 |
| |
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:17
|
|
I have been trying to reply to the Israeli Reservist" thread for about an hour, but the site would not let me, So I decided to begina thread for my response.
The basic reason why the Israeli postion is immoral is that it is based on a policy of denying the humanity of over 2.7 million people who live on land Israel wants but has no rightful claim to.
Lets begin by saying that biblical claims are immaterial-if we start throwing the bible around (or Torah, or Q'uran) then evryone can claim to have a rightful piece of that land, not just Jews. Claims based on ancient history also do not matter. If the Caananites were to come back, would both Jews and Arabs have to vacate, since they are the original inhabitants? No.
So what are claims to land based on? Law. The borders of Israel were set in 1948, and the West bank and Gaza strip, and Golan, were not part of them. After Nurembarg, the world has made it clear that military might is not a valid way for a state to take land, since this invariabl dinies the inhabitants of that land their right of self-determination.
Defenders of Israel say- we are a democracy- fine, whens the last time there were elections in the West bank and Gaza in which the inhabitants were asked whether they wanted to be aprt of Israel? Wait, such elections have never taken place since Israel has never allowed it. The fact that Israel must patrol these areas not with its civil authority, as it does within the Green line, but with the military, shows that Israels claim to that land is based solely on its military might, and not any moral or legal claim.
I ask defenders of Israel to defend the following policies:
1. Demolishing the houses of the FAMILIES of suspects
2. Total blockades of towns, which prevent individuals from: going shopping, going to work, going to school, visiting relatives, recieving adequate medical care.
3. Rationing water to Palestinians, sometime only once every few days, while settlements nearby have enough water to run washing mashines.
4. Shooting live ammo at srone-throwing protestors
5. Indifinite holding of individuals with no legal review
6. The entire settlement policy.
Palestininas who commit terrorist acts are criminals and deserve to be punished (and I am no fan of Arafat), but the crimes of the Palestinians DO NOT erase the even bigger crimes of Israel since 1967. Everyone is responsible for their own actions, regardless the actions of others.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Goingonit
|
 |
Toronto, Canada - AECCP member
Apr 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
1. The demolished houses are, in most cases, abandoned and used solely for sniping.
4. There are gunmen shielded by stone-throwers.
5. They are going to blow themselves up inside Israel killing tens of civilians. If I were them, I'd hold them too.
Israel is doing what it feels it needs to in order to defend itself. Hawkish governments get voted into power because of a need for security felt by the people. Arafat is, much like Saddam Hussein, sacrificing the people whom he supposedly represents to gain world support. Israel, a democracy, cannot do that, and must try to in some way coerce the Palestinian terrorists to desist from their actions.
The Palestinian attacks are not a whole-population thing the way the first Intifada was: Israel is dealing with proffesional terrorist organizations a la Afghanistan. The Israleis know who they are dealing with, and kill or arrest them accordingly. However, one sentence from Arafat could stop all terrorist action.
The IDF is defending the border, much like the US army is defending the Mexican border. The incursions are to kill terrorists, not to conquer territory.
Are there 2.7 million Palestinians in Occupied Territories? Where did you get that figure?
The settlements are immoral and should be illegal. Sharon is not a Nazi but he is too right-wing for my tastes, certainly.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:17
|
|
Goingonit:
There are 1 million palestininans in the Gaza strip, one of the most densely populated places on earth (interestingly enough, 20% of this land is held by 6,000 settler while the million palestininans do with 80%) The remaining 1.7 million live in the west bank- and these figures leave out millions more in lebanon and Jordan who are refugees. The UN, US government, and Israel government all can lead you to these figures.
As for your answers;
1. You did not answer the question- I am asking about the policy of demolishing the houses of the family members of suspected terrorists, not just general house demolishions, which are a different things. Also, most demolishions are of houses built without permits, permits which Israel makes sure are few in number.
4. Again, don't answer the question- most times the Israelis are not shot at all, so this excuse does not fly. Besides, they aren't shooting at the gunmen if any, but at the stonethrowers, which is not a very good strategy in my book.
5. We are talking about hundreds being held here. Everytime you here of Israel going into Palestinian viallges and taking suspects, they are held indefinitely without charges brought- so your 'explination' is again, incomplete.
No answer attempted for 2,3. Is that because you find them immoral yourself?
Which borders is the IDF protecting? The green line, internationally resognized borders, or the aggrandized Israel the rightwingers want?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Eli
|
|
Israel
Jul 2000
time: 07:17
|
|
Goingonit, orange :
You are both right concerning Arafat.
Currently, when he is "jailed" in Rammallah he cant really stop violence. In some cities in the West Bank you already have semi-Anarchy. Of course that if Arafat decides to stop fire at any cost, he will be able to significantly decrease it. And eventually to stop it.
The problem is that Arafat doesnt want to do it. Many people were jailed after the Dolphinarium or Sbarro, why werent they jailed before? The leader of the PFLP was jailed couple weeks ago, but that was after another teract(I already forgot which one). Why not after the murder of Gandhi?
Remember the semi-crackdown he started after those bloody 24 hours in Jerusalem and Haifa? Why didnt he do it earlier?
So some may blame Israel and say that it's because we dont allow him to leave Rammalah. But he sits there for two months, the Intifada lasts for 15.
Some can say that it's because Israel attacks his facilites. But in the first months of the Intifada the most serious attack was making couple of holes in one building, aproximately once per week. This is not the action that can bother him while arresting terrorists. He released them!
The conclusion is that Arafat wants to keep the territories and Israel burning. And when stuff get out of hand and the world public opinion goes against him, he makes yet another "crackdown". Arrests 50 people from the political wing of the terrorist organizations and talks in English on CNN about peace, while calling for Jihad in Arabic on the Palestinian TV.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sovereign
|
|
I don't intend to insult any Jewish or Arabian people in what I have to say. I think the whole Israel v.s. Palestine problem would be solved if Israel stays within its Green Border and give the occupied lands back to Palestine. That way, Israel will still have its statehood and Palestine will be an independent nation.
At the rate things are going, this could turn into a mid-east war with Iraq, Iran, and Saudia Arabia trying to wipe out Israel to help Palestine, their fellow Arabian nation. Then USA and Europe come to help Israel, then two possible outcomes.
1. WW3 Holy War, with Christians vs Islam
2. Oil crisis similiar to Kuwait, but on a bigger scale. USA and Europe won't get oil anymore from Arabia during the "war", and the world collapses. USA survives on its Alaska oil, and England lives on its North Sea oil, but the other countries go to crap.
Just offering a philosophical view, nothing more, nothing less.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Natan
|
 |
New York State
Sep 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
I have been trying to reply to the Israeli Reservist" thread for about an hour, but the site would not let me, So I decided to begina thread for my response.
The basic reason why the Israeli postion is immoral is that it is based on a policy of denying the humanity of over 2.7 million people who live on land Israel wants but has no rightful claim to. |
Um, no, Israel's policy is based on the need to eliminate the terrorist movements operating in those territories which deny Israel's right to exist and have made the murder of Israelis there primary goal.
quote:
So what are claims to land based on? Law. The borders of Israel were set in 1948, and the West bank and Gaza strip, and Golan, were not part of them. After Nurembarg, the world has made it clear that military might is not a valid way for a state to take land, since this invariabl dinies the inhabitants of that land their right of self-determination. |
Self-determination is a shaky concept - after all, when Randy Weaver and the Branch Davidians demanded their rights to self-determination, the Federal government had some other thoughts about it.
quote:
Defenders of Israel say- we are a democracy- fine, whens the last time there were elections in the West bank and Gaza in which the inhabitants were asked whether they wanted to be aprt of Israel? |
They're not a part of Israel, so never.
quote:
The fact that Israel must patrol these areas not with its civil authority, as it does within the Green line, but with the military, shows that Israels claim to that land is based solely on its military might, and not any moral or legal claim. |
No, it shows that Israel is not lying when it says these areas are not part of Israel.
quote:
I ask defenders of Israel to defend the following policies: |
Why?
quote:
1. Demolishing the houses of the FAMILIES of suspects |
I don't defend such a policy, but when was the last time it happened? Israel destroys houses from which there is shooting, but I think the last time they demolished the house of the family of a terrorist simply for that reason was a decade or two ago.
quote:
2. Total blockades of towns, which prevent individuals from: going shopping, going to work, going to school, visiting relatives, recieving adequate medical care. |
Israel needs to prevent terrorists from entering Israel. If that prevents people from going shopping, that's tough - this is a war. Medical care is a more serious issue, and I think Israel needs to do more there - but so do the Palestinians.
quote:
3. Rationing water to Palestinians, sometime only once every few days, while settlements nearby have enough water to run washing mashines. |
The Palestinians agreed to certain levels of water pumping in the Oslo accords.
quote:
4. Shooting live ammo at srone-throwing protestors |
Depends on the situation.
quote:
5. Indifinite holding of individuals with no legal review |
Guerilla wars are tough, ain't they?
quote:
6. The entire settlement policy. |
So Jews should be barred from living outside of Israel?
quote:
Palestininas who commit terrorist acts are criminals and deserve to be punished (and I am no fan of Arafat), but the crimes of the Palestinians DO NOT erase the even bigger crimes of Israel since 1967. |
How does building a house compare to blowing up a crowded nightclub?
quote:
Everyone is responsible for their own actions, regardless the actions of others. |
If there's a war, conditions get worse for everyone.
quote:
4. Again, don't answer the question- most times the Israelis are not shot at all, so this excuse does not fly. |
Most times, Palestinian stone throwers are not shot at all. Israeli soldiers are in a very dangerous situation, in which they have to differentiate within seconds whether Palestinians are carrying stones, guns, or bombs - IMHO, when Palestinians go out onto battlefields declaring their intent to achieve martyrdom, they must accept some of the responsibility for any harm they suffer.
quote:
Besides, they aren't shooting at the gunmen if any, but at the stonethrowers, which is not a very good strategy in my book. |
Um, no, quite the contrary, they have snipers who are there to pick off the gunmen - that's why Israeli casualties are so low now compared to the temple mount riots of 1996.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sovereign
|
|
One thing that started all this and blocks any subsquent resolutions.
Ego.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by faded glory
Great, another Israel bashing thread. I think we have proved time and again, the Israel is right here. |
I think the vast majority of us must have missed that.
quote:
Mid 2000, Ehud Barak offered Yasir Arafat 96% of the west bank and e. Jerulasem, as well as Gaza. Palestinians would have had access to enough water under the clinton-barak deal. What stopped arafat from accepting this deal??? |
The fact that the Palestinians didn't want to live in divided Bantustans, that they didn't control their water, that the settlements weren't removed, that the Right of Return of the refugees wasn't acknowledged, that None of Jerusalem was returned. It was a horrible, horrible peace deal, an insult. I'm surprised it didn't start a new intifada.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:17
|
|
Faded glory:
Thye 'generous' camp David offer by Barak is a myth. At the meeting, Barak offered to annex 10% of the west bank, and the Palestininas would get 90%, but , over the past 34 years, the Israeli government has slowly being taking land from Palestinians in these areas, and making them Iisraeli State lands, owned by Israel. Interestingly enough, about 50% of the West Bank now fits that category- so, if Israel as to annex 10%, did that mean that the 40% left which was owned by the state of Israel, going to be given up to the Palestininas? NO! The deal at camp David was 10% to Israel, 50% to the Palestinians, 40% in a palestinian state but owned and thus controlled, by Israel. Wow, what a generous offer! If you doubt this, read ha'aretz from october 3, 2000.
I would add that the plan meant to give the Pallestinian 3 divided sections, travel between them still controlled by Israel, Travel with the outside world still controlled by Israel, since the state would have no international borders. Even more generous, no?
Natan:
It always nice when defenders of Israel decide to have short term memory loss! All the policies I stated started years ago, decades ago sometimes, so the notion that they are there to stop terrorism is convinient way of trying to forget how things begun. As for your disoc comment- yes, that bombing, and every other bombing is a terrible crime, crimes carried out by fanatical and dangerous groups- but the Israeli responses to these attacks have killed more innocent civilians than the crimes themselves, which is in tiself a terrible thing. Were the 6 people killed back in august 01 that died when you Israel launched missiles into the offices of the PFLP to kill the leaders any less innocent that any of those teenagers that died at the disco?
What many seem to forget is how this started. After Sharons little visit, there were violent protests started by the palestinians, but these were stone throwing protests, to which Israel answered with gunfire. According to B'Tselem, in Sept. 2000, 12 Palestinian civilians and 3 PA police were killed in exchanges that also killed 1 Israeli Soldier. In fact , the first large number of Israeli citizens to be killed inside Israel proper during this whole affair were the 13 Israeli arabs shot by their own police! in October, a month in which 100 Palestininas died in the occupied Territories, along with 10 Israelis in the occupied Territories (again, from B'Tselem) and no Israeli Jews within the green line. So, if no one can add, by the end of October 2000, 115 Palestinians dead, 24 Israeli dead, though 13 of those killed by Israel itself.
I don't know what you see in these figures, but I see the recipe for the disaster that followed as Israel used horribly excessive force, giving Extremist (whom I do not belive are controlled by Arafat) the reasons they needed to call for criminal retribution against Israel.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Natan
Don't tell me people are dying over water prices.
Um, no. Barak agreed to give back most of the settlements, except for the Jewish suburbs of Jerusalem - an entirely reasonable proposition.
The Palestinians don't recognize any Jewish right of return to the lands Jews lost in the war, so why should Israel be obligated to do the reverse?
um, Barak offered half of the Old City.
Uh, it did Chegitz.
CyberGNU: The Fatah constitution is quite clear that there will never be any peace between the Palestinians and Israel. |
1. People are dying over water prices. According to the UN, many Palestinians recieve less water than what the UN terms the lowest necessary level for a normal life, while settler nearby have water use starndards equal to that of Israelis within Israel, which, as a rich country, is pretty high. So, Palestininas don't get enough water to drink everyday while settlers get washing mashines! That seems imminently fair to you , doesn't it?
2. What land did Israel loose in which war? Israel and a Palestinan state were both meant to have about 50% of the land, with Jerusalem an open city, according to the 1948 UN partition plan. Israel ended up with 78% at the end of that war, including all the land initially meant for Israel, and more than half of what was mean for Arabs- so again, which land do you speak of?
3. Barak offered the Palestinians a capital in the village of Abbu Dis, right within the expanded borders of jerusalem, and semi-sovereignty over the Al-Asqua MOsque complex- not complete civil control of East Jerusalem, as you seem to think.
4. I think Chegitz was being facitiotus with that comment?
5. have you ever read the new P.A constituion? It call for a recognition of Israel within its 1967 borders. Have you ever read UN security council resolution 242, which has been accepted by both Palestinians and other Arab states as a template for peace? It also call for a recognition of the sovereignty and right to existence of all states in the region, including Israel, within their 1967 borders. All Arab state and the Palestinians have accepted that resolution. The only sticking point is that it demands that israel withdraw from the occupied territories, which Israel is unwilling to do. Since 1967 there has been a document that could have lead to peace in the middle east, but israel decided, absed on its military might, that who needed peace, when it could get the land. If israel had listened to Ben Gurion and traded that land for peace, instead of sticking with the chauvinists like Dayan and going for land, then all these threads, and discussions, would have become immaterial decades ago.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Natan
|
|
New York State
Sep 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Faded glory:
Thye 'generous' camp David offer by Barak is a myth. At the meeting, Barak offered to annex 10% of the west bank, and the Palestininas would get 90%, but , over the past 34 years, the Israeli government has slowly being taking land from Palestinians in these areas, and making them Iisraeli State lands, owned by Israel. Interestingly enough, about 50% of the West Bank now fits that category- so, if Israel as to annex 10%, did that mean that the 40% left which was owned by the state of Israel, going to be given up to the Palestininas? NO! The deal at camp David was 10% to Israel, 50% to the Palestinians, 40% in a palestinian state but owned and thus controlled, by Israel. Wow, what a generous offer! If you doubt this, read ha'aretz from october 3, 2000. |
False. Israel was offering the Palestiniasn 90% of everything, including Israel state lands - not even Israel state lands in the West Bank and Gaza are considered part of Israel, they are governed by a military administration.
quote:
I would add that the plan meant to give the Pallestinian 3 divided sections, travel between them still controlled by Israel, Travel with the outside world still controlled by Israel, since the state would have no international borders. Even more generous, no? |
I'd be cautious too if my negotiating partner has always and continues to insist that he will destroy me.
quote:
It always nice when defenders of Israel decide to have short term memory loss! All the policies I stated started years ago, decades ago sometimes, so the notion that they are there to stop terrorism is convinient way of trying to forget how things begun. |
The terrorism started much before the Six Day War and the Israeli administration of the West Bank and Gaza. The Fedayeen were making raids in the 50s, Fatah was founded in 1964, and even before that there was terrorism, like the pogrom in Hebron in 1929, before Israel was even founded.
quote:
As for your disoc comment- yes, that bombing, and every other bombing is a terrible crime, crimes carried out by fanatical and dangerous groups- but the Israeli responses to these attacks have killed more innocent civilians than the crimes themselves |
False.
quote:
which is in tiself a terrible thing. Were the 6 people killed back in august 01 that died when you Israel launched missiles into the offices of the PFLP to kill the leaders any less innocent that any of those teenagers that died at the disco? |
Look, if the Palestinians were firing at Israeli troops and some Israeli civillians got killed in the crossfire, that would just be war. But when they make it their goal to massacre civillians, that's just plain evil.
quote:
What many seem to forget is how this started. After Sharons little visit, there were violent protests started by the palestinians, but these were stone throwing protests, to which Israel answered with gunfire. |
Israel answered with rubber bullets until the Palestinians began using guns.
quote:
According to B'Tselem, in Sept. 2000, 12 Palestinian civilians and 3 PA police were killed in exchanges that also killed 1 Israeli Soldier. |
So what you're admitting is that there was shooting on both sides. There was quite a lot of it in fact. Just look at Madhat Yusuf, who bled to death in front of Joseph's tomb because Palestinian gunmen prevented Israel from evacuating him for medical treatment.
quote:
In fact , the first large number of Israeli citizens to be killed inside Israel proper during this whole affair were the 13 Israeli arabs shot by their own police! |
So if it's not a large number or if takes place outside of Israel, it doesn't count?
quote:
in October, a month in which 100 Palestininas died in the occupied Territories, along with 10 Israelis in the occupied Territories (again, from B'Tselem) and no Israeli Jews within the green line. So, if no one can add, by the end of October 2000, 115 Palestinians dead, 24 Israeli dead, though 13 of those killed by Israel itself. |
So the IDF was better
quote:
I don't know what you see in these figures, but I see the recipe for the disaster that followed as Israel used horribly excessive force |
No more excessive than the American use of helicopter gunships in Somalia which killed hundreds of Somalis in the course of a few hours in which perhaps two dozen American soldiers died. Palestinian gunmen were attacking entrenched Israeli troops with stone-throwers mixed in (the photos are out there, it's undeniable) so naturally, a lot of people died. I don't think the Israelis can be blamed if they hit the stone thrower two feet away instead of the gunman - firearms accuracy falls dramatically in a combat situation.
quote:
giving Extremist (whom I do not belive are controlled by Arafat) |
If Arafat doesn't control them, why does he have to keep insisting that they are his brothers, that he is at unity with them, etc, as he did immediately following the Dolphinarium suicide bombing in June, as reported in The Guardian?
quote:
the reasons they needed to call for criminal retribution against Israel. |
Actually, they don't need reasons. The suicide bombings continued throughout the "peace proccess."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
WFHermans
|
|
The settler, who identified himself as "Baruch" spelled out
"the Jewish perception toward the Arabs in the land of Israel."
"They have two options, not three, either to be annihilated by the Jews like the cannanites were exterminated by our forefathers, or flee our land for their lives!"
Asked if the Israeli state accepted his views, Baruch said
"I'm sure (Israeli Prime Minister Ariel) Sharon has the same views, but as a Prime Minister he can't say so openly."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Natan
|
|
New York State
Sep 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
Natan -
You point to two of the most immoral acts committed recently by the federal government to support your position?  The Randy Weaver case was not about "self-determination", it was about the feds trying to entrap and blackmail Randy Weaver into spying on "neo-Nazis", etc. Federal agents badgered Weaver into selling them a "sawed" off shotgun - a shotgun with a barrel an inch or so shorter than allowed by "law". The agents went so far as to explain to him where they wanted the barrel cut. Once he violated the law, they used that to blackmail him into spying on others - he refused. Then Weaver was sent false information about his arraignment date - a fact not in dispute - causing him to miss it and a bench warrant issued for his arrest. That was what "led" the feds to invade his property and murder his son and wife. |
Yeah, I know that. (I read David Kopel's "No More Wacos") It was a bad example, I admit. Although perhaps not, since many Americans still seem to consider him a kook who got what he deserved. The Freemen of Montana and those guys who started passing out checks on behalf of the "Republic of Texas" would have been better examples than Waco and Ruby Ridge, but more people have heard of the latter, so I used them.
quote:
As for the Davidians, the feds again lied to get the warrant claiming meth labs were there. That lie allowed for military involvement in the murders of dozens of people. |
I'm not sure I'd call it murder since the Davidians were shooting back, but yeah, the police exercised terrible judgement.
quote:
"Self-determination" is only a "shaky" concept for people who don't believe in it... |
Tell it to the feds after you evade your income tax on the grounds that your house is an independent country, declared as such by its inhabitants.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
Natan - quote:
I'm not sure I'd call it murder since the Davidians were shooting back, but yeah, the police exercised terrible judgement. |
I'd call it murder, the Davidians didn't commit suicide (assuming they did) in a vacuum, but after being attacked and surrounded for weeks of "psychological" warfare.
quote:
Tell it to the feds after you evade your income tax on the grounds that your house is an independent country, declared as such by its inhabitants. |
Not a separate country, just private property. And pointing to the fact some people share your antagonsim toward "self-determination" to justify it is illogical.
quote:
Yeah, I know that. (I read David Kopel's "No More Wacos") It was a bad example, I admit. Although perhaps not, since many Americans still seem to consider him a kook who got what he deserved. |
The fact many Americans consider him a "kook" deserving of death is immoral.
Besides, he wasn't the only one who died there...
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-02-2002 09:34
|