Looks like Bush

I don't see it that way at all. GTM was stating the reasons behind the reaction of Arabs and Palastinians.

They would hve been anti-eskimo if it were the eskimos that are doing the occupation, oppression and genocide in place of Jews.

Until not so long ago, Arabs and Jews used to live in peace and co-opration; for centuries. It is worth considering what events changed that?

 

Rather than endorsing bigotry and ignorance, why not enlighten us on the period of 'peace and cooperation' and the reasons for the break down?

Paul

 

Well, policy or not, they're certainly doing their best to eliminate Palestine.

Michael.

 

Genocide (noun) - the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.

(See Nazi Germany, Rwanda, Dafur)

Presumably after 60 years of 'genocide' few Palestinians can still remain. I find the sheer, outrageous ignorance of your (michaelab) and bluemax's posts almost beyond belief.

 

Disputing the word 'genocide' now in defence?!

How about
massacre,
mass murder,
carnage,
mass destruction,
bloodbath ?

To quibble about words is a distraction. We are talking about taking human lives here; not words.

These horrible acts against other humans including innocent women and children by US aided Israel is EVIL. If it is not ended, the whole world will get sucked into its inevitable consequences.

It's shame that they are in effect doing, what Nazis did to them.

In many cases, people who abuse their children were victims of child abuse themselves. Rather than learning from their experience, they attempt to come to terms with it by repeating the acts themselves.

Terrible things lurks in the psyche of people at a very deep level; chosen by God or not.

 

bm,
evil is perhaps too strong a word but i can see where you are comming from. the biggest evil in the world is the human tendancy to seek revenge. i was listening to a phone in a few days ago and the widow of a soldier killed in iraq came on advocating that the war be stepped up and intensified as the 'only thing these people understand is violence'. unfortunately that way lies kossovo and chechnya (and to a certain extent israel / palestine) where the fighting is more out of habit or for generational grudges than any immediate reason (and i don;t count preemptive strikes as a valid reason for killing people).
cheers


julian

 

Israeli atrocities against Palestinians

 

Regardless of the morality, what Israel has been doing for the last decade is illegal simple as that. State sponsored assassination is illegal, the occupation of the West Bank is illegal.

Israel shows utter contempt for international law and uses force to put down resistance in occupied territory. Their crimes are on a par with any others perpetrated by dictatorships in the middle east and africa but the rest of the world stands by and watches instead of sending massive military might into the area to teach them a lesson. Is it any wonder the Arab world breeds extremists bent on revenge against what it sees as a global enemy?

 

No, merlin, it's not "as simple as that" and I will attempt to explain why, with particular regard to the two statements that you have made above.

1. "State sponsored assassination is illegal"

Under international law and the laws of war, it is entirely legal to target and kill an enemy combatant who has not surrendered. Palestinian terrorists - whether they are the suicide bombers themselves, those who recruit them, those in charge of the operation, or commanders of terrorist groups - are, without any doubt, enemy combatants.

2. "the occupation of the West Bank is illegal"

UN Resolution 242 calls for:

a) "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict"

(this means the 1967 conflict)

AND

b) "Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force"

(in other words - security and recognition for all states)

NOTE that the charter is deliberately worded such that Israel is not required to withdraw from ALL territories occupied in 1967. Nor should they be. The Arab states effectively invaded and were repelled in 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973 and it would be virtually unknown for any country to return all the land that it occupied under those circumstances. This is particularly true when such land is required for defensive buffer or strategic purposes (the Golan Heights come to mind here).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I do not claim that there has been no wrong on the part of the Israelis. On the contrary, serious mistakes have been made by the state and by individuals. There have also been many incidents of anti-Arab prejudice by some nasty individuals. Israelis are no better in that respect than citizens of other countries.

Nevertheless, there is an overwhelming desire by the majority of ordinary Israelis for peace and they are prepared to go a long way to achieve this.

The time has come for the Palestinians (including Hamas and Hizbollah) to accept the reality of the Israel situation. They have no more chance of getting the land given to the Jews by the UN in their 1947 resolution than the Jews have of getting back the lands taken from them by the Europeans in the Nazi era up to 1945. What's done is done.

With the death of Arafat, one of the major barriers to peace has disappeared. I hope that with a firm hand from the USA, a willingness for strong negotiation by the Palestinians and guarantees all round, peace and a viable Palestinian state could be achieved. It would be even more viable if Jordan was prepared to give the Palestinians some of their land that it controls. I don't believe that the refugee problem is insurmountable either.

There will be difficulties with East Jerusalem but my own view FWIW is that, at some future date when everything else has been settled and achieved, East Jerusalem could become an 'International' state like The Vatican or Luxemburg. This could be part of current negotiations.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

It would be good if posters actually took the trouble to carefully check the facts before making unfounded, untrue and often viscious allegations.

 

Quite. Just what Israel is doing to the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza strip.

Add Palestine to that list.

The sentiment is mutual. Your generalistation of pretty much everyone in the occupied territories as "enemy combatants" is simply outrageous.

As for calling Arafat a "major barrier to peace", Ariel Sharon is the biggest barrier to peace in the region. As long as he is involved there's no hope for any reasonable settlement of the dispute.

Michael.

 

Steve,

surely a) should precede b) ?

 

Pointless talking politics with Micheal B, he so far left ,its woodstock refugee territory plus he's always right, thought you lot would have twigged that by now!!

 

Both a) and b) have to follow a negotiated settlement.

Clearly, if there was unconditional withdrawal, there would be no b).

And, of course, I made no such generalisation.

I have always particularly disliked Sharon and, if I was Israeli I would certainly vote Labour. However, in this case, I hope that you're wrong.

Initially anti, Ariel Sharon now champions the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. This would be a start. Also, Sharon may be the best chance of 'selling' any settlement to the Israeli right.

 

Tis why I've stayed out of the thread since theres no way we'll change his mind - which is fair enough really, he's entitled to his views just as I am mine.

Unfortunately some of our views disturb him sufficiently for us to hint that we're right wing neo-fascists or something despite that being a gross (and somewhat offensive) exaggeration

 

I must admit that I came very close to leaving the forum, never to return - cue cries of "shame, shame" .

However, I decided to stay and keep talking because, frankly, if we can't reach some position of hope for the future - we who have not lost relatives or friends in this terrible conflict - what the f**k are their chances?

 

This is true. But the Palestinians have a genuine grievance, and are still treated as, at best, second-class citizens. This is a situation which cannot continue if peace is ever going to be a real possibility. If the Palestinians are to be convinced that a two-state solution will work, and Hamas and the like to be marginalised, Israel and the US need to start making some serious changes. Unfortunately, even suggesting this to some of the more fundamentalist Zionists seems to make one an anti-semite. This is a frustrating rhetorical manoeuvre, and hamstrings a lot of debate about Israel IME.

-- Ian

 

A seriously emotive issue, and one that should be debated, though I personally feel best debated face to face, as when it comes to putting views of this across to the other involvee's (is there such a word as that?, Fook it we'll use it anyway! ) that posting style can serious hinder constructive disscussion, hence why I steer out of this sort of interplay, as interesting as it gets I feel I would be misread.
Though Mike B must realise even though he has more experiance in these matters moving in diplomatic circles, that 'real world' laymans politics are some what more 'realisticly approached' and he shouldn't dive bomb the other debaters into submission, respect their views even if you don't, after all we tolerate you owning dac 64 Wm

 

Ian,

You're right on all counts. It is also a two-way street. Arab governments, must stop their "kill the Jews" and "drive all Israelis into the sea" rhetoric.

Many, many Arabs were stunned by the last Bin Laden video in which he claimed responsibility for the 9/11 attrocities. They believed what they had been told, which was that 9/11 was an attack on America by the Jews.

 

Tone and Steve,

I wasn't the first person to call anyone "outrageously ignorant". I'll respect other people's views if they respect mine. I don't believe I have "divebombed" anyone into submission. On the question of thinking I'm always right, well, in this kind of issue there there is no definitive right and wrong, but there's not much point in standing up for something if you don't believe you're right. That goes for me as much as my "opponents".

Unfortunately, debating this kind of emotive issue on an internet forum is virtually impossible to do sensibly. I don't like these kinds of threads and TBH am tempted to ban threads of this nature in the future as all it does is create bad feeling between people who otherwise get on very well. Neither side is going to change their mind so there's little point really.

Steve, if I offended you, I apologize.

Michael.

 

I thought the debate was reasonably even-tempered. Some of you shrinking violets have obviously never seen a proper argument. I recommend dropping in on a Stalinist meeting and singing Trotsky's praises if you want to see something really nasty.

-- Ian