Israel and Palestine - Whose land is it?

[fewwillfindit]

I received an email today, posted below, and thought it would make a good topic for debate. I cannot vouch for the facts posted therein and it provided no source for the contents. This was one of those emails that people forward to everyone in their address book (which I hate), most of which are urban legend and pure bunk. What do you think?

NETANYAHU AT HIS BEST


Even those who arent particularly sympathetic to Israel s Benjamin Netanyahu, could get a good measure of satisfaction from this interview with British Television during the retaliation against Hamas shelling of Israel .

The interviewer asked him: How come so many more Palestinians have been killed in this conflict than Israelis?

Netanyahu: Are you sure that you want to start asking in that direction?

Interviewer: Why not?

Netanyahu: Because in World War II more Germans were killed than British and Americans combined, but there is no doubt in anyones mind that the war was caused by Germany s aggression. And in response to the German blitz on London , the British wiped out the entire city of Dresden , burning to death more German civilians than the number of people killed in Hiroshima Moreover, I could remind you that in 1944, when the R.A.F. tried to bomb the Gestapo Headquarters in Copenhagen , some of the bombs missed their target and fell on a Danish childrens hospital, killing 83 little children. Perhaps you have another question?

Apparently, Benjamin Netanyahu gave another interview and was asked about Israel s occupation of Arab lands. His response was, Its our land. The reporter was stunned " read below Its our land Its important information since we dont get fair and accurate reporting from the media and facts tend to get lost in the jumble of daily events.

Crash Course on the Arab-Israeli Conflict.

Here are overlooked facts in the current & past Middle East situation:


BRIEF FACTS ON THE ISRAELI CONFLICT TODAY


1. Nationhood and Jerusalem : Israel became a nation in 1312 BC, two thousand (2000) years before the rise of Islam.

2 Arab refugees in Israel began identifying themselves as part of a Palestinian people in 1967, two decades after the establishment of the modern State of Israel.

3. Since the Jewish conquest in 1272 BC, the Jews have had dominion over the land for one thousand (1000) years with a continuous presence in the land for the past 3,300 years.

4. The only Arab dominion since the conquest in 635 lasted no more than 22 years.

5. For over 3,300 years, Jerusalem has been the Jewish capital. Jerusalem has never been the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity. Even when the Jordanians occupied Jerusalem , they never sought to make it their capital, and Arab leaders did not come to visit.

6. Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in Tanach, the Jewish Holy Scriptures. Jerusalem is not mentioned even once in the Quran.

7. King David founded the city of Jerusalem . Mohammed never came to Jerusalem .

8. Jews pray facing Jerusalem. Muslims pray with their backs toward Jerusalem .

9. Arab and Jewish Refugees: in 1948 the Arab refugees were encouraged to leave Israel by Arab leaders promising to purge the land of Jews . Sixty-eight percent left (many in fear of retaliation by their own brethren, the Arabs), without ever seeing an Israeli soldier. The ones who stayed were afforded the same peace, civility, and citizenship rights as everyone else.

10. The Jewish refugees were forced to flee from Arab lands due to Arab brutality, persecution and pogroms.

11. The number of Arab refugees who left Israel in 1948 is estimated to be around 630,000. The number of Jewish refugees from Arab lands is estimated to be the same.

12. Arab refugees were INTENTIONALLY not absorbed or integrated into the Arab lands to which they fled, despite the vast Arab territory. Out of the 100,000,000 refugees since World War II, theirs is the only refugee group in the world that has never been absorbed or integrated into their own peoples lands. Jewish refugees were completely absorbed into Israel , a country no larger than the state of New Jersey

13. The Arab-Israeli Conflict: the Arabs are represented by eight separate nations, not including the Palestinians. There is only one Jewish nation. The Arab nations initiated all five wars and lost. Israel defended itself each time and won.

14. The PLOs Charter still calls for the destruction of the State of Israel. Israel has given the Palestinians most of the West Bank land, autonomy under the Palestinian Authority, and has supplied them.

15. Under Jordanian rule, Jewish holy sites were desecrated and the Jews were denied access to places of worship. Under Israeli rule, all Muslim and Christian sites have been preserved and made accessible to people of all faiths.

16. The UN Record on Israel and the Arabs: of the 175 Security Council resolutions passed before 1990, 97 were directed against Israel .

17. Of the 690 General Assembly resolutions voted on before 1990, 429 were directed against Israel .

18. The UN was silent while 58 Jerusalem synagogues were destroyed by the Jordanians.

19. The UN was silent while the Jordanians systematically desecrated the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives .

20. The UN was silent while the Jordanians enforced an apartheid-like a policy of preventing Jews from visiting the Temple Mount and the Western Wall.

Questions for debate:

1) Is this revisionist history or merely anti-Arab propaganda?

2) Do Palestinians have a right to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, or does it rightfully belong to Israel?

[cnorman18]

I believe in a "two-state solution," with an independent and peaceful Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza; but the single biggest obstacle to that is Arab intransigence and determination to destroy and erase Israel while expelling or exterminating every Jew in the Middle East.

You cant really blame them?

That is, right out front, excusing and justifying the mass murder of innocents. Lets get that clear. In spite of the disclaimers to follow, thats what it absolutely is.

Let me give you a different perspective.
Im a kurd; a people with no country; no where to go.
On the collapse of the Islamic Khilafah; the kurds were left out of any agreement to ownership of land. Hence i can understand the Israeli position. The kurds were/and still are; scattered among the middle east. Often prosecuted in different countries for no reason; & the women raped; their language banned in countries such as 'turkey'; and all kinds of hardship are being faced by the kurds.
Not as extreme as the 'holocaust'; but alot of hardships nevertheless.
Like all oppressed people that believe their 'rights' have been taken away; a kurdish militant group named "PKK" was born; its fuel was its ideology that their people were being abused; and thus they initiated in killings with the hope that they get recognized & their rights get restored.
I dont support any killing; and my subjective position differs from generally accepted Sharia.
But; i do not (and speech mark) "blame" the PKK for their actions.
These are my subjective beliefs.

Does the PKK blow up pregnant women with babies in strollers at public bus stops?

Do they blow up teenagers having dinner at pizzerias and dancing at clubs?

Do they blow up families eating their Passover seders, or celebrating a young mans Bar Mitzvah in a synagogue?

Do they blow up school buses full of primary-school children?

If they do, I BLAME THEM, and so should every human being who understands the difference between these difficult concepts called right and wrong. There is, there can be, NO JUSTIFICATION for crimes of this magnitude, of this level of cruelty and brutality. NONE. NOT EVER. And if you dont agree, were done now. You CONDEMN those acts of mass murder, DELIBERATELY targeting innocents, without equivocation, or we have nothing to talk about.

My Peace Plan STARTS with an end to that campaign of contemptible and cowardly murder. Do your people have legitimate complaints? Do the Palestinians? Of course they do. But by performing those stunningly brutal and absolutely unjustified acts, they put their OWN evil in the foreground and JUSTIFY THE ACTS OF THEIR ENEMIES. Do you not see that? If not, as I say, were done.

Did you see Jews murdering German families during WWII? Were the crimes commited against them less horrible, less brutal, less evil than those committed against the Kurds or the Palestinians? So why didnt the Jews start blowing up German women and children as the Palestinian terrorists do AND THEN BOAST ABOUT THEIR COURAGE AND NOBILITY IN DOING SO?

If you want to complain about actions not helping, lets start with THOSE, and when THOSE acts of cowardly mass murder of innocents STOP, THEN we can all talk about the horrible things the Israelis do -- WHICH WILL END, BECAUSE THERE WILL BE NO REASON FOR THEM.

This isnt rocket science or high-level moral theology or philosophy. Its common sense.

And the fact that the Palestinian terrorists hide their fighting men, bombs, and weapons in schools, hospitals and mosques, and use ambulances and men disguised as pregnant women in labor to help them in their campaign of mass murder -- all of which are WAR CRIMES under the Geneva convention -- are not worthy of notice?

I share this perception; its really sad.

Sad?

How about negates any complaints they have about the deaths of the civilians which they themselves deliberately put in danger?

How about puts the deaths of Palestinian civilians killed because of those war crimes in a qualitatively different category from the deaths of Israeli civilians who are deliberately and consciously chosen as targets for mass murder?

How about reveals that the Palestinians who complain about Israeli security measures to be total hypocrites, because they force the Israelis into imposing them and prove that those measures are totally necessary and absolutely justified?

Sad?

Sad, indeed.

Joeys remarks here are precisely on point, and Id add that the Palestinian terrorists have no warrant for complaining about criminal attacks and brutality against civilians that occurs as a side effect of the battle against murderers till they stop their own deliberate targeting of unarmed civilian noncombatants.

There are a few factors here.
1) Palestine is not under any real 'governance'(state of anarchy).

Who elected Hamas as the governing body of Gaza? Did the Israelis force the Gazans to choose them?

What is the PA? Is it the Israelis fault that the Palestinian leadership is corrupt, self-serving, and uses its own people as political pawns and turns them into corpses for propaganda purposes by placing them in the line of fire to protect their bombs and weapons?

2) Palestine is surrounded by israeli blockades

Which would not be necessary if there were no terror campaign against Israeli civilians.

3) Palestine is threatened by the expanding Israel.

The Palestinians themselves claim that they are threatened by the EXISTENCE of Israel, expansion be damned. You yourself have admitted that; and see below as well.

4) The people of Palestine are becomming more radical; as a result of all this.

What about the radicalization of the Israelis? What about HOW SICK the Israelis are getting after decades of heartless mass murder? How does THAT figure into your calculus of radicalization here?

If the Israelis thought like the Palestinian terrorists, they would carpet-bomb the West Bank and Gaza and EXTERMINATE the Palestinians. They have had that capability for years. Youll notice that they havent.

But if the Palestinians had the capability, they would KILL EVERY JEW IN THE MIDEAST, and you know that to be true, too. THEY HAVE SAID SO THEMSELVES.

Old saying in Israel -- very old: If the Arabs laid down their weapons, there would be no war; if the Israelis laid down their weapons, there would be no Israel. Please explain how that is wrong, either way.

Lets compare:

1) Israel is under a "Democratic Government"
2) Israel is the Big Boss(Nuclear Power); & controls the blockades
3) Israel is threatened by the arab countries; but this threat is unnulled with its nuclear capacity & allyship with the US & Britain.
4) The people of Israel are becomming more patriotic; as a result of all the hate thats directed towards them.

Conclusion:
It takes two to tango.
And Newtons third law:
For every action there is an opposite reaction.

So if the MASS MURDER CAMPAIGN STOPPED -- maybe this dance could end? Maybe there would be an opposite reaction to THAT?

HAVE THE PALESTINIANS EVER EVEN CONSIDERED THAT? I see no evidence of that whatever. Your own arguments here indicate that the most obvious first step toward peace is an end to the terrorism. Please explain to me why they dont.

The Israelis dont WANT the West Bank, and they keep trying to give it to the Arabs; but as long as the price is stop murdering Israelis, it seems to be too high.

What about the building of illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank? Either the Israelis are doing it for no reason; OR they want the land.
Which sounds more logical?

Some of the settlements around Jerusalem are needed for the expanding population; the rest, throughout the West Bank, are needed for political purposes only, to mollify the rightwing elements in the coalition that is presently in power. Those will be evacuated and abandoned when (or if) a peace settlement is ever reached, just as the settlements in Gaza have already been abandoned. Offers of land in exchange for the territory around Jerusalem have already been made and rejected without a counteroffer. The majority of Israelis are against the settlements existence NOW.

If the West Bank were annexed to become a part of Israel proper, Israel would instantly have an Arab majority. The FACT is that the West Bank and Gaza have never been annexed, nor has any any move been made toward annexation, for the 43 years since those territories came under Israeli control. Still, the claim is continually made by Arab leaders that Israel wants it all in order to panic their own people into support for terrorism and hatred for Jews.

There have been offers upon offers made, over and over and OVER, from the very beginning of Israeli control in 1967, to give the land back to Jordan in exchange for a peace treaty, to make peace with an independent and peaceful Palestinian state, and even concrete steps taken to encourage the establishment of such a state by sanctioning and arming the Palestinian Authority, for decade upon decade, and those offers have been rejected, the last and most historic without even a counteroffer.

It has become more and more obvious that the Palestinian leadership would rather promote the myth of Israeli expansionism than accept the existence of Israel proper. That is proven by history, and claims of Israeli expansionism are propaganda and nothing more.

(It is beyond hope, of course, that Jews could be allowed to live in peace in a Palestinian state as Arabs live in peace in Israel. The Palestinians have declared that they want the ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST to be Judenrein, Jew-free, in the same way that the Nazis wanted Europe to be Judenrein, and no Israeli villages will be permitted in a Palestinian state. Jewish villages and towns which existed continuously in the West Bank for centuries were emptied at gunpoint in 1948, too, and THAT fact is NEVER referred to or acknowledged in these debate. And still, it is the Israelis who are pilloried as racists bent on ethnic cleansing.)

Third, the blockade is entirely legal and legitimate.

I disagree.
Can you provide proof that the blockade is "Entirely legal & legitimate"?

The law or armed conflict requires that blockading states allow aid through to the civilian population; however, the blockading state may control the channel through which aid is delivered, and that is what Israel has been doing. The authority to intercept vessels and control aid deliveries, however, is available only in a lawful blockade. To be lawful, a blockade must not be implemented where the damage to the civilian population is excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade, and this is where Israels legal position is open to question.

Why is it open to question? That appears to be based on the ludicrous idea that there is no terror campaign about which the Israelis have legitimate concerns. Please provide proof of THAT.

Israels defense of the blockade thus appears to create a serious dilemma for it. Insofar as Israel insists that it is not currently occupying Gaza, it cannot plausibly claim that it is involved in an IAC with Hamas. And if it is not currently involved in an IAC with Hamas, it is difficult to see how it can legally justify the blockade of Gaza. Its blockade of Gaza, therefore, seems to depend on its willingness to concede that it is occupying Gaza and is thus in an IAC with Hamas. But Israel does not want to do that, because it would then be bound by the very restrictive rules of belligerent occupation in the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Define IAC, please. I cant find that acronym anywhere.

As nearly as I can follow your reasoning here, if Israel had remained in occupation of Gaza, they would be within their rights to blockade it; but by withdrawing, they are obliged to agree that there is no conflict with Hamas, no threat from terrorist activity, and to allow uninspected shipments of war materiel into Gaza which will be indisputably be used to murder Israelis.

Does that really make sense to you?

Tell me: Did the United States have an IAC with Cuba during the Missile Crisis? Was that blockade therefore illegal?

The Palestinians have a habit of trying to USE the Geneva Convention to hide behind and to justify their complaints against Israel when its convenient, but of ignoring it without comment when they egregiously violate it themselves -- as in using schools, mosques, apartment houses, hospitals, ambulances, etc., as storage facilities and launching and transport points for bombs, weapons, and terrorists. Youll understand, Im sure, why I regard this argument as little short of laughable.

Well, first, there is that little matter of jurisdiction.

Second, crimes that occurred in wartime more than 60 years ago still being waved as fresh bloody shirts seems more than a little out of place to me in the present debate. Its also interesting to note that one doesnt see any tales of Israeli terrorists SINCE 1948 (and see the note on Sharon below).

I disagree; i dont believe israeli jurisdiction should allow terrorists to evade international law.

Oh, please. If were talking about international law, what about the Palestinian terrorists and those who train and equip them, choose their targets, and send them on their murderous missions? Ill take your concerns about international law seriously when I see you advocate their arrest and imprisonment, or their being turned over to international courts of justice, by the Palestinians themselves. Absent that, complaining about international law and the Geneva Convention is hypocrisy of the purest ray serene.

And time is not an excuse. I cannot emphasize that enough.

So the massacres and murders that PRECEDED the foundation of Israel should be remembered, too, and the driving out at gunpoint of approximately 750,000 Jewish refugees from the West Bank and Arab nations in 1948, and the pogroms and murders ordered and organized by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem -- and of course the thousands upon thousands of murders carried out by Palestinian terrorists in the decades since the founding, and the aggressive wars mounted against Israel by its neighbors, and on and on and on

Fine. You put your handful of Israeli terrorists, who are all dead now, up against the hundreds of CURRENTLY ACTIVE AND LIVING terrorists and terrorist leaders among the Arabs today. That sounds fair to me.

Lets say; if miraculously...; there was peace with the two parties(Israel & Palestine).
And the hamas leaders obtained high roles within the Government that was formed; does that allow them to evade international law? No. They should be prosecuted like any other terrorist. They should be subjected to law; no matter what the national jurisdiction is.

So whats wrong with their being required to submit to international law -- or at LEAST stop their mass murder campaign -- NOW?

As I keep saying to DeBunkem, there have been a very great many events since 1967, and God knows since 1948, that seem to get no attention whatever from the Palestinian side

I agree; it seems the conflict has made the Palestinians more "barbaric" in nature. (no offense to anyone)

And once again: Why do you expect any other reaction on the part of the Israelis to their women and children and elderly being deliberately targeted for decade after decade of CELEBRATED and GLORIFIED mass murder?

(No offense to anyone.)

You wont see Israelis, other than a few extremists (like those who applaud the execrable murderer Baruch Goldstein), celebrating or commemorating the extreme acts of the men youve named above from 60 years ago; whereas acknowledged present-day terrorists who murder unarmed families at Passover seders and Bar Mitzvahs, at bus stops and discotheques and pizzerias, are hailed as brave freedom fighters and their families rewarded with cash and celebrity status.

I agree with you; although you should understand the state of Palestine is similar to the state of Israel when it did not exist.

Except, of course, that a free and independent Palestinian state was available to that people in 1948, and was rejected in favor of an effort to prevent the foundation of Israel, a goal and ideal which remains the central demand of the terrorists to this day;

And except for the fact that the Israelis have made offer after offer to cooperate with the foundation of the Palestinian state, if only violence against Israeli civilians and the goal of the total eradication of Israel were renounced -- but that price has been consistently been rejected as too high;

And except for the fact that the Israelis welcomed Arabs as citizens of their state and that many Arabs remained there and live there in peace and freedom as equal citizens of Israel to this very day

Yeah, very similar, other than those insignificant facts.

The same way Israelis saw "LEHI" as a noble cause for the Jewish people; thats the exact same way Palestianians see "Hamas".

Except for the fact that the Israelis didnt dance in the streets and hand out candy to children when Arabs were massacred and murdered, but denounced and rejected those tactics and fought against them actively. The nascent Israeli Army attacked and destroyed a ship bearing arms for the outlawed Irgun terrorists rather than allow them to continue their terrorism against Arabs. When has ANY Arab government or organization actually acted AGAINST terrorists who target Israelis? I await your list with eagerness. Next time there is a murder of some innocent unarmed Israelis, say in a car outside Hebron, and the Palestinians celebrate by dancing in the streets and hailing the murders as a courageous and heroic operation, Ill await the arrest of the murderers with great interest.

Lets not have any criticism of so-called Israeli terrorists from the Palestinians till the mass murder of unarmed civilians by suicide bombers no longer sees support from a majority of Palestinians in every survey that anyone takes. Thats called hypocrisy.

Indeed it is "hypocrisy" as you put it.
But like i said earlier; it takes two to tango.
Israel "Defending" itself; is the same as Palestine "Defending"; both nations commit barbaric acts and are human rights violators & there is no excuse that can be made up to justify their acts.
I disagree with both parties & i dont endorse either side in what they do; i hope you can understand my position.

In that you patently blame the Israelis and totally, in effect, justify and excuse the terrorists, as I have here proven -- no, I dont.

The terror campaign must stop, and the goal of the total destruction of Israel proper renounced, before anything else can happen that will move this region toward peace. Please explain how any OTHER course of action can even begin to lead to peace before those two conditions are met. I cant wait to read your proposal to find a way to peace while the mass murders continue and the extermination or exile of every Jew in the Middle East remains the Palestinians openly and proudly stated goal.

Now look at it from a palestinians point of view; America acts like a complete hypocrite when it comes down to hamas.

Those are not matters for debate; they are spelled out explicitly in the charter of every terror organization in the region. If the Arabs, collectively, ever set aside the vicious Nazi-style antisemitism that is deliberately promoted and promulgated by Arab and Muslim leaders and governments, and stop the unending campaign of war, terrorism, hatred and mass murder, peace will come -- inevitably and rather quickly. If they don't, peace will never come at all.

It seems you are putting all the blame on the arabs? I dont disagree with you; there is a very evident element of antisemitism; but i dont agree with your wording that makes it seem the arabs are the sole party to blame in this conflict.
The Jews are equally responsible; it takes two to tango; i acknowledge the palestinian faults; you dont seem to acknowledge any israeli faults.
I repeat; it takes two to tango.

It takes two to tango, but only one side to start and sustain a fight. The other side has the right to defend itself, no matter how much or how often the Palestinians sneer at that as an excuse.

Like I said; what else can happen before the mass murder campaign stops? What else can happen before the goal of destroying Israel and a Jew-free Mideast is abandoned?

YOU BET I blame the Arabs for those things. If the murders stop, THEN Israeli actions will have no justification. Not before. Period. Again, tell me why Im wrong, and how the Israelis can move toward peace without making the murder of their people easier.

Here is the loop; where we will go around in circles;
Palestine wants all its land back.

Lets stop there for just a moment.

Are you OK with that goal? If so, we can stop here, because we have nothing to talk about.

If your talking about the Palestinian Goal; ofcourse not. Its an illogical & ridiculous goal. And i believe Israel has a right to exist; the same way Kurds have a right to exist.

Till that demand is dropped, completely, there can never be peace, and there is nothing whatever that Israel can do to remedy that. Its nice to see someone on the Palestinian side actually ADMIT it, but -- since you did bring it up -- how on Earth can the Israelis be expected to respond to that?

I have no idea; it seems currently impossible.

Hello? Then why are the Israelis so wrong and equally to blame? You SAY that, but you seem oddly unable to JUSTIFY it.

But i have no doubt the 2 parties can come to a compromise; and until they do come to a compromise; i agree; there will never be peace.

HOW ABOUT STOPPING THE TERROR AND DROPPING THAT GOAL? WHATS WRONG WITH THAT AS A STARTING PLACE?

And why cant you just answer that simple question and JOIN ME in calling for that action on the part of the Palestinians instead of continuing to justify those things that you yourself admit are WRONG?

How do you negotiate with people who say, right out front, We want you all dead or exiled? Who is the obstacle to peace where THIS issue is concerned, and why is that not the key issue here?

I dont intend to negotiate with or for terrorists; and you are generalising too much.
Thats like a palestinian saying "Israel is causing all the problems; they took land that belonged to us & their country is rightfully ours"

Except that THAT claim is debatable, and mass murder as a current and ongoing practice of the Palestinian terrorists is not. That is an indisputable FACT.

cnorman18; you keep repeating yourself with the intention to prove Palestine alone is the reason for the conflict. If this is your aim; there is no point of me continuing this discussion; as we cannot conclude from such different positions.
But what we can do is acknowledge the faults both sides have; and thus we both can gain a better understanding of "the other side".... does that sound reasonable to you?

Sure. Explain to me why NOT stopping the murder campaign is the ONLY reasonable starting place. Im listening.

My position is that the excesses, errors, and even the atrocities of the Israelis -- which I freely admit -- are all direct results of terrorism. That the reaction of the Israelis to terrorism is PRECISELY the same reaction that you keep saying is to be expected on the part of the Arabs to Israeli actions; that while the Jews MAY be guilty of war crimes under the Geneva Convention, the Palestinian terrorists are guilty of more, more frequently, more indisputably and more egregiously, than those of the Israelis by an order of magnitude, and that those FACTS are continually ignored and dismissed by the other side with allegations of equal blame and clichs like it takes two to tango.

Stop murdering women and children and peaceful, unarmed families, and therell be no reactions to those murders -- no tango. That isnt a dance.

Israel wants to exist & wants to expand.

Do they really?

From 2000 to 2010; thats what illegal israeli settlements are telling us.

Who is willing to negotiate and make concrete offers here, and who is intransigent and bent on the scorched-earth total defeat and destruction of their perceived enemies?

Although you are sugar coating a bit too much; i agree with you. There has to be some sort of compromise.

There is also the small matter that if the Arabs had accepted partition in 1948, that would have resulted in a two-state solution THEN, and avoided the following 60 years of war and untold deaths and destruction on both sides. Why is everyone pretending that that solution will even bring peace, when, as you say yourself, the Arabs goal is no Israel?

A very good question; even if the two parties come down to a solution; will there really be peace? No; i dont believe so; not straight away nevertheless.

But; im more than sure; Israel & Palestine wont be as hostile as they are now; and slowly the newer generations will reduce their hate for one another.

And, yet again, how do you propose to make that happen while Israelis innocents are still being murdered, and their murders celebrated and the murderers hailed as courageous heroes?

Once again; How do you make peace with people whose only goal, openly and explicitly stated, is We want to kill you all or drive you into the sea?

That is the goal of Hamas; not the palestinians as a whole; but as i said before; the Palestinians have become more barbaric because of this conflict.
The word 'compromise' is the most important word we can apply; both sides have to apply that word in order for any peace to come. Expecially the Palestinians. But also the Israelis.

And again; what compromise do you propose that the Israelis can make while the murders are allowed to continue? Every such effort in the past has been taken as an opportunity to commit more murders; would the ending of Israeli security checks, the demolition of the hated Wall, or any other compromise of Israeli security efforts result in anything different? Tell the truth. Wouldnt all those result in MORE terrorism, and not less? They always have.

I personally; do not believe in any so called "peace"; as too much has been done; & sadly the once good relationship between the Muslims & Jews can never be the same again.

But i still hope for a miracle; as our history books show peaceful & flourishing co-existence of all abrahamic religions; which we as a humanity could only hope to happen again.

I agree that its unlikely; but I place the blame at the feet of the Palestinians.

I dont blame anyone because im a firm believe in "it takes two to tango"; and i disagree with your position that Palestine is soley to blame.

For beginning the conflict 62 years ago? Maybe. For keeping it going? Absolutely. Prove me wrong. Show me a way to peace that doesnt BEGIN with an end to Palestinian terrorism.

Here are some questions for YOU

How about dealing with at least a few of those questions? Will you? CAN you?

Could you present them one/two/three at a time? I dont intend to make a rebuttal to a whole page.

Im tired of seeing only one side of this conflict presented as if there was no other. Im tired of seeing the Palestinians presented as total innocents, terrorism being justified and excused (which, in spite of your disclaimer, you have done here), and the Israelis presented as bloody-handed minions of pure evil and cruelty whose brutalities come out of a vacuum with no provocation at all.

I agree; this is very unfair.
Thats why i can relate to you unlike most muslims. Because im kurdish.
I know how ridiculous it feels when all the blame is directed to you.

But i never denied or presented myself as the Palestinians being "Innocent" people(I even called them more barbaric).
The main quote i wanted to emphasize was "It takes two to tango"; this is what you seem to not accept.

No, I dont. I think Ive made that clear, and I think Ive proven that its a nice phrase with no application to the present conflict.

I respect your point of view; I respect your intelligence and your good will.

Mutual respect is a requirment for any civil talk/debate. And no matter how strongly one feels about something; it should never be used as an excuse to infringe another persons rights. This is the ideology i want the Palestinians to have.

But I have to ask; have you ever even considered any of these questions, or read anything from the Israeli side that does?

Yes; im generally unbiased when it comes to this topic; although i have personal beliefs that sometimes conflict with how "unbiased" i really am. Nevetheless; im 50-50 or sometimes 60-40.

Yes i've actually debated with Jews; personally; face-to-face. In university; there was a guy named Joseph that was in my class(we both studied abrahmic divinity); and i had the pleasure to discuss many topics with him.
He rid me of any previous stereotypes i had; so yes; i have evaluated the Israeli position. And it has only reinforced my belief that both parties have faults; no matter how big or small; they both have contributed to the conflict; and they both have the power reduce hostility if they only compromise.

I often say both sides should compromise; but i dont know how to fully define 'compromise'; or what it really means.
Generally i believe; both sides should sacrifice a belief; or ideology; so that the other side benefits. That sounds like a good start.

One more time:

Show me a way to begin without ending the terror campaign and dropping the goal of No Israel! FIRST. Theres your compromise. Is that an unreasonable demand? Why?

Do you have anything to say on these questions? If so, what is it?

As i said earlier; pick the questions you believe have the most significance; and i wouldn't mind giving my 2 cents.[/quote]

Ill make it even easier for you.

YOU pick. Pick whichever ones you think are easiest to answer. Start wherever you like. Go for it.

Here they are again:

The Middle East: Back to Basics

David Harris, Executive Director, AJC

In the flood of daily news reports coming from the Middle East, too many questions about the broader nature and context of the Arab-Israeli conflict are unasked. Absent the larger picture, however, it is difficult if not impossible to understand what is really going on and how we reached this point. Here are a few of the pertinent questions:

Why did the Arab world categorically reject the UN's 1947 Partition Plan, which would have created both a Jewish and a Palestinian state in what was then British-ruled Palestine, and could have avoided over 50 years of subsequent conflict?

Did those Arab countries -- Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria -- that spurned Israel's outstretched hand of peace and launched a war of destruction on the very first day of Israel's establishment believe they could do so without being held accountable for helping create a refugee problem for local Arabs? What war in history has not produced refugees either as a goal or a by-product?

Has there been any comparable situation in the world where refugees -- as in this case, Palestinians -- have not been resettled, but deliberately kept in camps for as long as three generations, so as to incubate hatred and garner world sympathy? Are Palestinians the world's first -- or only -- refugees? Why do we hear so little about the nearly 25 million other refugees in the world today? Are they any less deserving of sympathy and support?

Why is it that none of the 22 Arab countries -- with the single exception of Jordan -- who share ethnic, religious, and linguistic ties with the Palestinians, has offered Palestinians citizenship and a new start?

Why has the world completely ignored the other refugee population created by the Arab-Israeli conflict -- the 750,000 Jews from Arab countries (more or less equaling the number of Palestinian refugees at the time), many of them with roots in these countries predating by centuries the arrival of Islam, forced to leave their ancestral homes because of second-class status and pogroms? Is it because these refugees were quickly resettled in Israel rather than placed in camps and manipulated as the Palestinians were?

And why did the world conveniently overlook persistent Jordanian violations of the armistice agreement for nearly 19 years (1948-1967), when Amman did not allow Jews any access whatsoever to Judaism's holiest site -- the Western Wall -- and desecrated dozens of synagogues in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem as well as Jewish cemeteries on the Mount of Olives?

Did Israel come into possession of the West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights, and eastern Jerusalem -- the lands it is now accused of illegally occupying -- totally out of the blue?

Is the historical record not absolutely clear that Egypt and Syria threatened Israel with annihilation in the months leading up to the 1967 Six-Day War and closed off the shipping lane to the Israeli Red Sea port of Eilat, itself an act of war under international law?

And that Israel urged Jordan, via UN intermediaries, to stay out of the unfolding conflict, which would have meant continued Jordanian control of the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem?

Speaking of these territories, if the Arab world cared so deeply about the Palestinian condition, why were absolutely no steps taken to create a Palestinian state between 1948 and 1967, when the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem were in Jordanian hands and the Gaza Strip was ruled by Egypt?

Has the world forgotten that the PLO was created in 1964, when the only "occupied" land was Israel itself, the target of the PLO's unprecedented campaign of terror that eventually spanned the globe and counted among its many victims not only Israelis but Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to the Sudan, and Europeans as well?

Are we to forget the Arab world's response to the serious Israeli peace overtures after the 1967 Six-Day War, which came most memorably in the "three noes" of the Khartoum Declaration (August 1967) -- "no peace, no recognition, and no negotiation?" In the face of such a reply, is history simply supposed to stand still until one side finally gets it right?

Are we to overlook the PLO's record in Jordan, where Arafat agreed to 22 cease-fires with Jordan's King Hussein until he was banished from the country in 1970 after the violence of Black September resulted in the deaths of thousands?

Or subsequently in Lebanon, where the PLO created a state-within-a-state and Arafat helped launch a prolonged and bloody civil war that erupted in 1975 -- seven years before Israeli troops entered Lebanon -- and during which he violated more than 70 cease-fires?

Why didn't the Palestinian leadership, if truly serious about peace, take its cue from Egypt's Anwar Sadat and Jordan's King Hussein, who concluded landmark peace agreements with Israel -- involving significant territorial compromises on Israel's part -- by persuading Israelis that Cairo and Amman were irrevocably committed to peace?

Even after Arafat allegedly recognized Israel in 1988, why was he always so duplicitous about his real intentions toward Israel, saying one thing in English and precisely the opposite in Arabic?

Does the world suffer from amnesia about the implications of Arafat's unbridled support for Saddam Hussein, the American-led coalition's enemy, during the 1991 Gulf War?

And for those who purport to identify with the plight of the Palestinians, where were they when Kuwait summarily expelled 300,000 Palestinians overnight, accusing them of being a fifth column for Saddam Hussein?

Once the 1993 Oslo Accords were signed between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, were we to ignore Arafat's persistent violations of just about every provision, including limitations on the size of a police force, acquisition of weapons, use of violence and terror to achieve political aims, and the teaching of incitement against Israel?

Where is the evidence that, after 1993, Arafat prepared his people for peace with Israel, based on the principle of painful but necessary compromises by both sides, rather than continued armed struggle?

Is it not true, Palestinian claims to the contrary, that the Oslo Accords made no reference to Israeli settlements and that the subsequent Mitchell Plan spoke of curtailing settlement activity only after Palestinian violence came to a halt -- which, of course, has not yet happened -- and a cooling-off period ensued?

Are we simply to ignore, as if it never happened, the determined efforts of President Clinton and Prime Minister Barak as recently as January 2001 to achieve an historic breakthrough with Arafat, including painful compromises on such contentious issues as Jerusalem, refugees, and settlements?

Or to wonder why Arafat, rather than seize this extraordinary moment to establish the very first Palestinian state in history, sabotaged the talks -- and thereby once again betrayed the interests of his own people -- by bizarrely dismissing any Jewish historical or religious link to Jerusalem and calling for the so-called Palestinian "right of return," which would, as he knew so well, lead to the destruction of the State of Israel?

Are we to conveniently overlook the ominous implications of the Karine-A affair, the ship laden with 50 tons of advanced weaponry, including lethal rockets with a range of 12 miles, headed for Palestinian territory from Iran, a nation on the record as denying Israel"s right to exist and bent on its destruction? Or Arafat's brazen lie when he pleaded ignorance about the ship -- not the first such ship, by the way -- in a letter to President Bush?

But then hasn't a clear pattern of lies, distortions, deceptions, and exaggerations always been part of the modus operandi of Arafat and his spokesmen, too often uncritically reported by a gullible or smitten Western press?

How about the wildly exaggerated casualty figures in Lebanon in 1982 claimed by the Palestinian Red Crescent Society (chaired by Arafat's brother), the libelous accusations about Israeli doctors injecting the HIV virus in Palestinian children made by the Palestinian delegate to the UN in Geneva, the lies about Israeli use of poison gas made by Arafat's wife, and, most recently, the effort by the Palestinian Authority to recast a fierce armed battle in Jenin -- involving Palestinian gunmen, booby-trapped homes, and mines placed in the midst of a civilian population -- into a massacre?

Or what about the deliberate and macabre use of children -- their brainwashing and approved suicide -- in the Palestinian war of terror against Israel? Shouldn't this inhuman practice be universally condemned? Why hasn't the UN expressed itself on the matter?

Or what about the cash payments -- perhaps, more accurately, incentives -- of $25,000 given by Saddam Hussein's Iraq to the families of each of these so-called martyrs, actually murderers, with additional money coming from Saudi Arabia?

Are we supposed to ignore, as if it has no relevance, the endless revelations of Arafat's direct connection to terror -- the smoking-gun documents found in Ramallah, the direct links between Arafat and armed terrorist groups under his control that have claimed responsibility for terrorist attacks against Israeli men, women, and children, and the ties between Arafat and Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah, all groups long committed to Israel's total destruction?

Or Arafat's refusal to arrest known Palestinian terrorists, despite repeated pleas by the United States, or, almost as outrageous, arresting them while the world is watching and then releasing them as soon as he has been given credit for the arrests?

Or the use of summary justice to kill alleged collaborators, while not a peep is heard from the international community?

Or the calculated use of homes, schools, hospitals, ambulances, and religious sites to hide weaponry and shield gunmen, so that when Palestinians shoot at Israelis from behind a church, say, they hope to draw a response and then count on the Western media to report that Israeli troops fired at Christian holy sites?

Speaking of the media, why is that no one exposes some of the dirty, dark secrets known to many reporters covering the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, such as the use of fear and intimidation by Palestinians, or the fact that many of the crews for Western television are recruited from the local Palestinian population?

Did anyone notice the shockingly skimpy coverage of the media angle of the barbaric Ramallah lynching of the two Israeli soldiers in the fall of 2000? Where were the stories about the Palestinian seizure of the films of Western crews or, above all, the startling disclosure by the correspondent for RAI, Italian public television, that the film eventually smuggled out and shown worldwide was not his (it actually came from a private Italian station) because he would never do anything to undermine the Palestinian cause?

More recently, why were we once again subject to a virtual media blackout when thousands of Palestinians took to the streets on September 11 to celebrate America's day of agony? Why were we not told that Associated Press had footage of those celebrations but chose not to air it after threats were made on the life of its reporter on the ground?

And when the media showed the world images of Israel bulldozing homes in Gaza, suggesting the ruthlessness of Israel, why did they not mention that those houses, mostly abandoned, were hiding the access points to tunnels linking Gaza and Egypt and were being used for smuggling weapons?

Moreover, isn't it long overdue for Arab spokesmen -- and the world -- to face head-on the steady diet of racial and religious incitement against Israel and Jews that has become a permanent feature of government-controlled media in too many countries -- replete with Nazi-like images, Holocaust denial, and denigration of Judaism?

Why did it take The New York Times, the newspaper of record, until April 19, 2001 to write an editorial on the subject, when the problem of virulent anti-Semitism, both in the Muslim world and, as we have now seen so vividly, in Europe"has been festering for 18 months, if not longer?

Didn't it take the same newspaper just about 48 hours to write an editorial condemning the alleged threats against the Brooklyn family of Adam Shapiro, the Jewish-born Palestinian activist, a story, incidentally, that died just as quickly as it surfaced?

How can a true foundation of peace ever be built if the inflammatory language of hate and calls for "holy war" fill the air in mosques and media outlets, as well as in European Union-funded schools?

Or if the Syrian president, in the presence of Pope John Paul II last spring, can reawaken the outrageous deicide charge, and then proceed merrily along his way to warm state receptions in Paris and Madrid and, a few months later, celebrate his country's election to a two-year term on the powerful UN Security Council, a body that Israel has never even been eligible to serve on since its admission to the UN in 1949?

Or if the Syrian minister of defense can proudly claim authorship of a 1983 book that accuses Jews of the infamous blood libel charge?

Or if Saudi censors can approve an article by a prominent medical professor, written on the eve of Vice President Cheney's recent visit, claiming that Jews need the blood of Christians and Muslims for their Purim and Passover ritual foods?

Had today's 18-year-old Palestinian youths been taught peace and mutual respect since the 1993 Oslo Accords rather than hate, would they be blowing themselves up in Israeli cafs and restaurants? Or might they be enjoying the fruits of statehood, side by side with Israel, and the chance for a brighter future that they, like youngsters everywhere, so richly deserve?

Why is that we witness a vigorous and impressive debate in democratic Israel about every aspect of the conflict with the Palestinians, but there is nothing remotely comparable in Palestinian society and, what's more, few stop to note the difference, or its implications?

Why do virtually no Palestinians (or Arabs) have the courage publicly to examine their own role and responsibility for reaching this point in the conflict, and instead contentedly shift the entire blame to Israel, the United States, world Jewry, or any other convenient scapegoat -- in other words, anyone other than themselves?

Where are the voices of honesty and good will to expose the unspeakably perverse historical distortions committed by Palestinians and their supporters when they obscenely choose Nazi analogies to describe Israeli leaders and their policies? Or where is the criticism of a noted Portuguese writer who outlandishly compares Ramallah to Auschwitz?

Why is it that non-governmental groups that claim to defend democratic values and human rights are so vocal when it comes to criticizing Israel -- a nation committed to those very same values -- and so deafeningly silent when it comes to Israel's adversaries, none of whom make even the slightest pretense of respecting either democracy or human rights?

How much do we hear from these groups about the fact that, according to Freedom House, not one of the 22 Arab countries today can be labeled democratic?

Or about the tens of thousands of people killed in the Algerian civil war; the two million -- yes, two million -- people killed in the war against Christians and animists in Sudan; the complete denial of women's rights in Saudi Arabia, including even the right to drive a car, or the asylum granted by Saudi Arabia to one of the twentieth century's leading butchers, Idi Amin of Uganda; the total suppression of the Baha'i faith in Iran; or the unrelenting persecution of homosexuals in Egypt?

Why have we never heard a peep for 20 years from these groups about the actual perpetrator of the 1982 massacre in Sabra and Shatila -- Elias Khobeika, the commander of the Phalange militia and, later, a cabinet member in the Lebanese government?

And what about the ongoing occupation of Lebanon by Syria, a country that does not even recognize Lebanon's independence and sovereignty? For those who allege concern about "occupation," why are they not heard from on this naked act of aggression?

Why is it that Israel so captures the imagination of these groups while other, truly egregious human rights situations do not?

And isn't the situation precisely the same at the United Nations, where, given the simple, unalterable fact that it's all about numbers, Israel doesn't stand a chance against a bloc of 22 Arab countries and a group of 57 countries that form the Organization of the Islamic Conference?

What are the odds on Israel receiving a fair hearing in that world body, when the deck is so overwhelmingly stacked against it? Conversely, how much attention will the UN ever pay to serious human rights abuses in the Muslim world given the organization's make-up?

Are we to ignore the situation on university campuses here at home, where Jewish and pro-Israel students are increasingly harassed and intimidated if they stand up for Israel or, in the case of two students at Berkeley, physically assaulted? Or where the student leader of an Arab group at NYU that distributed a vile, anti-Semitic screed by the infamous David Duke, written shortly after September 11, was honored this month with the university's prestigious President's Service Award?

And last but by no means least, why do so many fail to understand that Israel is facing a threat to its existence and has every right and obligation to defend itself against an enemy that has no compunction about sending suicide bombers to target a Passover Seder or a bar mitzvah celebration?

That Israel, unlike any other nation on the face of this earth, has actually been fighting this war with one hand tied behind its back because of its own democratic and ethical values and because its every action is being scrutinized microscopically by the UN, Europe, the media, and human rights groups? What other country has chosen to expose its troops to far greater risks than might otherwise be the case for these reasons?

Anyone care to remember how our nation fought the war against Serbia? Wasn't it from 35,000 feet up to prevent U.S. casualties, even if some of our bombs inevitably hit civilian targets, including the Chinese Embassy?

Anyone care to remember that, during the British-Argentine war over the Falkland (or Malvinas) Islands, Whitehall deliberately kept the media far away from the war zone, yet no one questioned the British commitment to democratic values?

Isn't it painfully clear that any failure of resolve on Israel's part in the current Palestinian war of terror will only encourage its enemies to believe that the ultimate goal of Israel's destruction is within reach, and thereby diminish still further the chances for a peaceful resolution of the conflict?

And that there is a profound moral distinction, as we in the United States should especially appreciate after September 11, between those terrorist groups that destroy and those armies that seek to prevent the destruction?
Did the United States exercise restraint or rush into negotiations with Al Qaeda and the Taliban after September 11?

Has the United States been willing to enter into face-to-face peace talks with Saddam Hussein since the 1991 Gulf War?

Has our country sat down to negotiate with Cuba's Fidel Castro, positioned just 90 miles off the coast of Florida, since he seized power over four decades ago, much less lifted the economic sanctions we imposed at the time?

Hasn't Israel time and again demonstrated its willingness to take unparalleled risks in the quest for peace, while at the very same time operating with a miniscule margin for error, since the country at its narrowest point (pre-1967) was exactly nine miles -- nine miles! -- wide and, given its topography and concentrated population, all the more dangerously vulnerable?

As a consequence, shouldn't those critics outside Israel -- at least, those whose intentions toward Israel are honorable -- show just a bit more intellectual humility about trying to second-guess Israel's life-and-death decisions?

And shouldn't they show just a bit more understanding of the extraordinary dilemmas -- and dangers -- Israel faces no matter which way it seeks to turn?

And shouldn't they show just a bit more recognition of the fact that Israel today does not have a credible negotiating partner in the Palestinian Authority and can't pretend that it does?

And shouldn't they show just a bit more appreciation of the fact that no people -- I repeat, no people -- seeks peace more than the Israelis, precisely because they've not known a single day of it since the state's founding in 1948, but that peace at any price, history has painfully taught us, is worse than no peace at all?

Like I said; just pick however few or many you like. I'm not forcing you to answer at all, of course.

Whenever you're ready. I'll be waiting.

[DeBunkem]

It is a frequent claim that Palestinian Resistance fighters herded into a crowded ghetto are repeatedly charged with "hiding" in their own population. The UN report notes:

The incidents described include:
Attacks in the Samouni neighbourhood, in Zeitoun, south of Gaza City, including the shelling of a house where soldiers had forced Palestinian civilians to assemble;
Seven incidents concerning the shooting of civilians while they were trying to leave their homes to walk to a safer place, .

There are also confirmed incidents of IDF shelling the UNRWA shelter, including the the use of white phosphorus; totally illegal, and if not for the courageous action of UN staff, would have ignited the fuel depot, causing a Holocaust.
Again, it is no surprise that Zionists and their unquestioning supporters would take a John Bolton-style contempt for the UN. It is the only organization on site that can report the plain facts of war crimes and atrocities on either side...it has no self-interest in propagandizing this conflict. In fact, in both Occupied Palestine and Iraq, it has repeatedly come under military attack with nothing to gain but observing the facts.
The use of disproportionate force is also a violation of Judaic and Christian basic principles. "An eye for an eye" is an outright repudiation of the IDF's attacks. Christianity goes another step in "turn the other cheek."
When I said that Palestinians should have free access to their own State I was referring to a proposed Palestine, not a proposed Israel behind the Green Line.

It probably should be debated on another thread, but there is no other unbiased (other than for the facts as far as it is possible to confirm) that I know of except the UN. NeoCons and Zionists reject it for obvious reasons, but the US and Israel are members and we are under international law, as plainly stated in the Constitution. So with all due respect, defend the IDF from UN reports if you can...not AIPAC or NeoCon propaganda.



Mission Members

The Mission is headed by Justice Richard Goldstone, former member of the South African Constitutional Court and former Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

The three other mission members are:

Professor Christine Chinkin, Professor of International Law at the London School of Economics and Political Science, who was a member of the High Level Fact Finding Mission to Beit Hanoun (2008);

Ms. Hina Jilani, Advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and former Special Representative of the Secretary General on Human Rights Defenders, who was a member of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur (2004);

and Colonel Desmond Travers, a former officer in the Irish Armed Forces and member of the Board of Directors of the Institute for International Criminal Investigations (IICI).

As is usual practice, the Mission is supported by a Secretariat provided by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hr ... za_FMM.doc

The FACT that you yourself posted proves UN bias against the Israelis and in favor of the Palestinians beyond all doubt or question:

Israel has been targeted by at least 65 UN resolutions and the Palestinians have been targeted by none.

So much for the UN being a fair arbiter. Find another argument.

And feel free to field any of the questions I posted to Murad as well -- as opposed to ignoring them, continuing to refuse to acknowledge the EXISTENCE of the campaign of mass murder of innocents, and attempting to distract with fake quotes and biased "reports" from an organization that YOU have conclusively proven is in the tank for the terrorists.

"Last word." Yeah. Right.

Well, mission accomplished...the rest of the world can read what you said and draw its conclusions, spelled out in unmistakeable bias.

No inconsistency here....I said the UN report is my last word, and I'm still speaking from that perspective. The fact that the UN openly reports on Palestinian atrocities shows that it is indeed a fair arbiter. But the Resolutions are based upon the fact that all of these barbarous actions by all involved (with the Israelis being the main perpetrators) is based upon the original Zionist violation of the basic prohibition against conquest and occupation, in Palestine as well as Lebanon. S. Africa recieved the same treatment because of apartheid. Does that mean the UN was "biased" against Israel's ally, S. Africa? Apparently so, by your reckoning. Nothing personal, but your posts don't always elicit response bacause you haven't even acknowledged that Israel is guilty of any human rights violations and war crimes, even though the UN and I have said that Palestinian guerillas have been guilty of same. Or maybe I missed it? You seem to have adopted the most extreme Likudist view that is a minority even in Israel. Ulra-Zionist settler/trespassers cannot be reasoned with any more than the most radicalized Hamas militant. They are just as likely to gang-beat a humanitarian Israeli Rabbi helping with the Palestinian harvest as the farmers themselves.

I'll even be consistent with my cartoon!

[cnorman18]

It is a frequent claim that Palestinian Resistance fighters herded into a crowded ghetto are repeatedly charged with "hiding" in their own population. The UN report notes:

The incidents described include:
Attacks in the Samouni neighbourhood, in Zeitoun, south of Gaza City, including the shelling of a house where soldiers had forced Palestinian civilians to assemble;
Seven incidents concerning the shooting of civilians while they were trying to leave their homes to walk to a safer place, .

There are also confirmed incidents of IDF shelling the UNRWA shelter, including the the use of white phosphorus; totally illegal, and if not for the courageous action of UN staff, would have ignited the fuel depot, causing a Holocaust.
Again, it is no surprise that Zionists and their unquestioning supporters would take a John Bolton-style contempt for the UN. It is the only organization on site that can report the plain facts of war crimes and atrocities on either side...it has no self-interest in propagandizing this conflict. In fact, in both Occupied Palestine and Iraq, it has repeatedly come under military attack with nothing to gain but observing the facts.
The use of disproportionate force is also a violation of Judaic and Christian basic principles. "An eye for an eye" is an outright repudiation of the IDF's attacks. Christianity goes another step in "turn the other cheek."
When I said that Palestinians should have free access to their own State I was referring to a proposed Palestine, not a proposed Israel behind the Green Line.

It probably should be debated on another thread, but there is no other unbiased (other than for the facts as far as it is possible to confirm) that I know of except the UN. NeoCons and Zionists reject it for obvious reasons, but the US and Israel are members and we are under international law, as plainly stated in the Constitution. So with all due respect, defend the IDF from UN reports if you can...not AIPAC or NeoCon propaganda.



Mission Members

The Mission is headed by Justice Richard Goldstone, former member of the South African Constitutional Court and former Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

The three other mission members are:

Professor Christine Chinkin, Professor of International Law at the London School of Economics and Political Science, who was a member of the High Level Fact Finding Mission to Beit Hanoun (2008);

Ms. Hina Jilani, Advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and former Special Representative of the Secretary General on Human Rights Defenders, who was a member of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur (2004);

and Colonel Desmond Travers, a former officer in the Irish Armed Forces and member of the Board of Directors of the Institute for International Criminal Investigations (IICI).

As is usual practice, the Mission is supported by a Secretariat provided by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hr ... za_FMM.doc

The FACT that you yourself posted proves UN bias against the Israelis and in favor of the Palestinians beyond all doubt or question:

Israel has been targeted by at least 65 UN resolutions and the Palestinians have been targeted by none.

So much for the UN being a fair arbiter. Find another argument.

And feel free to field any of the questions I posted to Murad as well -- as opposed to ignoring them, continuing to refuse to acknowledge the EXISTENCE of the campaign of mass murder of innocents, and attempting to distract with fake quotes and biased "reports" from an organization that YOU have conclusively proven is in the tank for the terrorists.

"Last word." Yeah. Right.

No inconsistency here....I said the UN report is my last word, and I'm still speaking from that perspective. The fact that the UN openly reports on Palestinian atrocities shows that it is indeed a fair arbiter.

Does it? Where? Where are the resolutions? Ever posted such a report? I've never seen one. I've never seen you admit that there ARE any "Palestinian atrocities" till this moment, and as far as particular incidents are concerned, I've never seen you admit one yet. I'm not holding my breath.

Feel free to answer my post to Murad, too. Perhaps YOU can propose a "compromise" or a "first step toward peace" that will be effective while the campaign of mass murder by suicide bomb is still going on unchecked and unabated and while the goal of the total eradication of Israel proper remains openly espoused by every terrorist organization in the Mideast.

But the Resolutions are based upon the fact that all of these barbarous actions by all involved (with the Israelis being the main perpetrators) is based upon their violation of the basic prohibition of conquest and occupation, in Palestine as well as Lebanon. S. Africa recieved the same treatment because of apartheid. Does that mean the UN was "biased" against Israel's ally, S. Africa? Apparently so, by your reckoning. Nothing personal, but your posts don't always elicit response bacause you haven't even acknowledged that Israel is guilty of any human rights violations and war crimes, even though the UN and I have said that Palestinian guerillas have been guilty of same. Or maybe I missed it? You seem to have adopted the most extreme Likudist view that is a minority even in Israel. Ulra-Zionist settler/trespassers cannot be reasoned with any more than the most radicalized Hamas militant. They are just as likely to gang-beat a humanitarian Israeli Rabbi helping with the Palestinian harvest as the farmers themselves.

I'll even be consistent with my cartoon!

I never said that Israel isn't guilty of war crimes. I'd agree that it is. I don't say that the UN is biased because it's charged Israel with war crimes, either.

I say that the UN is biased because, according to your own posts, it's never charged the Palestinians with anything; not with deliberately targeting civilians, not with using their own people as human shields, not with ANYTHING. You've proven that bias yourself. Why do you keep claiming the UN is anything but in bed with the terrorists?

Oh, yeah; I forgot. Yes, you are totally consistent about that, too. You've never once admitted the existence of a terrorist campaign that consists of deliberately targeting innocent and unarmed Israeli civilians, or that your "Palestinian Resistance fighters" are in fact brutal and cowardly murderers of pregnant women, children, and unarmed families. You don't even dare to acknowledge or argue against that FACT when it appears in my posts. You won't refer to it at all, nor will you post a single word to refute or rebut it. It's invisible. Very consistent.

[DeBunkem]

My work is finished here. I might add that we're all losers in the triumph of the military/industrial complex that Eisenhauer so accurately warned against. Even the Corporatist war profiteers must live on this planet, and they are destroying it. The conclusion of the film "The Day the Earth Stood Still" is that humans advance only when they are on the brink of destruction. Let's hope that is somehow true. DeBunkem hath spake.

[cnorman18]

My work is finished here. I might add that we're all losers in the triumph of the military/industrial complex that Eisenhauer so accurately warned against. Even the Corporatist war profiteers must live on this planet, and they are destroying it. The conclusion of the film "The Day the Earth Stood Still" is that humans advance only when they are on the brink of destruction. Let's hope that is somehow true. DeBunkem hath spake.

It's "Eisenhower" and "hath spoken."

[Murad]

Hi cnorman im back(yes im captain obvious); and i got the job btw.

Does the PKK blow up pregnant women with babies in strollers at public bus stops?

Do they blow up teenagers having dinner at pizzerias and dancing at clubs?

Do they blow up families eating their Passover seders, or celebrating a young mans Bar Mitzvah in a synagogue?

Do they blow up school buses full of primary-school children?

If they do, I BLAME THEM, and so should every human being who understands the difference between these difficult concepts called right and wrong. There is, there can be, NO JUSTIFICATION for crimes of this magnitude, of this level of cruelty and brutality. NONE. NOT EVER. And if you dont agree, were done now. You CONDEMN those acts of mass murder, DELIBERATELY targeting innocents, without equivocation, or we have nothing to talk about.

Nope they dont; strictly military warfare; although the turkish government often do false-flag operations to eliminate kurdish support for the PKK.

The points you raised are strictly subjective.
They dont soley apply to palestine; i stated earlier; BOTH SIDES ARE WAR-CRIMINALS. I admitted and to your benefit stated that palestinians in general have become more 'barbaric'; you on the other hand put all the blame on palestinians; and justified Israel's human rights violations as "National Security".

Here is a source that wasn't written by muslims. But by the english(british):

Evidence that Israel committed war crimes in its 23-day operation in Gaza mounts by the week. Amnesty and Human Rights Watch have both appealed for a United Nations inquiry, after conducting their own investigations. Last week Ha'aretz published the testimonies of Israeli soldiers who alleged that a sniper shot a Palestinian mother and her two children, and that a company commander ordered an elderly woman to be killed. Yesterday Physicians for Human Rights accused soldiers of ignoring the special protection that Palestinian medical teams are entitled to receive. Today the Guardian releases three films in which our reporter Clancy Chassay reveals evidence that Israel used drones to fire at civilian targets, killing at least 48; he interviews three Palestinian youths used by Israeli soldiers as human shields and alleges that soldiers targeted paramedics and hospitals.

None of this is to deny that a case also exists against Hamas and other militant groups in Gaza. Firing unaimable rockets at civilians in southern Israel is also a war crime. But there is no symmetry of guilt. Israel has weapons it can place to within a metre of its intended targets. Its drones have high-quality optics that can see the colour of the target's sweater. And they film everything both before and after each attack. The army has the means to refute these allegations, but feels no obligation to do so. An international inquiry should be launched for no other reason than to hold it accountable.

Israel has not got a history of co-operating with international inquiries into the actions of its army, but it has reacted twice to domestic allegations. It admitted that one of its tanks fired two shells at the apartment of a Hebrew-speaking Palestinian doctor whose three daughters were killed and whose grief touched the nation, but it concluded that the action was "reasonable". The Ha'aretz material prompted a criminal inquiry by the military advocate, and two unusual statements by the outgoing defence minister, Ehud Barak, and the chief of staff, General Gabi Ashkenazi, each of whom praised the "moral" actions of the army. The prospects of a full international investigation of these allegations are mixed. The international criminal court has received more than 220 complaints from the Palestinian National Authority, the Arab League and the Palestinian justice minister. But whether the court has jurisdiction is another matter.

If the ICC route fails, there is always the UN, whose schools and stores found themselves in the line of fire. The secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, will this week receive the results of a private board of inquiry. This is narrow in scope, only examining incidents at UN facilities. But what happened there was bad enough, including the use of white phosphorus shells.

There are five reasons why we should have an international inquiry into the Israeli assault on Gaza. First, the conflict has not gone away. It could reignite at any moment under a prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, who is determined to finish the job. Second, the weight of evidence points not to isolated incidents, but to a new and deadly relaxation of the rules of engagement. This emerges from the soldiers' own testimony in Ha'aretz. "That's what is so nice, supposedly, about Gaza," one soldier said. "You see a person on a road ... He doesn't have to be with a weapon. You don't have to identify him with anything. You can just shoot him." Gaza was fought to a certain mood music. It suggested that the lives of Palestinian civilians did not matter when weighed against those of Israeli soldiers. Third, Israel is not immune to international opinion. A narrow rightwing coalition under Mr Netanyahu will be sensitive to criticism from Barack Obama, who has yet to reveal his cards. Fourth, what Israel does or is allowed to get away with doing affects attempts to establish the rule of international law in other conflicts. Fifth, we know what doing nothing leads to: another war, and ultimately a third intifada.

Both sides are war-criminals. Palestine & Israel.
Hamas & the Israeli Army(which is ultimately controlled by government).

You on the other hand deny all this, you sugar coat Israels involvment in warfare; i find this ridiculous. Any unbiased person that evaluates the sources of information we have available to us would conclude both sides are guilty; and both sides are war criminals.

, and so should every human being who understands the difference between these difficult concepts called right and wrong. There is, there can be, NO JUSTIFICATION for crimes of this magnitude, of this level of cruelty and brutality. NONE. NOT EVER. And if you dont agree, were done now. You CONDEMN those acts of mass murder, DELIBERATELY targeting innocents, without equivocation, or we have nothing to talk about.

I agree with you 100%
Although i must add; it would be totally ridiculous if you try to imply that the israeli government didn't know there would be child & civilian casualities in certain drone strikes.
The Israeli Army; allowed the brutal massacre of innocent civilians that were killed in schools; mosques and in their homes.
And do you know what type of missiles the Israeli Army uses? :

Abrahams also complained that his group's researchers found 155-mm howitzer shells, which have a 30-yard margin of error and a blast radius of 300 yards. Israel's choice of such weapons over more precise alternatives raises questions of intention, he said.

"When you have an alternative that is GPS-guided and very accurate, why would you use a shell that is much less accurate and has a much larger kill radius?" Abrahams said.

Israel's military said it used all munitions legally, but it has launched an investigation into whether troops used white phosphorus inappropriately.

cnorman18 you must accept both sides are vicious war criminals; my aim is not to prove whether one side is more evil than the other. Its to justify my position that Israel & Palestine are both guilty. (most biased muslims would disagree with me)

My Peace Plan STARTS with an end to that campaign of contemptible and cowardly murder.

I agree; this shouldn't be implied soley to Palestine but also the Israeli army.

Do your people have legitimate complaints? Do the Palestinians? Of course they do. But by performing those stunningly brutal and absolutely unjustified acts, they put their OWN evil in the foreground and JUSTIFY THE ACTS OF THEIR ENEMIES. Do you not see that? If not, as I say, were done.

I dont disagree with you.

Did you see Jews murdering German families during WWII? Were the crimes commited against them less horrible, less brutal, less evil than those committed against the Kurds or the Palestinians? So why didnt the Jews start blowing up German women and children as the Palestinian terrorists do AND THEN BOAST ABOUT THEIR COURAGE AND NOBILITY IN DOING SO?

This emphasizes the 'barbaric' nature this conflict has made the palestinians.
BUT
You have compared two completely different events.
Im against the holocaust denial as you can see under my name.
But its wrong of you to compare the Nazi Jewish elimination that occured for no reason other than economic benefits.
The history of Palestine & Israel shows a completely different story where Israeli's expelled Palestinians out of their own land.

If you want to complain about actions not helping, lets start with THOSE, and when THOSE acts of cowardly mass murder of innocents STOP, THEN we can all talk about the horrible things the Israelis do -- WHICH WILL END, BECAUSE THERE WILL BE NO REASON FOR THEM.

One thing thats evident in what you just said is; you justify Israels brutal crimes because palestinians are doing it. Do you see the error in this logic?
Palestinians have the exact same perception you have. That the other side started the whole thing. Both sides are guilty; both sides are war criminals. Israel is without a doubt not innocent.

This isnt rocket science or high-level moral theology or philosophy. Its common sense.

Well can you explain to me why you cannot apply that common sense from an unbiased position?
Can you please emphasize why Israel is so innocent & blameless as you make it seem?
Can you deny the accepted fact that BOTH Palestine & Israel are war criminals?

I would love to see objective evidence that isn't shrouded in perception.

And the fact that the Palestinian terrorists hide their fighting men, bombs, and weapons in schools, hospitals and mosques, and use ambulances and men disguised as pregnant women in labor to help them in their campaign of mass murder -- all of which are WAR CRIMES under the Geneva convention -- are not worthy of notice?

I share this perception; its really sad.

Sad?

How about negates any complaints they have about the deaths of the civilians which they themselves deliberately put in danger?

How about puts the deaths of Palestinian civilians killed because of those war crimes in a qualitatively different category from the deaths of Israeli civilians who are deliberately and consciously chosen as targets for mass murder?

How about reveals that the Palestinians who complain about Israeli security measures to be total hypocrites, because they force the Israelis into imposing them and prove that those measures are totally necessary and absolutely justified?

Sad?

Sad, indeed.

I share your exact opinion; but again you are being totally subjective; and not including israels war crimes done by a "Democratic Government".
I think im going to repeat myself atleast a hundred times in this post.
BOTH sides are equally guilty.

Here is a source from BBC:

The troops said they had been urged to fire on any building or person that seemed suspicious and said civilians were sometimes used as human shields.

Breaking the Silence, a campaign group made up of Israeli soldiers, gathered the anonymous accounts.

Israel denies breaking the laws of war and dismissed the report as hearsay.

Breaking the Silence described most of the testimonies of soldiers who took part in Operation Cast Lead as sober, regretful and shocked.

Many of the testimonies are in line with claims made by human-rights organisations that Israeli military action in Gaza was indiscriminate and disproportionate.

According to testimonies from the 14 conscripts and 12 reserve soldiers:
Rules of engagement were either unclear or encouraged soldiers to do their utmost to protect their own lives whether or not Palestinian civilians were harmed.
Civilians were used as human shields, entering buildings ahead of soldiers
Large swathes of homes and buildings were demolished. Accounts say that this was often done because the houses might be booby-trapped, or cover tunnels. Testimony mentioned a policy referred to as the day after, whereby areas near the border where razed to make future military operations easier

Who elected Hamas as the governing body of Gaza? Did the Israelis force the Gazans to choose them?

What is the PA? Is it the Israelis fault that the Palestinian leadership is corrupt, self-serving, and uses its own people as political pawns and turns them into corpses for propaganda purposes by placing them in the line of fire to protect their bombs and weapons?

We could dwell deep into your question: "Who elected Hamas"; lets be rational about this. A better question is; 'what caused the previously peaceful(generally atleast) palestinian people to become barbaric? Do you think it has anything to do with Israelis taking what they see as 'their' land?

2) Palestine is surrounded by israeli blockades

Which would not be necessary if there were no terror campaign against Israeli civilians.

I disagree to a high extent.

Not only does Israel blatently "Control" illegally occupied land; it "Controls" the daily lives of innocent civilians.
What makes an Israeli life more valuable than a Palestinian life?
Aren't we all human?
Is there any reason Israel deliberately(with prior knowledge) kills civilians & call it 'collateral damage' ?

1 out of what; 50-100 killed palestinians are actually terrorists that terrorize Israel directly.
What about the women & children that get killed by the Israeli Army; does that justify your previous post?:

Which would not be necessary if there were no terror campaign against Israeli civilians.

Both sides are vicious war criminals. IMO. I dont make a biased distinction. I can also name numerous crimes comitted by hamas against innocent people.
Do you see where im going with this?

3) Palestine is threatened by the expanding Israel.

The Palestinians themselves claim that they are threatened by the EXISTENCE of Israel, expansion be damned. You yourself have admitted that; and see below as well.

Thats true; so its like adding fuel to a fire. Logic tells us the flare will increase.

4) The people of Palestine are becomming more radical; as a result of all this.

What about the radicalization of the Israelis? What about HOW SICK the Israelis are getting after decades of heartless mass murder? How does THAT figure into your calculus of radicalization here?

Well i guess your assuming i blame Israel soley. No i dont and i made that clear numerous times.

If the Israelis thought like the Palestinian terrorists, they would carpet-bomb the West Bank and Gaza and EXTERMINATE the Palestinians. They have had that capability for years. Youll notice that they havent.

Obviously; if Israel wanted to i dont see why it wouldn't have the whole middle east kissing its feet(nuclear warfare).

But if the Palestinians had the capability, they would KILL EVERY JEW IN THE MIDEAST, and you know that to be true, too. THEY HAVE SAID SO THEMSELVES.

Thats true; although lets not imagine what the future would be if 'so and so happened'.
It would be easier for both Israel & Palestine if the other just suddenly disappeared.

Old saying in Israel -- very old: If the Arabs laid down their weapons, there would be no war; if the Israelis laid down their weapons, there would be no Israel. Please explain how that is wrong, either way.

Well this is a totally subjective quote; and we both obviously have different opinions.

First its indirectly assuming the arabs gave their own land to Israel and then demanded it back. We both know thats not true. So by the "arabs laying their weapons" you mean accept that their homes got stolen; i disagree; i couldn't imagine a single palestinian that would do this.
The Israeli part of the quote is true to a certain extent; but i dont demand the Israelis to put down their weapons; i just see Israel being a "Democratic Government"; they should not justify their barbaric human rights breaches because the other side did it.

So if the MASS MURDER CAMPAIGN STOPPED -- maybe this dance could end? Maybe there would be an opposite reaction to THAT?

HAVE THE PALESTINIANS EVER EVEN CONSIDERED THAT? I see no evidence of that whatever. Your own arguments here indicate that the most obvious first step toward peace is an end to the terrorism. Please explain to me why they dont.

There is a famous cliche: One mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist.
Its a completely subjective issue.
They see Israel as being the terrorists; and Israel sees Palestine as being the terrorists.

Do you not see this is the reason why peace hasn't been achieved so far?
Both sides play the blame-game. Both sides are war-criminals. Both sides are guilty. Period.

The Israelis dont WANT the West Bank, and they keep trying to give it to the Arabs; but as long as the price is stop murdering Israelis, it seems to be too high.

What about the building of illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank? Either the Israelis are doing it for no reason; OR they want the land.
Which sounds more logical?

Some of the settlements around Jerusalem are needed for the expanding population; the rest, throughout the West Bank, are needed for political purposes only, to mollify the rightwing elements in the coalition that is presently in power. Those will be evacuated and abandoned when (or if) a peace settlement is ever reached, just as the settlements in Gaza have already been abandoned. Offers of land in exchange for the territory around Jerusalem have already been made and rejected without a counteroffer. The majority of Israelis are against the settlements existence NOW.

If the West Bank were annexed to become a part of Israel proper, Israel would instantly have an Arab majority. The FACT is that the West Bank and Gaza have never been annexed, nor has any any move been made toward annexation, for the 43 years since those territories came under Israeli control. Still, the claim is continually made by Arab leaders that Israel wants it all in order to panic their own people into support for terrorism and hatred for Jews.

There have been offers upon offers made, over and over and OVER, from the very beginning of Israeli control in 1967, to give the land back to Jordan in exchange for a peace treaty, to make peace with an independent and peaceful Palestinian state, and even concrete steps taken to encourage the establishment of such a state by sanctioning and arming the Palestinian Authority, for decade upon decade, and those offers have been rejected, the last and most historic without even a counteroffer.

It has become more and more obvious that the Palestinian leadership would rather promote the myth of Israeli expansionism than accept the existence of Israel proper. That is proven by history, and claims of Israeli expansionism are propaganda and nothing more.

(It is beyond hope, of course, that Jews could be allowed to live in peace in a Palestinian state as Arabs live in peace in Israel. The Palestinians have declared that they want the ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST to be Judenrein, Jew-free, in the same way that the Nazis wanted Europe to be Judenrein, and no Israeli villages will be permitted in a Palestinian state. Jewish villages and towns which existed continuously in the West Bank for centuries were emptied at gunpoint in 1948, too, and THAT fact is NEVER referred to or acknowledged in these debate. And still, it is the Israelis who are pilloried as racists bent on ethnic cleansing.)

Some things i extracted from your post:
1)Some of the settlements around Jerusalem are needed for the expanding population
That does not justify Israelis expelling innocent civilians out of their own homes.
2) Still, the claim is continually made by Arab leaders that Israel wants it all in order to panic their own people into support for terrorism and hatred for Jews.
True, i dont see any reason to believe Israelis want all.
But i do see reason to believe Israelis want something that doesn't belong to them.
Expelling farmers & civilians out of their homes that they worked so hard for.... is absolutely cruel.
3)There have been offers upon offers made, over and over and OVER, from the very beginning of Israeli control in 1967, to give the land back to Jordan in exchange for a peace treaty, to make peace with an independent and peaceful Palestinian state, and even concrete steps taken to encourage the establishment of such a state by sanctioning and arming the Palestinian Authority, for decade upon decade, and those offers have been rejected, the last and most historic without even a counteroffer.

I agree with you; but i dont believe those offers were expected to be accepted; look at this from an unbiased perspective; would you really expect Palestinians to accept a new country suddenly invading their land?
As you said exactly: the very beginning of Israeli control in 1967; soon as Israel got control of something that wasn't theirs; they offered it as a 'peace treaty'.
4)(It is beyond hope, of course, that Jews could be allowed to live in peace in a Palestinian state as Arabs live in peace in Israel)
I want you to be totally honest with me now.
How were the Jews treated under the Islamic Khilafah?
Did not the Jews live peacefully under Islamic Rule?
I dont know about you; but many Jews(expecially orthodox) accept the honest fact that Jews co-existed peacefully with Muslims & Christians under the Khilafah.

Lets say; the Khilafah re-emerged; would Jews living under Islamic rule peacefully like it had been for centuries; be considered an option?

Third, the blockade is entirely legal and legitimate.

I disagree.
Can you provide proof that the blockade is "Entirely legal & legitimate"?

The law or armed conflict requires that blockading states allow aid through to the civilian population; however, the blockading state may control the channel through which aid is delivered, and that is what Israel has been doing. The authority to intercept vessels and control aid deliveries, however, is available only in a lawful blockade. To be lawful, a blockade must not be implemented where the damage to the civilian population is excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade, and this is where Israels legal position is open to question.

Why is it open to question? That appears to be based on the ludicrous idea that there is no terror campaign about which the Israelis have legitimate concerns. Please provide proof of THAT.

I think you missed the important parts; here ill help:
To be lawful, a blockade must not be implemented where the damage to the civilian population is excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade

Israels defense of the blockade thus appears to create a serious dilemma for it. Insofar as Israel insists that it is not currently occupying Gaza, it cannot plausibly claim that it is involved in an IAC with Hamas. And if it is not currently involved in an IAC with Hamas, it is difficult to see how it can legally justify the blockade of Gaza. Its blockade of Gaza, therefore, seems to depend on its willingness to concede that it is occupying Gaza and is thus in an IAC with Hamas. But Israel does not want to do that, because it would then be bound by the very restrictive rules of belligerent occupation in the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Define IAC, please. I cant find that acronym anywhere.

I think it was short for: 'international armed conflict'

As nearly as I can follow your reasoning here, if Israel had remained in occupation of Gaza, they would be within their rights to blockade it; but by withdrawing, they are obliged to agree that there is no conflict with Hamas, no threat from terrorist activity, and to allow uninspected shipments of war materiel into Gaza which will be indisputably be used to murder Israelis.

Does that really make sense to you?

I didn't make the geneva convention.
Please show me another blockade in history that is the same as the Israeli blockade.

Tell me: Did the United States have an IAC with Cuba during the Missile Crisis? Was that blockade therefore illegal?

'international armed conflict' is what your referring to
Quote from wiki regarding the Missile Crisis:

According to international law a blockade is an act of war, but the Kennedy administration did not think that the USSR would be provoked to attack by a mere blockade.

It seems illegal.

The Palestinians have a habit of trying to USE the Geneva Convention to hide behind and to justify their complaints against Israel when its convenient, but of ignoring it without comment when they egregiously violate it themselves -- as in using schools, mosques, apartment houses, hospitals, ambulances, etc., as storage facilities and launching and transport points for bombs, weapons, and terrorists. Youll understand, Im sure, why I regard this argument as little short of laughable.

I dont see Hamas using the Geneva convention to hide & justify themselves.... Do you?
Its only news reporters & innocent civilians that bring it up.....
I dont see it being laughable at all.

Well, first, there is that little matter of jurisdiction.

Second, crimes that occurred in wartime more than 60 years ago still being waved as fresh bloody shirts seems more than a little out of place to me in the present debate. Its also interesting to note that one doesnt see any tales of Israeli terrorists SINCE 1948 (and see the note on Sharon below).

I disagree; i dont believe israeli jurisdiction should allow terrorists to evade international law.

Oh, please. If were talking about international law, what about the Palestinian terrorists and those who train and equip them, choose their targets, and send them on their murderous missions? Ill take your concerns about international law seriously when I see you advocate their arrest and imprisonment, or their being turned over to international courts of justice, by the Palestinians themselves. Absent that, complaining about international law and the Geneva Convention is hypocrisy of the purest ray serene.

Again you are using the palestinian terrorists as a way to justify the Israeli killing of innocent civilians.
I did not; once in this whole discussion deny Palestinians being human rights abusers; infact i called them names for your benefit; you on the other hand have used the terrorists as an excuse for the Israeli government to become terrorists.
Do you see the hypocrisy?
Why dont you be less biased and conclude with the truth.
Both sides are human rights violators; Both sides are guilty of war crimes.
Plain and simple. No need to sugar coat anyones actions.

And time is not an excuse. I cannot emphasize that enough.

So the massacres and murders that PRECEDED the foundation of Israel should be remembered, too, and the driving out at gunpoint of approximately 750,000 Jewish refugees from the West Bank and Arab nations in 1948, and the pogroms and murders ordered and organized by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem -- and of course the thousands upon thousands of murders carried out by Palestinian terrorists in the decades since the founding, and the aggressive wars mounted against Israel by its neighbors, and on and on and on

That is just justifying my position; that both sides are guilty of human rights breaches.

Fine. You put your handful of Israeli terrorists, who are all dead now, up against the hundreds of CURRENTLY ACTIVE AND LIVING terrorists and terrorist leaders among the Arabs today. That sounds fair to me.

Or.
Would you be able to admit Israel being a "Democratic Country"; had 'terrorists' for leaders? Or am i making this stuff up completely out of the blue?
Im talking about:
1) Menachim Begin
2) Yitzhak Shamir
3) Ariel Sharon

Remember we're talking about a 'democratic' country aren't we?

Lets say; if miraculously...; there was peace with the two parties(Israel & Palestine).
And the hamas leaders obtained high roles within the Government that was formed; does that allow them to evade international law? No. They should be prosecuted like any other terrorist. They should be subjected to law; no matter what the national jurisdiction is.

So whats wrong with their being required to submit to international law -- or at LEAST stop their mass murder campaign -- NOW?

Im totally with you. They should be required to submit to international law.
But please re-read what i said:
if miraculously...; there was peace with the two parties(Israel & Palestine).
And the hamas leaders obtained high roles within the Government that was formed; does that allow them to evade international law?
The obvious answer is no. The same way Israeli 'jurisdiction' should be made irrelevant when it comes down to international war-crimes.

As I keep saying to DeBunkem, there have been a very great many events since 1967, and God knows since 1948, that seem to get no attention whatever from the Palestinian side

I agree; it seems the conflict has made the Palestinians more "barbaric" in nature. (no offense to anyone)

And once again: Why do you expect any other reaction on the part of the Israelis to their women and children and elderly being deliberately targeted for decade after decade of CELEBRATED and GLORIFIED mass murder?

I dont expect any thing from the people.
I expect justice from a "Democratic Government".
I dont expect Israelis to hold hands and sing songs.
The same way i dont expect Hamas to repent for their sins.

You wont see Israelis, other than a few extremists (like those who applaud the execrable murderer Baruch Goldstein), celebrating or commemorating the extreme acts of the men youve named above from 60 years ago; whereas acknowledged present-day terrorists who murder unarmed families at Passover seders and Bar Mitzvahs, at bus stops and discotheques and pizzerias, are hailed as brave freedom fighters and their families rewarded with cash and celebrity status.

I agree with you; although you should understand the state of Palestine is similar to the state of Israel when it did not exist.

Except, of course, that a free and independent Palestinian state was available to that people in 1948, and was rejected in favor of an effort to prevent the foundation of Israel, a goal and ideal which remains the central demand of the terrorists to this day;

That goes back to my other statement:

I agree with you; but i dont believe those offers were expected to be accepted; look at this from an unbiased perspective; would you really expect Palestinians to accept a new country suddenly invading their land?

And except for the fact that the Israelis welcomed Arabs as citizens of their state and that many Arabs remained there and live there in peace and freedom as equal citizens of Israel to this very day

Yeah, very similar, other than those insignificant facts.

Yes and thats proof that we can peacefully co-exist.
Just like we existed peacefully under the Khilafah.
Just like arabs existing peacefully under Jewish Rule.
Ofcourse no doubt there is still a bit of hate and stereotyping; but thats nothing surprising.

The same way Israelis saw "LEHI" as a noble cause for the Jewish people; thats the exact same way Palestianians see "Hamas".

Except for the fact that the Israelis didnt dance in the streets and hand out candy to children when Arabs were massacred and murdered, but denounced and rejected those tactics and fought against them actively. The nascent Israeli Army attacked and destroyed a ship bearing arms for the outlawed Irgun terrorists rather than allow them to continue their terrorism against Arabs. When has ANY Arab government or organization actually acted AGAINST terrorists who target Israelis? I await your list with eagerness. Next time there is a murder of some innocent unarmed Israelis, say in a car outside Hebron, and the Palestinians celebrate by dancing in the streets and hailing the murders as a courageous and heroic operation, Ill await the arrest of the murderers with great interest.

Perhaps not as much as Palestinians; but there is alot of 'heroic' actions done by the Israeli army.

I hope your not forgetting these soldiers fight for a "Democratic Country".

Lets not have any criticism of so-called Israeli terrorists from the Palestinians till the mass murder of unarmed civilians by suicide bombers no longer sees support from a majority of Palestinians in every survey that anyone takes. Thats called hypocrisy.

Indeed it is "hypocrisy" as you put it.
But like i said earlier; it takes two to tango.
Israel "Defending" itself; is the same as Palestine "Defending"; both nations commit barbaric acts and are human rights violators & there is no excuse that can be made up to justify their acts.
I disagree with both parties & i dont endorse either side in what they do; i hope you can understand my position.

In that you patently blame the Israelis and totally, in effect, justify and excuse the terrorists, as I have here proven -- no, I dont.

You previously justified any human rights breaches by Israel because Hamas terrorists do it.
Do you see how we go around in circles?
One should not use the other side as an excuse to commit wicked acts.
This applies to both Israel & Palestine.

The terror campaign must stop, and the goal of the total destruction of Israel proper renounced, before anything else can happen that will move this region toward peace. Please explain how any OTHER course of action can even begin to lead to peace before those two conditions are met. I cant wait to read your proposal to find a way to peace while the mass murders continue and the extermination or exile of every Jew in the Middle East remains the Palestinians openly and proudly stated goal.

Yes the terror must stop; from both sides.
Land ownership must satisfy both parties(this is where we have our problems); this is what has & is still being debated.

Now look at it from a palestinians point of view; America acts like a complete hypocrite when it comes down to hamas.

Those are not matters for debate; they are spelled out explicitly in the charter of every terror organization in the region.

There is a quote from an unknown author Im a terrorist because i dont have an airforce.
Here are 2 established facts(although you might disagree):
1) The Government of Israel & The Armed Forces of Israel are guilty of Human rights abuses & breaches.

2) Hamas is guilty of Human rights abuses & breaches

Why does number 2 have priority over number 1?
Or a better question:
What gives number 1 the permission to evade International Law of Human Justice?

If the Arabs, collectively, ever set aside the vicious Nazi-style antisemitism that is deliberately promoted and promulgated by Arab and Muslim leaders and governments, and stop the unending campaign of war, terrorism, hatred and mass murder, peace will come -- inevitably and rather quickly. If they don't, peace will never come at all.

It seems you are putting all the blame on the arabs? I dont disagree with you; there is a very evident element of antisemitism; but i dont agree with your wording that makes it seem the arabs are the sole party to blame in this conflict.
The Jews are equally responsible; it takes two to tango; i acknowledge the palestinian faults; you dont seem to acknowledge any israeli faults.
I repeat; it takes two to tango.

It takes two to tango, but only one side to start and sustain a fight.

Ok; please explain honestly how this fight "started"
Did the palestinians wake up one morning and say: "Hey, what a beautiful day to start terrorizing Jews"
Or was there something that initiated this sort of ideology?

The other side has the right to defend itself, no matter how much or how often the Palestinians sneer at that as an excuse.

Yes they do; although i dont agree with "how" they are defending themselves.

Like I said; what else can happen before the mass murder campaign stops? What else can happen before the goal of destroying Israel and a Jew-free Mideast is abandoned?

Nothing. We will stay idle... In misery.
This is why im not what you consider a 'typical muslim'; because false ideology is being fed into muslims by religious leaders.

YOU BET I blame the Arabs for those things. If the murders stop, THEN Israeli actions will have no justification. Not before. Period. Again, tell me why Im wrong, and how the Israelis can move toward peace without making the murder of their people easier.

Well i recommend the aim should be to fix the problem; the problem is not the terrorists; it is the state in which Palestine exists; that is the fuel for the terrorists.
Im sure you dont expect hamas terrorists to suddenly stop "popping up" in a place of turmoil & distress.

Till that demand is dropped, completely, there can never be peace, and there is nothing whatever that Israel can do to remedy that. Its nice to see someone on the Palestinian side actually ADMIT it, but -- since you did bring it up -- how on Earth can the Israelis be expected to respond to that?

I have no idea; it seems currently impossible.

Hello? Then why are the Israelis so wrong and equally to blame? You SAY that, but you seem oddly unable to JUSTIFY it.

Native palestinians were made to live as refugees in their own land.
This is an established fact. Please i challenge you to prove this wrong.


The superior feelings of Zionists towards Palestinians are evident.
Israeli's are to blame because:
1) They are human rights abusers; no different from hamas terrorists.
2) They illegally occupy Palestinian land.
3) Illegal blockade around the Palestinian people.
4) A democratic government is not democratic if its run by terrorists.
5) International Convention breaches(Geneva)

Using Hamas as the foundation for the inhumane acts comitted by Israel is not a good excuse; the same way Hamas using Israel as an excuse for its inhumane actions.

If you can justify or sugercoat these, ill admit your right; Palestine is the sole entity to blame in this conflict.

But i have no doubt the 2 parties can come to a compromise; and until they do come to a compromise; i agree; there will never be peace.

HOW ABOUT STOPPING THE TERROR AND DROPPING THAT GOAL? WHATS WRONG WITH THAT AS A STARTING PLACE?

Thats a good starting place.

And why cant you just answer that simple question and JOIN ME in calling for that action on the part of the Palestinians instead of continuing to justify those things that you yourself admit are WRONG?

Dont worry; i've already joined a certain aspect of your political beliefs... a long time ago.
I agree; terror needs to end.
Illegal occupation needs to end.

How do you negotiate with people who say, right out front, We want you all dead or exiled? Who is the obstacle to peace where THIS issue is concerned, and why is that not the key issue here?

I dont intend to negotiate with or for terrorists; and you are generalising too much.
Thats like a palestinian saying "Israel is causing all the problems; they took land that belonged to us & their country is rightfully ours"

Except that THAT claim is debatable, and mass murder as a current and ongoing practice of the Palestinian terrorists is not. That is an indisputable FACT.

What is debatable?
Do you want to debate whether native palestinians existed prior to the establishment of a Jewish state? Do you want to debate whether they lived there for centuries & had complete ownership of the land before a sudden invasion?

Also again you are very biased; you continually mention the Palestinian terrorists but you have not once even hinted Israeli terrorism.
Can you prove contrary the claims of the 'Palestinian Medical Relief Society'?
http://www.palestinemonitor.org/spip/sp ... article888
I would really; love to see how you justify Israel then....

cnorman18; you keep repeating yourself with the intention to prove Palestine alone is the reason for the conflict. If this is your aim; there is no point of me continuing this discussion; as we cannot conclude from such different positions.
But what we can do is acknowledge the faults both sides have; and thus we both can gain a better understanding of "the other side".... does that sound reasonable to you?

Sure. Explain to me why NOT stopping the murder campaign is the ONLY reasonable starting place. Im listening.

Firstly; the Israeli military run by a "Democratic" Government; should change how it "handles" specific events.

[center]
White Phosphorus shells fall on a UN school converted into shelter, Jabalya/Gaza, January 2009
[/center]

My position is that the excesses, errors, and even the atrocities of the Israelis -- which I freely admit -- are all direct results of terrorism. That the reaction of the Israelis to terrorism is PRECISELY the same reaction that you keep saying is to be expected on the part of the Arabs to Israeli actions; that while the Jews MAY be guilty of war crimes under the Geneva Convention, the Palestinian terrorists are guilty of more, more frequently, more indisputably and more egregiously, than those of the Israelis by an order of magnitude, and that those FACTS are continually ignored and dismissed by the other side with allegations of equal blame and clichs like it takes two to tango.

Ok; so we established a fact:
1) Hamas breaks the Geneva Convention more than the Israeli Government does.

What on earth does this prove?

Please incite me on how exactly this helps us evaluate the situation of the conflict and conclude with the result that palestine alone is to blame.

The facts are not ignored or dismissed; it is you that overlook established facts that the Israeli Democratic Government commits terrorist acts; and you justify this with hamas being your foundation of the arguement? Indirectly saying "They started it"
Sorry i disagree.

I've concluded before & i conclude again.
Israel & Palestine are guilty as each other.
Playing the blame game is useless.

Israel invaded land that the native palestinians lived on as owners for centuries; this fact cannot be denied by the most fundamental zionist.

Stop murdering women and children and peaceful, unarmed families, and therell be no reactions to those murders -- no tango. That isnt a dance.

Talking about children.
Do you have any idea how many innocent young palestinians are being killed by the 'Democratic Government of Israel'?

[center]The New York Times reported the death rates of Israeli and Palestinian children almost identically despite the fact that almost five times more Palestinian children were actually being killed.[/center]

Or what about the brilliant education system that Palestinian children enjoy?

300 Palestinian schools have been damaged in the conflict. In 2003, 580 schools were periodically forced to close, and some schools remain closed after being declared military outposts by the Israeli army

Yep, the palestinian children have a big bright future ahead dont they? I mean common; with all the fantastic schools available to them; the new generation of Palestinians are going to be more liberal and educated right?

Who is willing to negotiate and make concrete offers here, and who is intransigent and bent on the scorched-earth total defeat and destruction of their perceived enemies?

Although you are sugar coating a bit too much; i agree with you. There has to be some sort of compromise.

There is also the small matter that if the Arabs had accepted partition in 1948, that would have resulted in a two-state solution THEN, and avoided the following 60 years of war and untold deaths and destruction on both sides. Why is everyone pretending that that solution will even bring peace, when, as you say yourself, the Arabs goal is no Israel?

A very good question; even if the two parties come down to a solution; will there really be peace? No; i dont believe so; not straight away nevertheless.

But; im more than sure; Israel & Palestine wont be as hostile as they are now; and slowly the newer generations will reduce their hate for one another.

And, yet again, how do you propose to make that happen while Israelis innocents are still being murdered, and their murders celebrated and the murderers hailed as courageous heroes?

The complete parallel is happening by the hand of Israel; whether you accept it or not.
Innocents are being murdered(way more compared to Israelis); and the soldiers are hailed as courageous heroes.
I've already stated this conflict has made the Palestinians more barbaric in nature.

Once again; How do you make peace with people whose only goal, openly and explicitly stated, is We want to kill you all or drive you into the sea?

That is the goal of Hamas; not the palestinians as a whole; but as i said before; the Palestinians have become more barbaric because of this conflict.
The word 'compromise' is the most important word we can apply; both sides have to apply that word in order for any peace to come. Expecially the Palestinians. But also the Israelis.

And again; what compromise do you propose that the Israelis can make while the murders are allowed to continue? Every such effort in the past has been taken as an opportunity to commit more murders; would the ending of Israeli security checks, the demolition of the hated Wall, or any other compromise of Israeli security efforts result in anything different? Tell the truth. Wouldnt all those result in MORE terrorism, and not less? They always have.

It seems like that; now atleast.
But the compromise i propose does not soley apply to israelis; but also the palestinians.
The Israelis must end the illegal occupation & blockade.
A political agreement must be made regarding land ownership(this is the hardest part).
Palestinians must accept the existence of a Jewish state.

I respect your point of view; I respect your intelligence and your good will.

Mutual respect is a requirment for any civil talk/debate. And no matter how strongly one feels about something; it should never be used as an excuse to infringe another persons rights. This is the ideology i want the Palestinians to have.

Show me a way to begin without ending the terror campaign and dropping the goal of No Israel! FIRST. Theres your compromise.

Yes thats the Palestinian compromise.
But if you actually believe hamas terrorists will be the first to compromise, you are wrong. Israel needs to show Palestine why the Hamas ideology is wrong.

YOU pick. Pick whichever ones you think are easiest to answer. Start wherever you like. Go for it.

Great, that does sound easy.

Had today's 18-year-old Palestinian youths been taught peace and mutual respect since the 1993 Oslo Accords rather than hate, would they be blowing themselves up in Israeli cafs and restaurants?

"taught"? There are no schools to teach.
If your talking about their parents teaching peace towards the Israelis; i highly doubt it.

Or might they be enjoying the fruits of statehood, side by side with Israel, and the chance for a brighter future that they, like youngsters everywhere, so richly deserve?

Im not a palestinian; i don't know how it feels to suddenly lose your land.
I dont see why Israeli's & Palistinians wouldn't enjoy peace if an agreement regarding land ownership was reached that satisfied both parties;(without the assertion that Israel shouldn't exist)

Why do virtually no Palestinians (or Arabs) have the courage publicly to examine their own role and responsibility for reaching this point in the conflict, and instead contentedly shift the entire blame to Israel, the United States, world Jewry, or any other convenient scapegoat -- in other words, anyone other than themselves?

Completely subjective; i dont think its possible to explain why a certain person behaves the way he does.
BUT
Its similar to your ideology; instead of recognizing that Israel invaded native palestinian land; thus initiated the conflict; you conclude palestine started the conflict by denying israels existence.

Has the United States been willing to enter into face-to-face peace talks with Saddam Hussein since the 1991 Gulf War?

Thats funny; because this conflict is the perfect analogy for Israel & Palestine.
Both Iraq & America were accused of war-crimes. United States doesn't depend on the Iraqi acknowledgment that it exists.

Does the world suffer from amnesia about the implications of Arafat's unbridled support for Saddam Hussein, the American-led coalition's enemy, during the 1991 Gulf War?

Regarding Arafat, i dont like him, never did.

Why is it that non-governmental groups that claim to defend democratic values and human rights are so vocal when it comes to criticizing Israel -- a nation committed to those very same values -- and so deafeningly silent when it comes to Israel's adversaries, none of whom make even the slightest pretense of respecting either democracy or human rights?

This has a very real element of truth. Im aware of this. Although i think it comes down to the Israeli state being superior; thus criticism is more harsh.


Its 9:34pm; i usually sleep at 8:30 to wake up for work; this has to be one of my longest posts.
Im off to bed; i cant concentrate on the screen anymore.

I'll continue this tomorrow.

[cnorman18]

Murad:

I appreciate your reply, and its respectful and conciliatory tone. I apologize for my own bad attitude, which comes through from time to time. I admit that I am passionate about this issue, and I freely admit my biases.

I shall take a day, or perhaps more, to think and calm down before I attempt a detailed reply here. I have learned that it is unwise and unhelpful to speak out of anger.

I am tempted to add some observations, but I shall restrain myself for a day or more. Thanks for the debate so far.

[Murad]

Thats ok.

You havn't been rude at all; ofcourse there will be a bit of a dance with emotions.

We are talking about politics right?

[cnorman18]

Yes, we are talking about politics; but our personal biases (which, for my part, I freely admit) are obviously not helping.

Let me start again, with this: I have previously, and do here again, admit that Israel is guilty of war crimes. No doubt about that; and I also admit that I have not sufficiently articulated that in the present debate.

And, as you yourself admit, so are the Palestinian terrorists. I add that I do not attribute those crimes, nor ill intent, to the Palestinian people, only to the terrorists and those who supply, finance and direct them. Now there are nuances and details here about which we could argue all day and all night, but lets leave it at that for the moment; both sides are guilty, as you say, and as I agree, if belatedly.

Further: I have consistently said on this forum that I am in favor of a solution that results in peace and security for BOTH SIDES. I think that that will require compromise; and that, in my opinion, is where the problem arises. The Israelis, again in my opinion, have demonstrated that they are willing to compromise to an enormous extent; giving up 97% of the West Bank, ALL of Gaza, and being open to further compromises and further negotiation.

But: I do not see that the Palestinians are willing to compromise even to the bare, minimal, absolutely essential extent of recognizing Israels right to exist, nor to giving up a single square inch of land in the Middle East including Israel proper. That is a core issue which no one seems willing to address. Your yourself seem to maintain that the very existence of Israel is a problem here, and as long as that is the case, I dont see what there is to talk about. Demanding, or even suggesting, that the solution is Israel commiting national suicide is not a basis for negotiation or debate -- or even civil conversation. As long as that remains the Palestinian position and the goal of the Arabs, the war will never, ever end. When it comes to compromise, therefore -- at least in terms of ultimate goals -- the ball is very much in the Palestinians court. The Israelis want to survive; the Arabs want them dead or exiled. No common ground at all.

Now, on the issue of war crimes; I agree (and, for the record, have never denied) that the Israelis have committed them. Again, there are nuances and degrees of guilt, but set all that aside for now. My main problem with the war crimes issue is with the fact that the UN, which is continually presented here as an impartial and unbiased arbiter, has directed virtually ALL its attention and virtually ALL of its sanctions at the Israelis, while the crimes of the Palestinian terrorists have received virtually none at all.

In light of that FACT, its hard to see how or why the Israelis would be inclined to respond to resolutions, sanctions, etc., from the UN when their enemies receive, in effect, the implicit blessing of the UN on the war crimes directed against them. Very few Jews take the UN seriously as an impartial or fair arbiter of this conflict, and there are very, very good reasons indeed for that. Denying or ignoring these FACTS is neither intellectually honest nor conducive to rational, civil or fair debate on the conflict.

Its also a fact that though the issue of Israeli war crimes is raised in a theoretical or general fashion, whenever individual incidents are alleged, investigation shows that those Israeli crimes do not appear out of thin air or without provocation; and the Palestinian crimes and terrorist attacks that preceded and provoked them are generally ignored as if they never happened and did not exist, and the issue presented as if the Israelis ought to have done nothing at all. The demand appears, at least, to be that the Israelis ought to just accept Palestinian terror attacks and mass murders, and allow them to continue with total impunity, without responding to them in any way -- other than appealing to an international body which has demonstrated, for decades, that they have no interest whatever in intervening in their favor. Simply put, that is not a reasonable demand.

Since no one -- I repeat, NO ONE, not the UN, not Israels Arab neighbors, not the Palestinian people themselves, and not the US, which is not in a position to do anything other than provide financial and diplomatic support -- are doing ANYTHING WHATEVER to stop or alleviate these attacks, and all but the last are in fact ASSISTING those attacks by, in effect, pretending that they dont exist or are totally justified -- why would anyone expect the Israelis to do anything other than take care of their own? No one else is.

You have said that no one is denying and/or excusing Palestinian terrorism or claiming that it isnt happening, or that it isnt relevant. As a matter of actual, practical fact, that simply isnt true. According to DeBunkem and this pro-Palestine website, there have been at least 65 actions of the UN directed at Israel, and at the Palestinians, none at all. SOMEONE is certainly denying and/or excusing Palestinian terrorism, and that someone is the very body that is continually being touted as the fair and unbiased arbiter here. Until THAT problem is also solved -- till the UN actually begins to give crimes AGAINST the Israelis the same attention and pressure given to the crimes of the Israelis themselves -- the Israelis have no reason whatever to change their behavior.

"What do the Palestinians have to lose," by continuing the terror? An independent state. Freedom to live without fear of Israeli retaliation. Freedom to live without being deliberate placed in harms way by their own leaders. Their lives. Their nation.

What do they have to gain by stopping the murder campaign? All of those things, as well as supportive neighbors who wish to help their new nation succeed and become prosperous, since secure and prosperous neighbors make for peace and security for the Israelis themselves.

Its time to stop mourning the foundation of Israel and hoping that Israel and the Israeli people will cease to exist. COMPROMISE begins -- BEGINS -- with dropping the idea that Israel has no right to exist and must be destroyed.

NEXT must come an end to the UNs turning a blind eye to Palestinian terrorism and the murder of Israeli civilians. When the Israelis feel that they are not entirely alone and unsupported in the part of the world where they live, and that they actually have the support of the international community, they will have motivation to end their own excesses and overreactions. As it stands, they have none. They have made astonishingly generous and clearly sincere and serious offers in the past, over and over, and that is proven by the acceptance of those offers in the past -- by Egypt, which regained the Sinai in exchange for nothing more than a peace treaty, and there is peace between Israel and Egypt, once mortal enemies, as we speak. But in the West Bank and Gaza, those offers have been repaid with nothing but more murder.

I fail to see what more the Israelis can do, other than just lie down and die by the thousands. That seems to be, in practical terms, the only other choice they are being offered other than fighting back -- as is also said of the Palestinians -- with all the means at their disposal.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 38:

...
NEXT must come an end to the UNs turning a blind eye to Palestinian terrorism and the murder of Israeli civilians. When the Israelis feel that they are not entirely alone and unsupported in the part of the world where they live, and that they actually have the support of the international community, they will have motivation to end their own excesses and overreactions. As it stands, they have none. They have made astonishingly generous and clearly sincere and serious offers in the past, over and over, and that is proven by the acceptance of those offers in the past -- by Egypt, which regained the Sinai in exchange for nothing more than a peace treaty, and there is peace between Israel and Egypt, once mortal enemies, as we speak. But in the West Bank and Gaza, those offers have been repaid with nothing but more murder.

I fail to see what more the Israelis can do, other than just lie down and die by the thousands. That seems to be, in practical terms, the only other choice they are being offered other than fighting back -- as is also said of the Palestinians -- with all the means at their disposal.

I remember there a few years back seeing all these news reports of Israel's "over reacting" to rocket bombs being lobbed on their civilian population. When defending oneself is "over reacting", what is there left to do but lay down and die?