How low can Israeli supporters sink

[segnosaur]

The Gazans "elected" a group whose mantra is the destruction of Israel. THus, the Palestinians have chosen a battle. Now they don't like how it played out.

their mantra is not much different than the israeli government's, which is to never allow a palestinian state.

Actually, that's not the Israeli government position at all. But thanks for playing.

Here's a statement made by the UN regarding the Israeli position:

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/c25aba03f...33;OpenDocument

The representative of Israel said her Government fully supported the aspirations of the Palestinian people in achieving self-determination, but noted that it could only be realized by achieving a two-State solution, with a Jewish homeland of Israel alongside a Palestinian homeland....Other Israeli leaders further affirmed that a prosperous, viable Palestinian State was in Israel's own interest....She said that, while her Government was prepared to pursue that goal, the Palestinian people must also simultaneously accept the existence of an Israeli homeland for Jewish people.

any time a bill comes up in the kenneset to allow a palestinian state, it is shutdown overwhelmingly.

I'm sure any such bills have been shut down.

That's because while the government (and likely most of Israel) wants Palestinians to have their own state, they also have a duty to protect Israeli lives. Making an independent Palestine while they are under threat of rocket attacks (as they have been for a long, long time) seems like a rather stupid thing to do.

So any bill that says 'give Palestine a homeland' should be shut down until Israel knows that any Palestinian government will ensure peace, and not let its territory be used to launch terrorist attacks.

the occupation and the annexation of palestinian land has been happening for close to 50 years. you're surprised that the people have elected someone who says they'll be fighting against this occupation?

Well, you'd think that Palestinians would realized 'Launch a rocket, get attacked in retaliation' would make at least some realize that taking the first step of launching the rocket would be a "bad idea".

the story is quite simple. since 1967, israel has been breaking international law by occupying and annexing palestinian land. why are you not speaking against this violation?

Just out of curiosity, what 'international law' have they been violating?

[dub]

their mantra is not much different than the israeli government's, which is to never allow a palestinian state.

Actually, that's not the Israeli government position at all. But thanks for playing.

Here's a statement made by the UN regarding the Israeli position:

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/c25aba03f...33;OpenDocument

The representative of Israel said her Government fully supported the aspirations of the Palestinian people in achieving self-determination, but noted that it could only be realized by achieving a two-State solution, with a Jewish homeland of Israel alongside a Palestinian homeland....Other Israeli leaders further affirmed that a prosperous, viable Palestinian State was in Israel's own interest....She said that, while her Government was prepared to pursue that goal, the Palestinian people must also simultaneously accept the existence of an Israeli homeland for Jewish people.

talk is cheap. the israelis do a lot of talking. the important thing here is that they rejected the draft. you are quoting from a draft that israel voted against. did you purposely missed that part?

I'm sure any such bills have been shut down.

That's because while the government (and likely most of Israel) wants Palestinians to have their own state, they also have a duty to protect Israeli lives. Making an independent Palestine while they are under threat of rocket attacks (as they have been for a long, long time) seems like a rather stupid thing to do.

So any bill that says 'give Palestine a homeland' should be shut down until Israel knows that any Palestinian government will ensure peace, and not let its territory be used to launch terrorist attacks.

remember the PLO under arafat? they "officially" and in writing accepted israel's right to exist. what came from that? increasing of the illegal settlements and more annexation of the palestinian land and the continue of the israeli control of all major roads, the airspace and the water.

Well, you'd think that Palestinians would realized 'Launch a rocket, get attacked in retaliation' would make at least some realize that taking the first step of launching the rocket would be a "bad idea".

Just out of curiosity, what 'international law' have they been violating?

launching rockets was not "the first step". the rockets have been happening for less than five years. israel's violation of international law, like resolution 242 and the violation of the rules of occupation, has been happening for half of a century.

Edited January 15, 2009 by dub

[segnosaur]

talk is cheap. the israelis do a lot of talking. the important thing here is that they rejected the draft. you are quoting from a draft that israel voted against. did you purposely missed that part?

Didn't miss that part at all.

Maybe YOU missed the part where I pointed out that any country would be foolish to accept a proposal that would give up land but not do anything to actually guarantee security.

Read the resolution... It has the following 2 points in it:

1. Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including the right to their independent State of Palestine;

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

Nowhere does it refer to Israeli security, nor does it have anything about Palestinians having to prevent attacks against Israeli territory.

remember the PLO under arafat? they "officially" and in writing accepted israel's right to exist.

what came from that? increasing of the illegal settlements and more annexation of the palestinian land and the continue of the israeli control of all major roads, the airspace and the water.

As you said, talk is cheap, especially when it comes from someone like Arafat. Keep in mind that while Arafat did 'officially' recognize Israel's right to exist, his movement continued to engage in terrorist attacks.

launching rockets was not "the first step". the rockets have been happening for less than five years.

And before that, there were suicide bombings.

Edited to add: Actually, the first rocket attacks started in 2001... believe it or not, that's more than 5 years ago.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/0...east/index.html

israel's violation of international law, like resolution 242...

Looks like you've been doing some cut and paste there, without really understanding what you're talking about. I guess I need to explain a little about U.N. security council resolutions to you.

There are 2 types of resolutions that can be passed... chapter 6 and chapter 7. Chapter 7 are the serious ones... they are considered 'binding', and can result in actual U.N. action. Chapter 6 resolutions (including 242) are considered only guidelines... they are not binding. So, Israel is under no requirement to follow it.

Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, 242 actually has multiple parts. It has the following requirements:

1) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

2) 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

You see, the problem is, people like you always get stuck on part 1. However, part 2 also must be respected, and that part applies to all countries that were involved in the conflict, not just Israel. And to this date, some countries in the region do not recognize the right of Israel to exist.

Israel is under no obligation to unilaterally follow the resolution, while countries like Syria (whom also is covered by this resolution) refuse to do its part. The resolution must be implemented multilaterally or not at all.

and the violation of the rules of occupation has been happening for half of a century.

Which 'rules of occupation' are those? Is your understanding of the 'rules of occupation' any better than your understanding of U.N. resolutions? Or are you going to simply regurgitate something you've seen on an anti-Israeli web site?

(edited to add: There is one thing Israel is doing which may be against the rules of occupation, but I'll see if you can figure it out.)

Edited January 15, 2009 by segnosaur

[jbg]

The story is the same with all Arab-Israeli wars.

1. Let's attack the Jews.

2. Attack, attack...bang, boom.

3. Oh, oh...we're losing again.

4. Hammer comes down hard.

5. Cry for a do-over.

Bang on.

[jbg]

their mantra is not much different than the israeli government's, which is to never allow a palestinian state.

There are plenty of Arab states. Does a refusal of countries to absorb people displaced by normal historical movements create a nationality that never existed?

the story is quite simple. since 1967, israel has been breaking international law by occupying and annexing palestinian land. why are you not speaking against this violation?

Did the U.S.S.R. violate international law by retaining Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia for 46 years after the end of WW II, and keeping Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland et. al. under their effective control, in those three cases backed by brutal invasions? Did Iraq violate international law by annexing Kuwait? Did Russia violate international law by invading Georgia, and shutting off Ukraine's natural gas supply during the middle of the winter?

[bush_cheney2004]

Indeed......"international law" only applies to Israel.

[jbg]

The representative of Israel said her Government fully supported the aspirations of the Palestinian people in achieving self-determination, but noted that it could only be realized by achieving a two-State solution, with a Jewish homeland of Israel alongside a Palestinian homeland....Other Israeli leaders further affirmed that a prosperous, viable Palestinian State was in Israel's own interest....She said that, while her Government was prepared to pursue that goal, the Palestinian people must also simultaneously accept the existence of an Israeli homeland for Jewish people.

You could also usefully ask why Jordan and Egypt are not expected to slice off some of their land for a so-called "Palestinian state"?

[dub]

Didn't miss that part at all.

Maybe YOU missed the part where I pointed out that any country would be foolish to accept a proposal that would give up land but not do anything to actually guarantee security.

you quoted that draft as a response to me mentioning that israel will never allow a palestinian state. you said that, this is not their mantra. but it is, which is proven by both international and national votes against it.

Read the resolution... It has the following 2 points in it:

1. Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including the right to their independent State of Palestine;

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

Nowhere does it refer to Israeli security, nor does it have anything about Palestinians having to prevent attacks against Israeli territory.

As you said, talk is cheap, especially when it comes from someone like Arafat. Keep in mind that while Arafat did 'officially' recognize Israel's right to exist, his movement continued to engage in terrorist attacks.

this is a silly argument so i'm not sure why you're bringing it up. israel is basically saying that they will leave the land once the palestinians stop fighting the occupation and the illegal settlements that continues to increase. very silly. it is obvious that it's just more excuses to stall and to grab more land.

the escalation in violence and suicide attacks did not really start after the intifada which began after sharon made a controversial and provocative visit to the temple mount.

And before that, there were suicide bombings.

Edited to add: Actually, the first rocket attacks started in 2001... believe it or not, that's more than 5 years ago.

whatever.. 10 years ago. 15 years ago. it doesn't change the fact that it has only killed 28 people in 8 years. whereas over 350 palestinian children have been killed in the last 2 weeks.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/0...east/index.html

Looks like you've been doing some cut and paste there, without really understanding what you're talking about. I guess I need to explain a little about U.N. security council resolutions to you.

There are 2 types of resolutions that can be passed... chapter 6 and chapter 7. Chapter 7 are the serious ones... they are considered 'binding', and can result in actual U.N. action. Chapter 6 resolutions (including 242) are considered only guidelines... they are not binding. So, Israel is under no requirement to follow it.

wrong. israel is under the requirement to follow it because the resolution was passed. just because the resolution does not call for action, it does not mean that the resolution is void.

and i'm not sure what your comments about copying and pasting is.

Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, 242 actually has multiple parts. It has the following requirements:

1) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

2) 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

You see, the problem is, people like you always get stuck on part 1. However, part 2 also must be respected, and that part applies to all countries that were involved in the conflict, not just Israel. And to this date, some countries in the region do not recognize the right of Israel to exist.

i don't like repeating myself but since you didn't get it the first time, arafat and the PLO accepted israel's right to exist and its sovereignty as it has been mentioned in resolution 242. palestinians did their part.

Israel is under no obligation to unilaterally follow the resolution, while countries like Syria (whom also is covered by this resolution) refuse to do its part. The resolution must be implemented multilaterally or not at all.

israel is not occupying syria. the important thing is that the palestinians did accept resolution 242 and did accept israel's right to exist. israel continues to make excuses not to.

Which 'rules of occupation' are those? Is your understanding of the 'rules of occupation' any better than your understanding of U.N. resolutions? Or are you going to simply regurgitate something you've seen on an anti-Israeli web site?

i don't want to sit here and give lessons. if you want to take a position and talk about international law that applies tot he region, it's best that you study them first. look up the fourth geneva convention, which, ironically was created after the persecution of jews in world war 2.

here is a link: http://www.diakonia.se/sa/node.asp?node=945

[eyeball]

I am okay with that because I agree with their position. Please be so kind as to allow me to explain my view. First of all, you have to admit to yourself that Hamas was breaking international law by firing rockets at Israel. Secondly you have to admit that in the same position you would react in the same manner, striking back. Thirdly you have to admit to yourself that you are an outside observer, nothing more and nothing less and then apply your own morals to the situation, in my case that means treating others as you would have them treat you.

It appears Hamas or something like it will probably always exist - perhaps also acknowledging that Palestinians live in an abject state of occupation and dispossession might change this sad reality. Its just an observation.

Too be fair to both I think we should just treat them as victims that are trapped in a state of horror as opposed to trying to break this down into different measures of hate, terror, death and outrage.

[dub]

here is canada's official policy on:

Occupied territories and Settlements

Canada does not recognize permanent Israeli control over territories occupied in 1967 (the Golan Heights, the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip). The Fourth Geneva Convention applies in the occupied territories and establishes Israel's obligations as an occupying power, in particular with respect to the humane treatment of the inhabitants of the occupied territories. As referred to in UN Security Council Resolutions 446 and 465, Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The settlements also constitute a serious obstacle to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace.

http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/middle_east/c...olicy-en.asp#06

Edited January 15, 2009 by dub

[segnosaur]

you quoted that draft as a response to me mentioning that israel will never allow a palestinian state. you said that, this is not their mantra. but it is, which is proven by both international and national votes against it.

There has never been an extended period of time when Israel has not been subject to threats, either from conventional militaries (from Syria, Egypt, etc.) or from terrorists. Of course they have no reason to unilaterally grant a palistinian state under attack (or threats of attack).

Read the resolution... It has the following 2 points in it:

1. Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including the right to their independent State of Palestine;

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

Nowhere does it refer to Israeli security, nor does it have anything about Palestinians having to prevent attacks against Israeli territory

this is a silly argument so i'm not sure why you're bringing it up.

I'm bringing it up because its relevant and the facts support it... and because you seem to be ignorant of said facts...

israel is basically saying that they will leave the land once the palestinians stop fighting the occupation

Something you seem to not understand ... not all Palistinians and Arabs want a 2 state solution with a recognized Israel. Believe it or not. there are a significant number of terrorsts who are not just 'fighting the occupation', but who believe Israel should be destroyed. Eliminated. Wiped off the map. These are not people just fighting the occupation, but these are people fighting to turn all of the area (from the West bank all the way to the sea) into one Arab state.

And those people control the government of Gaza.

Or did you not know that the founding charter of Hamas (you know, the guys that are in charge of Gaza).

See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5016012.stm

Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, committed to establishing an Islamic state in the whole of what it terms Palestine (post-1948 Israel, the West Bank and Gaza).

and the illegal settlements that continues to increase. very silly. it is obvious that it's just more excuses to stall and to grab more land.

You know, the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza are the one main thing Israel has done wrong and which may be illegal.

But here's the thing: Israel has already removed its settlements from Gaza. Unilaterally. Not much that the people in Gaza can complain about.

As for the other settlements... Israel has taken action to dismantle settlements in the past (e.g. in the Sinai).... no reason to suspect that they wouldn't do so in the future if appropriate agreements are made.

the escalation in violence and suicide attacks did not really start after the intifada which began after sharon made a controversial and provocative visit to the temple mount.

You know, so many anti-Israelis like th blame the temple mount visit as some sort of justification or way to absolve Palistinians of their guilt regarding the violence. Unfortunately, it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Frankly, it just comes off as a flimsy excuse to blame the Jooossss.

The situation was already violent before the visit to the temple mount. (For example, one soldier was killed the day before the visit...)

And before that, there were suicide bombings.

Edited to add: Actually, the first rocket attacks started in 2001... believe it or not, that's more than 5 years ago.

whatever.. 10 years ago. 15 years ago. it doesn't change the fact that it has only killed 28 people in 8 years. whereas over 350 palestinian children have been killed in the last 2 weeks.

Well, if your argument that Israel is wrong because not enough people have died to justify the invasion, then that's a totally different issue. To that, I have to repeat: Any country should have, as its priority, the protection of its own citizens.

And I've noticed you totally ignored the fact that before the rocket attacks, there were suicide bombings. Both the rocket attacks, and the suicide bombings, were directed at civilians.

wrong. israel is under the requirement to follow it because the resolution was passed.

Ummm.... no. Look up the definition of a 'chapter 6' resolution. All you are doing is illustrating your ignorance in the matter.

Wikipedia has a fairly good desription of what these types of resolutions mean...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_VI_of...Nations_Charter

This chapter authorizes the Security Council to issue recommendations but does not give it power to make binding resolutions; those provisions are contained Chapter VII.

and i'm not sure what your comments about copying and pasting is.

Because. it is so very common for people opposed to Israel to just shout 'resolutoin 242', without understanding A: what exactly is in the text of the resolution, and B: what exactly the significance of that type of resolution is.

i don't like repeating myself but since you didn't get it the first time, arafat and the PLO accepted israel's right to exist and its sovereignty as it has been mentioned in resolution 242. palestinians did their part.

Ummmm.... here's a suggestion... go back and actually READ the resolution....

It specifically says:

Termination of all claims or states of belligerence by and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area

The 2 most important parts of that above sentence...

- It specifically mentions every state. That includes Syria (who was involved in an attack against Israel and initially rejected 242 and did not acknowledge Israel's right to exist), Lebanon (used as a launch point for rockets aimed at Israel) Iraq (a middle eastern state who, until Saddam was deposed, was financially supporting suicide bombers), and Iran (a state that is helping to arm Hamas). Not enough just to get the Palestinians on side... ALL countries must be on board

- It includes the term 'belligerance'. Its not enough to just accept Israel's right to exist... action must be taken to actually prevent violence aimed at Israel. The Oslo accords were signed in 1993, around which Arafat supposedly accepted Israel's right to exist. In the first 6 months of the following year, over a dozen Israelis were killed in various terrorist actions. (It is true that many of those attacks were not done by Arafat's organizaiton, but as the leader of the Palistinian government, it was his duty to provide security.)

i don't want to sit here and give lessons.

That's good. Because from the looks of things, you have a heck of a lot to learn yourself.

if you want to take a position and talk about international law that applies tot he region, it's best that you study them first.

Actually, I have studied them.

I challenged you to point out exactly what law they're violating. Simply quoting a reference that has many laws is not identifying any specific violation. (As I've said before, there's really only one area that Israel might be seen as actually violating International laws regarding occupation.)

[Argus]

what other people would think?

israel is breaking international law. why do you seem to be okay with that?

Which international law are they breaking?

There is no debate, btw, that Hamas firing rockets into Israel is a war crime as they are targeting civilians.

[Argus]

1) I haven't seen any evidence of KKK supporters in the rally in Toronto.

2) KKK hates Muslims more than they hate Jews, so it seems odd that they would be there.

3) If they were there, I wouldn't put it past the rabid defenders of Israel and child murder to dress up in KKK to undermine the message of the protest.

Critics of Israel are often quick to insist that they’re not anti-Semitic—just anti-Zionist, anti-“occupation,” or something along those lines. But not these guys: at a protest against Israel in downtown Calgary on the weekend, the Nazi group, the Aryan Guard, showed up to march alongside the Muslims. Of course, the Aryan Guard is honest enough to admit they just plain hate Jews, not bothering to strain themselves with arguments of nuance. They fit right in on Saturday with their posters of Israeli flags defaced with the accusation “Terror State.”

United under the Swastika

[Oleg Bach]

Which international law are they breaking?

There is no debate, btw, that Hamas firing rockets into Israel is a war crime as they are targeting civilians.

To subjugate and impoverish Palistine is not a crime? If Israel and America had supported Palistine for the last 50 years there would be no Hamas. A person is peaceful when he has a clean bed and food on the table - this is econonmic suppression that brought this on - not religion. The other bit of racism that exists is - If you kill on Israelite - they get to kill one hundred of the ememy...what the hell kind of bizarre elitism is that? Israel has tanks - jets - the best weaponry on the planet...the Hamas rockes are like flying black powerder pipe bombs --- an irritant and a harrassment at best.

[Drea]

Hear Hear Oleg!

You've hit the nail squarely on the head. This isn't about religion, it's about poverty.

A Palestinian grows up with no real education, no job prospects so what is he supposed to do? He wants a job and a future but Israel makes sure he never has success.

Israel does not understand this. They need a big cuff on the head and a stern lecture and all their long range weapons taken away.

If they worked to improve the lives of the Palestinians (instead of destroying them), they would end this trainwreck.

This morning on the news: 900 Palestinians dead (700 civilians) and 13 Israelis dead (don't know how many were civilians, maybe one or two?)

poor Israel! Pffft.

[segnosaur]

To subjugate and impoverish Palistine is not a crime?

There is nothing illegal about occupying a territory that has been captured in a defensive war. And there is nothing illegal about taking action to ensure a country's safety and security.

If Israel and America had supported Palistine for the last 50 years there would be no Hamas. A person is peaceful when he has a clean bed and food on the table - this is econonmic suppression that brought this on - not religion.

Rather simplistic argument that doesn't necessarily stand up to scrutiny.

There have been people that have had significant poverty for years that have not resorted to terrorist attacks. And it should be noted that the terrorists who were involved in 9/11 did not necessarily come from 'poor' families... many were from the middle or upper classes.

In my opinion the bigger factor in encouraging terrorism is freedom of speech... if individuals are constantly exposed to only a single message and have no method of peaceful dissent, then violent reactions are more likely. Sadly, such freedoms are often lacking in the Arab world, including Palestine, where some of the first acts of Hamas were to restrict freedom of the press, and where children are exposed to Sessame street type characters that encourage them to kill Israelis.

[Argus]

I see. So the UN is always right? I guess that must be why Israel never breaks a UN resolution.

You can't have it both ways. If you are going to use the UN for justification, then you also need to adhere to what the UN says.

No, the UN is rarely right. I'm not even sure they were right back then. However, the decision was taken by the UN, and Israel was legally established as a separate entity. There's no point now in trying to revisit the justification of that decision, and no way to overturn it.

And who exactly were the smart ones? It's not as if they had a choice.

Most were evicted by force of arms. Those that refused ended up like the town of Deir Yassin.

Many Israelis were against these forced expulsions, but they were overruled by the zealots.

Very few were evicted by 'force of arms'. Some were intimidated into leaving. Others were just fearful. And then the surrounding Arab states helped convince them not to go back - for decades.

Regardless, Israelis have treated Arab residents, better than Arabs have treated Jews.

I don't believe that Arabs need to be welcomed back into Israel with compensation. I think the Arab countries that expelled the Jews and/or persecuted them should make it up to them.

There is no way they are going to be allowed back into Israel. That's a non-starter. The fact Hamas and Fatah keep dwelling on this is one of the reasons why negotiations go nowhere. It would be like South Africa agreeing to allow millions of white supremecists to come and live there.

While it's a fun and challenging game to try to blame all criticism of Israel on anti-semitism, it just isn't accurate.

No, not "all" criticism can be laid at the feet of anti-Semitism. Not all.

One of the key differences, and the reason why Israel gets more attention is the fact that Israel is committing these atrocities outside of their own borders.

I don't think I buy this. Israel has occupied the territories for decades. In fact, they've _never_ been anything but an Israeli territory. The independant state which was supposed to rise in that area never did due to Arab intransigance. One could as easily say that Tibet is also a foreign occupation by China - but that gets no real tv coverage. Besides, human rights violations are not somehow worse because you do them to your own people. If women are being raped and children murdered anywhere it ought to be as important as Israel - or more important if the numbers are greater and the situation more grave.

[Argus]

Hear Hear Oleg!

Don't you stop and consider that when you're agreeing with Oleg there's probably something wrong with your argument?

If they worked to improve the lives of the Palestinians (instead of destroying them), they would end this trainwreck.

There was a time when many Palestinians workedin Israel, and Israeli corporations were building busineses in palestine to employ more. But unsurprisingly, the Intifada put a stop to that, greatly increasing the level of bitterness, suspicion and distrust between the two sides. Why would Israel work to "improve the lives" of people who have spent the last fifty years trying to kill them?

[Argus]

To subjugate and impoverish Palistine is not a crime?

How do you impoverish a land of illiterate nomad goat herders?

If Israel and America had supported Palistine for the last 50 years there would be no Hamas

How do you "support" people desperately determined to kill you at any price?

. A person is peaceful when he has a clean bed and food on the table

Most of the terrorists who arose in the 80s came from middle class homes in Europe and Japan.

The other bit of racism that exists is - If you kill on Israelite - they get to kill one hundred of the ememy...what the hell kind of bizarre elitism is that

?

People who try to equate deaths are simply silly. You fire rockets into a state, the state will do its level best to stop people from doing that. If the governing authorities take no actions to stop you, the Israelis will. The deaths in Palestine are not because the Israelis are blindly lobbing rockets around, but because those "governing authorities", in this case, the terrorist group Hamas, is actively resisting Isreal as it attempts to come to grips with those lobbing the rockets. If everone sat down and did nothing as the Israeli tanks and troops came in there'd have been one hell of a lot fewer deaths.

Israel has tanks - jets - the best weaponry on the planet...the Hamas rockes are like flying black powerder pipe bombs --- an irritant and a harrassment at best.

Unless you're killed by one, of course. No doubt you would feel a little more than harrassed or irritated then.

[Oleg Bach]

Don't you stop and consider that when you're agreeing with Oleg there's probably something wrong with your argument?

There was a time when many Palestinians workedin Israel, and Israeli corporations were building busineses in palestine to employ more. But unsurprisingly, the Intifada put a stop to that, greatly increasing the level of bitterness, suspicion and distrust between the two sides. Why would Israel work to "improve the lives" of people who have spent the last fifty years trying to kill them?

Here is the relationship that developed between say - the average Palistinian male and the average Israeli male. The Palistinian would get up in the morning and travel to work for an Israelite - the Israelite had irked out a postion with the help of billions of dollars sent by America - not to mention the billions sent from emotionally proud private Jews from all over the world. What formed artifically in time was a master slave relationship ----the lowly Palistinian would clean the toilet of the Israelite - while the only duty of the day for the Israelite was to go off to the bank and pick up some free money - meanwhile the Jew was not better or of higher human quality than the Palistinian - but we all worship money and those that have it - even if it's a huge wefare check sent to keep Israel on top of the food chain - small wonder Hamas had no problem getting power.

[KeyStone]

The only just justification for firing rockets would be to retaliate against .....rocket attacks.

Every other excuse is simply an exercise in (a)moral equivalence.

That's kind of like saying the only justification for bombing Gaza and killing 300 children is bombing Israel and killing 300 children.

Did Palestine commit the first violence - arguably, yes. Although you can stretch it back 50 years and obfuscate it, but for the sake of moving things forward - let's say yes.

Does that mean that the first to commit violence is always in the wrong, no matter what the circumstances?

[KeyStone]

The long and the short of this issue is simply that everyone feels that there are sides to be taken. I am as guilty as the next person in this regard. The truth is that the only ones that SHOULD take one side or the other are the people living there. The rest of us are mere arm chair critics, putting our noses where they really don't belong.

Having said that, both sides are in the wrong, and both feel justified in their actions. To each their own I guess. Yet, I for one would take great exception to another nation mounting attacks on my home or my nation. I would feel justified in doing whatever it was that I decided, and I don't think I would give a damn what the people that were not involved in the conflict thought.

Well Jerry. There is a lot you say that I agree with.

There is no need for the disclaimer. I think everybody here recognizes that world policy is not being shaped by the consensus that we come up with. It is simply a way of keeping mentally sharp, as well as trying to influence those on these boards.

I think that it is much easier to see the wrong that Hamas is doing to Israel.

The wrong that Israel is doing to Gaza (prior to the recent campaign) is no less wrong, but is more complicated to understand.

I am sure that the people in Gaza who live with next to nothing, largely as a result of the conditions created by Israel - such as denying them the right to trade with other nations, feel justified in what they do as well. Things are desperate - and the people are not happy. Of course they want peace - but not at any price - not at the price of slavery or destitution.

[M.Dancer]

Does that mean that the first to commit violence is always in the wrong, no matter what the circumstances?

Sometimes. Violence is a big word. Pushing someone is violence and might be a reasonable responce to someone how won't get out of your way. Shooting someones kids may not be a reasonable response to someone not getting out of your way.

Blockading Gaza is a reasonable response to preventing someone getting arms to kill your kids.

Negotiating and ending attacks is a reasonable response to ending a blockade.

Edited January 16, 2009 by M.Dancer

[DogOnPorch]

Does that mean that the first to commit violence is always in the wrong, no matter what the circumstances?

Let's ask Germany circa 1919.

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

You hit somebody with your fist and not with your fingers spread.

---Panzer Generaloberst Heinz Guderian

[Drea]

Unless you're killed by one, of course. No doubt you would feel a little more than harrassed or irritated then.

The poster here is speaking of an Israeli killed by a Palestinian.

In reality:

13 (THIRTEEN!!!) Israeli's have died in this latest go-round.

900 (NINE HUNDRED!!!) Palestians have died in this lastest go-round.

No wonder the Palestinians keep lobbing their antiquated rockets that never hit anything. They are rightfully pissed.

Anyone in their right mind should realize this.