Palestine: Peace or Apartheid

[M.Dancer]

Well, it was well timed and devastatingly effective. On the other hand, it hardly involved any strategic or tactical virtuousity.

... A small elite army took on several massive armies on multiple fronts and won.

Israel had a much better armed and trained force, attacking with the advantage of surprise. Winning under those conditions was the expectation, not a great triumph.

It amazes me that someone who can dishonestly espouse that a blockade is not an act of war can pretend to know what is or ins't a great military victory.

Here's a hint, well timed and devastating are the two main ingredients of a strategic virtuoso, attacking by surprise is the key to a tactical victory. Had the Arabs done this, you would be harping on the ineffectiveness of the zionist's war bands.......but since it was only Jews you denigrate it.

[Figleaf]

Nonsense. It was quite close at times.

Pish Tosh ... Israeli military leaders themselves acknowledged there was no serious danger from their backwards neighbors in 1967.

It's fun being an armchair general in hindsight, isn't it?

We should play online Risk sometime.

[DogOnPorch]

Do you intend to respond?

I've explained plenty...your turn to type.

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

People who throw kisses are hopelessly lazy.

---Bob Hope

[Figleaf]

It amazes me that someone who can dishonestly espouse that a blockade is not an act of war can pretend to know what is or ins't a great military victory.

Obviously, you cannot be refering to me, because when you and I discussed the act of war question of blockades, YOUR OWN SOURCES showed that blockades were not rated as casus belli at the relevant time. If you don't recall that, I urge you to review the relevant thread, wherein it was abundantly clear.

...but since it was only Jews you denigrate it.

Did I denigrate it? No, I merely failed to laud it.

But as you've shown here again and again, in your mind failing to laud Israel equates to anti-semitism.

Give it a rest.

[M.Dancer]

It amazes me that someone who can dishonestly espouse that a blockade is not an act of war can pretend to know what is or ins't a great military victory.

Obviously, you cannot be refering to me, because when you and I discussed the act of war question of blockades, YOUR OWN SOURCES showed that blockades were not rated as casus belli at the relevant time. If you don't recall that, I urge you to review the relevant thread, wherein it was abundantly clear.

Blockades have been traditionally considered an act of war. So is wantonly sinking another nations shipping on the high seas. The relatively recent codification fomalizes that reality. Now you are either being dishonest or stupid. Possibly both. Lets see. Are you going to argue that at one time a Blockade was benign, but now it is an act of war? What morally changed that could make something not worthy of a legal military reponse, worthy of a military response?

[ScottSA]

It amazes me that someone who can dishonestly espouse that a blockade is not an act of war can pretend to know what is or ins't a great military victory.

Obviously, you cannot be refering to me, because when you and I discussed the act of war question of blockades, YOUR OWN SOURCES showed that blockades were not rated as casus belli at the relevant time. If you don't recall that, I urge you to review the relevant thread, wherein it was abundantly clear.

Did you claim that blockades are not an act of war? You're wrong, surprise surprise. Blockades are an act of war always and everywhere. That is a fact not up for interpretive claptrap by lefties who don't know what they are talking about. It is enshrined in Intl Law under both the Treaty of Paris and the Declaration of London. "Casus belli" is obviously used as a subjective by you, because blockades, as a legally recognized act of war, are always a casus belli. Just because someone doesn't start firing guns at a blockading force doesn't mean it's not an act of war on the part of the blockading force.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9015678/blockade

[M.Dancer]

It amazes me that someone who can dishonestly espouse that a blockade is not an act of war can pretend to know what is or ins't a great military victory.

Obviously, you cannot be refering to me, because when you and I discussed the act of war question of blockades, YOUR OWN SOURCES showed that blockades were not rated as casus belli at the relevant time. If you don't recall that, I urge you to review the relevant thread, wherein it was abundantly clear.

Did you claim that blockades are not an act of war? You're wrong, surprise surprise. Blockades are an act of war always and everywhere. That is a fact not up for interpretive claptrap by lefties who don't know what they are talking about. It is enshrined in Intl Law under both the Treaty of Paris and the Declaration of London. "Casus belli" is obviously used as a subjective by you, because blockades, as a legally recognized act of war, are always a casus belli. Just because someone doesn't start firing guns at a blockading force doesn't mean it's not an act of war on the part of the blockading force.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9015678/blockade

Figleaf is on of those who argue that Israel started the six day war by launching an unwarranted preemptive attack. Figleaf argues that the only grounds for war is being overrun by your enemies and driven into the sea....well, at least for the jews.....other nations may have more leeway.

[DogOnPorch]

Israel had a much better armed and trained force, attacking with the advantage of surprise. Winning under those conditions was the expectation, not a great triumph.

Then explain why the Arabs lost in 1973 with their own superior armies and a surprise attack on a Jewish holiday. Seems like a sure thing...but that's what Nasser thought about 1967, too.

Pish Tosh ... Israeli military leaders themselves acknowledged there was no serious danger from their backwards neighbors in 1967.

Source? The Arabs kicked out the UN and advanced their armies to the border of Israel. They then blockaded the Straits of Tiran...this with Nasser frothing for war. They didn't figure the Israelis would strike first. Boy were they in for a surprise....

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

Our forces saved the remnants of the Jewish people of Europe for a new life and a new hope in the reborn land of Israel. Along with all men of good will, I salute the young state and wish it well.

---President/General Dwight D. Eisenhower

[ScottSA]

It amazes me that someone who can dishonestly espouse that a blockade is not an act of war can pretend to know what is or ins't a great military victory.

Obviously, you cannot be refering to me, because when you and I discussed the act of war question of blockades, YOUR OWN SOURCES showed that blockades were not rated as casus belli at the relevant time. If you don't recall that, I urge you to review the relevant thread, wherein it was abundantly clear.

Did you claim that blockades are not an act of war? You're wrong, surprise surprise. Blockades are an act of war always and everywhere. That is a fact not up for interpretive claptrap by lefties who don't know what they are talking about. It is enshrined in Intl Law under both the Treaty of Paris and the Declaration of London. "Casus belli" is obviously used as a subjective by you, because blockades, as a legally recognized act of war, are always a casus belli. Just because someone doesn't start firing guns at a blockading force doesn't mean it's not an act of war on the part of the blockading force.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9015678/blockade

Figleaf is on of those who argue that Israel started the six day war by launching an unwarranted preemptive attack. Figleaf argues that the only grounds for war is being overrun by your enemies and driven into the sea....well, at least for the jews.....other nations may have more leeway.

Yeah, he is no doubt among those who thought the recent war against Hezbollah was "disproportionate" because the Jews didn't fire a shot and then sit back and wait for a return volley like a game of badminton.

[Greg]

Enough with the off-topic banter.

If you've got a problem with another poster, please contact that person directly.

Please note: I've written about the "Reported" posts in this thread. Please do not report that you've reported another member in the forums.

[Greg]

Also,

Please trim your quotes and replies. There is no reason to leave in all the previous replies/quotes if you're replying to just one particular portion of another posting.

This thread is just full of forum violations - lets trim our replies, cut out the off topic banter and get back to discussing politics with some civility.

[Figleaf]

Israel had a much better armed and trained force, attacking with the advantage of surprise. Winning under those conditions was the expectation, not a great triumph.

Then explain why the Arabs lost in 1973 with their own superior armies and a surprise attack on a Jewish holiday.

The facts/events of 1973 don't change anthing about the facts/events of 1967 so I see no reason to 'explain' any such thing.

But I'll share my view that after some initial carelessness that nearly allowed it's Arab enemies to win, Israel's comeback in the 1973 war was an example of strategic and/or tactical virtuousity.

Pish Tosh ... Israeli military leaders themselves acknowledged there was no serious danger from their backwards neighbors in 1967.

Source?

I invite you to review several threads on this subject from months past wherein those sources were cited.

AND, do I take it that you have no response on the issue of what you meant to suggest when you said: "There wasn't a place called Palestine on any map from 1967." and "It only became a sudden huge issue when the Israeli's kicked everyone's collective rear-ends in 1967 upsetting everyone's plans re: driving the Jews into the sea." If you recall I asked what point you felt those comments added up to.

[White Doors]

Reported.

[Rue]

Stop using the term "occupation" incorrectly.

The legal term “occupation” originates from the 1949 4th Geneva Convention entited; “ Relative to the Protection of Civilized Persons in Time of War “ Article 6 of this convention states;

“ the occupying power shall be bound for the duration of the occupation

to the extent that such power exercises the functions of government in such

territory..”.

The Israeli military government is NOT exercising any function of government in the Gaza Strip. Israel withdrew its military government over the Palestinians and replaced it with a Palestinian Authority under Yasser Arafat as per the Oslo Agreement. It is legally incorrect to state the Gaza is occupied when in fact the PLA exercises self-government .

The PLO and Hamas decided to unilaterally changed the legal definition of occupation for political propaganda reasons and give it a new meaning. It argues that since Israel patrols Gaza's territorial waters to intercept terrorists and can fly over its airspace this means Gaza is not fully liberated and is therefore occupied but this has nothing to do with the legal definition.

Just because the PLO/Hamas have changed the definition to satisfy their propaganda argument of not wanting Israel in its alleged territorial waters or to stop flying over it, doesn't make it so.

The PLO also links Gaza to the West Bank and says until it completely controls the West Bank it considers Gaza occupied as well even if Gaza isn't. Hamas is of the opinion the state of Israel as well as the Gaza and West Bank are part of Palestine and therefore until Israel is terminated as a state and turned into a Muslim theocracy, Palestine is under occupation. This Hamas working definition of occupation is also shared by Al Fatah and all the terrorist organizations within the PLO and Hamas which are in fact two umbrella syndicates of many splinter cells each with its own ideology.

Under international law contrary to what the PLO or Hamas believe or Guthrie and Higgly and Figleaf and Buffy and Moe and Larry and Curly parrot, the legal term "occupation" is not used in the incorrect subject political way the PLO and Hamas have now taken to referring to it.

Under international law, occupation does not “end” simply because one side, in this case Hamas or Al Fatah says so. Occupation’s termination is not determined based on the subjective agenda or ideology of one side of the conflict but is in fact defined as having occurred when specific legal criteria have been met.

In fact the 4th Geneva Convention did not legally apply to the case of the Gaza Strip or the West Bank, since its previous occupants prior to Israel, Egypt and Jordan, illegally invaded these territories in 1948 and NEVER exercised any internationally recognized sovereignty on the ground.

For the convention to apply the occupying power must sign on as occupiers, but the Gaza Strip and the West Bank were ver recognized as either Egyptian and Jordanian territories. Not withstanding the above, in an effort to achieve peace, subsequent Israeli governments agreed to a de-facto application of the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention over the last thirty-eight years even though they have not been obliged to legally.

It is also a legal fact that the Fourth Geneva Convention is the internationally-recognized standard for determining the rights and responsibilities of state parties in cases of military occupation not the subjective feelings or ideology of Hamas or PLO or Figleaf or Guthrie.

There has not been a legally recognized sovereign in the West Bank and Gaza Strip since 1922.

The 1947 UN Partition Plan at no time created a new Palestinian Arab state. In fact Gaza and the West Bank were illegally occupied by the Egyptians and Jordanians in 1948.

Today’s Palestinian Authority engages in the phrase "occupied Palestinian territories" to advance the arguement that they have exclusive rights in these territories based on the faleshood that they were previously a Palestinian sovereignty.

No amount of revising of history can change the fact that prior to 1948 there was NO sovereign Palestine state in the Gaza and West Bank and so you can not occupy something that never existed even if you want to pretend you are a nation when you are not.

The word “occupation” is a propaganda tool used to portray or depict Palestinians as “victims” of an “occupation”. It plays to the concept that they have been invaded and are controlled by Israel.

The fact is Israel only entered Gaza and the West Bank in 1967 in direct response to invasions being prepared and launched from these sites. The PLO and Hamas have tried to change history and make it appear for no reason Israel simply decided to invade the Gaza and West Bank. Its part of the Israel bad bad bad mantra.

Under the international doctrine of self-defence Israel was and is allowed to defend itself from terrorist actions or external military attacks from foreign nations. It does not contrary to the machinations of Figleaf’s brain, have to sit and wait to be attacked, then do nothing as its people are killed.

So in this current cycle of violence, each time Israel is pro-active in preventing terrorist attacks from being launched from the Gaza or West Bank, it is portrayed by Hamas and/or the PLO as an aggressor who for no reason just picks on them. Then the fiction continues because when terrorists are shot on the spot carrying weapons, Hamas and the PLO say Israel is not allowed to do such a thing and is acting unreasonably.

The UN resolution Hamas and the PLO use to justify terrorism is Resolution 2708 which states; " the UN reaffirms its recognition of the legitimacy of the struggle of the colonial peoples and peoples under alien domination to exercise their right to self-determination and independence by all the necessary means at their disposal."

When Arafat spear-headed air hijackings he quoted the above resolution to state his terrorist actions were not terrorist but “legitimate actions to assure self-determination”. This is the same resolution quoted by Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Palestinian Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Al Quaeda, and hundreds of other splinter terrorist cells.

In fact the Arab League and most Arab states to this day refuse to agree to a general renunciation of all violence against civilians as part of an agreed definition of terrorism at the UN. This is precisely why the genocide goes on in Sudan. The Arab League and its nations feel if they denounced violence, they would lose what they feel is a legal right given to them by the UN to engage in terrorism against Israel to resist the alleged “ occupation ".

Interestingly when Algeria wiped out over 250,000 of its own citizens in an internal civil war, this resolution was ignored just as it is now in Sudan, Somalia, Iraq, Syria, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Jordan, when the ruling governments have used their armies to crush political resistance.

The bottom line is simple. If Hamas and the PLO, specifically Al Fatah, the PFLP and Islamic Jihad, stated they would not engage in terrorism, Israel would not be involved in strategic strikes killing terrorists in cars headed to Israel.

If these terrorists cells ceased with terrorism, the IDF would pull back to safe defensible borders like it did in the past when it supported Palestinian charities, schools, mosques and village councils, and paid for the salaries of 19,000 Palestinians including 11,000 teachers and social workers.

In the past when there was no terrorism, Palestinians were able to work in Israel, share a common market to sell their fruit and vegetables and had schools, hospitals, road-ways, social services funded by Israel.

What has terrorism achieved for its people other then to destroy the above and leave its people unemployed and now engaged in civil war with each other.

It is precisely because of this terrorism the West Bank will be now defined by a arge cement wall since Israel has concluded that Hamas and the PLO will not give up terrorism against Israel.

If one looks at the charter of Hamas, Al Fatah, the PFLP, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and then listens to the official speeches or comments on Arab t.v. and radio, they would hear these groups are not interested in creating a state on the West bank and Gaza and never have. Their charters and ideologies make it clear they seek a Muslim theocracy where Israel is now and that the Jews in Israel must be killed or expelled and that to achieve this killing Jews all over the world as well as innocent civilians who may be or may not be Jewish, is a legitimate means to achieve this goal.

The same Mr. Abbas who tells the Western Press terrorism has gotten his people nowhere, tells his Palestinian audience that they will not stop until Israel is extinguished. Guess it all depends on who is listening to you.

We can play the game that Israel “occupies” and pretend this is simply a bad guy invading a good guy and there are no terrorists, but such a game is tiresome because other then Figleaf, Higgly, Guthrie and probably Buffy, ( I note all this anti-Israel haters end their name with a Y or ee, isn’t that right Figleafy) most people understand that the problem preventing the creation of a second Palestinian state at this time is Hamas and the PLO’s decision to continue on with terrorism.

No amount of trying to revise history and paint Israel as bad bad bad can change that fact and the fact that if the Palestinian people renounced violence, could have a peaceful state living side by side with Israel.

Hamas has made it clear they do not want a state in just the West Bank and Gaza, so has Al Fatah. If you think Israel will simply sit around waiting to be destroyed keep thinking these good thoughts. Unlike Figgy and Buffy and Guthrie and Higgly, who from their safety in Canada can point their finger at Israel and call it Bad Bad Bad, the people who live in Israel, will do what they have to do to survive and if that means hunting down and killing terrorists before they strike-that is what they will do.

If it means creating peaceful social and economic coalitions with Palestinian moderators and removing Israeli settlers-that is what they will do as well.

.

[Figleaf]

The Israeli military government is NOT exercising any function of government in the Gaza Strip.

Then it is neglecting its obligations as an occupying power to supply order and security within the area. There is no doubt that Israel exercises military control over the region to the extent it sees fit from time to time. It continues to control ingress and egress at the borders, and controls the airspace and use of the ports.

Under international law, occupation does not “end” simply because one side, in this case Hamas or Al Fatah says so.

Neither does it end simply because the other side, in this case Israel, pretends it has.

For the convention to apply the occupying power must sign on as occupiers,...

!!!

Where does it say that?

Today’s Palestinian Authority engages in the phrase "occupied Palestinian territories" to advance the arguement that they have exclusive rights in these territories based on the faleshood that they were previously a Palestinian sovereignty.

Nonsense. The Palestinian's claims are not based on sovereignty; they are based on the right to self-determination.

No amount of revising of history can change the fact ....

I was just about the write that to you.

Under the international doctrine of self-defence Israel was and is allowed to defend itself from terrorist actions or external military attacks from foreign nations.

Yes, and under international law Israel is not permitted to occupy and deny self-determination to a people and carry out a creeping annexation on the premise of protecting itself.

It does not contrary to the machinations of Figleaf’s brain, have to sit and wait to be attacked, then do nothing as its people are killed.

I've never said any such thing. It would really go a long way toward bringing your posts up to a decent level of integrity if you avoided uttering scurrilous claptrap about other posters.

...Resolution 2708 which states; " the UN reaffirms its recognition of the legitimacy of the struggle of the colonial peoples and peoples under alien domination to exercise their right to self-determination and independence by all the necessary means at their disposal."

Excellent factoid. Very informative. I'll bear it in mind.

In the past when there was no terrorism, Palestinians were able to work in Israel, share a common market to sell their fruit and vegetables and had schools, hospitals, road-ways, social services funded by Israel.

Yes, of course, Israel was utterly committed to building a utopia for Palestinians.

We can play the game that Israel “occupies” and pretend this is simply a bad guy invading a good guy ...

Personally, I think your 'good guy'/'bad guy' characterizations are a troublesome oversimplification of the situation over there. If you persist in seeing it in those terms, it will probably prevent you from being able to sort out the rights and obligations that apply there under international law.

No amount of trying to revise history and paint Israel as bad bad bad can change that fact and the fact that if the Palestinian people renounced violence, could have a peaceful state living side by side with Israel.

I've seen little in Israel's conduct that makes that suggestion believable. The ongoing establishment of illegal settlements puts paid to that notion.

[DogOnPorch]

Pish Tosh ... Israeli military leaders themselves acknowledged there was no serious danger from their backwards neighbors in 1967.

Source?

I invite you to review several threads on this subject from months past wherein those sources were cited.

AND, do I take it that you have no response on the issue of what you meant to suggest when you said: "There wasn't a place called Palestine on any map from 1967." and "It only became a sudden huge issue when the Israeli's kicked everyone's collective rear-ends in 1967 upsetting everyone's plans re: driving the Jews into the sea." If you recall I asked what point you felt those comments added up to.

I'll just take it that there are no proper sources for your claim.

As for your other request, my post contains your answer. But I'll spell it out again...

"Palestinians" are a constructed issue. Before 1967 nobody cared...not even Muslims. After 1967, suddenly there was a big problem with the lack of a "Palestinan homeland". This even though the Jordanians held the West Bank for years after they annexed it. If it was such a big problem...why didn't the Jordanians solve the problem by handing over the West Bank to the "Palestinans"?

Answer: The Jordanians viewed it as their land...not some mysterious country's land that never existed. They only changed their tune in 1988 due to the Ma'an uprising. Hussein I was never a fan of the "Palestinians" (they tried to remove him from power).

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

It would behoove the world to become used to this fact: that without a just solution to the Palestine tragedy, there can be no stable peace in the Middle East.

---King Hussein I of Jordan, 1962

[scribblet]

There never was a Palestine, or any Palestinian Arab nation

"The British chose to call the land they mandated Palestine, and the Arabs picked it up as their nation's supposed ancient name, though they couldn't even pronounce it correctly and turned it into Falastin a fictional entity." ---- Golda Meir quoted by Sarah Honig, Jerusalem Post, 25 November 1995

Palestine there is no Palestinian language or distinct culture. the land we now call call Palestine was not a country and had no frontiers, only administrative boundaries . . . . - Professor Bernard Lewis, Commentary Magazine, January 1975

[ScottSA]

Nevermind all that. We must have a homeland NOW! As a proud but dispossessed Scoto-Canadian, I'm declaring the birth of "Hagis", a freedom fighting group modelled after Hamas, but with the distinctly Scottish flavour of Haggis instead of some bearded and beturbaned savage claiming he's a prophet. Anyway, where was I? Ah yes. Hagis demands it's traditional homeland in BC. In fact, BC is the homeland of Scoto-Canadians, although we will allow Canada to maintain a small sliver of land around the arctic circle until such time as we can drive the damnable Canadian pigs and apes into the Aleutians. Beginning tomorrow, we will send explosive laden sheep into the general Canadian population, then cry foul when Canadian pigs and apes, who we will soon drive into the sea, set up discriminating roadblocks. We will loudly wallow in self pity at the atrocities perpetrated by the Canadians upon us and our traditional homeland.

[scribblet]

Acting Palestinian Legislative Council Speaker Sheikh Ahmad Bahr, From Hamas, In Friday Sermon in Sudan: U.S., Israel Will Be Annihilated; Oh Allah, Kill the Jews and Americans "To The Very Last One"

To view this Special Dispatch in HTML, visit:

http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD155307 .

The following are excerpts from a sermon delivered by Ahmad Bahr, acting speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council, from Hamas, which aired on Sudan TV on April 13, 2007. As long as these views prevail there will never be peace.

watch a clip here: http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1426

"America Will Be Annihilated, While Islam Will Remain"

Ahmad Bahr: "'You will be victorious' on the face of this planet. You are the masters of the world on the face of this planet. Yes, [the Koran says that] 'you will be victorious,' but only 'if you are believers.' Allah willing, 'you will be victorious,' while America and Israel will be annihilated, Allah willing.

I guarantee you that the power of belief and faith is greater than the power of America and Israel. They are cowards, as is said in the Book of Allah: 'You shall find them the people most eager to protect their lives.' They are cowards, who are eager for life, while we are eager for death for the sake of Allah. That is why America's nose was rubbed in the mud in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Somalia, and everywhere."

[...]

while we are eager for death for the sake of Allah oh right

[Figleaf]

I invite you to review several threads on this subject from months past wherein those [israeli leadership] sources were cited.

AND, do I take it that you have no response on the issue of what you meant to suggest when you said: "There wasn't a place called Palestine on any map from 1967." and "It only became a sudden huge issue when the Israeli's kicked everyone's collective rear-ends in 1967 upsetting everyone's plans re: driving the Jews into the sea." If you recall I asked what point you felt those comments added up to.

I'll just take it that there are no proper sources for your claim.

WTF, didn't I just tell you such sources were listed in past threads? Yes, Yes I did. So your assumption that there are no sources is clearly absurd. Ludicrous even. As proof of the ridiculous quality of your assumption, I refer you to ... http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....ilization&st=15 (see post #23).

As for your other request, my post contains your answer. But I'll spell it out again...

"Palestinians" are a constructed issue. Before 1967 nobody cared...not even Muslims. After 1967, suddenly there was a big problem with the lack of a "Palestinan homeland". This even though the Jordanians held the West Bank for years after they annexed it. If it was such a big problem...why didn't the Jordanians solve the problem by handing over the West Bank to the "Palestinans"?

Answer: The Jordanians viewed it as their land...not some mysterious country's land that never existed. They only changed their tune in 1988 due to the Ma'an uprising. Hussein I was never a fan of the "Palestinians" (they tried to remove him from power).

Well, you haven't answered my question, you've only added more seemingly pointless information. What do you suggest it adds up to in respect of the Palestinians' right to self-determination? And how so?

[Figleaf]

There never was a Palestine, ...

Why do people come out with such inanities. Palestine was the name of the region as long ago as the Roman Empire.

"The British chose to call the land they mandated Palestine, and the Arabs picked it up as their nation's supposed ancient name, though they couldn't even pronounce it correctly and turned it into Falastin a fictional entity." ---- Golda Meir quoted by Sarah Honig, Jerusalem Post, 25 November 1995

Yeah, right. There's an impartial source -- Not.

I truly doubt Golda Meir was ignorant of the ancient Roman history of the region, and if so her pretense that the name dates only from the British mandate must be a deliberate deception.

[jbg]

I've seen little in Israel's conduct that makes that suggestion believable. The ongoing establishment of illegal settlements puts paid to that notion.

I've about had enough of the double standard - not yours alone, concerning Israel If the people purporting to represent the areas where Israel is engaging in "establishment of illegal settlements" made any showing of being willing to not only suspend, but end, their struggle against the "Zionist entity" the settlement activity would stop. The Israelis suffer from high taxation, in part, to protect these settlements.

When are you going to attack the "conduct" of countries that fund suicide attacks, provide safe havens, etc. No, you'll attack Israel for a stray hit of an apartment building adjacent to terrorists before you'd attack using civilians as human shields as Hezbollah does every day in Lebanon.

[Figleaf]

I've seen little in Israel's conduct that makes that suggestion believable. The ongoing establishment of illegal settlements puts paid to that notion.

I've about had enough of the double standard - not yours alone, concerning Israel If the people purporting to represent the areas where Israel is engaging in "establishment of illegal settlements" made any showing of being willing to not only suspend, but end, their struggle against the "Zionist entity" the settlement activity would stop.

It's not a double standard. Its two separate questions that can't be offset one against the other.

The Israelis suffer from high taxation, in part, to protect these settlements.

When are you going to attack the "conduct" of countries that fund suicide attacks, provide safe havens, etc.

Why are you so keen to dictate which issues need my voice?

No, you'll attack Israel for a stray hit of an apartment building adjacent to terrorists ...

???When did I do that???

[ScottSA]

I've seen little in Israel's conduct that makes that suggestion believable. The ongoing establishment of illegal settlements puts paid to that notion.

I've about had enough of the double standard - not yours alone, concerning Israel If the people purporting to represent the areas where Israel is engaging in "establishment of illegal settlements" made any showing of being willing to not only suspend, but end, their struggle against the "Zionist entity" the settlement activity would stop. The Israelis suffer from high taxation, in part, to protect these settlements.

When are you going to attack the "conduct" of countries that fund suicide attacks, provide safe havens, etc. No, you'll attack Israel for a stray hit of an apartment building adjacent to terrorists before you'd attack using civilians as human shields as Hezbollah does every day in Lebanon.

I think the answer is only partially anti-semitism. I suspect many of the folks who criticize Israel criticize it because it's better at war than anyone else, and that goes against the grain of folks who think that equality of outcome is the standard by which things should be measured. That's why the outcry about the "unfairness" of the "disproportionate" Israeli attack on Hezbollah. They see it not as a gang of savages firing rockets indiscriminantly into civilian populations and getting their asses justly kicked, but rather as a game in which both sides must be evenly matched, conducting a gentleman's game of tit for tat. Anything remotely off-balance about the game becomes yet another victim vs oppressor saga in the ongoing meme of egalitarianism. Why, for instance, is Israel so upset about a simple border raid into Israel, a couple unprovoked deaths and a kidnapping? All that fuss? Of course they don't try to visualize what would happen if Cuba, for instance, launched a couple wars against the US, fired the odd rocket thereafter and gnashed its teeth loudly at the "Gringo entity", then wrapped it up with a border raid, a couple deaths and a kidnapping followed by a salvo of rockets. There would be no Cuba. The problem would be removed permanently.

But ultimately, to the armchair egalitarians, war over there is a television event, of no more real import than a good James Bond movie. Sure they can make disapproving noises at both sides, but the brunt of the makebelieve scorn is reserved for the winners, because after all the losers deserve pity. And war should be fair, like a game of tennis or badminton, and when one side shows up with a better team or god forbid better equipment, why, something just isn't right. There's a name for these idiots, but "useful fools" is too kind.

[Rue]

"Then it is neglecting its obligations as an occupying power to supply order and security within the area."

You are the same person who says Israel has no business in the Gaza and West Bank and now states the exact opposite.More to the point when Israel does try supply order and security within the area you call it terrorism. This is why you have no credibilty Figleaf. Time and time again when you respond you completely contradict yourself.

"There is no doubt that Israel exercises military control over the region to the extent it sees fit from time to time. It continues to control ingress and egress at the borders, and controls the airspace and use of the ports."

Absolutely true and your point? The above does not constitute legal occupation under international law. It is a symptom of an on-going conflict and its part of the cycle preventing peace. As long as Israel ahs to do this to prevent terrorist attacks it also alienates Palestinians and fuels the cycle of distrust and hatred which is why we need to disarm the terrorists so the IDF does not have to be there.

" (occupation) Neither does it end simply because the other side, in this case Israel, pretends it has."

Again you make a silly statement. Israel has never pretended it has stopped engaging in incursions to fight terrorism. It has never hidden what it has to do to fight terrorism unless its a specific under-cover strike and The IDF issues press releases of its anti-terrorist actions unless they are on-going and undercover and revealing the operation could jeopardize someone's life. All terrorist attacks are eventually disclosed precisely because the IDF needs its civilians to know what it is doing to protect them. Something you have no clue about since you never lived in Israel and have no clue what it is you think you understand from your arm-chair.

For the convention to apply the occupying power must sign on as occupiers,...

!!! Where does it say that?

Uh Figleaf, in the space at the bottom of the treaty or declaration that states who the signatories to the treating or declaration are-try read one before you ask such questions...you are embarassing yourself with such questions...

"Nonsense. The Palestinian's claims are not based on sovereignty; they are based on the right to self-determination."

Good grief. Try read and find out what the Palestinians have actually said and while you are at tell us the difference between sovereignty and self-determination.

Under the international doctrine of self-defence Israel was and is allowed to defend itself from terrorist actions or external military attacks from foreign nations.

Yes, and under international law Israel is not permitted to occupy and deny self-determination to a people and carry out a creeping annexation on the premise of protecting itself."

Figleaf you said yes and then completely contradicted yourself in the next sentence. Gee. Imagine that. Figleaf is trying to twist self-defence around to fit his Israel bad bad bad mantra. Gosh imagine that. Never seen Figleaf try to do that before. Interesting how you don't bother to debate me on the proper use of the legal defintiion of the word "occupy" but instead spit it out again incorrectly with the usual Israel bad bad bad mantra. You show if nothing else Figleaf you have a rigid cognitive process incapable of doing anything but clinging to the same tiresome phrases over and over rather then stating something insightful. Your "creeping annexation" comment is laughable given the fact that Israel has not annexed the Gaza and has never tried to annex it. Once again you do not understand the word "annex" and use it interchangeably and incorrectly.Annex is a legal term for taking land and claiming soveriegnty over it and making it part of another soverign nation. Israel has never done that. Jordan did until 1967. Egypt did with the Gaza until 1967. Israel never did. Its military administration of these territories never claimed to be exercising exclusive rights to total ownership of these lands for Israel.

The mandate of the military administrations has always been public knowledge. Gaza can't be annexed it is self-governed by the PLO and Hamas. The West Bank can ot be annexed as even when the Israeli military administered the West Bank, unlike Jordan it empowered village councils to run their villages autonomously. Oslo then codified Israel's intention of having no interest in the West Bank as being part of Israel. Of course Figleaf selectively ignores all that. Won't fit it in with his Israel nbad bad bad prattle.

I will say it again Figleaf's use of repetititous misleading phrases is trite and meaningless. The reality is Israel went into the West Bank to prevent terrorist attacks. If no terrorist attacks were being launched from the West Bank it would be gone. The settlers who then came in from Israel and who most certainly exasperate the over-all situation could be removed. They were originally put in as early warning sites to observe for terrorist attacks and it proved a disaster for the IDF who did not want them and did not want to have to defend them. The IDF wants them gone as much as the Palestinians do. Strategically they are of no help. The question unfortunately has come to fruition. Israel has given up waiting for terrorist attacks to stop from the West Bank and is building a cement wall. That will be the tragic solution to an inability to stop terrorism. Yes that wall will

cause problems but the alternative-continuous attacks from terrorists in the West Bank are not an option and more to the point further proving Figleaf has no clue what he is talking about because if Israel was interested in annexing the West Bank as opposed to simply trying to prevent terrorist attacks, why woud it put the wall up-it would simply take over all of the West Bank. What Figleaf also fails to understand is where the IDF actually is on the West Bank. In his simplistic brain they are everywhere. They never have been everywhere. They are in very specific places not all over the place and in fact for the most part try stay away form Palestinians and limit their activities to movements of Palestinians when they go outside their villages. What Figleaf would try present as a military ooccupation wide spread on the ground is not true at all-first off the IDF does not have the manpower to commit to such an operation, secondly they use sattelites to monitor movement, and then only move their units in based on specific intelligence reports indicating an imminent attack. They don't otherwise interact with civilians other then on the road-checks. If Figleaf got off his arm-chair and went there and found out what was really going on instead of professing to be an expert he would understand how the West Bank is set out and what I am talking about. This is why I have contempt for people like Figleaf. They talk about land they have never been to as if they understand it.

It does not contrary to the machinations of Figleaf’s brain, have to sit and wait to be attacked, then do nothing as its people are killed.

I've never said any such thing. It would really go a long way toward bringing your posts up to a decent level of integrity if you avoided uttering scurrilous claptrap about other posters."

Really Figleaf. Then put up right now of shut up. State right now Israel has the right to defend itself against Hamas, the PLO or anyone else who engages in terrorist attacks against it.

...Resolution 2708 which states; " the UN reaffirms its recognition of the legitimacy of the struggle of the colonial peoples and peoples under alien domination to exercise their right to self-determination and independence by all the necessary means at their disposal."

Excellent factoid. Very informative. I'll bear it in mind.

It wasn't a factoid. It is a resolution written up by the PLO and passed by the UN and has been used to state terrorism is a legitimate legal act. As usual you play the role of sarcastic know it all and which is precisely why I tell you stop playing the fool which then causes you to "report" me. Can you not stop for one moment and admit that the words "by all necessary means at their disposal" has been used to justify terror not self-defence. There is a huge difference using a conventional army to fight another conventional army compared to taking children, pregnant women, or men disguised as women or civilians and driving ambulances and launching terror attacks against civilians. There is a huge difference between engaging in conventional war as self-defence to shooting missiles out of schools, hospitals, mosques and apartment buildings deliberately placing civilians in the way of return fire. That is precisely the point Figleaf. The IDF would not have to be anywhere but in Israel if there was no terrorism.

"In the past when there was no terrorism, Palestinians were able to work in Israel, share a common market to sell their fruit and vegetables and had schools, hospitals, road-ways, social services funded by Israel.

Yes, of course, Israel was utterly committed to building a utopia for Palestinians. "

Again Figleaf this is why you have zero credibility with anyone. You are so full of your biases you can't just once stop and admit Israel did the right thing and would have continued to do so but was prevented by Hamas and Al Fatah. Instead you laugh off positive elements and in so doing you make yourself out to be a hyena.

We can play the game that Israel “occupies” and pretend this is simply a bad guy invading a good guy ...

Personally, I think your 'good guy'/'bad guy' characterizations are a troublesome oversimplification of the situation over there. If you persist in seeing it in those terms, it will probably prevent you from being able to sort out the rights and obligations that apply there under international law."

Now we play the sarcasm card card again. Giggle giggle. Figleaf you just demonstrated in all the above comments that you are completely void of seeing this conflict in any manner other then Israel bad guy, Hamas and PLO good guy, and now you try turn this around at this point to suggest I am engaged in your tactics. The posts speak for themselves Figlleaf as does the insincerity of your above remarks.

No amount of trying to revise history and paint Israel as bad bad bad can change that fact and the fact that if the Palestinian people renounced violence, could have a peaceful state living side by side with Israel.

I've seen little in Israel's conduct that makes that suggestion believable. The ongoing establishment of illegal settlements puts paid to that notion.

Figleaf, your bias subjective proclomation from your arm-chair means nothing and is laughabkle given you just finished telling us all how I should refrain from bad guy good guy conceptions, but then then in the very next sentence, you do exactly what you tried to suggest I was doing. Read it back Figleaf. Admire your consistency.

Unlike Figleaf who will never do anything but criticize Israel on these posts and will not come out and renounce the terrorist activities of Hamas and the PLO and state they are the key obstacle to peace and unlike Figleaf who would ignore the terrorism and simplify the conflict as simply being caused by illegal settlements in the West Bank, I have and continue to state;

1-settlements in the West Bank have exasperated peace efforts and in the long run, to resolve

the conflict aqnd they will have to be dismantled as part of an over all peace process;

2-that as part of the peace process Israel will need safe defensible borders, something Saudi Arabia

has already hinted the Arab League can acknowledge in a peace treaty but is something Hamas has made

clear it will not accept;

2-the major reason peace can not be achieved is not 1, it has been one reason and one reason

alone, the ability of terrorist dedicated to the absolute destruction of Israel monopolizing the Palestinian political community and

preventing Palestinian moderates from engaging in peace talks with Israel.

As for Figleaf and his arm-chair pronouncements as to what he "sees" only a Figleaf would think he can see from the vantage point of his arm-chair.

It is precisely the Figleafs of the world who pronounce from the safety and comfort of their armchairs I have contempt for.

They lecture Israelis without a clue what it means to be under attack from a terrorist because they take freedom, democracy,

and the ability to walk across the street and sit in a cafe and do what they want for granted.

They also insult all Palestinians who can not work and not live in fear of their children dying because Hamas runs their life with

brute force. Figleaf has no clue as to how Islamic Jihad, PFLP, Hamas, Al Fatah recruit. He has no clue what terrorism is doing

to Palestinians because in his world of good and bad he sees all Palestinians in one simplistic category of "victim because of

Israel". He has no clear of what goes on within the Gaza and West Bank and how terrorists in the name of Palestine enslave

Palestinians. He has no clue because he has never been there and see how they recruit. He doesn't see the consequence

of how choosing terrorism sentences children to death.