Israeli War Crimes

[jacee]

No opinion of your terrorist friends has changed. They are no better than ISIS. But if you wish to support such people, I can't stop you.

There are terrorists on both sides.

I don't support either.

But I cannot condemn the actions of Palestinians to free themselves from the aggressive expansion, oppression and disproportionate attacks by Israel.

Until a two state solution is in place and respected by both parties, the circumstances of Palestinians are untenable and the attempts to free themselves will continue.

.

[kactus]

Very nice people...

Yitzhak Shamir, one of the three leaders of Lehi after Avraham Stern's assassination, argued for the legitimacy of Lehi's actions:

There are those who say that to kill [T.G.] Martin [a CID sergeant who had recognised Shamir in a lineup] is terrorism,

but to attack an army camp is guerrilla warfare and to bomb civilians is professional warfare. But I think it is the same from the moral point of view. Is it better to drop an atomic bomb on a city than to kill a handful of persons?

I don’t think so. But nobody says that President Truman was a terrorist. All the men we went for individually – Wilkin, Martin,

MacMichael

and others – were personally interested in succeeding in the fight against us.

Neither Jewish ethics nor Jewish tradition can disqualify terrorism as a means of combat. We are very far from having any moral qualms as far as our national war goes. We have before us the command of the Torah, whose morality surpasses that of any other body of laws in the world: "Ye shall blot them out to the last man." But first and foremost, terrorism is for us a part of the political battle being conducted under the present circumstances, and it has a great part to play: speaking in a clear voice to the whole world, as well as to our wretched brethren outside this land, it proclaims our war against the occupier. We are particularly far from this sort of hesitation in regard to an enemy whose moral perversion is admitted by all.^[29]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_(group)

Edited May 16, 2016 by kactus

[Scott Mayers]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_land_purchase_in_Palestine

From the above:

In the first half of the 19th century, no foreigners were allowed to purchase land in Palestine.

Thus, the land was originally Muslim and did not permit Jews, as they had a tendency to 'purchase' FOR sovereign control.

[The Ottoman Empire] also took issue with the Jews, as many came from Russia which sought the empire's demise.

Note that the Ottomans here are the ones which were later overthrown by the 'Allied' countries involving Britain and Zionist interests.

As such, any ownership purchases through these periods would NOT have been 'legal' of this empire. And IF one considers this Empire a function of intolerance against its people, than those living in Palestine are also 'victims'.

Many of the fellahin did not understand the importance of the registers and therefore the wealthy families took advantage of this. Jewish buyers who were looking for large tracts of land found it favorable to purchase from the wealthy owners. As well many small farmers became in debt to rich families which led to the transfer of land to the new owners and then eventually to the Jewish buyers.

This establishes here that the actual 'Palestinians' (of the region understood as this from historical times) were being exploited by and for the Jews.

during the late 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, many successful land purchases were made through organizations such as the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association (PJCA), Palestine Land Development Company and the Jewish National Fund.

This establishes that it was a "Jewish Nationalist" set of groups intent on this exploitation.

In 1918, after the British conquest of Palestine, the military administration closed the Land Register and prohibited all sale of land. The Register was reopened in 1920, but to prevent speculation and insure a livelihood for the fellahin, an edict was issued forbidding the sale of more than 300 dunams of land or the sale of land valued at more than 3000 Palestine pounds without the approval of the High Commissioner.

This establishes that the conquering British played a role and such powers of the people there had no democratic say in what was or was not allowed without acceptance of Britain.

The Talmud mentions the religious duty of settling the Land of Israel. So significant in Judaism is the act of purchasing land in Palestine, the Talmud allows for the lifting of certain religious restrictions of Sabbath observance to further its acquisition and settlement.

This was the 'background' factor indicating the intentional predatory desire of the Jewish Nationalists to take over this historical land.

Absorb some of this and look at the link above for more details. But here these point out specific key factors that demonstrate how and why the local peoples of Palestine were robbed from all ends and exploited for religious and ethnic purposes in a violation against the Muslims there. The Jews 'believed' that this land was already theirs. Imagine a strong and powerful 'gang' of some particular nationalistic ideal stalking your home with clear intent to destroy you. Is this not a violent act?

Edited May 16, 2016 by Scott Mayers

[DogOnPorch]

This is for those who still deny Palestine ever existed.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration

"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

You're referring to the Mandate of Palestine which was British Military rule. It wasn't a country...or a people, even. In fact, if anybody were to be referred to as 'Palestinians' back post-WW1 it was the Jews.

[DogOnPorch]

Jeez and I thought it was gonna be hard for you to admit that you side with terrorists

I do not side with Hamas. But you do.

[DogOnPorch]

There are terrorists on both sides.

I don't support either.

But I cannot condemn the actions of Palestinians to free themselves from the aggressive expansion, oppression and disproportionate attacks by Israel.

Until a two state solution is in place and respected by both parties, the circumstances of Palestinians are untenable and the attempts to free themselves will continue.

.

Irgun is long gone....and never was very large in size or scope. No flying airplanes into buildings.

The Palestinian Cause is based on supporting terrorist groups to get their own state free of Jews. You can't support one without the other.

Edited May 16, 2016 by DogOnPorch

[kactus]

Irgun is long gone....and never was very large in size or scope. No flying airplanes into buildings.

His legacy still lives in Israel apparent by the crimes committed against Palestinians...so is their sick methods of killing civillians.

Again an incoherrent argument...what has flying airplane got to do with palestinians!?

Edited May 16, 2016 by kactus

[Argus]

It is YOUR fixation with Iran and human rights records there as an scapegoat for policies of your beloved Bibi. Why should I or any knowledgable person about that region take what you say seriously when you cannot even get right that Persians are not arabs. It shows lack of credibility in your argument.

There's no difference between Iran and the rest of the Arab world as far as I'm concerned. They're all religious wackos following an increasingly violent and intolerant brand of Islam. Nor am I focused on Iran, having criticized lots of other countries, from China to Saudi Arabia to Egypt.

You only seem to care about the Jews, tho.

[Argus]

And HOW do you determine your 'facts' if you can't trust that places like Iran as able to communicate this through some form of media that is trusted?

There is a wide variety of media in the west, and a wide variety of agencies which monitor human rights abuses. It's not hard.

But when or where you dislike it, you dismiss such media as irrelevant with an accusation of it being Anti-Jewish/Anti-Semite propaganda.

When you're dealing with the most frequent media cited here, that being RT (wholly owned by the Russian government, which means Putin) and Al Jazeera (wholly owned by the Qatari government, which means the Emir) It's not difficult to find enormous bias in their reporting.

You appear to simply favor Israeli-Judaic ideals with disrespect to Muslim ones for personal biases.

No, I favor democratic states over autocratic states. I don't think I'm unique in that respect.

What are you basing your ethics on here? This might help to understand first off what you actually find 'good' or 'bad'.

I've already stated that.

[Argus]

What nonsense.

You don't know how to handle anything that smashes your ignorant and narrow views. That's your problem.

Nothing you've ever written has done anything but reinforce my views that when you scratch a "Zionist hater' you get a guy with a Swastika tattoo on his arm and a yearning for gas chambers.

[Argus]

The State of Israel's existence is a 'crime'.

So how do you plan to deal with all those illegal Jews? Do you have a final solution in mind?

[Argus]

The Goldstone Report from one of the brutal Gaza attacks lays down detailed information and their investigations which show that Israel committed war crimes.

The judge who chaired the controversial UN inquiry into Israel's attack on Gaza in 2008 has expressed regret that his report may have been inaccurate.

Richard Goldstone, who led the committee that produced the Goldstone report, said in a newspaper article that "if I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone report would have been a very different document".

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/03/goldstone-regrets-report-into-gaza-war

Edited May 16, 2016 by Argus

[kactus]

There's no difference between Iran and the rest of the Arab world as far as I'm concerned. They're all religious wackos following an increasingly violent and intolerant brand of Islam. Nor am I focused on Iran, having criticized lots of other countries, from China to Saudi Arabia to Egypt.

You only seem to care about the Jews, tho.

And you seem fixated on Israel with little/ no knowledge of the composition of the population and socio demographic of the region. Why should one take your blanket statements and sheer generalisations with utterly stupid claims that "persians are arabs" take your argument seriously!?

[jacee]

The Palestinian Cause is based on supporting terrorist groups to get their own state free of Jews. You can't support one without the other.

Just as Israel's terrorism is designed to maintain and expand it's 'Jewish' state to Palestinian lands without including Palestinians as citizens of Israel.

They agree on that. :/

.

[DogOnPorch]

Just as Israel's terrorism is designed to maintain and expand it's 'Jewish' state to Palestinian lands without including Palestinians as citizens of Israel.

They agree on that. :/

.

That's disingenuous. Israel has decreased in size since the Camp David Agreement which you seem to not understand. Go look it up.

[jacee]

The judge who chaired the controversial UN inquiry into Israel's attack on Gaza in 2008 has expressed regret that his report may have been inaccurate.

Richard Goldstone, who led the committee that produced the Goldstone report, said in a newspaper article that "if I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone report would have been a very different document".

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/03/goldstone-regrets-report-into-gaza-war

How many 'mistakes' does it take before one concludes 'intentional negligence'?

The explanation for one 'mistake' killing 29 members of a family does not account for the deaths of 1400 people.

Nor does it excuse even those deaths.

Has an apology been issued?

Have reparations been made to the family?

.

Edited May 16, 2016 by jacee

[jacee]

That's disingenuous. Israel has decreased in size since the Camp David Agreement which you seem to not understand. Go look it up.

Are you ignoring the invasion of the settlements?

The extreme oppression of Gaza ...? Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

What legal borders does Israel claim, and respect?

Any?

.

Edited May 16, 2016 by jacee

[eyeball]

I do not side with Hamas. But you do.

I have to say I mostly side with the Palestinians because of the way arguments for Israel are presented by the likes of Argus, DOP and especially Rue. Israel doesn't have a chance with you guys on its side.

[Big Guy]

I have to say I mostly side with the Palestinians because of the way arguments for Israel are presented by the likes of Argus, DOP and especially Rue. Israel doesn't have a chance with you guys on its side.

Which side would Jesus choose?

[DogOnPorch]

Are you ignoring the invasion of the settlements?

The extreme oppression of Gaza ...? Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

What legal borders does Israel claim, and respect?

Any?

.

Gaza was stripped of its Jews. Hamas chose war. If you're an immigrant to Canada, your settlements are invading my land.

Get out.

[DogOnPorch]

I have to say I mostly side with the Palestinians because of the way arguments for Israel are presented by the likes of Argus, DOP and especially Rue. Israel doesn't have a chance with you guys on its side.

Hamas and Fatah are the Palestinian Cause. Two terrorist groups...both antisemitic. By all means support them.

[eyeball]

Both Semitic you mean.

[DogOnPorch]

Whatever you need to tell yourself to support them.

[marcus]

Israel still didn't start any of the Gaza Wars. That was Hamas....who you support I suppose.

So you got the list of war crimes committed by Israel. I'm glad you won't be asking for the list again. (Right)

Now you're deflecting the course and the topic of this thread and playing the "he started it" game, like it makes a difference in committing war crimes.

It's always nice to take the opportunity to debunk the myth that Zionist apologists like to spread. Like, "Hamas started it". Here is information on how it was actually Israel who started the 2008-09 Gaza carnage after six months of ceasfire:

On November 4, 2008, Israel launched a military incursion into a residential area of Dayr al-Balah in central Gaza. Israel stated its aim was to destroy what it said was a tunnel on the Gaza-Israel border dug by militants to infiltrate into Israel and abduct soldiers, however an Israeli defense official was quoted in the Washington Times acknowledging that Israel wanted to "send Hamas a message."[93] The assault, according to Mark LeVine was unprovoked, and several Hamas members were killed.

Don't you get tired of continuously being corrected? Perhaps you should stop repeating Hasbara talking points and give truth a chance.

[marcus]

The judge who chaired the controversial UN inquiry into Israel's attack on Gaza in 2008 has expressed regret that his report may have been inaccurate.

Richard Goldstone, who led the committee that produced the Goldstone report, said in a newspaper article that "if I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone report would have been a very different document".

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/03/goldstone-regrets-report-into-gaza-war

I suspect that you may have come across the full information, but are nitpicking and spreading misinformation like you usually do, because you're not interested in the truth. You're only interested in pushing your racist and bigoted agenda. Here is more on the so-called retraction by Goldstone that the Hasbara likes to flaunt:

According to Goldstone, the McGowan Davis report findings indicate that Israel did not have an explicit policy of causing intentional harm to civilians. This is the "retraction" everyone is rejoicing over.

However, reading the final UN report reveals that the committee didn't come anywhere near that conclusion. On the contrary. The committee states repeatedly that according to the information presented to it, "Israel does not appear to have conducted a general review of doctrine regarding military targets"

In the best case, those who are rejoicing over Goldstone's op-ed have not bothered to read the UN reports. In the worst case, they have read the reports and have chosen to keep them out of the public eye. Both UN reports state that despite 36 Israel Defense Forces investigations of the grave incidents mentioned in the Goldstone report, only one indictment has been filed. Moreover, both reports reach the conclusion that "given the seriousness of the allegations, the military investigations thus far appear to have produced very little."

Learning? Maybe the truth is uncomfortable for War Crimes apologists such as yourself.

Why is it okay for Palestinian children to be used as human shields by Israel? Is it because they're Muslim?

the UN team of experts expresses special concern with regard to an incident of using Palestinian children for purposes of checking suspicious objects.

Why the vague article? Poor Goldstone. A Jewish (and self-proclaimed Zionist) judge really got hit hard by pressure.

The committee notes that even now, over two years after the operation in Gaza - it is not in possession of new information enabling it to change its opinion that Israel has not examined its doctrine concerning the question of what constitutes a military target.

I asked Goldstone to help point out even a single word in the two reports that could justify his vague statement about the non-existence of the policy on harming civilians - while both reports repeatedly criticize Israel for not having investigated this issue at all.

Apologizing politely, the South African freedom fighter said he had imposed media silence on himself.

A pity. I had hoped I would be able to ask him if the op-ed was connected to unbearable pressures applied to him since the publication of the report. He himself, after all, told me less than a year ago about the attempt to ban him from his grandson's bar mitzvah at a synagogue in Johannesburg.

Perhaps his strange op-ed is a bid by him to secure a place of honor at the Passover seder table.