


Militants claiming affiliation with the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, a violent offshoot of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah, movement took responsibility.
They said in an email to journalists that they fired the rocket to avenge the death of a Palestinian in Israeli custody. It was impossible to independently verify the claim of responsibility.

http://news.yahoo.com/first-gaza-rocket-3-months-rattles-cease-fire-122743134.html



JAFAR???

WHERE ARE YOU BUDDY??

We're Waiting.

Seriously. Am I not allowed to sleep? You need to learn some patience.

I'm in the airport waiting for a flight right now so don't expect another peep out of me for another 9 hours ok?

[jimnyc]

It was impossible to independently verify the claim of responsibility.

That's what we see about 99% of the Palestinians claims.

[Voted4Reagan]

It was a revenge attack.

Ahem...ahem...from the same story you posted but omitted....



http://news.yahoo.com/first-gaza-rocket-3-months-rattles-cease-fire-122743134.html[/FONT][/COLOR]




Seriously. Am I not allowed to sleep? You need to learn some patience.

I'm in the airport waiting for a flight right now so don't expect another peep out of me for another 9 hours ok?

A civil matter involving the actions of the Police is NO REASON TO LAUNCH UNGUIDED EXPLOSIVES AT A CIVILIAN POPULATION.

That in and of itself by your own words is a WAR CRIME.

[aboutime]

What would this fellow, also a Nobel Prize winner like Obama say....?4581 Another Carter kinda guy.

[Robert A Whit]

Der Bingstrer SAYS:I'm sure it's also why Obama is not always seen as sympathetic enough regarding Israel. He knows Netanyahu's actions are sabotaging the peace in Israel with the settlement building. Without US outrage, or a resurgence of the Israel's Labor party, nothing is going to change.

Question for any or all of you?

What makes Hamas in charge of lands still held by Israel?

Hoe can Netanyahu be messing up by building on land they presently own?

[Drummond]

A civil matter involving the actions of the Police is NO REASON TO LAUNCH UNGUIDED EXPLOSIVES AT A CIVILIAN POPULATION.

That in and of itself by your own words is a WAR CRIME.:clap::clap:

EXACTLY !

[Drummond]

It was a revenge attack.

Ahem...ahem...from the same story you posted but omitted....



http://news.yahoo.com/first-gaza-rocket-3-months-rattles-cease-fire-122743134.html[/FONT][/COLOR]

Voted4Reagan gives you a good answer, Jafar.

As for my own reaction ... it can be summed up, with ...

:lame2::lame2::lame2:


I omitted that which was irrelevant, Jafar. Voted4Reagan is exactly right, and it isn't reasonable for you to expect such a feeble excuse to stick.

Besides .. see from the link that the circumstances of this SINGLE death have yet to be properly sifted, to come to a full conclusion about it. For Hamas (.. IF you seriously think people should be fooled into thinking firing rockets at an innocent civilian population is any sort of 'reasonable, proportionate' response to ONE SINGLE death ..) to do this, shows how desperate they were to attack.

I expect, had they waited a few more months to attack, the excuse THEN would've been that someone being held in custody suffering a cut elbow would've warranted a rocket attack !!!!

Here's a thought, Jafar. If you really want to represent this sort of argument and say it could be valid, then what other parallels could be drawn as reasons for terrorist 'reprisals' ?? Let's take this 'quality' of argument up a notch, shall we, and suppose, for arguments' sake, that an inmate at Gitmo died in custody.

Following your highly terrorism-friendly logic, Jafar, wouldn't that justify Al Qaeda attacking an American city in reprisal ????

Do you see how completely outrageous, indefensible and downright PATHETIC an excuse this is for a terrorist attack, one which indefensibly risks INNOCENTS' LIVES ??

No, Jafar, Hamas are terrorists, their hatred of Israel is so complete and irrevocable that - AS THE HAMAS CHARTER MAKES PLAIN - Hamas is mandated to ultimately reject peace as an option. Peaceful negotiations or agreements WILL therefore break down, because Hamas fundamentally opposes them all.

THEY ARE TERRORIST SCUM, AFTER ALL - NOW ADMIT THAT A WAR CRIME HAS BEEN PERPETRATED.

[Drummond]

.... Looks like Jafar needs a lot of sleep these days ...

Any reply forthcoming yet, Jafar ?:rolleyes:

[jafar00]

So.... now that a negotiated 3 month truce has been discarded by Hamas....

Is this act of Unprovoked Rocket Fire a WAR CRIME on the Part of HAMAS?

Read the link above.


Militants claiming affiliation with the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, a violent offshoot of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah, movement took responsibility.

Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade is not Hamas.



The attack Hamas has launched is entirely consistent with their Charter. They have no interest in peace, much less lasting peace. Hamas's action was unprovoked, Jafar, but nonetheless, IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THEIR TERRORIST MANDATE. Oh, I'm sure that Hamas want to put the blame on Israel, but instead, they've lost patience and reverted to type.

So, what's your response to what's now occurred ? Do you have one ?

Again, it wasn't Hamas, and the rocket attack was in response to the death of a Palestinian political prisoner at the hands of Israeli torturers. Whichever way you look at it, when a foreign power takes one of your citizens, and tortures them to death, there is reason to be right royally pissed off about it.


Palestinian belligerence persists. The break in the 3-month long ceasefire is only typical of the Palestinian side being unable, ultimately, to restrain its belligerence. Nobody MADE this attack happen, other than the terrorists who launched this rocket attack.

Wanting your home back is not belligerence.

[Drummond]

Ah, you replied. Many thanks.


Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade is not Hamas.


Again, it wasn't Hamas, and the rocket attack was in response to the death of a Palestinian political prisoner at the hands of Israeli torturers. Whichever way you look at it, when a foreign power takes one of your citizens, and tortures them to death, there is reason to be right royally pissed off about it.

They're NOT Hamas ? Oh, that's all OK, then ...

Nonetheless, you seem prepared to try and defend them, as you would Hamas, a terrorist group you are in candid, declared support of. Well ... to me, one set of terrorists is basically the same as another set. They're TERRORISTS - determined to terrorise, maim and kill innocents at the drop of a hat. And, in this case, for WHAT .. in so-called 'reprisal' because of the death of one individual whilst in custody.

Given the worst imaginable scenario, just how much death and destruction could the rocket attack have meted out ? Breaking, in the process, an agreed ceasefire on both sides. You still haven't committed yourself to a view on its constituting a war crime, though, now ... why are you evading this ?


Wanting your home back is not belligerence.

Try reading the Hamas Charter, and telling me it isn't loaded with belligerence. In any case, since when did so-called 'Palestine' qualify for Nation State status ? And for how long has ISRAEL been recognised as being one such, with every right 'accorded' to it to defend itself ?

Overall, it really needs to be said - Hamas, now another grouping .. both terrorists, BOTH getting support from you. Their acts of terrorism don't deter that support, obviously. I ask, since from this fresh evidence I now lack any reason not to: do they define it ?

[Voted4Reagan]

What Jafar didn't mention is that Al' Aqsa Martyrs Brigade is a faction of FATAH that allies itself with HAMAS because they dont believe in a Negotiated peace with Israel (The same as HAMAS has written in section 13 of their Charter). Al' Aqsa rejects the Abbas path to Negotiated settlements of any kind.


A lie of Ommission on Jafars part.... Intellectually dishonest.

[jafar00]

Given the worst imaginable scenario, just how much death and destruction could the rocket attack have meted out ? Breaking, in the process, an agreed ceasefire on both sides. You still haven't committed yourself to a view on its constituting a war crime, though, now ... why are you evading this ?


A rocket that slightly damages a road in an uninhabited area is hardly a war crime. Torturing a political prisoner to death is.

I wonder what the US or UK would do if Iran or NK was rendering US citizens and torturing them to death on a regular basis?

[Voted4Reagan]

A rocket that slightly damages a road in an uninhabited area is hardly a war crime. Torturing a political prisoner to death is.

I wonder what the US or UK would do if Iran or NK was rendering US citizens and torturing them to death on a regular basis?Ar

Are you saying they aimed the Rocket at the Road?

Or did they aim it at Ashkelon?

and, NK Has done that...

During the Korean War.

[Drummond]

A rocket that slightly damages a road in an uninhabited area is hardly a war crime. Torturing a political prisoner to death is.

I wonder what the US or UK would do if Iran or NK was rendering US citizens and torturing them to death on a regular basis?

From what I've seen, the circumstances of that death have yet to be properly determined. Yet, you seem to be sure that 'torturing' that 'prisoner to death' is the totality of what there is to know. And to you, evidently from your choice of words, this is supposed to be 'worse' - than the rocket attack.

So, demonstrate your certainty that all that could've POSSIBLY resulted from the rocket attack, as known by those launching it at the time of that attack, was damage to a road. If you CANNOT prove that no possibility of far worse was ever in prospect, Jafar, then you have to accept that you're favouring the enactment of attacks with an aggressive potential out of all proportion to what YOU say was the trigger for it.

But then, terrorism doesn't care about proportionality, or fairness, or justice. Terrorism is TERRORISM, AN ACT WITH THE INTENT TO KILL AND MAIM THE INNOCENT, REGARDLESS OF NUMBERS.

And the truth of that doesn't deter your continuing support of it.

Gitmo. Imagine a scenario which has it that a Muslim terrorist dies there, after interrogation. Is Al Qaeda, according to you, entitled to attack America in retaliation ?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

A rocket that slightly damages a road in an uninhabited area is hardly a war crime. Torturing a political prisoner to death is.

I wonder what the US or UK would do if Iran or NK was rendering US citizens and torturing them to death on a regular basis?

Hey liar, I defeated you so soundly with the truth that you put me on ignore because you are a total coward. Now you get to ignore my posts after setting up the excuse that I was too rude to you.:laugh:
While you reply to several that were even more rude than I ever was.
How strong is Allah when he makes weakass cowards like you?? Set up a lie to hide your cowardice and feed your ego while you hide from my words.-Tyr

[Robert A Whit]

Hey liar, I defeated you so soundly with the truth that you put me on ignore because you are a total coward. Now you get to ignore my posts after setting up the excuse that I was too rude to you.:laugh:
While you reply to several that were even more rude than I ever was.
How strong is Allah when he makes weakass cowards like you?? Set up a lie to hide your cowardice and feed your ego while you hide from my words.-Tyr

I was thinking he was talking of how Muslims tortured Americans then sliced off their heads with no warning. That stuff made me want to retch.

[jafar00]

Ar

Are you saying they aimed the Rocket at the Road?

Or did they aim it at Ashkelon?

and, NK Has done that...

During the Korean War.

They didn't/can't aim it at a road. The rockets are unguided. All they can do is point it in the general direction and light the fuse. If you want them to do better, why not give them guided missiles, and the coordinates of Israeli military targets instead?


From what I've seen, the circumstances of that death have yet to be properly determined. Yet, you seem to be sure that 'torturing' that 'prisoner to death' is the totality of what there is to know. And to you, evidently from your choice of words, this is supposed to be 'worse' - than the rocket attack.

It is worse. Much worse. I'm sure if you asked one of your drone pilots to slowly chop a child to pieces face to face rather than blowing them up with a drone attack from afar, they wouldn't be able to do it.

[Drummond]

Well now, Jafar. Is this the worst thing you've ever posted on this forum ? My guess .. YES it is, easily. I'm unsure, though - maybe you've posted something I'm unaware of that is even worse.

I am aware that much of your post relies on hypothetical considerations. Nonetheless ... we have proof, from your thinking, of how committed you are to terrorism. Not just the fact of supporting the so-called 'cause' they 'represent', but WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DO !!


They didn't/can't aim it at a road. The rockets are unguided. All they can do is point it in the general direction and light the fuse.

'Thank you'. By stating this, you acknowledge that the outcome of the rocket attack could've been orders of magnitude worse than was reportedly true. Loss of life could've occurred, and - for all the terrorists knew when commencing their attack - it could have involved MASS murder.

MASS murder. Are you getting that, Jafar ??

But as if that isn't quite bad enough, you continue with ..


If you want them to do better, why not give them guided missiles, and the coordinates of Israeli military targets instead?

Jafar, what on earth makes you think that America should ARM TERRORISTS, FACILITATING THEIR MURDERS, AND THIS, AGAINST AN ESTABLISHED ALLY ????

Granted, launching terrorist attacks against innocent civilians is especially heinous (... WHICH IS WHAT YOUR TERRORIST FRIENDS DON'T MIND PERPETRATING, AS MATTERS STAND). However, 'military targets' are still manned by human beings, people with friends, loved ones, families. Terrorist attacks against these people, people who've every justification for defending their homeland, STILL are wrong.

AND YOU WANT AMERICA TO SUPPLY ASSISTANCE TO HELP MAKE IT INCREASINGLY POSSIBLE !!!!

What we have here, Jafar, is the stripping-away of your supposed stance of a principled support of terrorist objectives, and proof beyond doubt of your support for the VERY ACT of terrorism, ITSELF. Support of TARGETED MURDER, OF FACILITATING IT !!!!!


It is worse. Much worse. I'm sure if you asked one of your drone pilots to slowly chop a child to pieces face to face rather than blowing them up with a drone attack from afar, they wouldn't be able to do it.

Trying, still, to play the 'I am a humanitarian with a conscience' card, Jafar ? TOO LATE ... WAY TOO LATE .....

The detail of what happened to that man in custody is still unestablished, yet you want to leap to assumptive judgments, and to use them as a basis for your PRO-TERRORISM argument.

But you argue for acceptance of mass murder, be these innocent people just going about their daily business, or, service personnel acting in the defence of their country. I'm telling you, THIS IS WORSE.

And let me remind you. Terrorists aren't above acts of torture themselves. When they detonate bombs, sometimes the victims die horrific, agonising deaths, protracted suffering occurring. Or, they BEHEAD their victims.

Now tell me, Jafar, that you can support THAT, TOO ..

JAFAR, YOU HAVE, TODAY, PROVED NOT ONLY THAT YOU SUPPORT TERRORISTS, BUT ALL THAT THEY DO. YOU ARE, IN THE FULLEST SENSE OF THE TERM, A PROVEN SUPPORTER OF TERRORISM.

[aboutime]

Well now, Jafar. Is this the worst thing you've ever posted on this forum ? My guess .. YES it is, easily. I'm unsure, though - maybe you've posted something I'm unaware of that is even worse.

I am aware that much of your post relies on hypothetical considerations. Nonetheless ... we have proof, from your thinking, of how committed you are to terrorism. Not just the fact of supporting the so-called 'cause' they 'represent', but WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DO !!



'Thank you'. By stating this, you acknowledge that the outcome of the rocket attack could've been orders of magnitude worse than was reportedly true. Loss of life could've occurred, and - for all the terrorists knew when commencing their attack - it could have involved MASS murder.

MASS murder. Are you getting that, Jafar ??

But as if that isn't quite bad enough, you continue with ..



Jafar, what on earth makes you think that America should ARM TERRORISTS, FACILITATING THEIR MURDERS, AND THIS, AGAINST AN ESTABLISHED ALLY ????

Granted, launching terrorist attacks against innocent civilians is especially heinous (... WHICH IS WHAT YOUR TERRORIST FRIENDS DON'T MIND PERPETRATING, AS MATTERS STAND). However, 'military targets' are still manned by human beings, people with friends, loved ones, families. Terrorist attacks against these people, people who've every justification for defending their homeland, STILL are wrong.

AND YOU WANT AMERICA TO SUPPLY ASSISTANCE TO HELP MAKE IT INCREASINGLY POSSIBLE !!!!

What we have here, Jafar, is the stripping-away of your supposed stance of a principled support of terrorist objectives, and proof beyond doubt of your support for the VERY ACT of terrorism, ITSELF. Support of TARGETED MURDER, OF FACILITATING IT !!!!!



Trying, still, to play the 'I am a humanitarian with a conscience' card, Jafar ? TOO LATE ... WAY TOO LATE .....

The detail of what happened to that man in custody is still unestablished, yet you want to leap to assumptive judgments, and to use them as a basis for your PRO-TERRORISM argument.

But you argue for acceptance of mass murder, be these innocent people just going about their daily business, or, service personnel acting in the defence of their country. I'm telling you, THIS IS WORSE.

And let me remind you. Terrorists aren't above acts of torture themselves. When they detonate bombs, sometimes the victims die horrific, agonising deaths, protracted suffering occurring. Or, they BEHEAD their victims.

Now tell me, Jafar, that you can support THAT, TOO ..

JAFAR, YOU HAVE, TODAY, PROVED NOT ONLY THAT YOU SUPPORT TERRORISTS, BUT ALL THAT THEY DO. YOU ARE, IN THE FULLEST SENSE OF THE TERM, A PROVEN SUPPORTER OF TERRORISM.



Sir Drummond. Correct me if I am wrong but. Do you get the feeling, or suspect that the words of jafar, and launching missiles into Israel might be the words of Personal Experience?
And if so. It would further explain why jafar pretends to not be such a bigot, while claiming to not Hate anyone of the Jewish, or Israeli persuasion??????

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Well now, Jafar. Is this the worst thing you've ever posted on this forum ? My guess .. YES it is, easily. I'm unsure, though - maybe you've posted something I'm unaware of that is even worse.

I am aware that much of your post relies on hypothetical considerations. Nonetheless ... we have proof, from your thinking, of how committed you are to terrorism. Not just the fact of supporting the so-called 'cause' they 'represent', but WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DO !!



'Thank you'. By stating this, you acknowledge that the outcome of the rocket attack could've been orders of magnitude worse than was reportedly true. Loss of life could've occurred, and - for all the terrorists knew when commencing their attack - it could have involved MASS murder.

MASS murder. Are you getting that, Jafar ??

But as if that isn't quite bad enough, you continue with ..



Jafar, what on earth makes you think that America should ARM TERRORISTS, FACILITATING THEIR MURDERS, AND THIS, AGAINST AN ESTABLISHED ALLY ????

Granted, launching terrorist attacks against innocent civilians is especially heinous (... WHICH IS WHAT YOUR TERRORIST FRIENDS DON'T MIND PERPETRATING, AS MATTERS STAND). However, 'military targets' are still manned by human beings, people with friends, loved ones, families. Terrorist attacks against these people, people who've every justification for defending their homeland, STILL are wrong.

AND YOU WANT AMERICA TO SUPPLY ASSISTANCE TO HELP MAKE IT INCREASINGLY POSSIBLE !!!!

What we have here, Jafar, is the stripping-away of your supposed stance of a principled support of terrorist objectives, and proof beyond doubt of your support for the VERY ACT of terrorism, ITSELF. Support of TARGETED MURDER, OF FACILITATING IT !!!!!



Trying, still, to play the 'I am a humanitarian with a conscience' card, Jafar ? TOO LATE ... WAY TOO LATE .....

The detail of what happened to that man in custody is still unestablished, yet you want to leap to assumptive judgments, and to use them as a basis for your PRO-TERRORISM argument.

But you argue for acceptance of mass murder, be these innocent people just going about their daily business, or, service personnel acting in the defence of their country. I'm telling you, THIS IS WORSE.

And let me remind you. Terrorists aren't above acts of torture themselves. When they detonate bombs, sometimes the victims die horrific, agonising deaths, protracted suffering occurring. Or, they BEHEAD their victims.

Now tell me, Jafar, that you can support THAT, TOO ..

JAFAR, YOU HAVE, TODAY, PROVED NOT ONLY THAT YOU SUPPORT TERRORISTS, BUT ALL THAT THEY DO. YOU ARE, IN THE FULLEST SENSE OF THE TERM, A PROVEN SUPPORTER OF TERRORISM.


That he most assuredly is. Yet my supposed "rudeness" gave reason for him to put me on ignore. :laugh2:
A coward's excuse but hey as long as it soothed his ego he is happy with it. And he thinks that he fools his Allah by taking the coward's way.:laugh:
Don't ever expect any honesty from Jahil running dog my friend. His running from the truth that I post betrays his true character...-Tyr

[RoccoR]

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot, Drummond, jafar00, et al,

This is all a matter of perspective; a Palestinians and Arabs centric point-of-view.

The Palestinians and Arabs see themselves as "freedom fighters." They believe that the lands and territories under question (including Israel proper, Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza) were "owned" by them. ("Owned" is a word you very often hear them use.) The Palestinians and Arabs don't make a distinction between "Land Ownership" and "National Sovereignty;" they think they are one and the same.

The Palestinians and Arabs do not recognize the history of sovereignty for the lands and territories. They refuse to recognize that they were under the sovereign control of the Ottoman Empire (transferred to Turkey) and that Turkey relinquished its sovereignty of those territories and land to the Allied Powers in 1920 by Treaty (converted to Mandates).

The Palestinians do not recognize the "intent" ---> that is, written in the various documents of the time, the intent to make a "Jewish National Home" for all the Jewish People. Thus, you will hear often, the Palestinians and Arabs talk about "foreign invaders" as opposed to all "Jewish Immigrants" willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.

Palestinians and Arabs often charge that Israel started the confrontation between the two cultures. They see themselves as the victims of a conspiracy by the British and Israelis to steal their lands. They don't see themselves as the aggressors that instigate multiple wars and losing ground in the process. They don't see themselves as an aggressor that refuses to recognize the sovereignty of Israel.

The Palestinians and Arabs believe they have an exemption to the principles of peace, that they may take any action they deem necessary, in the furtherance of their cause. The Palestinians and Arabs see the events like the Summer Olympics in Munich, the sabotage of Swissair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissair) Flight SR330, the Hijacking of the Achille Lauro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Achille_Lauro#1985_hijacking) or EgyptAir Flight 648, or the Rome and Vienna airport attacks as "freedom fighting essentials to their cause; just as they consider the indiscriminate missile attacks into Israel as essential.

The Palestinians and Arabs believe that they cannot be held accountable for any adversity that has befallen them, as they are totally victims of Israel aggression. It is all Israels fault; and the Palestinians and Arabs had no responsibility for the outcomes whatsoever.

This is Perception.

Most Respectfully,
R

[Drummond]

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot, Drummond, jafar00, et al,

This is all a matter of perspective; a Palestinians and Arabs centric point-of-view.

The Palestinians and Arabs see themselves as "freedom fighters." They believe that the lands and territories under question (including Israel proper, Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza) were "owned" by them. ("Owned" is a word you very often hear them use.) The Palestinians and Arabs don't make a distinction between "Land Ownership" and "National Sovereignty;" they think they are one and the same.

The Palestinians and Arabs do not recognize the history of sovereignty for the lands and territories. They refuse to recognize that they were under the sovereign control of the Ottoman Empire (transferred to Turkey) and that Turkey relinquished its sovereignty of those territories and land to the Allied Powers in 1920 by Treaty (converted to Mandates).

The Palestinians do not recognize the "intent" ---> that is, written in the various documents of the time, the intent to make a "Jewish National Home" for all the Jewish People. Thus, you will hear often, the Palestinians and Arabs talk about "foreign invaders" as opposed to all "Jewish Immigrants" willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.

Palestinians and Arabs often charge that Israel started the confrontation between the two cultures. They see themselves as the victims of a conspiracy by the British and Israelis to steal their lands. They don't see themselves as the aggressors that instigate multiple wars and losing ground in the process. They don't see themselves as an aggressor that refuses to recognize the sovereignty of Israel.

The Palestinians and Arabs believe they have an exemption to the principles of peace, that they may take any action they deem necessary, in the furtherance of their cause. The Palestinians and Arabs see the events like the Summer Olympics in Munich, the sabotage of Swissair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissair) Flight SR330, the Hijacking of the Achille Lauro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Achille_Lauro#1985_hijacking) or EgyptAir Flight 648, or the Rome and Vienna airport attacks as "freedom fighting essentials to their cause; just as they consider the indiscriminate missile attacks into Israel as essential.

The Palestinians and Arabs believe that they cannot be held accountable for any adversity that has befallen them, as they are totally victims of Israel aggression. It is all Israels fault; and the Palestinians and Arabs had no responsibility for the outcomes whatsoever.

This is Perception.

Most Respectfully,
R

Perception ? I say that this is criminality at its very worst.

You say that the Palestinians and Arabs 'believe they have an exemption to the principles of peace, that they may take and action they deem necessary'. Well, do they also have an 'exemption' from any expectation that they lift themselves up out of bloodthirsty savagery ? Do they believe themselves exempted from civilised standards ?

If we all took that so-called 'attitude', the human race would've wiped itself out decades ago. The Russians could've decided themselves to be exempted from the principles of peace (... and sheer commonsense !), and decided that their Communism should sweep the world, unhindered, unopposed. In seeing that America and the West stood in their way, they could've launched all their nuclear missiles. The resulting exchange would have reduced Planet Earth to a radioactive slagheap.

The Cuban Missile Crisis, from that thinking, would undoubtedly have led to nuclear war. Inevitably, unstoppably.

RoccoR .. I DON'T CARE that Palestinians and Arabs want to exempt themselves from civilisation. That's their problem. The world, today, cannot afford to indulge their backwardness and let them behave as though we were all back in 1300 AD. If they can't learn to make peace and keep to it, then they'll just have to keep taking the consequences until they can. The world, today, should have neither the time nor the patience to indulge their terrorism and their bloodlusts.

[jafar00]

Drummond, you would be satisfied if the Palestinians just sat back and allowed the ethnic cleansing of Palestine to go on unhindered. Admit it.

[Drummond]

Drummond, you would be satisfied if the Palestinians just sat back and allowed the ethnic cleansing of Palestine to go on unhindered. Admit it.

Points:-

1. Palestine does not have a history of Nation Status recognition.

2. Israel, by contrast, DOES .. it has an internationally-recognised right to exist, and to exist in peace and security, FREE from terrorist savagery meted out by others.

3. Nobody is involved in Palestinian 'ethnic cleansing', this is nonsense. An excuse to feebly try to excuse terrorism BY Palestinians.

4. It continues to amaze me that Israel tolerates so much without hitting back, IN RESPONSE, far harder than she does.

5. If you really want to be critical of such a thing as 'ethnic cleansing' .. then be critical of the Hamas Charter, and its commitment to unceasing enmity against Jews and the very existence of Israel. Be critical of its call to Jihad. Be critical of its rejection of peaceful agreements.

Be critical of terrorism, NOT SUPPORTIVE OF IT.

[Robert A Whit]

But I want to give kudos to Drummond for his brilliant display of scholarship. His arguments should win the day with any Palestinian but we know they reject those arguments.

I propose this.

Set aside a part of the desert. Have all Palestinians get up the courage to face the Israeli military in a fight to the end.

Then Israel can have peace.

[RoccoR]

Drummond, et al,

I am not advocating for the Palestinians. I understand the Palestinians. They believe that they have the right to do what they do because the Israelis [under GA Res 181 (II)] created a state, that they believe was unfair to them.


Perception ? I say that this is criminality at its very worst.

You say that the Palestinians and Arabs 'believe they have an exemption to the principles of peace, that they may take and action they deem necessary'. Well, do they also have an 'exemption' from any expectation that they lift themselves up out of bloodthirsty savagery ? Do they believe themselves exempted from civilised standards ?

If we all took that so-called 'attitude', the human race would've wiped itself out decades ago. The Russians could've decided themselves to be exempted from the principles of peace (... and sheer commonsense !), and decided that their Communism should sweep the world, unhindered, unopposed. In seeing that America and the West stood in their way, they could've launched all their nuclear missiles. The resulting exchange would have reduced Planet Earth to a radioactive slagheap.

The Cuban Missile Crisis, from that thinking, would undoubtedly have led to nuclear war. Inevitably, unstoppably.

RoccoR .. I DON'T CARE that Palestinians and Arabs want to exempt themselves from civilisation. That's their problem. The world, today, cannot afford to indulge their backwardness and let them behave as though we were all back in 1300 AD. If they can't learn to make peace and keep to it, then they'll just have to keep taking the consequences until they can. The world, today, should have neither the time nor the patience to indulge their terrorism and their bloodlusts.

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians are turning their struggle into a Propaganda War, between ideas.

The Palestinians are using UN level resolutions and decrees in order to demonstrate that Israel is a rogue state that operates outside the existing rules of law, concepts, principles and standards for a nation state. The real danger for Israel is not in the physical violence presented by the Palestinians (with support from the Arab and Persian governments), but in their ability to change the way the world sees Israel.

The Israelis have to adapt to the new battlescape, in which they appear to be bending over backwards to provide for the health, wealth and welfare of the Palestinians. They have to reverse the growing perception that the Israelis are persecuting the Palestinians. This can be done, but it is going to be expensive and it is going to setback the current settlement progression in the Occupied Territories. The Israelis have to adopt a "think smart" program that projects the idea that Israel is the more than proper Occupation Force.

Most Respectfully,
R

[Robert A Whit]

you know, had the Palestinians wanted to remain citizens of those areas, they should have never fled. They knew that the Arab war was wrong. The UN created Israel but based on history. Those people of Israel created those cities first.

I know a Palestinian and to this day he is furious. He told me about 3/4 years ago that some date of the past would be the era of an all out war.

He was wrong. His family lost property to the Jews and they are furious to this very day.

[jafar00]

Points:-

1. Palestine does not have a history of Nation Status recognition.

2. Israel, by contrast, DOES .. it has an internationally-recognised right to exist, and to exist in peace and security, FREE from terrorist savagery meted out by others.

3. Nobody is involved in Palestinian 'ethnic cleansing', this is nonsense. An excuse to feebly try to excuse terrorism BY Palestinians.

4. It continues to amaze me that Israel tolerates so much without hitting back, IN RESPONSE, far harder than she does.

5. If you really want to be critical of such a thing as 'ethnic cleansing' .. then be critical of the Hamas Charter, and its commitment to unceasing enmity against Jews and the very existence of Israel. Be critical of its call to Jihad. Be critical of its rejection of peaceful agreements.

Be critical of terrorism, NOT SUPPORTIVE OF IT.

1) They have a very long history of living there. Thousands of years in fact. The area has been known as Palestine for almost as long.

2) The ethnic cleansing started the day Israel was created at the UN and the zionists moved in and took Palestinian towns by force.

http://itisapartheid.org/Images/picture1252_small.jpg

3) Israel has been at it for decades with increasing violence.

4) Israel would lose US support (and holocaust sympathy) if they acted as they really want to

5) I dont agree with everything Hamas is or does.

[Drummond]

1) They have a very long history of living there. Thousands of years in fact. The area has been known as Palestine for almost as long.

2) The ethnic cleansing started the day Israel was created at the UN and the zionists moved in and took Palestinian towns by force.

http://itisapartheid.org/Images/picture1252_small.jpg

3) Israel has been at it for decades with increasing violence.

4) Israel would lose US support (and holocaust sympathy) if they acted as they really want to

5) I dont agree with everything Hamas is or does.

You evade this simple truth: the Palestinians have never had the history of being a recognised nation. Israel HAS, however.

Israel existed in Biblical times. She does today, and Israel's existence was sanctioned in 1948 by the UN. Arab nations, especially the Palestinians, chose to fight the destiny the UN had arranged. They entered into defiance of Israel's lawful right to exist, and began warfare against Israel.

Israel, then and now, fights for its survival, against enemies whose dearest wish is to snuff Israel FROM existence. Hamas exists for that purpose, as its Charter stipulates, and has been terrorising Israel for many years. Jafar, you talk of ethnic cleansing. In truth, YOU are on the side of the would-be 'CLEANSERS'.

AND - you say you don't agree with all that Hamas is, or does. But your support for them remains constant, Jafar. And you're supportive of their terrorism to the extent that you want their chief means of meting out their terrorism UPGRADED.

[Drummond]

Drummond, et al,

I am not advocating for the Palestinians. I understand the Palestinians. They believe that they have the right to do what they do because the Israelis [under GA Res 181 (II)] created a state, that they believe was unfair to them.



(COMMENT)

The Palestinians are turning their struggle into a Propaganda War, between ideas.

The Palestinians are using UN level resolutions and decrees in order to demonstrate that Israel is a rogue state that operates outside the existing rules of law, concepts, principles and standards for a nation state. The real danger for Israel is not in the physical violence presented by the Palestinians (with support from the Arab and Persian governments), but in their ability to change the way the world sees Israel.

The Israelis have to adapt to the new battlescape, in which they appear to be bending over backwards to provide for the health, wealth and welfare of the Palestinians. They have to reverse the growing perception that the Israelis are persecuting the Palestinians. This can be done, but it is going to be expensive and it is going to setback the current settlement progression in the Occupied Territories. The Israelis have to adopt a "think smart" program that projects the idea that Israel is the more than proper Occupation Force.

Most Respectfully,
R

Yes, the Palestinians are involved in a propaganda war .. aided and abetted by the Left.

I think the Israelis need to do far more to demonstrate that they are the victims here. That their right to exist is inviolable, and that thy have a selection of enemies dedicated to destroying them. They need to do far more to show the true nature of the terrorism ranged against them .. and to show the world that they choose tolerance rather than warfare most of the time.

Perhaps they need to show that this tolerance is misplaced.

[aboutime]

Yes, the Palestinians are involved in a propaganda war .. aided and abetted by the Left.

I think the Israelis need to do far more to demonstrate that they are the victims here. That their right to exist is inviolable, and that thy have a selection of enemies dedicated to destroying them. They need to do far more to show the true nature of the terrorism ranged against them .. and to show the world that they choose tolerance rather than warfare most of the time.

Perhaps they need to show that this tolerance is misplaced.


Sir Drummond. Once again I agree with you. However. The Palestinian version of tolerance, as we have all been seeing for many decades is...NO TOLERANCE for Israel, or Israeli's...unless it means the Total Destruction of Israel, and it's people.
So says Hamas, and like our Democrat Americans who easily voted for Obama...so says anyone who places Hatred above life.

If tolerance is misplaced. It must be called what it really is...per Hamas. Tolerance of Dead Jews.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Drummond http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=621785#post621785)

Yes, the Palestinians are involved in a propaganda war .. aided and abetted by the Left.

I think the Israelis need to do far more to demonstrate that they are the victims here. That their right to exist is inviolable, and that thy have a selection of enemies dedicated to destroying them. They need to do far more to show the true nature of the terrorism ranged against them .. and to show the world that they choose tolerance rather than warfare most of the time.

Perhaps they need to show that this tolerance is misplaced.




Sir Drummond. Once again I agree with you. However. The Palestinian version of tolerance, as we have all been seeing for many decades is...NO TOLERANCE for Israel, or Israeli's...unless it means the Total Destruction of Israel, and it's people.
So says Hamas, and like our Democrat Americans who easily voted for Obama...so says anyone who places Hatred above life.

If tolerance is misplaced. It must be called what it really is...per Hamas. Tolerance of Dead Jews.

Bless you AT for agreeing with Drummond. With no permission from you, he offered an opinion. Thank you for not picking a fight with him ... this time.

[RoccoR]

jafar00, Drummond, et al,


Yes, the Palestinians are involved in a propaganda war .. aided and abetted by the Left.

I think the Israelis need to do far more to demonstrate that they are the victims here. That their right to exist is inviolable, and that thy have a selection of enemies dedicated to destroying them. They need to do far more to show the true nature of the terrorism ranged against them .. and to show the world that they choose tolerance rather than warfare most of the time.

Perhaps they need to show that this tolerance is misplaced.
(COMMENT)

The way its propaganda is countered it very important.

=======
You know, of course, that the land ownership was never at issue. Those rights to the land were protected by Charter, Treaty, Mandate and the Resolution.


1) They have a very long history of living there. Thousands of years in fact. The area has been known as Palestine for almost as long.
(COMMENT)

By "they" - I assume you mean the "Palestinians." Both sides to this equation can make a similar claim. It was 3000 years ago, that King David, and the first Israelites conquer Philistines and establish the nation of Israel.


2) The ethnic cleansing started the day Israel was created at the UN and the zionists moved in and took Palestinian towns by force.
(COMMENT)

My history is not too steady, but as I recall it, on the day Israel declared Independence, and the UK relinquished its Mandate over Palestine, hostilities immediately broke out between the Arab and Jewish communities. The next day, five Arab Armies of the neighboring Arab States entered the territory to assist the Palestinian Arabs in the fight. The objective of the Arab Armies and the Palestinian insurrection was to overcome Israel and to take the entire remainder of the Mandate (three-quarters of which had been previously released in May 1946 from League of Nations under British administration to Jordanian Independence).


3) Israel has been at it for decades with increasing violence.
(COMMENT)

This idea of "ethnic cleansing" and "apartheid" are creations in the mind of the Palestinians.


4) Israel would lose US support (and holocaust sympathy) if they acted as they really want to
(COMMENT)

Possibly. I don't have the inside knowledge to predict how the Israelis would "act" otherwise. But after more than six decades of terrorist attacks, wars, ambushes, invasions and sabotage, any nation is bound to lose some of its patience in dealing with a progression of generations that are set on a path of violence.


5) I dont agree with everything Hamas is or does.
(COMMENT)

It really doesn't matter which of the Palestinian groups you select, the common factor among all of them is that they all have a ongoing campaign of organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in acts of civil strife or terrorist acts, (wars when they can get Persian and Arab League support) that involve the use of force to destabilize Israel, with the intention of intimidating or coercing Israeli society for ideological or political reasons.

Hamas is a Sunni militant Islamic Resistance Movement with the goal of establishing anIslamic fundamentalist Palestinian state from the remnants of Israel after its destruction. Many of the Palestinians refuse to recognize any borders related to Israel (1948, 1949, 1967, 1973) because they see the establishment of Israel is illegal to begin with; that the entire State of Israel as "Occupied Territory;" not just what we refer to today as the "Occupied Territories." The refusal of Hamas to recognize the State of Israel is one reason why it also rejected peace talks lie the Oslo Accords.

Not everything that Hamas opposes in the way Israel extends its influence over Gaza and the West Bank is unreasonable. There are many policies and events that Israel has applied that are unreasonable on face value. But it is also just as important to remember that there are many Islamic militants operating within these areas that represent a true security threat to Israel and its population.

The Einstein quote probably makes the most sense when he defined "insanity" (doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results). Israel must now make the next move, to change the paradigm that governs the image of the administration of the Occupied Territories. It must take the risk. It will be dangerous. But there is not much of an alternative. But Israel will not make (or even consider) that move unless there is a reasonable expectation for success. And Hamas is a major obstacle to peace in that regard.

Most Respectfully,
R

[aboutime]

Bless you AT for agreeing with Drummond. With no permission from you, he offered an opinion. Thank you for not picking a fight with him ... this time.



I don't care what anybody says. "That was funny stuff right there, Robert.... 4607not pickin' a fight with Drummond."

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot, Drummond, jafar00, et al,

This is all a matter of perspective; a Palestinians and Arabs centric point-of-view.

The Palestinians and Arabs see themselves as "freedom fighters." They believe that the lands and territories under question (including Israel proper, Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza) were "owned" by them. ("Owned" is a word you very often hear them use.) The Palestinians and Arabs don't make a distinction between "Land Ownership" and "National Sovereignty;" they think they are one and the same.

The Palestinians and Arabs do not recognize the history of sovereignty for the lands and territories. They refuse to recognize that they were under the sovereign control of the Ottoman Empire (transferred to Turkey) and that Turkey relinquished its sovereignty of those territories and land to the Allied Powers in 1920 by Treaty (converted to Mandates).

The Palestinians do not recognize the "intent" ---> that is, written in the various documents of the time, the intent to make a "Jewish National Home" for all the Jewish People. Thus, you will hear often, the Palestinians and Arabs talk about "foreign invaders" as opposed to all "Jewish Immigrants" willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.

Palestinians and Arabs often charge that Israel started the confrontation between the two cultures. They see themselves as the victims of a conspiracy by the British and Israelis to steal their lands. They don't see themselves as the aggressors that instigate multiple wars and losing ground in the process. They don't see themselves as an aggressor that refuses to recognize the sovereignty of Israel.

The Palestinians and Arabs believe they have an exemption to the principles of peace, that they may take any action they deem necessary, in the furtherance of their cause. The Palestinians and Arabs see the events like the Summer Olympics in Munich, the sabotage of Swissair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissair) Flight SR330, the Hijacking of the Achille Lauro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Achille_Lauro#1985_hijacking) or EgyptAir Flight 648, or the Rome and Vienna airport attacks as "freedom fighting essentials to their cause; just as they consider the indiscriminate missile attacks into Israel as essential.

The Palestinians and Arabs believe that they cannot be held accountable for any adversity that has befallen them, as they are totally victims of Israel aggression. It is all Israels fault; and the Palestinians and Arabs had no responsibility for the outcomes whatsoever.

This is Perception.

Most Respectfully,
R

I once had a dog that thought it was the baddest dog on earth, I named him Bigfight. Every time I put him in the pen with the other dogs he would attack one of them and every time get beaten by the other dog. This happened about a dozen times over a two year period. Finally one night Bigfight dug under the fence dividing the pens and went in to fight the wrong dog. A new dog that I had just bought a few days before. The new dog that all my other hunting dogs had shown great respect for with just cause. That new dog stopped Bigfight from ever fighting again. He killed Bigfight sometime during the night. After removing Bigfight from the pen I named my new dog Victory. He became the second best hunting dog I ever had! Which was a blessing because he had just killed the best one I ever had!
There is a relevant moral in that story... -Tyr

[Drummond]

I don't care what anybody says. "That was funny stuff right there, Robert.... 4607not pickin' a fight with Drummond."

Yes, I was baffled by that myself ... :confused:

[Robert A Whit]

Yes, I was baffled by that myself ... :confused:

He lives to mock me. I simply mocked him for allowing you to post. And by golly, you did not even get his permission. You are a good man. I enjoy your posts.

Oh, now watch him get the final word.

[Robert A Whit]

I once had a dog that thought it was the baddest dog on earth, I named him Bigfight. Every time I put him in the pen with the other dogs he would attack one of them and every time get beaten by the other dog. This happened about a dozen times over a two year period. Finally one night Bigfight dug under the fence dividing the pens and went in to fight the wrong dog. A new dog that I had just bought a few days before. The new dog that all my other hunting dogs had shown great respect for with just cause. That new dog stopped Bigfight from ever fighting again. He killed Bigfight sometime during the night. After removing Bigfight from the pen I named my new dog Victory. He became the second best hunting dog I ever had! Which was a blessing because he had just killed the best one I ever had!
There is a relevant moral in that story... -Tyr

I am not getting the moral but you had as a replacement the actual bigfight dog. Seems to me if this is about Palestinians, we all should find some of them to talk to. I talked to one so far. This guy was a major airlines pilot. One might think at his age, in his 70s, he would be over what happened in 1948. I won't discuss it with the man once i got his story since it upsets him so much. BTW, this man is a current US Citizen as well as a citizen of Morocco.

[jafar00]

Israel existed in Biblical times. She does today, and Israel's existence was sanctioned in 1948 by the UN. Arab nations, especially the Palestinians, chose to fight the destiny the UN had arranged. They entered into defiance of Israel's lawful right to exist, and began warfare against Israel.

You are of course completely ignoring the fact that the Palestinians started fighting because the creation of the Israeli terrorist state meant that they would be kicked out of their homes and off their ancestral lands they had lived on for generations. They became strangers in their own lounge rooms.

[aboutime]

You are of course completely ignoring the fact that the Palestinians started fighting because the creation of the Israeli terrorist state meant that they would be kicked out of their homes and off their ancestral lands they had lived on for generations. They became strangers in their own lounge rooms.


jafar. You are consistent. Not everyone recognizes how you ALWAYS intentionally Never mention how the Palestinians you speak of as VICTIMS...are also the very same people who have been Rejected by the rest of the Arab World. Which is why they had no place to settle, and became Nomads of a sort.

Nobody wanted those people, but Israel gave them the West Bank, and attempted to continually bring a peaceful solution. But Arafat, and Hamas want NO PEACE when it comes to the Palestinians...because they Want Everything, and are willing to declare the Israeli's as the Intruders, and Enemy...because Palestinians are still Unwelcome Nomads from Nowhere.
And you must defend them with your hatred. That's how IGNORANCE prevails.

[RoccoR]

jafar00, et al,

The Israelis, have made some very poor judgement decisions since they started to Occupy Territory. But prior to that, the 1948/49 Arab Attack was based on an unfounded assumption.


You are of course completely ignoring the fact that the Palestinians started fighting because the creation of the Israeli terrorist state meant that they would be kicked out of their homes and off their ancestral lands they had lived on for generations. They became strangers in their own lounge rooms.
(COMMENT)

The issue of land ownership and territorial sovereignty are two entirely separate and distinct issues. The rights of the Arab Palestinian (and any other land owners for that matter) were protected by declaration, treaty, covenant, mandate and resolution. No one was going to lose any land rights ownership.

(EPILOG)

The issue today is "Occupation." Specifically, the West Bank, and Israeli withdrawal. There is no question that the Israelis have not been good landlords in terms of the protections that an Occupation Force is suppose to extend to the inhabitance of the Occupied Territory. It would take me all day to list and discuss those issues, and the decisions the Israelis made.

It is probably too late for the Israelis to change the face on the monster they helped create. It is time for them to withdraw and dismantle settlements that are beyond the scope of the mandate behind the Occupation Authority. They have known that they were in violation of the principles outlined in the Rome Statues [Article 8, Para 2b(viii)] and the Geneva Convention (Article 49) when they transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. Everyone understood that this would reach a head at some point.

While everyone expects (after a withdrawal) the Arab Palestinian to take advantage of an Israel withdraw, exploit the absence of security forces, and begin a new round of terrorist assaults against Israel, it is an unfortunate outcome that Israel will have to face because they did not act in the best interest of the Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

[Drummond]

You are of course completely ignoring the fact that the Palestinians started fighting because the creation of the Israeli terrorist state meant that they would be kicked out of their homes and off their ancestral lands they had lived on for generations. They became strangers in their own lounge rooms.

Aboutime has done a great job of answering you, Jafar.

Adding my own piece .. you choose your words carefully, don't you ? You cannot refer to the Palestinians having their OWN country, not as such, because they occupied land that was NEVER THEIRS in the sense that they were in their OWN country. They could perhaps be likened to people who occupy a house and claim 'squatters rights'.

Except that, THESE squatters fire rockets at the people whose COUNTRY IT REALLY IS.

The Palestinians weren't left without a home, however. They do have Gaza. Which they have turned into a terrorist stronghold, from which literally thousands of rockets have been fired at Israel in recent years.

A land ruled by terrorists determined to follow a program based on bloodlust. A pariah 'State' if ever there was one, Jafar, and one you've not only NOT said you want disarmed, but one which you want Americans to supply with BETTER MISSILES !!

If you were ever 'a man of peace', Jafar, you should be ashamed of yourself. So far from wanting Hamas to get better weaponry, you should want them disarmed entirely.

But you don't want that. Do you, Jafar ?

No. Better to try and demonise ISRAEL as a so-called 'terrorist State' instead. To fuel the racial hatred that drives Hamas's bloodlust.

THERE SPEAKS A TRUE TERRORIST SUPPORTER.

[aboutime]

Aboutime has done a great job of answering you, Jafar.

Adding my own piece .. you choose your words carefully, don't you ? You cannot refer to the Palestinians having their OWN country, not as such, because they occupied land that was NEVER THEIRS in the sense that they were in their OWN country. They could perhaps be likened to people who occupy a house and claim 'squatters rights'.

Except that, THESE squatters fire rockets at the people whose COUNTRY IT REALLY IS.

The Palestinians weren't left without a home, however. They do have Gaza. Which they have turned into a terrorist stronghold, from which literally thousands of rockets have been fired at Israel in recent years.

A land ruled by terrorists determined to follow a program based on bloodlust. A pariah 'State' if ever there was one, Jafar, and one you've not only NOT said you want disarmed, but one which you want Americans to supply with BETTER MISSILES !!

If you were ever 'a man of peace', Jafar, you should be ashamed of yourself. So far from wanting Hamas to get better weaponry, you should want them disarmed entirely.

But you don't want that. Do you, Jafar ?

No. Better to try and demonise ISRAEL as a so-called 'terrorist State' instead. To fuel the racial hatred that drives Hamas's bloodlust.

THERE SPEAKS A TRUE TERRORIST SUPPORTER.



Sir Drummond. Obviously. Nothing you, or I have said to jafar means anything since he feels threatened by Truth, and Honesty. All of which he is perpetually unable, if not unwilling to accept. Since doing so would make him a traitor to the Palestinian people he defends, and support with the Unending Lies they have all learned to believe as fact.
You cannot change the minds of those so filled with hatred. So any attempt to ignore the truth is welcomed by jafar, and all who blindly allow their hatred to rule.

[Drummond]

Sir Drummond. Obviously. Nothing you, or I have said to jafar means anything since he feels threatened by Truth, and Honesty. All of which he is perpetually unable, if not unwilling to accept. Since doing so would make him a traitor to the Palestinian people he defends, and support with the Unending Lies they have all learned to believe as fact.
You cannot change the minds of those so filled with hatred. So any attempt to ignore the truth is welcomed by jafar, and all who blindly allow their hatred to rule.:clap::clap::clap:

Well said !

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

jafar00, et al,

The Israelis, have made some very poor judgement decisions since they started to Occupy Territory. But prior to that, the 1948/49 Arab Attack was based on an unfounded assumption.


(COMMENT)

The issue of land ownership and territorial sovereignty are two entirely separate and distinct issues. The rights of the Arab Palestinian (and any other land owners for that matter) were protected by declaration, treaty, covenant, mandate and resolution. No one was going to lose any land rights ownership.

(EPILOG)

The issue today is "Occupation." Specifically, the West Bank, and Israeli withdrawal. There is no question that the Israelis have not been good landlords in terms of the protections that an Occupation Force is suppose to extend to the inhabitance of the Occupied Territory. It would take me all day to list and discuss those issues, and the decisions the Israelis made.

It is probably too late for the Israelis to change the face on the monster they helped create. It is time for them to withdraw and dismantle settlements that are beyond the scope of the mandate behind the Occupation Authority. They have known that they were in violation of the principles outlined in the Rome Statues [Article 8, Para 2b(viii)] and the Geneva Convention (Article 49) when they transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. Everyone understood that this would reach a head at some point.

While everyone expects (after a withdrawal) the Arab Palestinian to take advantage of an Israel withdraw, exploit the absence of security forces, and begin a new round of terrorist assaults against Israel, it is an unfortunate outcome that Israel will have to face because they did not act in the best interest of the Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

I have never found that acting in the best interests of a sworn enemy was a wise move! Even more stupid when that sworn enemy seeks one's total destruction. Call me old fashioned but Israel's biggest mistake has been in ever giving back an inch of land. What has it ever brought them except more civilian deaths and aggression from their enemies? A closer location for the enemy to launch attacks from?

Most Respectfully,
TZS

[RoccoR]

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot, et al,

This has been, at least in part, a major aspect of the problem.


I have never found that acting in the best interests of a sworn enemy was a wise move! Even more stupid when that sworn enemy seeks one's total destruction. Call me old fashioned but Israel's biggest mistake has been in ever giving back an inch of land. What has it ever brought them except more civilian deaths and aggression from their enemies? A closer location for the enemy to launch attacks from?

Most Respectfully,
TZS
(COMMENT)

The "Occupied Territories" are a specially defined landscape. The Palestinians within are considered "Protection of Civilian Persons." There is no greater responsibility of an Occupation Force than the care of those under the jurisdiction of the Occupation.

Working in the best interest of the Palestinians does not necessarily mean that the Israelis must drop their guard. But in the over four decades of occupation, the Israelis could have introduced projects into the Occupied Territory that improved the general plight of the Palestinian, raised the standard of living, advanced economic conditions, fostered industrialization, made advances in the general agricultural production in the area, and put in place such public utilities and works that would have changed the entire complexion of the lands in question. This would have been mutually beneficial to both sides of the equation and may have changed the outcome as we see it today.

Yes, all that may have failed, but we will never know because it was not tried.

In the face of not being a benevolent Occupation Power, the Israelis have lost a tremendous amount of good will and understanding for their cause.

Most Respectfully,
R

[jafar00]

the Israelis could have introduced projects into the Occupied Territory that improved the general plight of the Palestinian, raised the standard of living, advanced economic conditions

They have done that by controlling and witholding Palestinian tax revenues whenever they feel like it.


fostered industrialization, made advances in the general agricultural production in the area,

Does bombing the factories, and uprooting centuries old olive and citrus groves count?


and put in place such public utilities and works that would have changed the entire complexion of the lands in question.

Well they "improved" this power station. Just look at the power output!

http://lindasog.com/pics/0606/gaza_burns.jpg


This would have been mutually beneficial to both sides of the equation and may have changed the outcome as we see it today.

I agree. If they had been better neighbours and integrated into Palestinian society instead of waltzing in and taking everything by force, we would not be where we are today.

[Drummond]

They have done that by controlling and witholding Palestinian tax revenues whenever they feel like it.



Does bombing the factories, and uprooting centuries old olive and citrus groves count?



Well they "improved" this power station. Just look at the power output!

http://lindasog.com/pics/0606/gaza_burns.jpg



I agree. If they had been better neighbours and integrated into Palestinian society instead of waltzing in and taking everything by force, we would not be where we are today.

Yes, well, if you had your way, everybody would see Israel as The Big Bad Villain, instead of the TRUTH, which is that they've suffered murderous terrorist attacks from Palestinians for years.

It amazes me (and I know I've said this before) that Israel is anything like as tolerant as it invariably proves itself to be. I happen to think that they SHOULDN'T be .. they should teach their attackers a never-to-be-forgotten lesson, one major enough to make their opposition understand they can never, ever, win.

Terrorism needs to be defeated. No ifs, buts or maybes, no equivocations, no excuses. Just WIPED OUT.

If you don't like that, Jafar, too bad.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot, et al,

This has been, at least in part, a major aspect of the problem.


(COMMENT)

The "Occupied Territories" are a specially defined landscape. The Palestinians within are considered "Protection of Civilian Persons." There is no greater responsibility of an Occupation Force than the care of those under the jurisdiction of the Occupation.

Working in the best interest of the Palestinians does not necessarily mean that the Israelis must drop their guard. But in the over four decades of occupation, the Israelis could have introduced projects into the Occupied Territory that improved the general plight of the Palestinian, raised the standard of living, advanced economic conditions, fostered industrialization, made advances in the general agricultural production in the area, and put in place such public utilities and works that would have changed the entire complexion of the lands in question. This would have been mutually beneficial to both sides of the equation and may have changed the outcome as we see it today.

Yes, all that may have failed, but we will never know because it was not tried.

In the face of not being a benevolent Occupation Power, the Israelis have lost a tremendous amount of good will and understanding for their cause.

Most Respectfully,
R


Just how benevolent should one be to a group of people that have vowed to never stop attempting to destroy you? A group that takes hundreds of millions of dollars to buy weapons to use against you instead of using that money to improve their own lot in life!
Sure , if they had done those things Israel's reaction would have been to do many of the things that you suggested.
Good works begets more good works. Evil begets a harsh and wicked harvest.
Justice is a double edged sword that cuts deeply those deserving it's special attention...

Most Respectfully,
TZS

[jafar00]

Yes, well, if you had your way, everybody would see Israel as The Big Bad Villain, instead of the TRUTH, which is that they've suffered murderous terrorist attacks from Palestinians for years.

It amazes me (and I know I've said this before) that Israel is anything like as tolerant as it invariably proves itself to be. I happen to think that they SHOULDN'T be .. they should teach their attackers a never-to-be-forgotten lesson, one major enough to make their opposition understand they can never, ever, win.

Terrorism needs to be defeated. No ifs, buts or maybes, no equivocations, no excuses. Just WIPED OUT.

If you don't like that, Jafar, too bad.

Simple. They started it by invading Palestine and forcing people from their ancestral homes.

[taft2012]

The ethnic cleansing started the day Israel was created at the UN and the zionists moved in and took Palestinian towns by force.



If we're going to discuss ethnic cleansing, how about we include Cyprus in the discussion?

The Turkish Muslims attacked the sovereign nation of Cyprus in 1974, and was condemned unanimously the United Nations for doing so. They seized Christian properties and ethnically cleansed the Orthodox Christians out of the northern 1/3 of the country.

To this day they illegally occupy the internationally unrecognized Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.

Israel was created by the United Nations... the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus was unanimously condemned by the United Nations.

Yet, which one is allegedly some kind of international disgrace in the daily liberal news media? Israel, of course....

[RoccoR]

jafar00, et al,

There several conversations that touch this subject.


They have done that by controlling and witholding Palestinian tax revenues whenever they feel like it.

Does bombing the factories, and uprooting centuries old olive and citrus groves count?

Well they "improved" this power station. Just look at the power output!

I agree. If they had been better neighbours and integrated into Palestinian society instead of waltzing in and taking everything by force, we would not be where we are today.
(COMMENT)

There is no ground in which either side can claim being totally in the right. Both sides have dirty hands; pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian.

There is no one group of influential elements that can claim, they have made all the right decisions. The UN/LoN, the Mandatory, Jewish Agency/Israelis, Arab/Palestinians and Arab League, or the neighboring countries, and (of course) the group that has come to be known as the Quartet, have all made very poor decision; and all have some responsibility in the outcome we see today. But, blame, responsibility, and influence all come in varying degrees of culpability. The Israelis have much to account for; but then, the malevolent nature of the Arab League and the Palestinians have also contributed greatly to the ever increasing deterioration of the overall situation. Anyone who believes that either one side or the other is totally right or totally wrong is standing on naive ground. There is no finger in this pie that could not have done better in pursuing a path that would have achieved a peaceful solution. But it seems that everyone had an agenda; and they put that agenda up front - ahead of a peaceful solution.

Most Respectfully,
R

[RoccoR]

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot, et al,

This is a not a difficult question. But it is a very hard answer.




Just how benevolent should one be to a group of people that have vowed to never stop attempting to destroy you?



A group that takes hundreds of millions of dollars to buy weapons to use against you instead of using that money to improve their own lot in life!
Sure , if they had done those things Israel's reaction would have been to do many of the things that you suggested.
Good works begets more good works. Evil begets a harsh and wicked harvest.
Justice is a double edged sword that cuts deeply those deserving it's special attention...

Most Respectfully,
TZS
(COMMENT)

There is no question that, over time a series of very poor decisions by a number of entities, have lead to a cascade failure in achieving a workable and viable peace. Like accrued interest, the complexity and the violence was compounded over each successive engagement. That means the longer the violence and corruptive influences are allowed to fester, the more difficult it becomes to correct the situation and turn it around towards peace.

The Israelis, being the stronger - the more powerful - the better situated, must take the greater risk and being prepared to pay the higher price for the peace (accrued interest). The Israelis are going to have to take the Lion's share of the pain. The question on: "how benevolent" is answered by: "as benevolent as it takes" to lead in the reasonable outcome for success.

Does this mean that the Palestinians have to show no effort. Of course not. But the level of expectation must be lower, given the number of generations that violence has become ingrained into the culture.

Most Respectfully,
R

[mundame]

How about we all forget about it?

That's what both Bush and Obama administrations decided to do, and that was good.

This is Not Our Problem and it's never, ever, ever going to be solved.

Until some big cataclysm someday, but I suggest we don't hold our breath waiting for that. It's been 50--100 years.




I am so bored with Israel and the Palestinians.

[jafar00]

If we're going to discuss ethnic cleansing, how about we include Cyprus in the discussion?

Why bring Cyprus into the conversation. at has nothing to do with Israel.

Didn't this thread start with the subject of Israel's continued illegal settlement building?

[Drummond]

Simple. They started it by invading Palestine and forcing people from their ancestral homes.
'THEIR ANCESTRAL HOMES' .. ?????

I've really had enough of this. Time, Jafar, for a dose of realism, and not this 'Palestinians have national identity, are much oppressed, and by marauding invaders' rot.

Palestinians - and if anything, this is a 'kind' perspective to employ - can be likened to squatters who spend a lengthy time in a house they've commandeered. Or, perhaps, as gypsies who claim national identity when all they're doing is driving caravans around in circles ...

Ready for some TRUTH, Jafar ? Are you sitting comfortably ? Then I'll begin ..

http://www.raptureready.com/faq/faq96.html


There never was a Palestinian people or a nation called Palestine. The Arabs invented the term after the fact. The so-called Palestinians lived mostly in Jordan and Syria. Yasser Arafat, the leader of the so-called "Palestinians," is actually an Egyptian!

Back on March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper "Trouw" published an interview it had with Palestine Liberation Organization executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. This is what he had to say:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."
There's more.

http://allaboutmuhammad.com/page8.html


There is a preliminary historical fact that must be established; THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A CIVILIZATION OR NATION REFERRED TO AS “PALESTINE!”


The very notion of a “Palestinian Arab nation”, having ancient attachments to the Holy Land going back to time immemorial is one of the biggest hoaxes ever perpetrated upon the world! There is not, nor has there ever been, a distinct “Palestinian” culture or language. Further, there has never been a Palestinian state governed by Arab Palestinians in history, nor was there ever a serious Arab-Palestinian national movement until 1964…three years BEFORE the Arabs of “Palestine” lost the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and Gaza as a result of the 1967 Six Day’s War (which the Arabs started). Even the so-called leader of the “Palestinian” people, Yasser Arafat, is Egyptian! In short, the so-called Arab “Palestinians” are a manufactured people…a people with no history and no authority…whose sole purpose for existence is to destroy the Jewish State!

Israel first became a nation in 1312 B.C., two thousand years before the rise of Islam! Seven hundred and twenty-six years later, in 586 B.C., these first ancient Jews in the land of Israel (Judea) were overrun and Israel’s First Jewish Temple (Solomon’s Temple) on Jerusalem’s Old City Temple Mount was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, king of ancient Babylon. Many of the Jews were killed, enslaved or expelled; however many were allowed to remain. These Jews along with their progeny and other Jews, who would resettle over the next 500 years, rebuilt the Nation of Israel and also a Second Temple in Jerusalem on the same site as Solomon’s Temple. Thus, the claim that Jews suddenly appeared fifty years ago, right after the Holocaust, and drove out the Arabs is preposterous!

Then, in 70 A.D.(nearly 2,000 years ago), it was the Roman Empire’s turn to march through ancient Israel, known at that time as Judea, and destroy the Second Jewish Temple, slaughtering or driving out much of the Jewish population. The Romans, without success, had tried to impose their many deities on the Jews, but few Jews were willing to submit to the Roman demands regarding their worship, and were certainly unwilling to regard a Roman Emperor as a divine being.

After a succession of uprisings against Roman rule, in which over one and a half million Jews were killed, enslaved or driven out of their homeland, the then Roman Procurator in charge of the area decided to take even another measure in retaliation. Calling his scribes, he asked the historians as to who had been the worst enemies of the Jews in past history. He was told the “Philistines.” Having this determination, he then ordered all maps altered to reflect that the Land of Israel (Judea) would be labeled “Philistia” (further bastardized into “Palaistina”) to dishonor the Jews and obliterate them, if only figuratively, from the map. Hence, the name “Palestine” was invented, and entirely appropriate that this invented name of the Romans would be used by Muhammad’s invented religion of Islam, over 1,800 years later, when initiating its campaign to steal the Jewish homeland.

Over 3,250 years, various Peoples, Religions and Empires marched through Jerusalem, Israel’s ancient capital established by King David. The region was successively ruled by the Hebrews (Jews), Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Maccabeans, Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, Egyptians, the Crusaders, Mamelukes, the Turks (who indifferently governed the backward neglected territory from the 16th Century until the British drove them out during World War I) and then once again by the Jews in 1948. None bothered, nor were they in the least bit inclined, to build a Nation of their own…EXCEPT the Jews!

It should be noted that in 636 A.D., when the Arab marauders of Muhammad came to the land, and uprooted even more of the Jews, they did not form any Arab nation there…and certainly not a “Palestinian” nation. They were simply “Arabs” who, as did others before them, moved into a geo-political area called “Palestine!” And, remember this one fact…it was not the Jews who “usurped” (a favorite word from the Arab propagandists) the land from the Arabs. It was the Arabs in 636 A.D. who overran and stole it from the Jews! A point: The Dome of the Rock Mosque was constructed atop the ruins of the second Jewish Temple, and not vice-versa!

The Jewish People have the most legitimate “Birth Certificate” of any nation in the world! Every time there is an archaeological dig in Israel, it does nothing but support the fact that the Jewish People have had a presence there for well over 3,000 years. The national coins, the pottery, the cities, the ancient Hebrew texts…all support this claim. Yes, other peoples have passed through, but there is no mistaking the fact that Jews have always had a continuous presence in that land for over 3,000 years. This predates and certainly dwarfs any claims that other people in the regions may have.

I hope you're taking notes, Jafar.

Finally ...

http://www.mythsandfacts.org/Conflict/7/palestinians.pdf


The Palestinians’ claim that they are an ancient and indigenous people fails to stand up to historic scrutiny. Most Palestinian Arabs were newcomers to British Mandate Palestine. Until the 1967 Six-Day War made it expedient for Arabs to create a Palestinian peoplehood, local Arabs simply considered themselves part of the ‘great Arab nation’ or ‘southern Syrians.’

There is no age-old Palestinian people. Most so-called Palestinians are relative newcomers to The Land of Israel.
Palestinian Arabs cast themselves as a native people in “Palestine” – like the Aborigines in Australia or Native Americans in America. They portray the Jews as
European imperialists and colonizers. This is simply untrue.

Until the Jews began returning to the Land of Israel in increasing numbers from the late 19th century to the turn of the 20th, the area called Palestine was a Godforsaken backwash that belonged to the Ottoman Empire, based in Turkey. The land’s fragile ecology had been laid waste in the wake of the Arabs’ 7thcentury conquest. In 1799, the population was at it lowest and estimated to be no more than 250,000 to 300,000 inhabitants in all the land. At the turn of the 20th century, the Arab population west of the Jordan River (today, Israel and the West Bank) was about half a million inhabitants and east of the Jordan River perhaps 200,000.

The collapse of the agricultural system with the influx of nomadic tribes after the Arab conquest that created malarial swamps and denuded the ancient terrace
system eroding the soil, was coupled by a tyrannous regime, a crippling tax system and absentee landowners that further decimated the population. Much of the indigenous population had long since migrated or disappeared. Very few Jews or Arabs lived in the region before the arrival of the first Zionists in the 1880s and most of those that did lived in abject poverty.

Palestinian Nationality is an Entity Defined by its Opposition to Zionism, and not its National Aspirations. What unites Palestinians has been their opposition to Jewish nationalism and the desire to stamp it out, not aspirations for their own state. Local patriotic feelings are generated only when a non – Islamic entity takes charge – such as Israel did after the 1967 Six-Day War. It dissipates under Arab rule, no matter how distant or despotic.

A Palestinian identity did not exist until an opposing force created it – primarily anti-Zionism. Opposition to a non-Muslim nationalism on what local Arabs, and the entire Arab world, view as their own turf, was the only expression of ‘Palestinian peoplehood.’

So, Jafar, shall we now see the end of this 'Palestinians have a nation-characterised history in the region and are subject to the tyrannies of Israeli marauders' rot, and finally recognise that 'Palestinian', if it has meaning, has that meaning defined by its race-hatred against the ORIGINAL people to have come from the region.

It's a political, and latterly a TERRORIST, device to fight against Israelis. As your many posts help to illustrate - do they not, Jafar ?

[taft2012]

Why bring Cyprus into the conversation. at has nothing to do with Israel.

Didn't this thread start with the subject of Israel's continued illegal settlement building?

Wait a minute... I thought you were concerned about ethnic cleansing and forcible removal from ancestral homes and stealing territory and stuff?

Or is it that you don't really care about those things when Muslims do it to Christians?

[jafar00]

'THEIR ANCESTRAL HOMES' .. ?????

I've really had enough of this. Time, Jafar, for a dose of realism, and not this 'Palestinians have national identity, are much oppressed, and by marauding invaders' rot.

Palestinians - and if anything, this is a 'kind' perspective to employ - can be likened to squatters who spend a lengthy time in a house they've commandeered. Or, perhaps, as gypsies who claim national identity when all they're doing is driving caravans around in circles ...

Ready for some TRUTH, Jafar ? Are you sitting comfortably ? Then I'll begin ..

http://www.raptureready.com/faq/faq96.html


There's more.

http://allaboutmuhammad.com/page8.html



I hope you're taking notes, Jafar.

Finally ...

http://www.mythsandfacts.org/Conflict/7/palestinians.pdf



So, Jafar, shall we now see the end of this 'Palestinians have a nation-characterised history in the region and are subject to the tyrannies of Israeli marauders' rot, and finally recognise that 'Palestinian', if it has meaning, has that meaning defined by its race-hatred against the ORIGINAL people to have come from the region.

It's a political, and latterly a TERRORIST, device to fight against Israelis. As your many posts help to illustrate - do they not, Jafar ?

More deflection? The Zionist idea that the Palestinians don't exist is just the result of a deranged mentality that tries to cover up the massive humanitarian disaster of their making.

Back to the subject of ILLEGAL ISRAELI SETTLEMENT BUILDING.


Wait a minute... I thought you were concerned about ethnic cleansing and forcible removal from ancestral homes and stealing territory and stuff?

Or is it that you don't really care about those things when Muslims do it to Christians?

You can open another thread about it if you like.

[Drummond]

More deflection? The Zionist idea that the Palestinians don't exist is just the result of a deranged mentality that tries to cover up the massive humanitarian disaster of their making.

Back to the subject of ILLEGAL ISRAELI SETTLEMENT BUILDING.

How can what I've posted be 'deflection' if it proves that the case you make has no proper basis ???

You claim that the Palestinians NOT existing, that's to say, as a nation in their own right, as a distinct people with substantial, territorially-definable roots, is just the product of 'a deranged mentality'. What you do NOT do is defend your position with evidence that you, not I, am right.

All this business about, I quote from post #82 ...


They started it by invading Palestine and forcing people from their ancestral homes.
.... you didn't consider it DEFLECTION by making that a principal defence of your argument .. DID you, Jafar ? Yet suddenly, when I bring that case of yours into serious question ... amazingly, suddenly, 'DEFLECTION' must be involved !!!

How convenient.

So I really think you need to answer me, if you want to appear credible ... and not simply a pusher of anti-Israeli rhetoric.

So, get to it. Prove to me that 'Palestine' was ever a country, a Nation State, that we're talking about anything more than squatters. Prove that 'Palestinians' have good, verifiable reason to consider the land they chose to occupy was THEIR land, not more properly that of the settling Jews instead. Tell me of these 'ancestral homes' these 'Palestinians were 'forced' from, of the 'rich history' of those 'ancestors', and what legal, internationally-recognised claim they had to show that they BELONGED on the land they occupied.

IF YOU CANNOT DO ALL THIS ... THEN ALL YOU'RE OFFERING IS ANTI-ISRAELI PROPAGANDA, AND THE 'DERANGED MENTALITY' YOU REFER TO IS NOTHING OF THE SORT.

Come on, Jafar. Show the 'derangement' to be that. TRY.

[Kathianne]

More deflection? The Zionist idea that the Palestinians don't exist is just the result of a deranged mentality that tries to cover up the massive humanitarian disaster of their making. Back to the subject of ILLEGAL ISRAELI SETTLEMENT BUILDING. You can open another thread about it if you like.

Israel has not denied the existence of Palestinians, only of Palestine, which was turned down in '48. The Israelis want a Palestinian state, accountable as much as Israel is. It's the Palestinians that don't want that.

[RoccoR]

jafar00, Kathianne, et al,

I think our friend "Kathianne" is correct. I think the official history backs this up.


Israel has not denied the existence of Palestinians, only of Palestine, which was turned down in '48. The Israelis want a Palestinian state, accountable as much as Israel is. It's the Palestinians that don't want that.
(COMMENT)

I've heard a number of Palestinians claim that there is such a thing as the State of Palestine. Putting aside, for the moment, the recently granted "observer status," this is the record.




The Partition Plan and the end of the British mandate

At its second regular session, after an intense two-month-long debate, the General Assembly, on 29 November 1947, adopted resolution 181 (II), approving with minor changes the Plan of Partition with Economic Union as proposed by the majority in the Special Committee on Palestine. The partition plan, a detailed four-part document attached to the resolution, provided for the termination of the Mandate, the progressive withdrawal of British armed forces and the delineation of boundaries between the two States and Jerusalem.


The plan included:
ʤ The creation of the Arab and Jewish States, not later than 1 October 1948;

ʤ Division of Palestine into eight parts: three were allotted to the Arab State and three to the Jewish State, with the town of Jaffa forming an Arab enclave within Jewish territory, and

ʤ An international regime for Jerusalem, the eighth division, to be administered by the United Nations Trusteeship Council.

The plan also set out the steps to be taken prior to independence. It dealt with the questions of citizenship, transit, the economic union and a declaration to be made by the provisional government of each proposed State regarding access to holy places and religious and minority rights. By resolution 181 (II), the Assembly also set up the United Nations Palestine Commission to carry out its recommendations and requested the Security Council to take the necessary measures to implement the plan of partition. The Jewish Agency accepted the resolution despite its dissatisfaction over such matters as Jewish emigration from Europe and the territorial limits set on the proposed Jewish State. The plan was not accepted by the Palestinian Arabs and Arab States on the ground that it violated the provisions of the United Nations Charter, which granted people the right to decide their own destiny. They said that the Assembly had endorsed the plan under circumstances unworthy of the United Nations and that the Arabs of Palestine would oppose any scheme that provided for the dissection, segregation or partition of their country, or which gave special and preferential rights and status to a minority.

End of the British Mandate

The adoption of resolution 181 (II) was followed by outbreaks of violence in Palestine. As the situation deteriorated, the Security Council called for a special session of the General Assembly, which then met from 16 April to 14 May 1948. On 17 April, the Security Council called for the cessation of all military and paramilitary activities in Palestine, and on 23 April it established a Truce Commission to supervise and help bring about a ceasefire. For its part, the General Assembly relieved the Palestine Commission of its responsibilities and decided to appoint a mediator charged with promoting a peaceful settlement in cooperation with the Truce Commission. On 20 May, Count Folke Bernadotte, President of the Swedish Red Cross, was chosen as United Nations Mediator.

The first Arab-Israeli war, 1948-1949

On 14 May 1948, Britain relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan. Fierce hostilities immediately broke out between the Arab and Jewish communities. The next day, and the United Nations regular troops of the neighboring Arab States entered the territory to assist the Palestinian Arabs. The fighting was halted after several weeks, under a four-week truce called for by the Security Council on 29 May 1948. The truce went into effect on 11 June and was supervised by the United Nations Mediator with the assistance of a group of international military observers, which came to be known as the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO). Despite the efforts of the Mediator, no agreement could be reached on an extension of the truce, and fighting broke out again on 8 July.

SOURCE: http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/DPI2499.pdf Under-Secretary-General for Communications and Public Information, United Nations, New York, 2008

The UN made the offer, and the Palestinian Arabs, exercising their right to choose their own destiny, declined the offer of an Arab State; and instead, decided to go to war.

I think the record is very clear.

The UN Document includes a map (Page 8) and a chart (Page 5) on the population demographics.

Most Respectfully,
R

[aboutime]

Palestinians, under the leadership, and control of Hamas. Have consistently TURNED-DOWN, and DENIED all attempts by American Presidents, and Israeli leaders for anything that even looks like a PEACEFUL Solution.

And they continue to turn down PEACE...in memory of ARAFAT.4649 and his Wannabe Replacement...4650

[jafar00]

While 4 million or so people in West Bank and Gaza consider themselves to be Palestinian, any argument as to whether they exist or existed in the past is moot. If you want to keep it recent, you could say Palestine existed as a sovereign national identity as the clans united in the 1890s to break free from Ottoman rule.

Now, back to the subject at hand.

Israel is illegally building settlements.

[avatar4321]

Natural law says that Israel has a right to defend itself. The UN declarations, which this isn't, don't even have the power to create or change international law, let alone natural law.

[avatar4321]

You will never win the argument that the Jews don't have a right to build settlements in Judea. Nor are Palestinians forbiden from settling there either.

Perhaps if they focused more on building themselves up then mass genocide of the Jewish people, the angry Palestinians would have a much better future.

[Drummond]

While 4 million or so people in West Bank and Gaza consider themselves to be Palestinian, any argument as to whether they exist or existed in the past is moot. If you want to keep it recent, you could say Palestine existed as a sovereign national identity as the clans united in the 1890s to break free from Ottoman rule.

Now, back to the subject at hand.

Israel is illegally building settlements.

An evasive reply.

I daresay that the Gazans do consider themselves Palestinian ... which is in line with the so-called 'derangement' I posted before. Gazans are TERRORIST-RULED, having voted for those terrorists to rule them. And the 'deranged' links (your categorisation, not mine) did assert that 'Palestinians' are definable as such as an anti-Zionist grouping.

I've challenged you to provide evidence of their 'rich history'. Your reply ? To say that 'any argument as to whether they exist or existed in the past is moot.' Yes, well .. DEFINITELY evasive.

As for ...


you could say Palestine existed as a sovereign national identity as the clans united in the 1890s to break free from Ottoman rule.

... this means what ? Their so-called 'sovereign national identity' was CONTRIVED as a means to an end ???

So, this 'identity' was purposely formed to achieve an objective, and this from an amalgamation of 'clans' .. ??

Tell me, then. Why shouldn't I consider today's Palestinian 'identity' to be a more modern contrivance, this time just to oppose Israel ?

And if that is so - AND I THINK IT IS - then the 'reputability' of your arguments falls flat on its face.

You know, Jafar, the more one digs into this, the dodgier this so-called 'Palestinian' identity turns out to be. True, isn't it ? So it seems to me that your persistently-pushed issue of Israel's building of settlements is itself subject to summary dismissal.

Fact is, Jafar, that if we're going to talk about 'rich histories' in the region (.. and clearly, YOU'D RATHER NOT ..) .. THEN WE'D BE TALKING ABOUT THE PAST INCARNATION OF ISRAEL.

[jafar00]

Natural law says that Israel has a right to defend itself.

And Palestine doesn't?


You will never win the argument that the Jews don't have a right to build settlements in Judea.

International Law says otherwise. I win. Besides, Judea no longer exists does it?

[taft2012]

Israel is illegally building settlements.

So are the Turkish Muslims in Cyprus.

Why don't you want to talk about that?

[jafar00]

So are the Turkish Muslims in Cyprus.

Why don't you want to talk about that?

Are they? Where is the UN report condemning the illegal settlement building?

[taft2012]

Are they? Where is the UN report condemning the illegal settlement building?

You're joking, right?

The United Nations has had troops in Cyprus since 1974 patrolling the line of the illegal partition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_invasion_of_cyprus



The United Nations Security Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council) has challenged the legality of Turkey's action, because Article Four of the Treaty of Guarantee gives the right to guarantors to take action with the sole aim of re-establishing the state of affairs.[54] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_invasion_of_cyprus#cite_note-55) The aftermath of Turkey's invasion, however, did not safeguard the Republic's sovereignty and territorial integrity, but had the opposite effect: the de facto partition of the Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taksim_%28politics%29) and the creation of a separate political entity in the north. On 13 February 1975, Turkey declared the occupied areas of the Republic of Cyprus to be a "Federated Turkish State", to the universal condemnation of the international community (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_community) (see UN Security Council Resolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution) 367(1975)).[55] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_invasion_of_cyprus#cite_note-56) The United Nations recognizes the sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus according to the terms of its independence in 1960. The conflict continues to affect Turkey's relations with Cyprus, Greece, and the European Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union).



As a result of the Turkish invasion, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe stated that the demographic structure of the island has been continuously modified as a result of the deliberate policies of the Turks. Following the occupation of Northern Cyprus, civilian settlers from Turkey began arriving on the island. Despite the lack of consensus on the exact figures, all parties concerned admitted that Turkish nationals began systematically arriving in the northern part of the island in 1975.[92] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_invasion_of_cyprus#cite_note-assembly.coe.int-93) It was suggested that over 120,000 settlers were brought into Cyprus from mainland Turkey.[92] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_invasion_of_cyprus#cite_note-assembly.coe.int-93) This was despite Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention), which prohibits an occupier from transferring or deporting parts of its own civilian population into an occupied territory.




UN Resolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_resolution) 1987/19 (1987) of the "Sub-Commission On Prevention Of Discrimination And Protection Of Minorities", which was adopted on 2 September 1987, demanded "the full restoration of all human rights to the whole population of Cyprus, including the freedom of movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement), the freedom of settlement and the right to property (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_property)" and also expressed "its concern also at the policy and practice of the implantation of settlers in the occupied territories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_occupation) of Cyprus which constitute a form of colonialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism) and attempt to change illegally the demographic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic) structure of Cyprus".



In a report prepared by Mete Hatay on behalf of PRIO, the Oslo peace center, it was estimated that the number of Turkish mainlanders in the north who have been granted the right to vote is 37,000. This figure however excludes mainlanders who are married to Turkish Cypriots or adult children of mainland settlers as well as all minors. The report also estimates the number of Turkish mainlanders who have not been granted the right to vote, whom it labels as "transients", at a further 105,000.[93] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_invasion_of_cyprus#cite_note-94)

[RoccoR]

jafar00, et al,

From an investigators objective view, yes. This appears on the surface to be a prima facia case for the violation of Article 49, GCIV and Article 8, 2b(viii) of the Rome Statues.


... ... ...Now, back to the subject at hand.

Israel is illegally building settlements.

(QUESTIONS)



What is the motive?
What is the intent?
What purpose do the settlements serve?


(COMMENT)

I think the legality issue, given that there is no real defense made, is a dead issue. That is to say, absent a realistic defense, the settlements are illegal as Judge Theodor Meron (a former legal advisor) originally implied when the settlements first became an issue.

While there are tons of evidence that question the wisdom of the settlements, there is very little written on the original reasons for the settlements.

Most Respectfully,
R
.

[Voted4Reagan]

Palestinians, under the leadership, and control of Hamas. Have consistently TURNED-DOWN, and DENIED all attempts by American Presidents, and Israeli leaders for anything that even looks like a PEACEFUL Solution.

And they continue to turn down PEACE...in memory of ARAFAT.4649 and his Wannabe Replacement...4650


Old friend, that is because Section 13 of the HAMAS CHARTER states that all attempts at a negotiated peace are unacceptable and will NEVER be accepted.

HAMAS and the Palestinians reject a negotiated peace.

[jafar00]

jafar00, et al,

From an investigators objective view, yes. This appears on the surface to be a prima facia case for the violation of Article 49, GCIV and Article 8, 2b(viii) of the Rome Statues.



(QUESTIONS)



What is the motive?
What is the intent?
What purpose do the settlements serve?


(COMMENT)

I think the legality issue, given that there is no real defense made, is a dead issue. That is to say, absent a realistic defense, the settlements are illegal as Judge Theodor Meron (a former legal advisor) originally implied when the settlements first became an issue.

While there are tons of evidence that question the wisdom of the settlements, there is very little written on the original reasons for the settlements.

Most Respectfully,
R
.

The settlements are there to make it more difficult to set up a contiguous Palestinian state. In the case of East Jerusalem it is to stop the Palestinians from using Jerusalem as a capital.

Either way, the settlements are a major obstacle to peace.


Old friend, that is because Section 13 of the HAMAS CHARTER states that all attempts at a negotiated peace are unacceptable and will NEVER be accepted.

HAMAS and the Palestinians reject a negotiated peace.

The settlements are in Fatah controlled West Bank. Your argument about Hamas is invalid.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The settlements are there to make it more difficult to set up a contiguous Palestinian state. In the case of East Jerusalem it is to stop the Palestinians from using Jerusalem as a capital.

Either way, the settlements are a major obstacle to peace.



The settlements are in Fatah controlled West Bank. Your argument about Hamas is invalid.

You spout this bullshat while you pretend that they really want peace!

Arrogant lying little twat aren't ya?--Tyr

[RoccoR]

et al,

The Jewish West Bank Settlements are not truly an obstacle to peace; but they appear to be a major negotiating point. We are talking about 130-to-140 Settlements, and something on the order of 350K people sitting on about 350 mi². What settlements elect to stay, would come under the jurisdiction of the State of Palestine [(SoP) (West Bank Palestinian Authority)]. Sovereignty doesn't impact land ownership. The dismantlement of a settlement is really a domestic issue for the Israelis. Land ownership disputes would be more of a civil case on the SoP side.

There will probably be some residual compensation due pervious owners of Palestinian Property that was appropriated by the Israeli government, and reparations for property damaged or destroyed.

Returning to the Green Line (the 1949 Armistice Line) is really not an obstacle to peace; except for Jerusalem. Jerusalem is more the sticking point; but, not insurmountable. There are a number of solutions that present themselves once good faith negotiations commence (this is the trick).

But I believe that the Palestinian Authority is attempting to bring such international public opinion down on Israel so hard that it will be forced to accept any deal, compromising the integrity of the Israeli bargaining position. And this strategy may be inadvertently and unwittingly advanced by the UN and the General Assembly; reducing the reasonable expectation for success.

Most Respectfully,
R

[Drummond]

et al,

The Jewish West Bank Settlements are not truly an obstacle to peace; but they appear to be a major negotiating point. We are talking about 130-to-140 Settlements, and something on the order of 350K people sitting on about 350 mi². What settlements elect to stay, would come under the jurisdiction of the State of Palestine [(SoP) (West Bank Palestinian Authority)]. Sovereignty doesn't impact land ownership. The dismantlement of a settlement is really a domestic issue for the Israelis. Land ownership disputes would be more of a civil case on the SoP side.

There will probably be some residual compensation due pervious owners of Palestinian Property that was appropriated by the Israeli government, and reparations for property damaged or destroyed.

Returning to the Green Line (the 1949 Armistice Line) is really not an obstacle to peace; except for Jerusalem. Jerusalem is more the sticking point; but, not insurmountable. There are a number of solutions that present themselves once good faith negotiations commence (this is the trick).

But I believe that the Palestinian Authority is attempting to bring such international public opinion down on Israel so hard that it will be forced to accept any deal, compromising the integrity of the Israeli bargaining position. And this strategy may be inadvertently and unwittingly advanced by the UN and the General Assembly; reducing the reasonable expectation for success.

Most Respectfully,
R

In a nutshell: the Palestinians have a hate agenda. They will play their hand of cards to their best advantage, in whatever manner is worst for Israel's interests.

The Israelis are WAY too tolerant of them.

[aboutime]

The settlements are there to make it more difficult to set up a contiguous Palestinian state. In the case of East Jerusalem it is to stop the Palestinians from using Jerusalem as a capital.

Either way, the settlements are a major obstacle to peace.



The settlements are in Fatah controlled West Bank. Your argument about Hamas is invalid.


jafar. Bet you still worship this butthead....4655, and still insist on convincing yourself Hamas is invalid.

[Drummond]

jafar. Bet you still worship this butthead....4655, and still insist on convincing yourself Hamas is invalid.

Arafat wasn't even honest about his origins, apparently. Perhaps in part-illustration of the Palestinian 'people' not being a true 'people' at all, he spent so much time representing them (most of it in the way they'd understand the most, that's to say, through terrorism) .. yet came from EGYPT ...

http://conservapedia.com/Yasir_Arafat


As part of an effort to present himself to the world as the epitome of Palestine, Arafat would often claim to have been born in Jerusalem (sometime he would identify Gaza as his place of birth). The truth of the matter is that he was born in Cairo, Egypt. Even in his later years his accent and dialect was typical of Egyptians rather than Palestinians.

In 1933 Arafat’s mother died and he was sent to Jerusalem where he lived with his relatives until being called back into Cairo by his father in 1937. With the exception of the 1948 Israel’s independence war (where he fought against the Jews alongside the Muslim Brotherhood, which he later joined in 1952), Arafat continued to live in Egypt until 1956 when he moved to Kuwait

[aboutime]

Arafat wasn't even honest about his origins, apparently. Perhaps in part-illustration of the Palestinian 'people' not being a true 'people' at all, he spent so much time representing them (most of it in the way they'd understand the most, that's to say, through terrorism) .. yet came from EGYPT ...

http://conservapedia.com/Yasir_Arafat

I suspect our present Pretend President probably admired Arafat very much, and learned how to be a successful, perpetual liar from him, before his TIMELY, and THANKFUL death several years ago. The James Brown of Palestinian Burial fights. Fighting over where to bury the Liar Jimmy Carter Loved.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

et al,

The Jewish West Bank Settlements are not truly an obstacle to peace; but they appear to be a major negotiating point. We are talking about 130-to-140 Settlements, and something on the order of 350K people sitting on about 350 mi². What settlements elect to stay, would come under the jurisdiction of the State of Palestine [(SoP) (West Bank Palestinian Authority)]. Sovereignty doesn't impact land ownership. The dismantlement of a settlement is really a domestic issue for the Israelis. Land ownership disputes would be more of a civil case on the SoP side.

There will probably be some residual compensation due pervious owners of Palestinian Property that was appropriated by the Israeli government, and reparations for property damaged or destroyed.

Returning to the Green Line (the 1949 Armistice Line) is really not an obstacle to peace; except for Jerusalem. Jerusalem is more the sticking point; but, not insurmountable. There are a number of solutions that present themselves once good faith negotiations commence (this is the trick).

But I believe that the Palestinian Authority is attempting to bring such international public opinion down on Israel so hard that it will be forced to accept any deal, compromising the integrity of the Israeli bargaining position. And this strategy may be inadvertently and unwittingly advanced by the UN and the General Assembly; reducing the reasonable expectation for success.

Most Respectfully,
R

Nothing inadvertent or unwitting about it amigo. Those sold out to and allied with Islam know damn well what they are doing.
The travesty is presenting the appeasers as unwitting dupes. When they are deliberate enemies of Israel.

If you truly believe that they are just unwitting dupes then you damn sure aren't as bright as you present yourself to be. May be a harsh observation on my part but a very correct one regardless.

Most Respectfully,
TZS

[RoccoR]

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot, Drummond, et al,

This is a strategy game they (an alliance between the Palestinians, the Arab League, and the Iranians) are playing. To understand the strategy (and differing agenda's) is to understand the countermeasure. The Israeli's are being assailed in a three-pronged effort to discredit them.




But I believe that the Palestinian Authority is attempting to bring such international public opinion down on Israel so hard that it will be forced to accept any deal, compromising the integrity of the Israeli bargaining position. And this strategy may be inadvertently and unwittingly advanced by the UN and the General Assembly; reducing the reasonable expectation for success.

Nothing inadvertent or unwitting about it amigo. Those sold out to and allied with Islam know damn well what they are doing.
The travesty is presenting the appeasers as unwitting dupes. When they are deliberate enemies of Israel.

If you truly believe that they are just unwitting dupes then you damn sure aren't as bright as you present yourself to be. May be a harsh observation on my part but a very correct one regardless.

In a nutshell: the Palestinians have a hate agenda. They will play their hand of cards to their best advantage, in whatever manner is worst for Israel's interests.

The Israelis are WAY too tolerant of them.

(PREFACE)



Palestinians: Are playing the sympathy card of the downtrodden underdog that has been denied their sovereignty, their lands, and their right to self-determination by a pro-Zionist movement to separate them from their ancestral lands. The want to portray themselves as a people and culture that was invaded by marauding Jews, from Europe, that raided the State of Palestine, plundered the region, especially roamed about and ravaging the countryside for their own gain.



Arab League: Are concerned on multiple levels. The kingdoms do not want a backlash of insurgents to trouble their sovereignty, and so they see a continuation of the struggle as a means of pinning down the attention of a disruptive culture as a magnet that focuses their violent nature on another target. They know that Israel is no threat to the sovereignty of the surrounding kingdoms; but would rather have the radicals fight Israel than have loose radicals focus their efforts towards the individual kingdoms. On another level, they see the influence of radical Islam outstretching it hands in the Middle East and would rather have its attention centered on Israel then to be challenging the Kingdoms in lieu of an Islamic Republic run by Shi'ite Clerics.



Iranians: Also has multiple agenda's on different planes. The first is the spread of Islam (alla Tehran/Qom) in the furtherance of an Islamic Regional Hegemony, with the powers-that-be in Qom as the theological center to an emerging spoke-n-wheel. At the same time, the Iranians are attempting to replace the Western Influence that casts the shadow of umbrella protection over the region, and replace it with a new age Persian Empire. It wants to be the grand protectorate over, first its namesake - the Persian Gulf, and second - over the entire region. Iran wants to be the regional power that, when Iran speaks - everybody listens. It wants to displace Western Influences and replace it with its own; having a global impact on the great sources of energy that the regions controls. Already having a greater influence over Iraq, the first spoke in the wheel is to reach from Qom to the Mediterranean Sea. This necessitates the removal of Israel and the subjugation of the Palestinians. Already, the major Palestinian Insurgents (i.e. Hamas, Hezbollah, etc)] [/FONT]are heavily dependent on Iran for insurgent support. Additionally, Iran has the long range goal of establishing an Islamic hand of control over Jerusalem (an place of Islamic significance) which it can influence and ultimately manipulate. The long range objective being to resurrect Jerusalem's glory and historic past, that will become a theological challenge to Mecca; usurping the Saudi influence and importance to the region.


(COMMENT)

Many of the efforts to gain influence over the attitudes expressed politically by the General Assembly (GA) revolve around (but not limited to) five sets of issues:


The right of "self-determination."
The legitimacy of the "initial mandates" over Palestine and the sovereignty of Palestinians; this would include the right for Israel to exists at all.
The validity of GA Resolution 181(II); this would include the intent of the Partition and the implication of an Arab Rejection.
The legality of the Israeli occupation of Territories and what "occupation" means; this would include settlements, resource allocations, and blockades/restrictions/barriers.
The administration of the "Occupied Territories" by the Israelis.

The objective is to project an image that appeals to the GA membership logically and morality; while at the same time, favoring the Palestinian point-of-view. Some might call this a "propaganda effort" while others see this as an "objective evaluation" of the circumstances. In any event, while there may be issues that are more concrete, what makes these particular five issues more important than others is how they resonate with the GA membership. And it is the association that many of the GA members have with the underlying arguments in these selected issues that shifted the view points towards Israel.

An example of this view is held in the recent GA Resolution on the self-determination (which passed by 179 to 7, with 3 abstentions) issue.


Stressing the need for respect for and preservation of the territorial unity, contiguity and integrity of all of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and recalling in this regard its resolution 58/292 of 6 May 2004,

Recalling its resolution 66/146 of 19 December 2011,

Affirming the right of all States in the region to live in peace within secure and
internationally recognized borders,
1. Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including the right to their independent State of Palestine;




2. Urges all States and the specialized agencies and organizations of the United Nations system to continue to support and assist the Palestinian people in the early realization of their right to self-determination.




[I]60th plenary meeting
20 December 2012
Please read the entire Resolution, it is only two (2) pages.
SOURCE: http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/67/158

The questions are "why" and "how?" The simple fact is that Israel has made several very poor judgement calls politically that put it on the wrong side of international law; for which the GA cannot ignore. Additionally, Israel has refused to justify or defend some of the more controversial decisions (in the court of public or global opinion) in any rational or coherent way. For heaven sakes, the Settlements are a clear and open action in contravention to Article 49 of the Geneva Convention (IV) and Article 8/2b(viii) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/romefra.htm); this being prima facie evidence of a "War Crime" (transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies) .

Were the members of the GA, selling "out to and allied with Islam" and "know damn well" what they were doing? No, they were not selling out to Islam. Yes, they knew what they were doing because they looked at the evidence for which the Israelis mounted no defense. Even though the outcome was adverse to Israel, it was not because the GA wanted to vote against Israel, but because Israel gave them no alternative.

Let's face it, the alliance between the Palestinians, the Arab League, and the Iranians, played the better diplomatic card (as "Drummond" would phrase it). Nearly every day, on one discussion board or another, I debunk some anti-Israeli or pro-Palestinian rhetoric, yet there are some things for which I cannot defend against. That is just the way it is. I'm the one that took a knife to a gunfight.

Israel has, in many ways, allowed the alliance between the Palestinians, the Arab League, and the Iranians, to turn the tables on Israeli Security --- where the distinction between a terrorist and a freedom fighter has become the freedom fighter opposing the war criminal. Until Israel learns how to articulate its position in a very elegant and common sense way, the Palestinians will continue to have the upper hand.

Most Respectfully,
R

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot, Drummond, et al,

This is a strategy game they (an alliance between the Palestinians, the Arab League, and the Iranians) are playing. To understand the strategy (and differing agenda's) is to understand the countermeasure. The Israeli's are being assailed in a three-pronged effort to discredit them.



(PREFACE)



Palestinians: Are playing the sympathy card of the downtrodden underdog that has been denied their sovereignty, their lands, and their right to self-determination by a pro-Zionist movement to separate them from their ancestral lands. The want to portray themselves as a people and culture that was invaded by marauding Jews, from Europe, that raided the State of Palestine, plundered the region, especially roamed about and ravaging the countryside for their own gain.



Arab League: Are concerned on multiple levels. The kingdoms do not want a backlash of insurgents to trouble their sovereignty, and so they see a continuation of the struggle as a means of pinning down the attention of a disruptive culture as a magnet that focuses their violent nature on another target. They know that Israel is no threat to the sovereignty of the surrounding kingdoms; but would rather have the radicals fight Israel than have loose radicals focus their efforts towards the individual kingdoms. On another level, they see the influence of radical Islam outstretching it hands in the Middle East and would rather have its attention centered on Israel then to be challenging the Kingdoms in lieu of an Islamic Republic run by Shi'ite Clerics.



Iranians: Also has multiple agenda's on different planes. The first is the spread of Islam (alla Tehran/Qom) in the furtherance of an Islamic Regional Hegemony, with the powers-that-be in Qom as the theological center to an emerging spoke-n-wheel. At the same time, the Iranians are attempting to replace the Western Influence that casts the shadow of umbrella protection over the region, and replace it with a new age Persian Empire. It wants to be the grand protectorate over, first its namesake - the Persian Gulf, and second - over the entire region. Iran wants to be the regional power that, when Iran speaks - everybody listens. It wants to displace Western Influences and replace it with its own; having a global impact on the great sources of energy that the regions controls. Already having a greater influence over Iraq, the first spoke in the wheel is to reach from Qom to the Mediterranean Sea. This necessitates the removal of Israel and the subjugation of the Palestinians. Already, the major Palestinian Insurgents (i.e. Hamas, Hezbollah, etc)] [/FONT]are heavily dependent on Iran for insurgent support. Additionally, Iran has the long range goal of establishing an Islamic hand of control over Jerusalem (an place of Islamic significance) which it can influence and ultimately manipulate. The long range objective being to resurrect Jerusalem's glory and historic past, that will become a theological challenge to Mecca; usurping the Saudi influence and importance to the region.


(COMMENT)

Many of the efforts to gain influence over the attitudes expressed politically by the General Assembly (GA) revolve around (but not limited to) five sets of issues:


The right of "self-determination."
The legitimacy of the "initial mandates" over Palestine and the sovereignty of Palestinians; this would include the right for Israel to exists at all.
The validity of GA Resolution 181(II); this would include the intent of the Partition and the implication of an Arab Rejection.
The legality of the Israeli occupation of Territories and what "occupation" means; this would include settlements, resource allocations, and blockades/restrictions/barriers.
The administration of the "Occupied Territories" by the Israelis.

The objective is to project an image that appeals to the GA membership logically and morality; while at the same time, favoring the Palestinian point-of-view. Some might call this a "propaganda effort" while others see this as an "objective evaluation" of the circumstances. In any event, while there may be issues that are more concrete, what makes these particular five issues more important than others is how they resonate with the GA membership. And it is the association that many of the GA members have with the underlying arguments in these selected issues that shifted the view points towards Israel.

An example of this view is held in the recent GA Resolution on the self-determination (which passed by 179 to 7, with 3 abstentions) issue.



The questions are "why" and "how?" The simple fact is that Israel has made several very poor judgement calls politically that put it on the wrong side of international law; for which the GA cannot ignore. Additionally, Israel has refused to justify or defend some of the more controversial decisions (in the court of public or global opinion) in any rational or coherent way. For heaven sakes, the Settlements are a clear and open action in contravention to Article 49 of the Geneva Convention (IV) and Article 8/2b(viii) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/romefra.htm); this being prima facie evidence of a "War Crime" (transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies) .

Were the members of the GA, selling "out to and allied with Islam" and "know damn well" what they were doing? No, they were not selling out to Islam. Yes, they knew what they were doing because they looked at the evidence for which the Israelis mounted no defense. Even though the outcome was adverse to Israel, it was not because the GA wanted to vote against Israel, but because Israel gave them no alternative.

Let's face it, the alliance between the Palestinians, the Arab League, and the Iranians, played the better diplomatic card (as "[I]Drummond" would phrase it). Nearly every day, on one discussion board or another, I debunk some anti-Israeli or pro-Palestinian rhetoric, yet there are some things for which I cannot defend against. That is just the way it is. I'm the one that took a knife to a gunfight.

Israel has, in many ways, allowed the alliance between the Palestinians, the Arab League, and the Iranians, to turn the tables on Israeli Security --- where the distinction between a terrorist and a freedom fighter has become the freedom fighter opposing the war criminal. Until Israel learns how to articulate its position in a very elegant and common sense way, the Palestinians will continue to have the upper hand.

Most Respectfully,
R

I agree with much of that. I disagree that Israel has made a mistake by not yielding to outside pressures in forming their methods of defense and handling of opposition within territories which they have control. It's their heads on the chopping block and the actions they take should be made by them not a hodgepodge of their choices and that of outside entities. Should they yield more as they have in the past they will soon find themselves in a very compromised position IMHO.
THEY NOW FACE HAVING TO DEFEND WITH THE KNOWLEDGE THAT USA=(Obama) MAY STAB THEM IN THE BACK AT A CRITICAL TIME IN THEIR SURVIVAL.

They should never give back another single inch of territory!! The globalists will still be their enemies regardless. All their other enemies will be too. Nothing for them to gain except imaginary and falsely promised peace .
"Turns the lion on the pack of dogs that seek it's demise".. slash when necessary...

Most Respectfully,
-TZS

[RoccoR]

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot, et al,

Territorial control and the ancillary issues of annexation 'vs' occupation are two very controversial issues.


They should never give back another single inch of territory!!

(REFERENCES)



A/67/PV.44 “Status of Palestine in the United Nations”


http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/67/PV.44



UNSC Resolution 242 22 NOV 67


http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/242(1967)

(COMMENT)

The Israelis have painted themselves into a very expensive corner; especially since the Palestinian Authority (PA) has successfully gained recognition for the "State of Palestine."

I think it is safe to say that an "Occupation" cannot last forever; it is not a condition that can exist indefinitely. This is particularly true of the controversial Israeli Occupation of the West Bank region UNSC 242 and its follow-ons express the will of the UN and the general sentiment of the international community. Similarly, annexation is out of the question. The Global Community has declined to legitimize land acquisition through military conquest.

The diplomatic position that Israel "never give back another single inch" is simply an untenable position to hold given the global view.

Most Respectfully,
R

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot, et al,

Territorial control and the ancillary issues of annexation 'vs' occupation are two very controversial issues.



(REFERENCES)



A/67/PV.44 “Status of Palestine in the United Nations”


http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/67/PV.44



UNSC Resolution 242 22 NOV 67


http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/242(1967)

(COMMENT)

The Israelis have painted themselves into a very expensive corner; especially since the Palestinian Authority (PA) has successfully gained recognition for the "State of Palestine."

I think it is safe to say that an "Occupation" cannot last forever; it is not a condition that can exist indefinitely. This is particularly true of the controversial Israeli Occupation of the West Bank region UNSC 242 and its follow-ons express the will of the UN and the general sentiment of the international community. Similarly, annexation is out of the question. The Global Community has declined to legitimize land acquisition through military conquest.

The diplomatic position that Israel "never give back another single inch" is simply an untenable position to hold given the global view.

Most Respectfully,
R

Let me know when the Global Community FIELD THEIR FIRST ARMY....TO ENFORCE THEIR COMMANDS. UNTIL THEN TO HELL WITH THE ARROGANT THUGS.

We took this land from the American Indians(my ancestors). Are we now in an untenable position? Are we soon to have to yield to this magic new Global view too? Myself and most true Americans find this yielding of our freedoms and sovereignty over to a bunch of foreign thugs to be laughable. Our Constitution forbids such a folly. Some of us that are not damn brain dead fools understand that concept very well. Until our Constitution is amended or destroyed we will not yield to ANY SUCH INSANITY.
Israel will and should view it the same way we do IMHO..

I find your posts informative and very interesting but not always convincing. Thanks..

Most Respectfully,
TZS

p.s. Respect is given where it is rightly earned...

[RoccoR]

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot, et al,

Not all actions by the Global Community are necessarily military in nature.


Let me know when the Global Community FIELD THEIR FIRST ARMY....TO ENFORCE THEIR COMMANDS. UNTIL THEN TO HELL WITH THE ARROGANT THUGS.
(COMMENT)

I guess it is natural that most American, being brought-up in a political-military hegemony, jump to a military option. Our history, especially in the last half century, has engrained this stance within us. I fall into that mode every now and then, thinking it is time to kick ass and take names (optional). Our standing as the World Police (or as we sometime phrase it: The Super Power) has given us more than 4 dozen military interventions since I returned from Vietnam (not counting Vietnam). But two of the basic guiding principles we promote the most in our rhetoric are "The Rule of Law" and that all nations shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace, security, and justice are not endangered. Oddly enough, the US is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court (Rome Statues) and neither is Israel. In this regard, the concept of "The Rule of Law" must be place in the context that it is "our" rules that take precedence. And relative to peace, security, and justice - the US puts its best interest above all others. Outside the CONUS, we are not considered a benevolent or honest broker. Like many nations, our agenda is --- our agenda. But there are other ways that the world body can bring pressure to bare on Israel besides military action.


We took this land from the American Indians(my ancestors). Are we now in an untenable position? Are we soon to have to yield to this magic new Global view too? Myself and most true Americans find this yielding of our freedoms and sovereignty over to a bunch of foreign thugs to be laughable. Our Constitution forbids such a folly. Some of us that are not damn brain dead fools understand that concept very well. Until our Constitution is amended or destroyed we will not yield to ANY SUCH INSANITY.
Israel will and should view it the same way we do IMHO..
(COMMENT)

The US is not in an untenable position, but the Israelis are. The interests are not one and the same; without regard to what you might hear to the contrary. As I've said in the past, absent defense litigation in the court of public opinion, the evidence weighs heavily against Israel on a number of issues. And Israel cannot stand alone against the entire General Assembly for very long; even with US support. The US is waning as a world power and eventually sanctions will be put in place if Israel does not act soon.

There are probably very few Americans that understand and can articulate what the US Policy is on the various specific issues and deliberate questions that circle the Palestinian Question. There are probably even fewer that can really explain what the concrete US Policy is on Jewish Settlements in the Occupied Territory, or what the US considers the true borders of Israel, or even the US position on the legality of the Occupation. We hear the rhetoric that we wil always support Israel and not leave her side, but we really don't know what that means, or the consequences of that pledge. Washington has never explained to the American People what we consider "right" and "wrong" between the Israeli Position and the Palestinian Position. Most of the time, the circumstance and disputes are expressed in terms of "them" and "us;" without regard to what is "right or wrong." That is morally ambiguous and goes to credibility. Most Americans don't think along those lines, but it is something you find outside the US and is attached to our reputation; for the better or worse.

But in the eyes of many, if you cannot tell the difference between what is right and wrong, then the leadership is corrupted --- and that is affecting the US ability to extend its influence on global matters. We are a political-military hegemony. We are suppose to be "persuasive in peace and invincible in war." That era may come to its end in my lifetime simply because we are not view as a benevolent, moral and righteous leader any more (if we ever were).

Most Respectfully,
R

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot, et al,

Not all actions by the Global Community are necessarily military in nature.


(COMMENT)

I guess it is natural that most American, being brought-up in a political-military hegemony, jump to a military option. Our history, especially in the last half century, has engrained this stance within us. I fall into that mode every now and then, thinking it is time to kick ass and take names (optional). Our standing as the World Police (or as we sometime phrase it: The Super Power) has given us more than 4 dozen military interventions since I returned from Vietnam (not counting Vietnam). But two of the basic guiding principles we promote the most in our rhetoric are "The Rule of Law" and that all nations shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace, security, and justice are not endangered. Oddly enough, the US is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court (Rome Statues) and neither is Israel. In this regard, the concept of "The Rule of Law" must be place in the context that it is "our" rules that take precedence. And relative to peace, security, and justice - the US puts its best interest above all others. Outside the CONUS, we are not considered a benevolent or honest broker. Like many nations, our agenda is --- our agenda. But there are other ways that the world body can bring pressure to bare on Israel besides military action.


(COMMENT)

The US is not in an untenable position, but the Israelis are. The interests are not one and the same; without regard to what you might hear to the contrary. As I've said in the past, absent defense litigation in the court of public opinion, the evidence weighs heavily against Israel on a number of issues. And Israel cannot stand alone against the entire General Assembly for very long; even with US support. The US is waning as a world power and eventually sanctions will be put in place if Israel does not act soon.

There are probably very few Americans that understand and can articulate what the US Policy is on the various specific issues and deliberate questions that circle the Palestinian Question. There are probably even fewer that can really explain what the concrete US Policy is on Jewish Settlements in the Occupied Territory, or what the US considers the true borders of Israel, or even the US position on the legality of the Occupation. We hear the rhetoric that we wil always support Israel and not leave her side, but we really don't know what that means, or the consequences of that pledge. Washington has never explained to the American People what we consider "right" and "wrong" between the Israeli Position and the Palestinian Position. Most of the time, the circumstance and disputes are expressed in terms of "them" and "us;" without regard to what is "right or wrong." That is morally ambiguous and goes to credibility. Most Americans don't think along those lines, but it is something you find outside the US and is attached to our reputation; for the better or worse.

But in the eyes of many, if you cannot tell the difference between what is right and wrong, then the leadership is corrupted --- and that is affecting the US ability to extend its influence on global matters. We are a political-military hegemony. We are suppose to be "persuasive in peace and invincible in war." That era may come to its end in my lifetime simply because we are not view as a benevolent, moral and righteous leader any more (if we ever were).

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel is surrounded by enemies that seek its total destruction, we are surrounded by enemies (rest of the world) that for the greater part seeks our demise. At least our demise as a super power. King of the hill is always the target . As the globalists gain more power and solidify their hold on these nations we will meet ever greater opposition. Our problem is that we have joined in with the pack that will some future day turn on us!

Israel's problem has been that it depends too much on our support. I know there is a plan afoot to attack Israel and have America abandon her at a critical time in that attack so she will fall. Everything points to this globalist plan. The globalists seek our demise as a super power and will seek to destroy Israel first as a prelude to weakening us and then attacking us as we are in a vastly weaker state.

Not conspiracy theory at all. Rather its a bold and brilliant plan to destroy us (our power) without having to fight our military. Only after we are so greatly weakened will they ever consider a military option against us. Their plan is to do it all without a military fight. A military fight is only a secondary plan if the first one fails at some point. Obama is their man and has advanced their agenda beyond even their wildest dreams. I expect to see rapid escalation of the plan and even a move to break us within the next decade.

First part of the plan is Israel's destruction to allow for a United Middle East. And then that United Middle East AT SOME POINT CUTS OFF COMPLETELY THE FLOW OF OIL TO US. This will be in the plan after Israel is destroyed with our cooperation as payment given to the allied nations there united into the Caliphate.

Israel undoubtedly knows of this plan. With Obama installed , the Arab spring muslim success the time has come to execute the next phase of the plan. Quite likely before obama's second term ends we will see Israel attacked by a united group of its "peaceful muslim neighbors" possibly along with a body of allies from outside the region, (those you allude to ) the global community.

Most Respectfully,
TZS

[taft2012]

I guess it is natural that most American, being brought-up in a political-military hegemony, jump to a military option. Our history, especially in the last half century, has engrained this stance within us.

Oh please.

Our parents and our grandparents both made Herculean efforts to keep themselves out of two European world wars. What they learned to realize is the recognition that involvement is sometimes inevitable, and the longer one waits to pick up responsibility the higher the price paid will be.

Look how long we tried to orchestrate peace in the Middle East from afar. Look at the price we're now paying.

If Israel disappeared tomorrow, the USA would merely be the next target they would devote full attention to. It's not unprecedented and it's not illogical. In 1941, the Japanese looked around the Pacific rim they had conquered and said "Who's next?" It was our turn.

Finally, of all parties involved I'm least impressed with the "Tsk Tsk" thumbtwiddlers, of which Rocco, I fear you to be one. They have sat back and watched the Muslims create permanent partition of Cyprus, commit all kinds of atrocities, and respond with only a "tsk tsk" accompanied by a tempest of thumb twiddling.

Muslims don't jump and change behavior when the TTTs sigh and moan, so neither will I.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Oh please.

Our parents and our grandparents both made Herculean efforts to keep themselves out of two European world wars. What they learned to realize is the recognition that involvement is sometimes inevitable, and the longer one waits to pick up responsibility the higher the price paid will be.

Look how long we tried to orchestrate peace in the Middle East from afar. Look at the price we're now paying.

If Israel disappeared tomorrow, the USA would merely be the next target they would devote full attention to. It's not unprecedented and it's not illogical. In 1941, the Japanese looked around the Pacific rim they had conquered and said "Who's next?" It was our turn.

Finally, of all parties involved I'm least impressed with the "Tsk Tsk" thumbtwiddlers, of which Rocco, I fear you to be one. They have sat back and watched the Muslims create permanent partition of Cyprus, commit all kinds of atrocities, and respond with only a "tsk tsk" accompanied by a tempest of thumb twiddling.

Muslims don't jump and change behavior when the TTTs sigh and moan, so neither will I.

They surely do not. They love to hear the braying of the donkeys and the ignorant bleating of the sheep! In fact , they use tactics to encourage and sustain such foolishness.--Tyr

[RoccoR]

taft2012

Please take note that I said, "in the last half century." That would be 50 years or since the early 1960's; more than a decade after WWII and half a decade after the Korean entanglement.


Oh please.


I guess it is natural that most American, being brought-up in a political-military hegemony, jump to a military option. Our history, especially in the last half century, has engrained this stance within us.

Our parents and our grandparents both made Herculean efforts to keep themselves out of two European world wars. What they learned to realize is the recognition that involvement is sometimes inevitable, and the longer one waits to pick up responsibility the higher the price paid will be.

Look how long we tried to orchestrate peace in the Middle East from afar. Look at the price we're now paying.

If Israel disappeared tomorrow, the USA would merely be the next target they would devote full attention to. It's not unprecedented and it's not illogical. In 1941, the Japanese looked around the Pacific rim they had conquered and said "Who's next?" It was our turn.

Finally, of all parties involved I'm least impressed with the "Tsk Tsk" thumbtwiddlers, of which Rocco, I fear you to be one. They have sat back and watched the Muslims create permanent partition of Cyprus, commit all kinds of atrocities, and respond with only a "tsk tsk" accompanied by a tempest of thumb twiddling.

Muslims don't jump and change behavior when the TTTs sigh and moan, so neither will I.

(COMMENT)

Yes, sometimes decisiveness in the challenge of whether to go to war or not leads to a less expensive outcome, no question; but only in some cases.

Whether or not "if Israel disappears tomorrow," the US becomes the "next target" ---> or, if that US be a continual target in any event, is crystal ball philosophy; equivalent to that voodoo practices by the Kennedy/Johnson Era "Whiz Kids" that came up with the "Domino Theory." Because political intrigue and diplomacy follows a time-line, it is an inevitability that we can always play the "Who's Next" game. There will always (one of the few times you can use the "always" with some accuracy) be a "next." And, it is generally more probable that the country at the top of the pyramid is (the most powerful or influential) going to be the focal point of controversy. And as long as the US hold that position, without regard to policy, the more likely that it will remain "next" by aspiring cultures.

As far as being an "armchair" ("tsk tsk thumbtwiddler"), that is merely conjecture and a matter of perspective; an ad hoc attempt to challenge my commentary via my career (as military retiree and follow-on civilian consultant DOS/DOD) which has given me exposure to various global issues. It is not a true challenge to the validity or soundness of the discussion.

It may be true that "Muslims don't jump and change behaviors. And I'm sure that I might agree with that observation in the right context. But, the "Questions & Issues of Palestine" today are secular - and religion, as is not uncommon in history, merely a tool; a weapon. It is rather difficult to change or alter a tool or weapon to any substantial degree without changing its complexity and nature. No! We are trying to change the behavior of both the Palestinian and Israeli. One is most generally more culturally an Arab (which just happens to be predominately Muslim), where the other is mixture/blend of cultures (which just happens to be predominately Jewish). But make no mistake. It is a truly secular set of behavior principles we are dealing with and not the ideological differences expressed by Muslim 'vs' Jewish theology. The non-secular component is merely a pivotal point for the exploitation of emotion and used as a weapon.

Most Respectfully,
R

[RoccoR]

taft2012, et al,

Please take note that I said, "in the last half century." That would be 50 years or since the early 1960's; more than a decade after WWII and half a decade after the Korean entanglement.


Oh please.


I guess it is natural that most American, being brought-up in a political-military hegemony, jump to a military option. Our history, especially in the last half century, has engrained this stance within us.

Our parents and our grandparents both made Herculean efforts to keep themselves out of two European world wars. What they learned to realize is the recognition that involvement is sometimes inevitable, and the longer one waits to pick up responsibility the higher the price paid will be.

Look how long we tried to orchestrate peace in the Middle East from afar. Look at the price we're now paying.

If Israel disappeared tomorrow, the USA would merely be the next target they would devote full attention to. It's not unprecedented and it's not illogical. In 1941, the Japanese looked around the Pacific rim they had conquered and said "Who's next?" It was our turn.

Finally, of all parties involved I'm least impressed with the "Tsk Tsk" thumbtwiddlers, of which Rocco, I fear you to be one. They have sat back and watched the Muslims create permanent partition of Cyprus, commit all kinds of atrocities, and respond with only a "tsk tsk" accompanied by a tempest of thumb twiddling.

Muslims don't jump and change behavior when the TTTs sigh and moan, so neither will I.

(COMMENT)

Yes, sometimes decisiveness in the challenge of whether to go to war, or not, leads to a less expensive outcome, no question; but only in some cases. The "fight them here or there" is purely an economic decision (one of many considerations) in the cost-benefit analysis in the conflict matrix.

Whether or not "if Israel disappears tomorrow," the US becomes the "next target" ---> or, if that the US would be a continual target in any event, is crystal ball philosophy; equivalent to that voodoo practices by the Kennedy/Johnson Era "Whiz Kids" that came up with the "Domino Theory." Because political intrigue and diplomacy follows a time-line, it is an inevitability that we can always play the "Who's Next" game. There will always (one of the few times you can use the "always" with some accuracy) be a "next;" the fate of the time-line continuum. And, it is generally more probable that the country at the top of the pyramid (the most powerful or influential) is going to be the focal point of controversy or attention (telling us the "Who" in the equation). And as long as the US holds that not so distinguished position, without regard to practiced policy, the more likely that it will remain "next" by aspiring cultures that want more on Maslow's Hierarchical ladder. Nature!

As far as being an "armchair" ("tsk tsk thumbtwiddler"), that is merely conjecture and a matter of perspective (everyone has the right to an opinion - yours is no less valid); an ad hoc attempt to challenge my commentary via my career caricature (as a military retiree and follow-on civilian consultant DOS/DOD) which has given me exposure to various global issues (we are the sum of our experiences). It is not a true direct challenge to the validity or soundness of the commentary.

It may be true that "Muslims don't jump and change behaviors." And I'm sure that I might agree with that observation in the right context. But, the "Questions & Issues of Palestine" today are secular - and not religious. Religion, historically not uncommon, is merely used as a tool; a weapon. It is rather difficult to change or alter a tool or weapon to any substantial degree without changing its complexity and nature. No! We are trying to change the behavior of both the Palestinian and Israeli. One is most generally has a cultural association to an Arab (which just happens to be predominately Muslim), where the other is mixture or blend of cultures (which just happens to be predominately Jewish). But make no mistake. It is a truly secular set of behavior principles we are dealing with and not the ideological differences expressed by Muslim 'vs' Jewish theology (a totally separate discussion of non-secular complications). The non-secular component is just a pivot point for the exploitation of emotions and used as a weapon to stimulate the intensity of the conflicts and disputes.

Most Respectfully,
R

[Drummond]

taft2012, et al,

Please take note that I said, "in the last half century." That would be 50 years or since the early 1960's; more than a decade after WWII and half a decade after the Korean entanglement.



(COMMENT)

Yes, sometimes decisiveness in the challenge of whether to go to war, or not, leads to a less expensive outcome, no question; but only in some cases. The "fight them here or there" is purely an economic decision (one of many considerations) in the cost-benefit analysis in the conflict matrix.

Whether or not "if Israel disappears tomorrow," the US becomes the "next target" ---> or, if that the US would be a continual target in any event, is crystal ball philosophy; equivalent to that voodoo practices by the Kennedy/Johnson Era "Whiz Kids" that came up with the "Domino Theory." Because political intrigue and diplomacy follows a time-line, it is an inevitability that we can always play the "Who's Next" game. There will always (one of the few times you can use the "always" with some accuracy) be a "next;" the fate of the time-line continuum. And, it is generally more probable that the country at the top of the pyramid (the most powerful or influential) is going to be the focal point of controversy or attention (telling us the "Who" in the equation). And as long as the US holds that not so distinguished position, without regard to practiced policy, the more likely that it will remain "next" by aspiring cultures that want more on Maslow's Hierarchical ladder. Nature!

As far as being an "armchair" ("tsk tsk thumbtwiddler"), that is merely conjecture and a matter of perspective (everyone has the right to an opinion - yours is no less valid); an ad hoc attempt to challenge my commentary via my career caricature (as a military retiree and follow-on civilian consultant DOS/DOD) which has given me exposure to various global issues (we are the sum of our experiences). It is not a true direct challenge to the validity or soundness of the commentary.

It may be true that "Muslims don't jump and change behaviors." And I'm sure that I might agree with that observation in the right context. But, the "Questions & Issues of Palestine" today are secular - and not religious. Religion, historically not uncommon, is merely used as a tool; a weapon. It is rather difficult to change or alter a tool or weapon to any substantial degree without changing its complexity and nature. No! We are trying to change the behavior of both the Palestinian and Israeli. One is most generally has a cultural association to an Arab (which just happens to be predominately Muslim), where the other is mixture or blend of cultures (which just happens to be predominately Jewish). But make no mistake. It is a truly secular set of behavior principles we are dealing with and not the ideological differences expressed by Muslim 'vs' Jewish theology (a totally separate discussion of non-secular complications). The non-secular component is just a pivot point for the exploitation of emotions and used as a weapon to stimulate the intensity of the conflicts and disputes.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, I think you're over-intellectualising this .. and more, you're stating opinion as fact.

I, too, have my opinion, and I'll advertise it as the opinion it is. My opinion is that Israel has take an enormous amount of hostility, and terrorism, and acts of utter hatred from their opposition over the decades, and if anything, they've been far TOO willing to be restrained in the face of it. Their opposition want them GONE .. driven into the sea, if possible .. and over the decades, all the various incarnations of hostility have amounted to a race war driven, in large measure, by a hate-filled creed which has written into it an intolerance of anything different to it. Along comes Israel, the religious and ethnic antithesis of all that Islam and its adherents are, and purport to be ... and, sure enough, wars and terrorism follow.

We live in the 21st century, in a world where certain basic civilised standards have evolved, are known, are seen to have such value. Israel embraces this .. its opposition DO NOT. What needs to change, Rocco, is the savagery of Israel's enemies. What needs to change is the mindset which persists from centuries ago, and which has no place in today's world.

Israel is the victim. Its opposition are the unevolved aggressors. THEY need to change.

And if they don't ... then, in my view, Israel needs to take its gloves off and mete out to them some lessons, expressed in the only language those savages understand.

That's my opinion. I think I'm right. However, it is my OPINION.

[RoccoR]

Drummond, et al,

In part, I disagree.


Rocco, I think you're over-intellectualising this .. and more, you're stating opinion as fact.

(COMMENT)

Just to avoid such misunderstandings, I generally mark each discussion as "commentary or comment" [a systematic series of explanations or interpretations (as of a writing); or an annotation] unless I quote something and present a source.


I, too, have my opinion, and I'll advertise it as the opinion it is. My opinion is that Israel has take an enormous amount of hostility, and terrorism, and acts of utter hatred from their opposition over the decades, and if anything, they've been far TOO willing to be restrained in the face of it. Their opposition want them GONE .. driven into the sea, if possible .. and over the decades, all the various incarnations of hostility have amounted to a race war driven, in large measure, by a hate-filled creed which has written into it an intolerance of anything different to it. Along comes Israel, the religious and ethnic antithesis of all that Islam and its adherents are, and purport to be ... and, sure enough, wars and terrorism follow.

(COMMENT)

Of course Israel has suffered at the hands of the Arabs and Palestinian; with the support of externals like Iran (and others). I think everyone is aware of the Hamas Charter and Hezbollah Manifesto relative to the goals and objectives in relation to Israel. Yes, I agree that one could make page after page of lists documenting hostile events; more than six decades worth. Clearly, the argument can be made that Israel has been on the defensive since the day of Independence.


We live in the 21st century, in a world where certain basic civilised standards have evolved, are known, are seen to have such value. Israel embraces this .. its opposition DO NOT. What needs to change, Rocco, is the savagery of Israel's enemies. What needs to change is the mindset which persists from centuries ago, and which has no place in today's world.

(COMMENT)

Niether side has clean hands. To suggest that one side or the other is any more wrong or any less wrong, is simply avoiding the objective view.

Yes, the Palestinians operate on an asymmetric format in both the propaganda they develop and the paramilitary operations they conduct. No question. But that does not negate the cause of action they have relative to a number of issues (property, administration of occupation, resource allocations, population transfers, refugee issues, etc). Yes, the Palestinians have a history of savagery; no question. The Israelis cannot claim to totally embrace 21st Century standards and principles when a cursory examination shows that Israel is in contravention with multiple such standards; to include, UN Security Council mandates, the Geneva Convention, ICC Rome Statues, and the principles on international peace and security and for the development of friendly relations and co-operation among states.


Israel is the victim. Its opposition are the unevolved aggressors. THEY need to change.

(COMMENT)

While both may play the part, to an extent, neither is truly a victim (suffering from an unprovoked destructive activity or injurious assaults). The conflict has all the earmarks of vendetta (a feud between clans or cultures) to an extreme. While the profile of Israel is that of a victim through to 1973; and the profile of the Arab League/Palestinians was that of an aggressor alliance through 1973; they begin to gradually change and reverse since that time.

Both need to change. (Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/albert_einstein.html)) Whatever the Israeli strategy is, after more than half a century of feudal confrontation between the two belligerents, it becomes, as Einstein says, insanity to continue. Yes, the Palestinians need to evolve into a more moderate, less confrontational entity, just as does Israel.


And if they don't ... then, in my view, Israel needs to take its gloves off and mete out to them some lessons, expressed in the only language those savages understand.

That's my opinion. I think I'm right. However, it is my OPINION.

(COMMENT)

Insanity!

Most Respectfully,
R

[logroller]

Rocco, I think you're over-intellectualising this .. and more, you're stating opinion as fact.

Take notice of his bold preface, "comment", meaning: a remark expressing an opinion or reaction...
...a matter of persective no doubt, but your (lack of) comprehension certainly begs the question: might you be over-simplifying?


I, too, have my opinion, and I'll advertise it as the opinion it is.
But Rocco had already stipulated as much; and rather presciently refuted your fallacious dismissal in the same paragraph.



As far as being an "armchair" ("tsk tsk thumbtwiddler"), that is merely conjecture and a matter of perspective (everyone has the right to an opinion - yours is no less valid); an ad hoc attempt to challenge my commentary via my career caricature (as a military retiree and follow-on civilian consultant DOS/DOD) which has given me exposure to various global issues (we are the sum of our experiences). It is not a true direct challenge to the validity or soundness of the commentary.

By any stretch of the word, "commentary" is not proffered as irrefutable fact; at most its a reasoned explanation that the audience affords whatever credibility it deserves.

His commentary, opinion though it may be, adequately explains the evidence you have presented here ad nauseum. That you have no valid challenge to his commentary, your last ditch argument is dismissal of it as "over-intellectualization"..ironically not using the phrase "over-thinking" Only to follow that with an ignorant assertion of his presenting opinion as fact. Einstein said "make it as simple as possible, but don't over-simplify." If that falls stillborn, I defer to Ricky bobby "why dontcha sit this one out...stop talking for awhile."


(COMMENT)

Yes, sometimes decisiveness in the challenge of whether to go to war, or not, leads to a less expensive outcome, no question; but only in some cases. The "fight them here or there" is purely an economic decision (one of many considerations) in the cost-benefit analysis in the conflict matrix.

Whether or not "if Israel disappears tomorrow," the US becomes the "next target" ---> or, if that the US would be a continual target in any event, is crystal ball philosophy; equivalent to that voodoo practices by the Kennedy/Johnson Era "Whiz Kids" that came up with the "Domino Theory." Because political intrigue and diplomacy follows a time-line, it is an inevitability that we can always play the "Who's Next" game. There will always (one of the few times you can use the "always" with some accuracy) be a "next;" the fate of the time-line continuum. And, it is generally more probable that the country at the top of the pyramid (the most powerful or influential) is going to be the focal point of controversy or attention (telling us the "Who" in the equation). And as long as the US holds that not so distinguished position, without regard to practiced policy, the more likely that it will remain "next" by aspiring cultures that want more on Maslow's Hierarchical ladder. Nature!

As far as being an "armchair" ("tsk tsk thumbtwiddler"), that is merely conjecture and a matter of perspective (everyone has the right to an opinion - yours is no less valid); an ad hoc attempt to challenge my commentary via my career caricature (as a military retiree and follow-on civilian consultant DOS/DOD) which has given me exposure to various global issues (we are the sum of our experiences). It is not a true direct challenge to the validity or soundness of the commentary.

It may be true that "Muslims don't jump and change behaviors." And I'm sure that I might agree with that observation in the right context. But, the "Questions & Issues of Palestine" today are secular - and not religious. Religion, historically not uncommon, is merely used as a tool; a weapon. It is rather difficult to change or alter a tool or weapon to any substantial degree without changing its complexity and nature. No! We are trying to change the behavior of both the Palestinian and Israeli. One is most generally has a cultural association to an Arab (which just happens to be predominately Muslim), where the other is mixture or blend of cultures (which just happens to be predominately Jewish). But make no mistake. It is a truly secular set of behavior principles we are dealing with and not the ideological differences expressed by Muslim 'vs' Jewish theology (a totally separate discussion of non-secular complications). The non-secular component is just a pivot point for the exploitation of emotions and used as a weapon to stimulate the intensity of the conflicts and disputes.

Most Respectfully,
R
Excellent post!

[taft2012]

Niether side has clean hands. To suggest that one side or the other is any more wrong or any less wrong, is simply avoiding the objective view.


Here's the problem.

To draw a moral equivalency between one side, which does its best to keep conflicts within the parameters of traditional warfare as much as possible, with the other side that straps bombs onto children and directs them to walk out into market places, or launches missiles from within heavily populated civilian neighborhoods, does not come across as "objective" at all. It demonstrates a clearly indefensible bias.

[Drummond]

Here's the problem.

To draw a moral equivalency between one side, which does its best to keep conflicts within the parameters of traditional warfare as much as possible, with the other side that straps bombs onto children and directs them to walk out into market places, or launches missiles from within heavily populated civilian neighborhoods, does not come across as "objective" at all. It demonstrates a clearly indefensible bias.

More .. their inhuman savagery is also illustrated.

Israel, to my knowledge, has never stooped to such a disgusting depth as that. However, the side in this that does so, shows itself to be disconnected from 21st century values.

This is surely completely obvious !!

Israel is the victim of such attacks. She never perpetrates them. So, am I in a minority for thinking that this MATTERS ?

[Drummond]

Take notice of his bold preface, "comment", meaning: a remark expressing an opinion or reaction...
...a matter of persective no doubt, but your (lack of) comprehension certainly begs the question: might you be over-simplifying?

Answer: a firm NO.

Comments can contain viewpoints. They can also contain facts. The ratio of opinion to fact isn't fixed. Since this is so, your observation has little actual merit.




But Rocco had already stipulated as much; and rather presciently refuted your fallacious dismissal in the same paragraph.

Covered.


By any stretch of the word, "commentary" is not proffered as irrefutable fact; at most its a reasoned explanation that the audience affords whatever credibility it deserves.

Covered AGAIN. Commentary guarantees a degree of opinion, but again, its ratio of opinion to factual content isn't fixed.


His commentary, opinion though it may be, adequately explains the evidence you have presented here ad nauseum. That you have no valid challenge to his commentary, your last ditch argument is dismissal of it as "over-intellectualization"..ironically not using the phrase "over-thinking" Only to follow that with an ignorant assertion of his presenting opinion as fact. Einstein said "make it as simple as possible, but don't over-simplify." If that falls stillborn, I defer to Ricky bobby "why dontcha sit this one out...stop talking for awhile."

Translation: 'shut up'.

My answer: only if I feel like it.

[Drummond]

Drummond, et al,

In part, I disagree.



(COMMENT)

Just to avoid such misunderstandings, I generally mark each discussion as "commentary or comment" [a systematic series of explanations or interpretations (as of a writing); or an annotation] unless I quote something and present a source.



(COMMENT)

Of course Israel has suffered at the hands of the Arabs and Palestinian; with the support of externals like Iran (and others). I think everyone is aware of the Hamas Charter and Hezbollah Manifesto relative to the goals and objectives in relation to Israel. Yes, I agree that one could make page after page of lists documenting hostile events; more than six decades worth. Clearly, the argument can be made that Israel has been on the defensive since the day of Independence.



(COMMENT)

Niether side has clean hands. To suggest that one side or the other is any more wrong or any less wrong, is simply avoiding the objective view.

Yes, the Palestinians operate on an asymmetric format in both the propaganda they develop and the paramilitary operations they conduct. No question. But that does not negate the cause of action they have relative to a number of issues (property, administration of occupation, resource allocations, population transfers, refugee issues, etc). Yes, the Palestinians have a history of savagery; no question. The Israelis cannot claim to totally embrace 21st Century standards and principles when a cursory examination shows that Israel is in contravention with multiple such standards; to include, UN Security Council mandates, the Geneva Convention, ICC Rome Statues, and the principles on international peace and security and for the development of friendly relations and co-operation among states.



(COMMENT)

While both may play the part, to an extent, neither is truly a victim (suffering from an unprovoked destructive activity or injurious assaults). The conflict has all the earmarks of vendetta (a feud between clans or cultures) to an extreme. While the profile of Israel is that of a victim through to 1973; and the profile of the Arab League/Palestinians was that of an aggressor alliance through 1973; they begin to gradually change and reverse since that time.

Both need to change. (Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/albert_einstein.html)) Whatever the Israeli strategy is, after more than half a century of feudal confrontation between the two belligerents, it becomes, as Einstein says, insanity to continue. Yes, the Palestinians need to evolve into a more moderate, less confrontational entity, just as does Israel.



(COMMENT)

Insanity!

Most Respectfully,
R

I'll simply say to all of this that, yes, the Israelis aren't saints. BUT, are they the 'sinners' that their opposition are ?

Palestine has never existed as a Nation State. That they even qualify as a 'people' is highly debatable at absolute best. By contrast, Israel HAS existed, many generations ago, as a country in its own right, and its right to do so again is very well established.

But Israel's enemies choose to defy that recognition. They choose all manner of barbarities to fight them. And, as I've said before ... that Israel has been so very restrained in its responses to all of that, perhaps qualifies as a modern-day miracle.

It is my opinion that, indeed, Israel needs to be way tougher than it has been, and make their enemies SUFFER for their belligerence. Perhaps, by finally understanding that such suffering will be out of all proportion to what they can ever hope to gain, even their savage, semi-civilised mindset can grasp the reality of their situation.

And perhaps peace can be forced into existence.

After all ... the likes of Hamas are fundamentally opposed to peacefully arrived-at accommodations. What else, therefore, remains ... but an ENFORCED peace, one that even savages can understand ?

[logroller]

Answer: a firm NO.

Comments can contain viewpoints. They can also contain facts. The ratio of opinion to fact isn't fixed.
Did your "advertised opinion" not contain factual evidence-- For example, is it merely your opinion that Israel has been the target of terrorist attacks, or was that submitted as factual?




Since this is so, your observation has little actual merit.
Delighted that you submit a "comment" can (and likely does) contain opinion and facts. "Since this is so", your allegations upon rocco's presenting opinion as fact had no merit. That you change your tune indicates that my observation did have merit; else you would have refuted it, no? Since you did not assess his commentary on an opinion vs fact, line by line fashion, i can only conclude that your response was fallacious dismissal.



Translation: 'shut up'.

There you go over-simplifying again. :cool:

[RoccoR]

taft2012, et al,

I, like so many others, clearly recognize that the Palestinian/Arab/Persian (PAP) Alliance uses Fourth Generation Warfare strategies(4GW) (techniques in the conflict characterized that blur of the lines between war and politics, soldier and civilian, terrorism and conventional war fighting); as opposed to the conventional warfare approaches normally associated with traditional land battles between state established forces. This presents a challenge to the opposing combatant, but is not necessarily a set of strategies we've not seen before in history; especially in the Middle East. The al-Qassam rocket and brigade of the same designation, are named after Izz ad-Din al-Qassam (http://www.bing.com/search?q=izz+ad+din++al+qassam&filters=sid%3a%223f4320c1-c473-5895-8371-eca800f206c2%22+ufn%3a%22izz+ad+din++al+qassam%22&FORM=PPLDIS), father of the Arab Black Hand, and an Arab Palestinian insurgent of the 1920's and 1930's, who fought against both the French and British Mandatories in the region; is not the first Arab Terrorist to organize into an anti-Semitic and anti-government movement; while the Haganah, the Jewish mirror image, rose at about the same time . The Irgun, which rose shortly after al-Qassam was killed by the British, became one of the most famous Jewish paramilitary. The all use the very same 4GW techniques and strategies.


Here's the problem.
To draw a moral equivalency between one side, which does its best to keep conflicts within the parameters of traditional warfare as much as possible, with the other side that straps bombs onto children and directs them to walk out into market places, or launches missiles from within heavily populated civilian neighborhoods, does not come across as "objective" at all. It demonstrates a clearly indefensible bias.

(COMMENT)

When both belligerents essentially use the same tactics and strategies, there is no real moral difference. The moral justification in the use of force or violence against people (one murder or many murders) or property (discrete destruction of blanket destruction) with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, for vendetta (you hit me, I hit you back) or political reasons (prisoners, property, refugee, land/resource management, sovereignty, self-dtermination, occupation, etc), or any combination thereof, is still the same.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/6/5/9/659d23f0ed16cdb87b1d41c7b58b52f4.png In the case of the Palestinian 'vs' the Israeli, the perceived difference is with the extreme, the scope, and the intensity to which the 4GW campaign was pursued. In the objective, the scope and nature of the two campaigns where very similar from the 1920's thru the 1960's; excluding the two convention wars fought between conventional 20th Century 2/3GW forces. However, beginning in the early 1970's, the Palestinian 4GW campaigns ramped-up significantly in the scope (particularly in terms of range), intensity (size and frequency) and lethality (number affected or general impact), and barbarity. A comparative analysis will show that these earmarks were not matched by the counterpart. The Israeli conducted no sustained campaign that was equivalent to the Munich Olympic Massacre, the Achille Lauro, the multiple airport attacks, hijackings of international flights, suicide bombings, or soft target ambushes of defenseless targets, etc. The difference (http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/6/5/9/659d23f0ed16cdb87b1d41c7b58b52f4.png) here is that it is not a "moral" justification we are looking at --- but the "just cause" concept.

If you talk (rationally & intelligently exchange ideas) with many Palestinians, you will soon discover that many believe they have the right to oppose an unjust and illegal "Occupation" by any and all means. While they internally have disputes concerning the extent to which Israel is said to "occupy" the lands, most agree that there is an occupation and that what Israel is doing is opposed by the international community. While it is not exactly true, that they have some right to pursue asymmetric activities against the Occupation Force, they are hard to convince otherwise.


1951. The Mission concludes that the rocket and mortars attacks, launched by Palestinian armed groups operating from Gaza, have caused terror in the affected communities of southern Israel. The attacks have caused loss of life and physical and mental injury to civilians as well as damaging private houses, religious buildings and property, and eroded the economic and cultural life of the affected communities and severely affected economic and social rights of the population.

SOURCE: A/HRC/12/48 (ADVANCE 2) 24 September 2009 http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/12session/A-HRC-12-48_ADVANCE2.pdf

There is no rulebook on terrorism. In the early 1970's, when I went to may first counterterrorism course, I was struck by the fact that who we define as a terrorist is largely based on who wins and writes the history of the struggle. I was shocked to see a Terrorism display on the back wall with a Wanted Poster for Menachem Begin right next to the Wanted Poster for Izz ad-Din al-Qassam.

(RELATIVE to "BIAS")

If I show a "bias," it is decisively coming down on the side of the Israeli. For it is there, that I see a callous disregard to illuminate the exceptionally poor management and administration on the part of the Occupation Force (the Israelis) relative to the needs of the occupied indigenous and refugee populations in the "Occupied Territories" (however we define that to be today). There can be no greater responsibility for an Occupation Force than the fair and just treatment of those they have assumed control over. The GA Eisenhower knew this in Europe and GA MacArthur know this in Japan. And in both theaters the US embarked on economic, industrial and commercial structured plans to improve the standard of living for those in the lands we occupied. But as the topic of the discussion is "settlements" --- I am again offered the opportunity to avoid that entangled discussion.

Most Respectfully,
R

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Drummond, et al,

In part, I disagree.



(COMMENT)

Just to avoid such misunderstandings, I generally mark each discussion as "commentary or comment" [a systematic series of explanations or interpretations (as of a writing); or an annotation] unless I quote something and present a source.



(COMMENT)

Of course Israel has suffered at the hands of the Arabs and Palestinian; with the support of externals like Iran (and others). I think everyone is aware of the Hamas Charter and Hezbollah Manifesto relative to the goals and objectives in relation to Israel. Yes, I agree that one could make page after page of lists documenting hostile events; more than six decades worth. Clearly, the argument can be made that Israel has been on the defensive since the day of Independence.



(COMMENT)

Niether side has clean hands. To suggest that one side or the other is any more wrong or any less wrong, is simply avoiding the objective view.

Yes, the Palestinians operate on an asymmetric format in both the propaganda they develop and the paramilitary operations they conduct. No question. But that does not negate the cause of action they have relative to a number of issues (property, administration of occupation, resource allocations, population transfers, refugee issues, etc). Yes, the Palestinians have a history of savagery; no question. The Israelis cannot claim to totally embrace 21st Century standards and principles when a cursory examination shows that Israel is in contravention with multiple such standards; to include, UN Security Council mandates, the Geneva Convention, ICC Rome Statues, and the principles on international peace and security and for the development of friendly relations and co-operation among states.



(COMMENT)

While both may play the part, to an extent, neither is truly a victim (suffering from an unprovoked destructive activity or injurious assaults). The conflict has all the earmarks of vendetta (a feud between clans or cultures) to an extreme. While the profile of Israel is that of a victim through to 1973; and the profile of the Arab League/Palestinians was that of an aggressor alliance through 1973; they begin to gradually change and reverse since that time.

Both need to change. (Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/albert_einstein.html)) Whatever the Israeli strategy is, after more than half a century of feudal confrontation between the two belligerents, it becomes, as Einstein says, insanity to continue. Yes, the Palestinians need to evolve into a more moderate, less confrontational entity, just as does Israel.



(COMMENT)

Insanity!

Most Respectfully,
R


Not exactly sure what you are calling insanity. Be a bit more specific please.


Now on to the "moral issue". We each decide for ourselves which side is wrong and which side is right.
Even when both sides are wrong one must decide which is engaged in the greater wrong.
It is sheer bias and audacity for anybody to decide that the side is less wrong that is using such savage and aggressive murdering attacks deliberately upon innocent women and children!! Only one side makes a deliberate effort to limit such deaths and only one side seeks to inflict as many as possible.
To deny which side is which in that regards is not only pure ignorance but is absolute blindness as well IMHO.

Israel makes the effort to limit unnecessary deaths of innocent parties while it's opposition seeks to maximize that result! This glaring difference should settle the matter of which side holds the moral high ground. It is only debatable with morons that refuse the reality and truth of the matter.

For Israel to stand against the combined numbers of enemy that can now and has been in the recent past amassed against it it must have more buffering space not less. It is pure folly to give back more territory. Even more so to give that territory back in exchange for false promises and that is exactly what Israel has gotten every time its given land back.

USA must recognize and support Israel's right to take whatever aggressive or defensive posture that it chooses. It is their damn head on the chopping block not ours! This can not be emphasized too much!
Either we are an ally or we are not....this PC bull of trying to appease Israel's enemies just don't cut the mustard!!

Israel knows very well that Obama sides with it's enemies....and he will side with the muslims against even our own best interests. We shall see much more of that in this his second term.
And that is exactly why war is so damn likely, Obama arming Egypt with some of our best military hardware (20 F-16's and 200 Abrams tanks) will put Egypt up as the vanguard in that respect..
Shouldn't the American people be asking Obama what the hell he thinks he is doing!???

Most Respectfully,
TZS

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Did your "advertised opinion" not contain factual evidence-- For example, is it merely your opinion that Israel has been the target of terrorist attacks, or was that submitted as factual?




Delighted that you submit a "comment" can (and likely does) contain opinion and facts. "Since this is so", your allegations upon rocco's presenting opinion as fact had no merit. That you change your tune indicates that my observation did have merit; else you would have refuted it, no? Since you did not assess his commentary on an opinion vs fact, line by line fashion, i can only conclude that your response was fallacious dismissal.


There you go over-simplifying again. :cool:

^^^^^^ Log , cute replies do not defeat the opponent nor his position on the subject.


For example, is it merely your opinion that Israel has been the target of terrorist attacks, or was that submitted as factual?
^^^ For you to ask this idiotic question of Drummond reveals a hidden contempt that will serve you no good.
Implying the lack of intelligence and integrity of Drummond by such inquiry only hits back on you IMHO. -Tyr

[taft2012]

taft2012, et al,


When both belligerents essentially use the same tactics and strategies, there is no real moral difference.

Except, both belligerents are NOT essentially using the same tactics and strategies, not even close. So there is a clear moral difference.

I realize it is necessary for you to drone on endlessly, and employ tortured logic, so you can slip little comments like this one in and hope it passes. Alas, no. It does not.

This is tsk tsk thumbtwiddling at its best. In any war you will find sporadic incidents of misbehavior, which is simply human nature. You'll find it in NASCAR racing too.

The tsk tsk thumbtwiddlers like to take isolated incidents, magnify and blow them up entirely out of proportions, and then draw a moral equivalency with the other side. In these comparisons, the "other side" is invariably built entirely upon atrocities and illegality.

For instance: "I was watching 'Saving Private Ryan' and I saw an American soldier shoot a German soldier who was trying to surrender. I went on to read that happened sometimes in battles, so really, we were no better than the Nazis."

The Triple-T logic clearly doesn't hold up well in one or two sentences, so it obviously needs densely worded paragraphs of tortured logic surrounding it.

International diplomacy should take a lesson from law enforcement. For instance: When everyone in an apartment building calls the police to complain that they guy in apartment 4C is blasting his radio in the middle of the night, the police do not listen to the guy in 4C whine, "Well, the guy in 3B had a late party two weeks ago that kept me awake, and the guy in 5D kept me awake with vacuuming two nights ago, ad infinitum" and then go back to the complaining neighbors and say "Hey, you're no better than he is. I'm letting him continue to play his radio."

No, you deal with the violation at hand and rectify it. You don't employ tortured logic to justify a clear violation and doing nothing about it.

[RoccoR]

taft2012, et al,

In part, I agree.


Except, both belligerents are NOT essentially using the same tactics and strategies, not even close. So there is a clear moral difference.

I realize it is necessary for you to drone on endlessly, and employ tortured logic, so you can slip little comments like this one in and hope it passes. Alas, no. It does not.

This is tsk tsk thumbtwiddling at its best. In any war you will find sporadic incidents of misbehavior, which is simply human nature. You'll find it in NASCAR racing too.

The tsk tsk thumbtwiddlers like to take isolated incidents, magnify and blow them up entirely out of proportions, and then draw a moral equivalency with the other side. In these comparisons, the "other side" is invariably built entirely upon atrocities and illegality.

(COMMENT)

Absolutely! In any extended period of time for which tactical engagements are routine, even in the most moral combat force, there will be isolated incidents of inappropriate activity. No civilization or its military force is immune to this inevitability. Having said that, what I was discussing was an establish pattern of behavior.

Between 1920 and 1948, both sides (Jewish and Palestinian) had well established behaviors as scene by an external third party (the Mandatory - UK). These behaviors were not isolated incidents, but represented a campaign that were used to further their political goals and objectives. Oddly enough, the justification used by both the Jewish and Palestinian people were very similar. Menachem Begin and Izz ad-Din al-Qassam were both seen by the Mandatory as were seen as deadly terrorists. Both had targeted the Mandatory (justified as an anti-Occupation resistance), as well as each other. The Palestinians saw the Zionist as an invasion from Europe to steal the land from the indigenous population. The Jewish saw these radical Arab Palestinians as anti-Semitic (discriminates against or who is hostile toward or prejudiced against Jews) with a taste of anti-Zionism to oppose the immigration of Jews (alla the Mandate) to help build a Jewish National Home.

After 1948, there was a roll reversal. Gone was the Mandatory (UK out of the picture). Instead, Israel became the state, and the Arab/Palestinian alliance saw Israel as the new Occupier, which then expanded in 1967. The Palestinians continue using the same tactics (asymmetric) as they had used against the British Forces for nearly three decades. But now Israel had a tangible landscape to defend and had to adopt a more traditional defensive role that the UK once held.

The morality nature of the Jewish Resistance (anti-Mandate, anti-Government terrorists) and the Israeli Defense Force did not change do to some magical enlightenment. It evolved, because the roles changed. That is why you perceive a difference today, were there really isn't a difference in the morality against the two. I assure you that if the roles of the Palestinian and the Israeli were reverse, the Israelis would be using the very same tactics and strategies that the Palestinians use today; with the possible exception that some of the more extreme terrorist events of the 1970's and '80's might not have been pursued.

Before I get accused again of "droning" on, I'll stop here.


For instance: "I was watching 'Saving Private Ryan' and I saw an American soldier shoot a German soldier who was trying to surrender. I went on to read that happened sometimes in battles, so really, we were no better than the Nazis."

The Triple-T logic clearly doesn't hold up well in one or two sentences, so it obviously needs densely worded paragraphs of tortured logic surrounding it.

International diplomacy should take a lesson from law enforcement. For instance: When everyone in an apartment building calls the police to complain that they guy in apartment 4C is blasting his radio in the middle of the night, the police do not listen to the guy in 4C whine, "Well, the guy in 3B had a late party two weeks ago that kept me awake, and the guy in 5D kept me awake with vacuuming two nights ago, ad infinitum" and then go back to the complaining neighbors and say "Hey, you're no better than he is. I'm letting him continue to play his radio."

No, you deal with the violation at hand and rectify it. You don't employ tortured logic to justify a clear violation and doing nothing about it.
(COMMENT)

I do not play "Triple-T logic" games.

This lead to the previous question you have about "insanity." For more than half a century, in fact six decades - plus, the State of Israel has been responding with force and occupation. In some cases, as with the waring members of the Arab League, these combat responses yielded Treaties or standing Armistice arrangement; not so with the Palestinians. In that time, the outcomes of today would suggest that the approach used by the Israelis is not productive. Doing the same thing over and over again (ie. using successively greater and greater levels of force) in trying to deal with the Islamic Resistance Movement/Palestinian Insurgency - AND expecting a different result is ("insanity") an unreasonable expectation.

I'll try not to use so complicated a logic for you in future. Heavens forbid it might get torturous.

Most Respectfully,
R

[RoccoR]

et al,

(REFERENCES) http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/udc.htm United Nations Information System on the Question of Palestine (UNISPAL)

UNSC Resolution 242 (1967)
http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1967/scres67.htm

UNSC Resolution 446 (1979)
http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/BA123CDED3EA84A5852560E50077C2DC

UN Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine A/67/364–S/2012/701 A/67/364 (http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=A/67/364&Lang=E)[eng]
http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=A/67/364&Lang=E




UN A/ES-10/559 Illegal Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory
http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=A/ES-10/559&Lang=E

UN A/AC.183/2012/1 PROGRAMME OF WORK FOR 2012 : COMMITTEE ON THE EXERCISE OF THE INALIENABLE RIGHTS OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE
http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=A/AC.183/2012/1&Lang=E

UN A/RES/67/11914 January 2013 Applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian
http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/a06f2943c226015c85256c40005d359c/b6c54623557b9a1885257af6006668ad?OpenDocument

ICC Rome Statues PART 2. JURISDICTION, ADMISSIBILITY AND APPLICABLE LAW Article 8 War crimes
http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/romefra.htm



(QUESTION)

So where are we on the issue before I inadvertently side tracked the discussion?

(COMMENT)

I believe we have already established that:



The Geneva Convention (GCIV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, is applicable to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967;
The transfer, by the occupying Power, of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies constitutes a breach of the GCIV and relevant provisions of customary law, including those codified in Additional Protocol I to the GCIV; and Article 8 (War Crimes), Paragraph 2b(viii) ICC Rome Statues; is in violation (prima facia).
The General Assembly and Security Council agrees that withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in 1967 is required.


So how do we proceed/evolve (the question) with the discussion?

Most Respectfully,
R

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

et al,

(REFERENCES) http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/udc.htm United Nations Information System on the Question of Palestine (UNISPAL)

UNSC Resolution 242 (1967)
http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1967/scres67.htm

UNSC Resolution 446 (1979)
http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/BA123CDED3EA84A5852560E50077C2DC

UN Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine A/67/364–S/2012/701 A/67/364 (http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=A/67/364&Lang=E)[eng]
http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=A/67/364&Lang=E




UN A/ES-10/559 Illegal Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory
http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=A/ES-10/559&Lang=E

UN A/AC.183/2012/1 PROGRAMME OF WORK FOR 2012 : COMMITTEE ON THE EXERCISE OF THE INALIENABLE RIGHTS OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE
http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=A/AC.183/2012/1&Lang=E

UN A/RES/67/11914 January 2013 Applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian
http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/a06f2943c226015c85256c40005d359c/b6c54623557b9a1885257af6006668ad?OpenDocument

ICC Rome Statues PART 2. JURISDICTION, ADMISSIBILITY AND APPLICABLE LAW Article 8 War crimes
http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/romefra.htm



(QUESTION)

So where are we on the issue before I inadvertently side tracked the discussion?

(COMMENT)

I believe we have already established that:



The Geneva Convention (GCIV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, is applicable to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967;
The transfer, by the occupying Power, of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies constitutes a breach of the GCIV and relevant provisions of customary law, including those codified in Additional Protocol I to the GCIV; and Article 8 (War Crimes), Paragraph 2b(viii) ICC Rome Statues; is in violation (prima facia).
The General Assembly and Security Council agrees that withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in 1967 is required.


So how do we proceed/evolve (the question) with the discussion?

Most Respectfully,
R

First , we do not just adopt a predetermined tactic as gospel and proceed from there.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Human_Rights/geneva.html

The Fourth Geneva Convention

The Fourth Geneva Convention (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Human_Rights/geneva1.html) on Rules of War was adopted in 1949 by the international community in response to Nazi atrocities (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/holo.html) during World War II. The international treaty governs the treatment of civilians during wartime, including hostages, diplomats, spies, bystanders and civilians in territory under military occupation. The convention outlaws torture, collective punishment and the resettlement by an occupying power of its own civilians on territory under its military control. In the fifty years since its adoption, the Fourth Geneva Convention has never been used to condemn world atrocities including those in Bosnia, Rwanda, Kosovo, Tibet, etc.
Since 1997 the Arab group at the United Nations (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/untoc.html) has been trying to invoke the Fourth Geneva Convention against Israel, in regard to its settlements (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/settletoc.html) in the West Bank (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/ciawb.html) and Gaza Strip (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/ciagaza.html), and in particular at Har Homa (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/har_homa.html) in Jerusalem (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/jerutoc.html). The UN General Assembly (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/gatoc.html) has adopted a number of non-binding resolutions condemning Israeli settlements (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/settletoc.html), and calling for a convening of the signatory nations of the Fourth Geneva Convention. In February 1999, the GA adopted a resolution calling for a special UN session to be held on July 15, 1999, in Geneva to examine "persistent violations" by Israel.
Israel rejects the interpretation of the Fourth Geneva Convention (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Human_Rights/geneva1.html) applying it to Israeli settlements (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/settletoc.html) in the West Bank (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/ciawb.html) and Gaza Strip (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/ciagaza.html), stating that those territories were captured in 1967 as a result of a defensive war (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/1967toc.html) against countries which had illegally occupied them since 1948.
Switzerland is the Depository for the Fourth Geneva Convention (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Human_Rights/geneva1.html). This means that the Swiss are technically responsible for organizing and convening a meeting of the signatory nations. However, the Swiss may only convene the meeting if a majority of the signatory nations agree to do so.
ADL [and other organizations] have vigorously opposed convening the Fourth Geneva Convention in regard to Israeli settlements arguing that it could dangerously politicize the international legitimacy and high standings of the Geneva Conventions. It could open a Pandora’s box across the globe haphazardly applying the convention to a plethora of nations. Furthermore, it would give credence to the Palestinian tactic of using the international community to air grievances regarding the Israeli-Palestinian peace process (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/palstoc.html), and thereby threatens the peace process itself.
International efforts led by the United States were successful in scaling down the July 15th special UN meeting in Geneva (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/geneva99.html). The closed-door meeting lasted a mere 45 minutes. However, a resolution was unanimously passed stating that the Fourth Geneva Convention does apply to Israeli settlements in the "occupied territories."

This UN "resolution" may have a moral force to it's birth (false as it may be) but present no real authority/means to intervene into Israel's domestic affairs and internal regulations involving the "occupied territories" .

How is it anything more than another none-binding resolution? A shallow slap at Israel's hand does not represent a judgement that Israel must be forced to yield under threat of suffering a military response by the UN.

The UN must be careful not to possibly start WW3 itself by intervening too heavily on the side of Israel's enemies. Another non-binding resolution does not solve the big problem or even start to help to change the hearts and minds of those that seek Israel's total destruction. Peace can only be truly achieved by first negating that savage desire for Israel's total extermination..

Accepting a "supposed moral" non-binding resolution as a foundation to force change from only one party in this conflict will bear no good fruit....and quite likely if pursued will lead to a great escalation in violence and even a totally epic war for Israel's survival. A war in which Israel would have nothing to lose by using all it's weapons against it's foes..

Most Respectfully,
TZS

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

First , we do not just adopt a predetermined tactic as gospel and proceed from there.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Human_Rights/geneva.html

The Fourth Geneva Convention

The Fourth Geneva Convention (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Human_Rights/geneva1.html) on Rules of War was adopted in 1949 by the international community in response to Nazi atrocities (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/holo.html) during World War II. The international treaty governs the treatment of civilians during wartime, including hostages, diplomats, spies, bystanders and civilians in territory under military occupation. The convention outlaws torture, collective punishment and the resettlement by an occupying power of its own civilians on territory under its military control. In the fifty years since its adoption, the Fourth Geneva Convention has never been used to condemn world atrocities including those in Bosnia, Rwanda, Kosovo, Tibet, etc.
Since 1997 the Arab group at the United Nations (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/untoc.html) has been trying to invoke the Fourth Geneva Convention against Israel, in regard to its settlements (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/settletoc.html) in the West Bank (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/ciawb.html) and Gaza Strip (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/ciagaza.html), and in particular at Har Homa (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/har_homa.html) in Jerusalem (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/jerutoc.html). The UN General Assembly (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/gatoc.html) has adopted a number of non-binding resolutions condemning Israeli settlements (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/settletoc.html), and calling for a convening of the signatory nations of the Fourth Geneva Convention. In February 1999, the GA adopted a resolution calling for a special UN session to be held on July 15, 1999, in Geneva to examine "persistent violations" by Israel.
Israel rejects the interpretation of the Fourth Geneva Convention (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Human_Rights/geneva1.html) applying it to Israeli settlements (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/settletoc.html) in the West Bank (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/ciawb.html) and Gaza Strip (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/ciagaza.html), stating that those territories were captured in 1967 as a result of a defensive war (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/1967toc.html) against countries which had illegally occupied them since 1948.
Switzerland is the Depository for the Fourth Geneva Convention (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Human_Rights/geneva1.html). This means that the Swiss are technically responsible for organizing and convening a meeting of the signatory nations. However, the Swiss may only convene the meeting if a majority of the signatory nations agree to do so.
ADL [and other organizations] have vigorously opposed convening the Fourth Geneva Convention in regard to Israeli settlements arguing that it could dangerously politicize the international legitimacy and high standings of the Geneva Conventions. It could open a Pandora’s box across the globe haphazardly applying the convention to a plethora of nations. Furthermore, it would give credence to the Palestinian tactic of using the international community to air grievances regarding the Israeli-Palestinian peace process (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/palstoc.html), and thereby threatens the peace process itself.
International efforts led by the United States were successful in scaling down the July 15th special UN meeting in Geneva (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/geneva99.html). The closed-door meeting lasted a mere 45 minutes. However, a resolution was unanimously passed stating that the Fourth Geneva Convention does apply to Israeli settlements in the "occupied territories."

This UN "resolution" may have a moral force to it's birth (false as it may be) but present no real authority/means to intervene into Israel's domestic affairs and internal regulations involving the "occupied territories" .

How is it anything more than another none-binding resolution? A shallow slap at Israel's hand does not represent a judgement that Israel must be forced to yield under threat of suffering a military response by the UN.

The UN must be careful not to possibly start WW3 itself by intervening too heavily on the side of Israel's enemies. Another non-binding resolution does not solve the big problem or even start to help to change the hearts and minds of those that seek Israel's total destruction. Peace can only be truly achieved by first negating that savage desire for Israel's total extermination..

Accepting a "supposed moral" non-binding resolution as a foundation to force change from only one party in this conflict will bear no good fruit....and quite likely if pursued will lead to a great escalation in violence and even a totally epic war for Israel's survival. A war in which Israel would have nothing to lose by using all it's weapons against it's foes..

Most Respectfully,
TZS


Too late to edit.. Found this and it seems Obama has been painted by the same UN brush as has Israel.-:laugh:
How much should a nation bow to international law!???

http://news.yahoo.com/us-drone-strikes-pakistan-illegal-says-un-terrorism-004606089--abc-news-politics.html
US Drone Strikes in Pakistan Are Illegal, Says UN Terrorism Official<cite class="byline vcard" style="font-style: normal; color: rgb(125, 125, 125); font-size: 12px; font-family: Georgia, Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; vertical-align: middle; line-height: 2.2em; display: inline-block !important;">By Dana Hughes | ABC OTUS News – <abbr title="2013-03-16T07:35:47Z" style="border: 0px;">16 hrs ago</abbr></cite>



t






Following a three-day fact-finding visit to Pakistan, the United Nations terrorism and human rights envoy issued a statement calling the U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan a violation of international law.
"The position of the government of Pakistan is quite clear: It does not consent to the use of drones by the United States on its territory and it considers this to be a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty and territorial integrity," said Ben Emmerson, U.N. special rapporteur on counterterrorism and human rights.
"As a matter of international law, the U.S. drone campaign in Pakistan is … being conducted without the consent of the elected representatives of the people or the legitimate government of the state," said Emmerson, who is British and has been investigating the impact of U.S. drone attacks in Pakistan's tribal areas on the civilian population.
He is expected to issue a final report to the United Nations in October.
The CIA-administered program targets al Qaeda and Taliban leaders in Pakistan's tribal areas near the border of Afghanistan. The areas are largely self-governed with a porous border and known to have extremists easily crossing between the two countries.
U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland would not comment directly on the legal implications of the strikes, citing classified intelligence, but told ABC News on Friday that the U.S. has seen Emmerson's statement and will await a final report before commenting further.
"We have a strong ongoing counterterrorism dialogue with Pakistan, and that will continue," she said.

[RoccoR]

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot, et al,

I have to agree, in part that a non-binding resolution (ie from the General Assembly) is merely an expressing of consensus. The UNSC Resolution 242 and UNSC Resolution 338 are rather straight forward and do not fall into the category of "non-binding." But I also recognize that Israel has not truly had its day in court to litigate the matter.


This UN "resolution" may have a moral force to it's birth (false as it may be) but present no real authority/means to intervene into Israel's domestic affairs and internal regulations involving the "occupied territories" .

How is it anything more than another none-binding resolution? A shallow slap at Israel's hand does not represent a judgement that Israel must be forced to yield under threat of suffering a military response by the UN.

(COMMENT)

There is a difference between Israel being in strict compliance mode with the applicable consensus of the UN, and being morally right, relative to the principle standard for peace and cooperation. The UN, under the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States [http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/2625(XXV)] has a duty to promotion of the rule of law among nations, and a duty to refrain in the use of coercion aimed against the political independence or territorial integrity of any State, AND --- must refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force. Israel know this, and thus they can make such claims and downplay the importance of the various reports, legal opinions and other pronouncements by the UN or the bodies it incorporates. This does not make the Israeli opinion correct; only their duty to the Rule of Law ambiguous. Israel knows quite well that the US is not going to permit a UN Military Force to be introduced into the fray. (Neither would Russia or China. It would set a precedence that no one wants.) But just because Israel has a security blanket and umbrella, doesn't mean that it holds the moral high ground.


The UN must be careful not to possibly start WW3 itself by intervening too heavily on the side of Israel's enemies. Another non-binding resolution does not solve the big problem or even start to help to change the hearts and minds of those that seek Israel's total destruction. Peace can only be truly achieved by first negating that savage desire for Israel's total extermination..

(COMMENT)

As I said before, there is no greater responsibility that the Commander of an Occupation Force has, than to the proper care and administration of the indigenous population that is under occupation. And in that regard, putting aside all the rhetoric of who did what to who - when, and who has the moral right or legal standing, Israel is ultimately responsible for the overall welfare of the indigenous population; without regard to the legality of the original use of force; which, has no bearing on the application of the law on the occupation. Morally, and again - without regard to belligerent nature of the indigenous population,


More than two thousand years ago, Plato urged Greeks not to construct monuments to honor the victors of war. In doing so he displayed extraordinary insight into the post bellum psyche. He apparently understood the dynamics of a constructive post bellum environment, fearing that such public observances might fuel hard feelings and thus impede the healing progress. Perhaps celebrations meant to convey the profound thanks of a grateful nation to its troops might translate into the unintended consequence (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Unintended+consequence) of prolonging hostilities or fueling insurgencies. Plato further recommended that enemies "[fight] as those who intend someday to be reconciled." He offered specific examples of what not to do if a just and lasting peace is the final objective:


They will not devastate Hellas, nor will they burn houses, [nor] suppose that the whole population of a city--men, women, and children--are equally their enemies, for they know that the guilt of war is always confined to a few persons and that the many are their friends. And for all these reasons they will be unwilling to waste their lands and raze their houses; their enmity to them will only last until the many innocent sufferers have compelled the guilty few to give satisfaction.

SOURCE: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+moral+responsibilities+of+victors+in+war.-a0126316185

It is clear that the previous 65 years behind the Israeli mind set, not taking the example of GA Douglas MacArthur in Japan, or that of the Marshal Plan and GA Dwight Eisenhower in Germany, has produced the very thing that Plato warns about: prolonging hostilities and fueling insurgencies. While I cannot outright object to your concept, as so many hold on to force as a first option, there are alternatives that would, over time, change the image of Israel at the global level. This would involve, not just meeting the basic responsibilities (main responsibilities of an occupying power: http://www.diakonia.se/sa/node.asp?node=946), but making a concerted effort at a comprehensive Territorial Development Project and Renewal Programs of relief works, which will engage the unemployed and idle work force for economic development, thus raising the standard of living of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Territories. Israel should create an environment that promotes and encourages commerce, production and industrialization, as well as education and science initiatives that supplement the territorial income and maintain an independent economy of the entire region. This would be the image of a benevolent Occupation Power. (Although it may be too late.)


Accepting a "supposed moral" non-binding resolution as a foundation to force change from only one party in this conflict will bear no good fruit....and quite likely if pursued will lead to a great escalation in violence and even a totally epic war for Israel's survival. A war in which Israel would have nothing to lose by using all it's weapons against it's foes..

(COMMENT)

Yes, maybe! --- One will not know until they try. But if the Israelis make the effort, a real effort, to change the paradigm, and the Palestinians bite the hand that helps them, the global image will still be in Israels favor. Everyone will see that Israel tried.

Most Respectfully,
R

[taft2012]

It is clear that the previous 65 years behind the Israeli mind set, not taking the example of GA Douglas MacArthur in Japan, or that of the Marshal Plan and GA Dwight Eisenhower in Germany, has produced the very thing that Plato warns about: prolonging hostilities and fueling insurgencies.
Most Respectfully,
R


Absurd analogy.

Germany and Japan were huge sea expeditions away from the United States. If the USA was the size of Rhode Island, and Germany and Japan were two counties within Rhode Island, then your analogy might hold some water.

And I guarantee you, if that was the case, the USA would not have been nearly so magnanimous in rebuilding its former enemies.

Israel is not imperialistic, it's not actively seeking out new territories like the Muslims did in Cyprus.

President Kennedy and the United States would not tolerate missiles 90 miles off its shores, yet the "Tsk Tsk Thumbtwidders" expect Israel to sit back and have missiles thrown at them from 90 feet over their border.

Can you just admit that you're trying to create a scenario that will guarantee an ultimate failure of Israel?

[red states rule]

The Useless Nations can say whatever the fuck they want. Doesn't make them right, or relevant.

Kinda like you, Jahil.

http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/imaoun500.gif

[red states rule]

If Hamas have committed war crimes, they should also be held accountable.

This is another example though of how Obama is right about Israel not knowing what is good for it. These illegal settlements have been a thorn in the side of peace for decades, and they have been expanding like an ever growing cancer. They are part of the reason for these rockets you seem so fond of mentioning without also mentioning Israeli artillery, tanks, helicopters, missiles, air strikes, collective punishment of occupied civilians etc.....

IF????

I am not surprised as you actually believe the Nazi death camps are a myth and never existed

In your f'd up world Israel needs to wiped of the face of the Earth and all Jews need to have their breathing privileges taken away

[RoccoR]

taft2012, et al,

The idea of such a plan is to contain the terrorism and insurgency, and to promote an alternative to radical Islamic fundamentalism behind Hamas and Hezbollah.


Absurd analogy.

Germany and Japan were huge sea expeditions away from the United States. If the USA was the size of Rhode Island, and Germany and Japan were two counties within Rhode Island, then your analogy might hold some water.

And I guarantee you, if that was the case, the USA would not have been nearly so magnanimous in rebuilding its former enemies.

Israel is not imperialistic, it's not actively seeking out new territories like the Muslims did in Cyprus.

(COMMENT)

The concept is not so different from that of Post-WWII Programs you readily dismiss. Nor is it so different from the approach Hezbollah is taking in Lebanon, that won the popular support of the Lebanese in the al-Bekka Valley. Such a program adds to the security and stability of the entire region; including Israel.



In June, 1947, Truman and his new Secretary of State, George Marshall, began pushing what was called the European Recovery Program, which would become known as the Marshall Plan. The purpose of the plan was to create economic cooperation among the states of Europe and to stimulate economic growth in Europe. And there was some hope that creating hope and relieving misery would diminish the appeal of Marxist arguments and the appeal of communism among Europeans.

SOURCE: http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch24cld2b.htm



The MARSHALL PLAN created an economic miracle in Western Europe. By the target date of the program four years later, Western European industries were producing twice as much as they had been the year before war broke out. Some Americans grumbled about the costs, but the nation spent more on liquor during the years of the Marshall Plan than they sent overseas to Europe. The aid also produced record levels of trade with American firms, fueling a postwar economic boom in the United States.
Lastly and much to Truman's delight, none of these nations of western Europe faced a serious threat of communist takeover for the duration of the Cold War.

SOURCE: http://www.ushistory.org/us/52c.asp



Absurd analogy.

President Kennedy and the United States would not tolerate missiles 90 miles off its shores, yet the "Tsk Tsk Thumbtwidders" expect Israel to sit back and have missiles thrown at them from 90 feet over their border.


(COMMENT)

Oh, I apologize! I did not realize that Hamas had a nuclear capability, and Iran is not 90 miles away --- but a 1000 miles away (1700 km) (a factor of ten in difference).



Can you just admit that you're trying to create a scenario that will guarantee an ultimate failure of Israel?

(COMMENT)

Nothing of the sort. It is not like any of the Israeli strategies to date have added to its long-term security or have a reasonable expectation of attaining peace with Palestinian insurgents. If anything, I believe that the path Israel is currently following is a going to lead to a disaster.

Most Respectfully,
R

[taft2012]

The concept is not so different from that of Post-WWII Programs you readily dismiss.


How at all is it alike?

Germany and Japan fielded traditional uniformed military organizations and after the war were both separated from the USA by oceans.

How is that at all comparable?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Not exactly sure what you are calling insanity. Be a bit more specific please.


Now on to the "moral issue". We each decide for ourselves which side is wrong and which side is right.
Even when both sides are wrong one must decide which is engaged in the greater wrong.
It is sheer bias and audacity for anybody to decide that the side is less wrong that is using such savage and aggressive murdering attacks deliberately upon innocent women and children!! Only one side makes a deliberate effort to limit such deaths and only one side seeks to inflict as many as possible.
To deny which side is which in that regards is not only pure ignorance but is absolute blindness as well IMHO.

Israel makes the effort to limit unnecessary deaths of innocent parties while it's opposition seeks to maximize that result! This glaring difference should settle the matter of which side holds the moral high ground. It is only debatable with morons that refuse the reality and truth of the matter.

For Israel to stand against the combined numbers of enemy that can now and has been in the recent past amassed against it it must have more buffering space not less. It is pure folly to give back more territory. Even more so to give that territory back in exchange for false promises and that is exactly what Israel has gotten every time its given land back.

USA must recognize and support Israel's right to take whatever aggressive or defensive posture that it chooses. It is their damn head on the chopping block not ours! This can not be emphasized too much!
Either we are an ally or we are not....this PC bull of trying to appease Israel's enemies just don't cut the mustard!!

Israel knows very well that Obama sides with it's enemies....and he will side with the muslims against even our own best interests. We shall see much more of that in this his second term.
And that is exactly why war is so damn likely, Obama arming Egypt with some of our best military hardware (20 F-16's and 200 Abrams tanks) will put Egypt up as the vanguard in that respect..
Shouldn't the American people be asking Obama what the hell he thinks he is doing!???

Most Respectfully,
TZS

Amended for relevant new information.--Tyr

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/11/u-n-finally-confirms-hamas-not-israeli-rocket-killed-gaza-baby/

U.N. FINALLY CONFIRMS HAMAS, NOT ISRAELI ROCKET KILLED GAZA BABYMar. 11, 2013 4:40pm Tiffany Gabbay (http://www.theblaze.com/blog/author/TiffanyGabbay)

[*=left]112
[*=left]650
[*=left]8
[*=left]1
[*=left]
[*=left]
[*=left]53 (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/11/u-n-finally-confirms-hamas-not-israeli-rocket-killed-gaza-baby/#comments)



http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/WaPo-PA-Photo.png (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/11/u-n-finally-confirms-hamas-not-israeli-rocket-killed-gaza-baby/wapo-pa-photo/)
Washington Post front page photo. Source: WaPo
Those who followed Operation Pillar of Cloud, Israel’s eight-day defensive action against Hamas militants last November, might recall the photo of a BBC reporter’s deceased 11-month-old infant that was plastered across the front pages of multiple Western media outlets, most notably the Washington Post.
Mainstream media outlets reported that it was an Israeli rocket fired into Gaza that claimed the child’s life, while a scant few outlets reported it was a Hamas rocket that actually killed the child. Now, a U.N. report confirms the latter.
The U.N. office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights said in a March 6 report that the Gaza incident seemed to have been caused by a ”Palestinian rocket that fell short of Israel.”
The death of Omar al-Masharawi, the son of BBC stringer Jihad al-Masharawi, was used as a key piece of propaganda by the Palestinians during Operation Pillar of Cloud to showcase what they claimed was Israeli aggression.
Many outlets failed to provide context in their reports, refraining from mentioning that Hamas guerrillas are known to launch rockets from within residential locations, using their own civilians as human shields.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This type of lying and staged propaganda plays too great a part when considering the actions made by Israel...
Rocco, you should perhaps look into this type of propaganda a bit better ..

Most Respectfully,
-Tyr

[Drummond]

taft2012, et al,

The idea of such a plan is to contain the terrorism and insurgency, and to promote an alternative to radical Islamic fundamentalism behind Hamas and Hezbollah.

This is what happens when you over-intellectualise an issue.

I'm not so sure of my ground in discussing Hezbollah, but where Hamas is concerned, the above statement must surely be an absurdity. And surely 'why' is obvious ? HAMAS RULES GAZA. There is no consideration of Hamas being sidelined in a territory which Hamas rules with an iron fist !!

I've no reason to suppose that those in Gaza want an alternative to Hamas. Even if they did, though, Hamas is showing no sign of permitting one (.. and why would they ?). This leaves one realistic option to end Hamas's terrorism, and one only - THE DEFEAT OF HAMAS.

I stand by my view that Israel is being too soft for its own good. Hamas will not accept any permanent peace on ANY grounds AT ALL, the Hamas Charter makes this abundantly clear. No .. only their total defeat will do.

[RoccoR]

taft2012, et al,

We are talking about a post-War concept; not combat.


How at all is it alike?

Germany and Japan fielded traditional uniformed military organizations and after the war were both separated from the USA by oceans.

How is that at all comparable?

(COMMENT)

This Post-War (1967/1973) the traditional conventional force war in the form of the Arab League. There is either a Treaty or an Armistice with these nation. The purpose of the program is to drawn away the popular support of Hezbollah, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas; which represents terrorism and the insurgency (anti-Occupation Forces).

The distance is irrelevant. There were no attacks against the Occupation Force of any consequence, and no organized anti-Occupation campaigns that emerged. Yet, by comparison, the land area covered was many time larger, and the technology was many times simpler. The overall complexity and enormity of the Occupations in Post-WWII was many times that of the Occupied Territories in the Middle East. What makes one a successful [no terrorism or insurgency (anti-Occupation Forces)] --- and the other not: the post-War strategies were much different.

Most Respectfully,
R

[RoccoR]

Drummond, et al,

Now that the insurgency and terrorist groups have been allowed to grow and evolve for more than for a quarter century (in the case of Hamas), it will be much more difficult.


This is what happens when you over-intellectualise an issue.

I'm not so sure of my ground in discussing Hezbollah, but where Hamas is concerned, the above statement must surely be an absurdity. And surely 'why' is obvious ? HAMAS RULES GAZA. There is no consideration of Hamas being sidelined in a territory which Hamas rules with an iron fist !!

I've no reason to suppose that those in Gaza want an alternative to Hamas. Even if they did, though, Hamas is showing no sign of permitting one (.. and why would they ?). This leaves one realistic option to end Hamas's terrorism, and one only - THE DEFEAT OF HAMAS.

I stand by my view that Israel is being too soft for its own good. Hamas will not accept any permanent peace on ANY grounds AT ALL, the Hamas Charter makes this abundantly clear. No .. only their total defeat will do.

(COMMENT)

No insurgency (anti-Occupation Campaign) lives in isolation. They all require support from the indigenous population. You cannot defeat Hamas by killing them all; that is a never ending proposition. You must deprive Hamas of the of their indigenous support. That comes when the indigenous population associates and receives more progress and benefits with the Occupation, then they do from Hamas.

Most Respectfully,
R

[Drummond]

Drummond, et al,

Now that the insurgency and terrorist groups have been allowed to grow and evolve for more than for a quarter century (in the case of Hamas), it will be much more difficult.



(COMMENT)

No insurgency (anti-Occupation Campaign) lives in isolation. They all require support from the indigenous population. You cannot defeat Hamas by killing them all; that is a never ending proposition. You must deprive Hamas of the of their indigenous support. That comes when the indigenous population associates and receives more progress and benefits with the Occupation, then they do from Hamas.

Most Respectfully,
R

When the inhabitants of Gaza voted Hamas into power, is it your contention that they did so, not having any inkling of what it was they were voting for ?

Hamas, as their Charter makes clear, are committed to a NON-peaceful solution to enmities with Israel. In fact, they want Israel to CEASE TO EXIST. Is it your claim that those voting for Hamas couldn't agree with this, that they, too don't want such a fate to be suffered by Israel ?

With that level of race-hate, fuelled, as Hamas would say, by their very religion ... what POSSIBLE reason could you have for thinking that those same supporters will turn their backs on such fundamental beliefs and desires ?? In case it hadn't occurred to you, child bombers have to come from somewhere .. whose families, do you suppose, offer up their children for such a fate ??

And how come Gazans have been content to put up with rocket launchers in their backyards and neighbourhoods, and FOR YEARS, knowing in the process that they would have to become targets of Israeli counterattacks ?

No, RoccoR, you've overlooked the fact of how ingrained and intractable these hatreds are. Outright defeat of Hamas is the only solution.

Besides, they deserve no less.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Drummond, et al,

Now that the insurgency and terrorist groups have been allowed to grow and evolve for more than for a quarter century (in the case of Hamas), it will be much more difficult.



(COMMENT)

No insurgency (anti-Occupation Campaign) lives in isolation. They all require support from the indigenous population. You cannot defeat Hamas by killing them all; that is a never ending proposition. You must deprive Hamas of the of their indigenous support. That comes when the indigenous population associates and receives more progress and benefits with the Occupation, then they do from Hamas.

Most Respectfully,
R

You can not defeat them by not opposing them. They have the peoples's support because the people hate Israel too. Because the people agree with their Charter.

There will not be a solution until the Pali's stop hating Israel enough to prefer life for their kids. As long as they are willing to sacrifice their lives and that of their offspring there will be no solution regardless of what Israel gives up.
The greater problem lies with them and those that use them to oppose Israel.

Israel can do no thing that will stop that kind of hate. The conversion must come from a basic change in the culture and the religion both. I do not see it ever happening since they'd much rather die for the glory of Allah. You must factor in the religion my friend. They will not renounce their religion..-Tyr

[Drummond]

You can not defeat them by not opposing them. They have the peoples's support because the people hate Israel too. Because the people agree with their Charter.

There will not be a solution until the Pali's stop hating Israel enough to prefer life for their kids. As long as they are willing to sacrifice their lives and that of their offspring there will be no solution regardless of what Israel gives up.
The greater problem lies with them and those that use them to oppose Israel.

Israel can do no thing that will stop that kind of hate. The conversion must come from a basic change in the culture and the religion both. I do not see it ever happening since they'd much rather die for the glory of Allah. You must factor in the religion my friend. They will not renounce their religion..-Tyr:clap::clap::clap:

Spot on, as usual, Tyr. This is the reality of the situation.

[aboutime]

This is what happens when you over-intellectualise an issue.

I'm not so sure of my ground in discussing Hezbollah, but where Hamas is concerned, the above statement must surely be an absurdity. And surely 'why' is obvious ? HAMAS RULES GAZA. There is no consideration of Hamas being sidelined in a territory which Hamas rules with an iron fist !!

I've no reason to suppose that those in Gaza want an alternative to Hamas. Even if they did, though, Hamas is showing no sign of permitting one (.. and why would they ?). This leaves one realistic option to end Hamas's terrorism, and one only - THE DEFEAT OF HAMAS.

I stand by my view that Israel is being too soft for its own good. Hamas will not accept any permanent peace on ANY grounds AT ALL, the Hamas Charter makes this abundantly clear. No .. only their total defeat will do.


Sir Drummond. We all know, and can see how RoccoR seems to be more dedicated to just listening, and reading his own massive contributions you call 'over-intellectualizing'. Speaking for myself. As nothing more than a simple man with many, many years of life behind me that includes huge doses of wisdom, experience and common sense. I also didn't just fall off the Turnip Truck when it comes to other people like RoccoR attempting to display his extreme intelligence..as a means of patronizing WE LITTLE PEOPLE who don't spend all of our time trying to IMPRESS OURSELVES.
So. As for the topic. It has been an ongoing struggle for both Israel, and whatever is called Palestine for as long as I have been alive since I was born in 1947.
So. Whenever I read, or hear total strangers who are convinced ONLY THEY are capable of offering their solutions...yet, never seem to get anywhere out of their sphere of self impressiveness. I allow them to offer their opinions. And recognize. That is all they are capable of achieving...opinions.
Which, by the way. Is why THIS is an Online Forum...where people are limited to offering opinions, and produce nothing that will ever solve the REAL PROBLEMS of the world.

[RoccoR]

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot, Drummond, et al,

As macho and warrior like as it sounds, it is a losing strategy. Like a head-on battle with cockroaches, you cannot defeat Palestinian Radicals (the Islamic Resistance Movement) a handfull at a time as long as they; you must exterminate them all at once --- unless you can deprive them of their means of support, maintenance, subsistence, and cooperation that shape them into a viable force. Deprive them of critical sustenance, and they will wither on the vine.

For every asymmetric strategy there is for Hamas (advantage), there is a mirror opposite that, given the proper resources and attention to detail, can neutralize everything that Hamas (or any other Islamic Resistance Movement) has been able to accomplish and use in gaining the global political advantage, sympathy, and support over Israeli --- all these many years. While Israel has been, through constant military pressure, able to suppress the insurgency, it is still investing hugely in the blunt force security strategies --- for which they will receive no return on investment --- Israel is paying heavily in the global court of public opinion which is gradually being won-over by the Palestinian. And Israel cannot live in isolation any more than Hamas. And Israel cannot afford the cost of the security investment for which it gains nothing in the long-term.

If Israel believes that they cannot formulate a strategy, developmental projects and programs that the Palestinians will not be able to appreciate, then of course, the strategy is no better than what the Israelis have pursued over the last quarter century. But if you believe that the Israeli way of life, their standard of living, their commerce, industry, and productivity is something that the Palestinian would appreciate and want (something they can't get from Hamas), then it is possible to turn the tide and to assimilate, take, and win over the Palestinians as a people. It will not be an overnight change, given the damage that has been done by the very poor administration by the Occupation Force, it can change. It takes an Israel than wants change.

:clap::clap::clap:

When the inhabitants of Gaza voted Hamas into power, is it your contention that they did so, not having any inkling of what it was they were voting for ?

Hamas, as their Charter makes clear, are committed to a NON-peaceful solution to enmities with Israel. In fact, they want Israel to CEASE TO EXIST. Is it your claim that those voting for Hamas couldn't agree with this, that they, too don't want such a fate to be suffered by Israel ?

With that level of race-hate, fuelled, as Hamas would say, by their very religion ... what POSSIBLE reason could you have for thinking that those same supporters will turn their backs on such fundamental beliefs and desires ?? In case it hadn't occurred to you, child bombers have to come from somewhere .. whose families, do you suppose, offer up their children for such a fate ??

And how come Gazans have been content to put up with rocket launchers in their backyards and neighbourhoods, and FOR YEARS, knowing in the process that they would have to become targets of Israeli counterattacks ?

No, RoccoR, you've overlooked the fact of how ingrained and intractable these hatreds are. Outright defeat of Hamas is the only solution.

Besides, they deserve no less.


You can not defeat them by not opposing them. They have the peoples's support because the people hate Israel too. Because the people agree with their Charter.

There will not be a solution until the Pali's stop hating Israel enough to prefer life for their kids. As long as they are willing to sacrifice their lives and that of their offspring there will be no solution regardless of what Israel gives up. The greater problem lies with them and those that use them to oppose Israel.

Israel can do no thing that will stop that kind of hate. The conversion must come from a basic change in the culture and the religion both. I do not see it ever happening since they'd much rather die for the glory of Allah. You must factor in the religion my friend. They will not renounce their religion..-Tyr

Spot on, as usual, Tyr. This is the reality of the situation.

(COMMENT)

No one is saying, "don't oppose Hamas." What is being said is: fight the Hamas asymmetric strategies with better, even more effective anti-Hamas Pacification Strategy. The objective being the Practical implementation of countermeasures and policies aiming to effect peaceful submission of the heretofore rebellious district and territory.

What the Palestinians believe in, relative Hamas, today is unimportant. The strategy is all about what we can make the Palestinian believe about the Israeli, their future, and their prosperity in the coming years. Yes, their will always be a few die hard radicals. Most countries have them, especially in the Middle East. Even Israel has them.

The Hamas Charter (or any other Islamic Resistance Movement Charter) is not something to fear, but something to understand and exploit. It can be done.


... ... ... RoccoR attempting to display his extreme intelligence..as a means of patronizing WE LITTLE PEOPLE who don't spend all of our time trying to IMPRESS OURSELVES.
So. As for the topic. It has been an ongoing struggle for both Israel, and whatever is called Palestine for as long as I have been alive since I was born in 1947.
So. Whenever I read, or hear total strangers who are convinced ONLY THEY are capable of offering their solutions...yet, ... ... ...

(COMMENT)

I am truly sorry if I appear to you in this light. It is not my intention.

Most Respectfully,
R

[Drummond]

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot, Drummond, et al,

As macho and warrior like as it sounds, it is a losing strategy. Like a head-on battle with cockroaches, you cannot defeat Palestinian Radicals (the Islamic Resistance Movement) a handfull at a time as long as they; you must exterminate them all at once --- unless you can deprive them of their means of support, maintenance, subsistence, and cooperation that shape them into a viable force. Deprive them of critical sustenance, and they will wither on the vine.

For every asymmetric strategy there is for Hamas (advantage), there is a mirror opposite that, given the proper resources and attention to detail, can neutralize everything that Hamas (or any other Islamic Resistance Movement) has been able to accomplish and use in gaining the global political advantage, sympathy, and support over Israeli --- all these many years. While Israel has been, through constant military pressure, able to suppress the insurgency, it is still investing hugely in the blunt force security strategies --- for which they will receive no return on investment --- Israel is paying heavily in the global court of public opinion which is gradually being won-over by the Palestinian. And Israel cannot live in isolation any more than Hamas. And Israel cannot afford the cost of the security investment for which it gains nothing in the long-term.

If Israel believes that they cannot formulate a strategy, developmental projects and programs that the Palestinians will not be able to appreciate, then of course, the strategy is no better than what the Israelis have pursued over the last quarter century. But if you believe that the Israeli way of life, their standard of living, their commerce, industry, and productivity is something that the Palestinian would appreciate and want (something they can't get from Hamas), then it is possible to turn the tide and to assimilate, take, and win over the Palestinians as a people. It will not be an overnight change, given the damage that has been done by the very poor administration by the Occupation Force, it can change. It takes an Israel than wants change.


(COMMENT)

No one is saying, "don't oppose Hamas." What is being said is: fight the Hamas asymmetric strategies with better, even more effective anti-Hamas Pacification Strategy. The objective being the Practical implementation of countermeasures and policies aiming to effect peaceful submission of the heretofore rebellious district and territory.

What the Palestinians believe in, relative Hamas, today is unimportant. The strategy is all about what we can make the Palestinian believe about the Israeli, their future, and their prosperity in the coming years. Yes, their will always be a few die hard radicals. Most countries have them, especially in the Middle East. Even Israel has them.

The Hamas Charter (or any other Islamic Resistance Movement Charter) is not something to fear, but something to understand and exploit. It can be done.



(COMMENT)

I am truly sorry if I appear to you in this light. It is not my intention.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel has already tried its blockading actions, the point being to make it as impossible as it can be for Hamas to arm or rearm. The result is that pro-Palestinian voices are raised to paint this as persecution of Gazans by Israel. Anti-Israeli propaganda goes into overdrive, doing its utmost to show Gazans as 'oppressed, suffering people'.

And .. does it work, when Hamas has sympathisers such as Iran to turn to ? The fact that Hamas somehow manages to launch its rockets at will, regardless of all that, says 'NO' .. it does NOT.

You acknowledge yourself that anti-Israeli rhetoric is listened to, gains ground.

I see no future in continuing with a propaganda war that has been going on for quite literally decades, one which will twist anything for its own purposes. Running concurrently with these posts we have evidence on this very forum that propaganda blaming an Israeli attack for a Palestinian child's death was false, that Israel was NOT to blame. Such propaganda MAY, or may NOT, be exposed for what it is, and there will be those who will believe only what they want to believe.

.... those helping to arm Hamas, for example ....

Terrorists are criminals. Wiping out their criminality is a policing action. Since Gaza is ruled by criminals, it is a land defying all natural justice, and can - and SHOULD - be cleaned up by whatever policing action Israel can launch that will be effective.

If the inhabitants of Gaza are to have a decent future (to the extent they even deserve one !!), that future can only come from the societal bedrock of decent governance. They have the opposite in Hamas. So, I say ... WIPE OUT Hamas.

You don't deal with a cancer by uttering soothing propaganda at it. No. You CURE the ailing body by RIDDING IT of disease.

Your apparent belief that this can be turned around with words, or accommodations, is defied by decades of history showing how little progress is always made. It will not happen. Each side will continue to jockey for the attentions of the world's powers. There has to come a time when sheer sanity demands: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Israel has already tried its blockading actions, the point being to make it as impossible as it can be for Hamas to arm or rearm. The result is that pro-Palestinian voices are raised to paint this as persecution of Gazans by Israel. Anti-Israeli propaganda goes into overdrive, doing its utmost to show Gazans as 'oppressed, suffering people'.

And .. does it work, when Hamas has sympathisers such as Iran to turn to ? The fact that Hamas somehow manages to launch its rockets at will, regardless of all that, says 'NO' .. it does NOT.

You acknowledge yourself that anti-Israeli rhetoric is listened to, gains ground.

I see no future in continuing with a propaganda war that has been going on for decades, one which will twist anything for its own purposes. Running concurrently with these posts we have evidence on this very forum that propaganda blaming an Israeli attack for a Palestinian child's death was false, that Israel was NOT to blame. Such propaganda MAY, or may NOT, be exposed for what it is, and there will be those who will believe only what they want to believe.

.... those helping to arm Hamas, for example ....

Terrorists are criminals. Wiping out their criminality is a policing action. Since Gaza is ruled by criminals, it is a land defying all natural justice, and can - and SHOULD - be cleaned up by whatever policing action Israel can launch that will be effective.

If the inhabitants of Gaza are to have a decent future (to the extent they even deserve one !!), that future can only come from the societal bedrock of decent governance. They have the opposite in Hamas. So, I say ... WIPE OUT Hamas.

You don't deal with a cancer by uttering soothing propaganda at it. No. You CURE the ailing body by RIDDING IT of disease.

Bravo! :clap::clap::clap:

Correct H and H is the disease, Hamas and Hatred. To cure the Hatred Hamas must be eliminated. If gangrened the limb is cut off to save the body!
As long as Hamas is in charge or even around able to exert its violent power peace can not exist there.-Tyr

[RoccoR]

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot, et al,

I understand.

Bravo! :clap::clap::clap:

Correct H and H is the disease, Hamas and Hatred. To cure the Hatred Hamas must be eliminated. If gangrened the limb is cut off to save the body!
As long as Hamas is in charge or even around able to exert its violent power peace can not exist there.-Tyr

(OBSERVATION)


Ferenc Szaniszlo, R[/COLOR]ecipients of the Tancsics prize for Journalistic Excellence]"Whenever someone dares to criticise the policies of Israel, then that person is listed as an anti-Semite immediately,"

SOURCE: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/18/hungary-israel-journalist-idUSL6N0C92GH20130318?feedType=RSS&feedName=cyclicalConsumerGoodsSector&rpc=43


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You don't deal with a cancer by uttering soothing propaganda at it. No. You CURE the ailing body by RIDDING IT of disease.

(COMMENT)

The cure cannot be so lethal that it kills the patient.

And hate is just as damaging in the perspective of the Israeli toward Palestinian as it is in the reverse; Palestinian toward Israeli. Both sides have to change.

Most Respectfully,
R

[Drummond]

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot, et al,

I understand.


(OBSERVATION)




---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



(COMMENT)

The cure cannot be so lethal that it kills the patient.

And hate is just as damaging in the perspective of the Israeli toward Palestinian as it is in the reverse; Palestinian toward Israeli. Both sides have to change.

Most Respectfully,
R

I think you're making a fundamental mistake in all of this.

You're trying to view all the contention involved through YOUR eyes, YOUR sensibilities, YOUR values. I get little sense that you're acknowledging the true sense of enmity involved. For example .. the desire Palestinians have to see Israel done away with altogether.

Hamas was voted into power. Wasn't it ? Have you stopped to wonder just WHY it was ? Is it your belief that they're all retarded, that none of them knew what Hamas was, or why it existed ?

I suggest to you that hatred of Israel, its existence, of the race it principally exists to represent, is at such a pitch that your sensibilities are a far cry from what actually drives them. You might want them to change. But what on earth gives you reason for thinking they have any inclination to start that change ?

My belief is that teaching Hamas a never-to-be-forgotten lesson is the way forward (... which presupposes that they should even SURVIVE it !). Something that'll deter future expressions of their hatred. Fact is, Rocco, that no Leftie coming along with a magic wand, expecting 'goodness and light' to follow from a quick brandishing of said wand, has a snowball's chance in hell of achieving anything at all. Hatreds are way too ingrained for that.

No - deterrence is the answer. The teaching of a lesson which talks their language is the answer. You may not like that .. but, it's the truth.

[Robert A Whit]

I think you're making a fundamental mistake in all of this.

You're trying to view all the contention involved through YOUR eyes, YOUR sensibilities, YOUR values. I get little sense that you're acknowledging the true sense of enmity involved. For example .. the desire Palestinians have to see Israel done away with altogether.

Hamas was voted into power. Wasn't it ? Have you stopped to wonder just WHY it was ? Is it your belief that they're all retarded, that none of them knew what Hamas was, or why it existed ?

I suggest to you that hatred of Israel, its existence, of the race it principally exists to represent, is at such a pitch that your sensibilities are a far cry from what actually drives them. You might want them to change. But what on earth gives you reason for thinking they have any inclination to start that change ?

My belief is that teaching Hamas a never-to-be-forgotten lesson is the way forward (... which presupposes that they should even SURVIVE it !). Something that'll deter future expressions of their hatred. Fact is, Rocco, that no Leftie coming along with a magic wand, expecting 'goodness and light' to follow from a quick brandishing of said wand, has a snowball's chance in hell of achieving anything at all. Hatreds are way too ingrained for that.

No - deterrence is the answer. The teaching of a lesson which talks their language is the answer. You may not like that .. but, it's the truth.

Well understood by you and well stated as well. Thanks for proper reasoning.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot, et al,

I understand.


(OBSERVATION)




http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Ferenc Szaniszlo, R[/FONT]ecipients of the Tancsics prize for Journalistic Excellence]"Whenever someone dares to criticise the policies of Israel, then that person is listed as an anti-Semite immediately,"

SOURCE: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...sSector&rpc=43 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/18/hungary-israel-journalist-idUSL6N0C92GH20130318?feedType=RSS&feedName=cyclicalConsumerGoodsSector&rpc=43)



Please show where I gave claim to you being anti-anything....-Tyr


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



(COMMENT)

The cure cannot be so lethal that it kills the patient.

And hate is just as damaging in the perspective of the Israeli toward Palestinian as it is in the reverse; Palestinian toward Israeli. Both sides have to change.

Most Respectfully,
R

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your observation was wrong Hoss. I've made absolutely no claims against your character! Not a single claim. If I have be so kind as to quote it for all to see. No charge of bigotry coming from me. -Tyr

[red states rule]

What are we worried about? Obama is finally going to Israel and he will do for the peace talks what he did for the US economy and healthcare system

[RoccoR]

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot, et al,

No, this was not my intention at all.

The observation was made to suggest that hatred is bred on both sides.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your observation was wrong Hoss. I've made absolutely no claims against your character! Not a single claim. If I have be so kind as to quote it for all to see. No charge of bigotry coming from me. -Tyr

(OPEN APOLOGY)

If, in any way, you thought I was pressing the suggestion of an ad hominem approach on your part, this would be counter to my intention; and I apologize for it.

Most Sincerely,
R

[Drummond]

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot, et al,

No, this was not my intention at all.

The observation was made to suggest that hatred is bred on both sides.

Hatred may exist on both sides. But its cure, if one can even be said to exist, doesn't have to be one which you mete out to both sides.

Who is the aggressor - who the victim ?

Those on the side of Hamas or Hezbollah are clear about what they want: the destruction of the State of Israel. They haven't just invented this: they've wanted such an outcome for an extremely long time. Certainly long enough, indeed, for hatreds built on that to have festered, and to run VERY deep.

By comparison, Israel shares the 'responsibility' for that hatred ... by ... what ?

AT ITS CORE - BY HAVING THE TEMERITY TO EXIST.

No argument suggesting any parity of responsibility for hatreds between these divergent perspectives is a fair one to make. You deal with an evil by dealing with its source, and not coming up with any form of reasoning that leads to equivocation.

You cannot show me evidence that Hamas has abandoned its core, long-term objective of seeing Israel's demise. Hamas's Charter leaves them no room for compromise, indeed, it rejects compromise as an option to ever be entered into. So ... Hamas, to be true to its reason for being, HAS to keep such hatreds alive.

It therefore follows that only one logical outcome is reasonable. The DEFEAT of Hamas, once and for all.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot, et al,

No, this was not my intention at all.

The observation was made to suggest that hatred is bred on both sides.



(OPEN APOLOGY)

If, in any way, you thought I was pressing the suggestion of an ad hominem approach on your part, this would be counter to my intention; and I apologize for it.

Most Sincerely,
R

Sure there is hatred from both sides. Question is which side should prevail. Which side seeks to utterly destroy the other? If it was for utter destruction Israel could have done that many, many times over amigo. Yet Israel has not.
Can anybody truly say that about the other side??--Tyr

p.s. I sent you a pm on the misunderstanding..

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Hatred may exist on both sides. But its cure, if one can even be said to exist, doesn't have to be one which you mete out to both sides.

Who is the aggressor - who the victim ?

Those on the side of Hamas or Hezbollah are clear about what they want: the destruction of the State of Israel. They haven't just invented this: they've wanted such an outcome for an extremely long time. Certainly long enough, indeed, for hatreds built on that to have festered, and to run VERY deep.

By comparison, Israel shares the 'responsibility' for that hatred ... by ... what ?

AT ITS CORE - BY HAVING THE TEMERITY TO EXIST.

No argument suggesting any parity of responsibility for hatreds between these divergent perspectives is a fair one to make. You deal with an evil by dealing with its source, and not coming up with any form of reasoning that leads to equivocation.

You cannot show me evidence that Hamas has abandoned its core, long-term objective of seeing Israel's demise. Hamas's Charter leaves them no room for compromise, indeed, it rejects compromise as an option to ever be entered into. So ... Hamas, to be true to its reason for being, HAS to keep such hatreds alive.

It therefore follows that only one logical outcome is reasonable. The DEFEAT of Hamas, once and for all.

You are so right ....
Israel's right to exist has already been established. The fact that it's opposition wants that point contested reveals their true goal. That goal has nothing to do with a lasting peace. Its all about angling for a way to destroy Israel totally. Away to kill all it's Jewish citizens. Hell, they repeatedly say this themselves .-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Calling Rocco, where are you?? Car 54 where are you? ;)
Have we perhaps gave you cause to see the light?????????? -Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

No RoccoR post since his apology back on the 19th. My pm clearly made it known that there were absolutely no hard feelings over the misunderstanding .
I can only now assume that we got thru to him and made him see the error of his views. Let's hope that is the case. As Israel is the one defending itself and its very survival.-Tyr