 |
| |
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
 |
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
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. |
The arabs chose war and that's what they got.
Had they won, would we get the protection of "might not equals right?", we'd be massacared.
arabs however, were mostly deported or allowed to flee, and 150,000 stayed and today are 1,000,000.
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? 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. |
It's not a question of inhabitants but of territory.
Those who want the land don't care who lives there.
As for the actual Israeli position, the territory is needed to allow for better defnce in possible future scenarios of 48 or 73, when arab countries invade Israel from all sides.
Israel does acknowlege the people living there have their own right for self determination. But today the fight is not over borders or things - those get sorted out in peace talks.
The fight today is with Arafat - who think that terror is a vialbe mean of affecting Israel when he won't get his in negociations.
quote:
I ask defenders of Israel to defend the following policies:
1. Demolishing the houses of the FAMILIES of suspects |
The families of suspects get lots of money from international and even Israel-based funds which are store-fronts for Hamas.
The terrorists often care about thier families more than about revenge, and think that if they go kill themselves they help their families by both having one mouth less to feed (and they hardly bring salary anyway) and having money brought in by Hamas.
This rather cruel strategy is devised to remove the incentive of "this will help my family" in hope that the terrorist will think twice before blowing up with 20 Israeli children.
Very moral or nice it isn't. But it's also a mean.
However, I must add that to my knowledge this procedure isn't very widespread.
quote:
2. Total blockades of towns, which prevent individuals from: going shopping, going to work, going to school, visiting relatives, recieving adequate medical care. |
Those bockades serve one and single goal: prevention of movement.
Since it is very difficult to screen movement of innocent civilians from terrorists, as terrorists use better ways of concealing their indentity, Israel chooses to completely cut-off movement.
This policy is to prevent terrorists from inflitrating Israel. Not "punishment" as it is also applied to Israeli cities when there is info of terrorists being inside the green line.
Just over this weekend Hadera and it's surroundings have been under siege by police and military. It did manage to scare off the terrorist which according to intel. found cover in an Israeli arab village.
Agreed, movement was not blocked inside Israel but very thoroughly checked. And I can tell you that I myself am very much against this unequality.
quote:
3. Rationing water to Palestinians, sometime only once every few days, while settlements nearby have enough water to run washing mashines. |
The PNA currently owes Israel around 60M shekels for Electricity and Water. Yet we continue to provide it with water. When Israelis don't pay the bills - they are cut off.
Ask Arafat why has he spent 15M $ (~75M shekels) to buy Arms instead of paying for water for his people.
quote:
4. Shooting live ammo at srone-throwing protestors |
Not always it was live ammo - but rubber coated bullets.
Furthermore, more often than not it was no merely stone throwers.
A huge mob, targeting Israelis in general, with rocks and molotovs are quite dangerous, esp. in huge numbers. And without firepower - they can't really be stopped.
Furthermore, more often than not, the stone throwers are used as a living fence to guard gunmen who shoot at the soldiers. They are rarely shown on TV because they threaten TV crews. You'll hear stories of pal gunmen threatening international TV crews alot.
So you get a distorted picture because the photographer was threatened to only show Israeli shooting.
quote:
5. Indifinite holding of individuals with no legal review |
I'm not sure about their current status.
They are in no way usual 'criminals'.
Many are indeed prosecuted and jailed. Most are simply held for several weeks and released.
This is possible due to a law of critical situation in times of war, dating from the Brittish Mandate which Israel uses.
Undemocratic - sure.
Still, I'd prefer terrorists be kept in prisons. And as to allegations of non-terrorists held there, putting aside the fact it's a real abuse of population, I see no reason for it, as it would be stupid waste of resources which could be spent against terrorists.
quote:
6. The entire settlement policy. |
Truth be told - some of them have a claim of RoR. There were jewish towns in the territories prior to 48, all which were banished and razed by Arabic invaders.
So today, many of them are re-settlements.
My personal view is that it is used as trading cards for negociations, to trade for more border territories to allow Israel be safer.
Again, ojectively immoral, but Israel does not want to find itself in 1948 again, and wants defendable borders. Nothing else is earned. Those are not particularly good lands. But wider borders is what Israel needs to defend from possible attack from all sides.
And while it's all nice and great to say "why not achieve it in political means", we should prepare for the option they won't work - since in the ME - they probably won't.
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. Everyone is responsible for their own actions, regardless the actions of others. |
I agree with the last sentance.
I disagree that Israeli settlement comes close to terrorists targeting school children.
While Israel's offenses are more grandscale, they are less destructive and brutal than the terracts.
Infact, there has never been a period in Israeli history deviod of terracts, where Israel could say "hey, they stopped agression, our illegal occupation to protect ourselves is no longer needed".
As far as terrorists go - targeting, not hitting, but targeting - seeking out and aiming to harm innocent groups of people is my idea of an inhumane crime. I fully support the immediate and full elimination via torture of people who commit, command, plan or instigate such events.
And if it is proven beyond doubt that Ariel Sharon is such a person, (and the countrary was proven in Israeli Supreme Court, and if they - most left winged haven't found direct guilt - there probably is none), but if proven to me so, I fully support the best needle in his vein.
quote:
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." |
Great work!
Induction is great in political science.
Now find a jew who says he drinks goat's blood and will claim Ariel Sharon does that too and you're settled for life.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
|
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberGnu
Goingoit, in repsonse to your response to 1: The houses you mention aren't unoccupied either.
|
claim the palestinians.
I'm not very sure.
I'd suggest to capture the pics of the homeless people, and check them when we reck some more houses. They probablyt have a regular actor's crew.
quote:
Even Israeli soldiers have admitted this. |
Nope they haven't.
They said that even heat sensoring mechnisms were used to make sure the houses were empty.
quote:
When the bulldozers come, people flee the buildings left and right. |
How come they don't get trampled or killed by our 'evil' soldiers then?
quote:
Israels claim that they are inhabitated stems from Israels insistance that they are built without legal permits. |
Unrelated.
The houses used as turret stations are destroyed without regard to their legal permits.
And as to legal permits, if you are for what ever reason not allowed to build a home, you can't be surpised when people come and enforce it.
Not to mention Israeli enforcement of this is purely symbolic, as there are probably thrice as many houses being built each month as there are destroyed in a year.
quote:
Tiny details such as that if you are palestinian you will not get a permit are carefully overlooked. |
You will not get a permit in Eastern Jerusalem unless you are an Israeli citizen.
And if you are, you still have to abide with the city hall's plans.
The problem is arabs build their homes themselves, being labour workers.
Jews on the other hand don't. They buy houses built by firms which get permits.
In Israel private houses are not common at all, esp. not to be built yourself.
You have to have a trusted construction company and most often people buy homes in projects of making new neighbourhoods.
And poor people simply buy the previous homes of the rich. Poor people don't have money to build houses.
quote:
There are palestinians who have waited for 30 years for a building permit... |
And there are hundreds of thousands of Israelis without a building permit, because it's not the common way to get a house in Israel.
quote:
And the process keep repeating itself. A settler neighbourhood complains about how that 'illegal' palestinian settlement is too close for comfort. Israeli army comes in to demolish the closest couple of blocks. An israeli court rules that since no one is living on the newly demolished land it is up for grabs, and the settlement expands. After a year or so they again complain how the palestinians are too close, and demolisions follow. |
I'm not sure about the Israeli court thing. I don't recall a court being in charge of land in Israel.
quote:
Did you ever wonder how the the fact that GePap mentioned, that palestine is one of the most heavily populated places on earth, can be combined with the carefully orchestrated replies Siro and Natan tells you, that the settlements are only built on uninhabited land? |
1) Settlements in the 80s were indeed built on uninhabited land.
However due to the huge growth rate of the palestinian refugees, they close in on the Israeli settlements, which in turn feel threatened and have more kids or have their friends move in next door.
2) "carefully orchestrated"? Yeah, that's right. We all work according to rules by the higher council of ZOG, aka Elders of Zion. 
Palestine is now one of the most heavily populated palces on earth.
700,000 palestinians became 5,000,000 today.
And they think they can all comeback and live in their 700,000 houses they left in Israel?
quote:
That the western world allows the settlements to exist, not to mention expand, is something we should all be ashamed of. |
That the western world is not ashamed to judge people who erect homes, instead of terrorists who target innocent people going about their lives is appalling.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
|
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Are you sure the United Nations ever recognized the 67 borders? I may be wrong here, but proof, please! |
I don't know really.
And don't care either.
The arabs refused to the 47 devision - let them face the consequences.
quote:
And your other argument would cover Nazi Germanyīs annexation of the Sudeten and the Danzig corridor, too: 'We just need those territories to better defend ourselves against our hostile neighbours.' I mean, every aggressor in history said that. |
Germany was under no real threat from it's neighbours.
Germany was not attacked, nor did it have hostile neighbours. France didn't like them, but they surrender on the first day of war anyway 
Israel however, was attacked on the first day of it's existance, without any provocation and after a call for truce and peace talks by Ben Gurion in the declaration of independance.
I think Israel's case is somehow better supported, then Germany's.
Unless without my knowledge, Jews and Poles secretly declared war on Germans prior to 1939 and set out to exterminate the German state from the face of europe.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
|
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Legal, Shmegal. |
quote:
At best, you could say both sides are equally lawless. |
Not at all.
The arabs rejected the 47 UN propsed border, so there's no reason we should feel abided by it.
quote:
I wouldnīt be so sure about that. In the case of Israel, its very foundation was somewhat fishy. Helped along with a lot of terrorism, Iīd say. But terrorism is okay, if the right people do it, I suppose. |
Terrorism - targetting innocent people
guerrilla - targetting military installations, officials and so on
to my understanding, Israeli resistance groups are only in the guerrilla category with which I have no problems.
Had hezballa not targeted civilians using bombs and rockets, I'd have considered it guerilla.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
By your definition, the strike at the Pentagon was a guerilla attack, then? |
As soon as the laws of war recognize a passenger aircraft (with passengers) as a legal weapon of war, then that definition is well on it's way.
-----
People are willing to fight over land, and this is a pretty conventional theme throughout history. We shouldn't be surprised that with typical 20th century grandiosity we outlaw war (for the second time if you count the Kellogg-Briand pact), and our upright and moral pronouncement is immediately and widely ignored. You can equate law and morality if you want to (as the starter of this thread does) but suffice it to say that that comparison is a double edged sword (at least). I don't accept that equation on anything other than a case by case basis.
The Jews were displaced by WWII, and in turn ended up flocking to British held Palestine in large numbers especially after the war. They brought what capital they could with them, including that most valuable of capital, human capital (ie knowledge and skills) from Europe. This resource more than any other meant that they were more successful than the previous inhabitants of Palestine. The fact of the Holocaust also gave the Jews of Israel a determination (or fanatacism) to see their enterprise through.
I don't blame the Israelis any more than I blame the Celts, Germans, Slavs or Turks for behaving as any dislocated people have behaved throughout history. They go somewhere where there is less pressure and in the process sometimes dislocate other peoples. If you want to lay blame, than as good a place to start as any is the anti-Semitism of Western Europe, the pogroms in Eastern Europe and of course the Nazis. In my opinion this process is so common that it can be described better in physical terms than moral.
So there is a predictable conflict between the new arrivals and the mostly Arab population of Palestine. There is open warfare immediately after the British pull out, and not just between the inhabitants of Palestine, but also the surrounding Arab states who jump in with their Arab brothers. The Israelis prevail, and there is low intensity conflict broken occasionally by larger state to state conflicts between the Israelis and the surrounding Arab states, and in each case the Israelis prevail.
As long as both sides are willing to pay the costs and unwilling to moderate their war aims then this warfare will continue. There is no means to stop it even if we wanted to, short of starting an even larger war (complete with nukes if intervention occurs against the Israelis). So we watch in horror as the war continues. The Palestinians are particularly frustrating to watch, because they are so unimaginative. They lose war after war, and rise up to lose again. They try to gain an advantage by using terror tactics (targeting civilians) and by doing so waste opportunities to save some of their land from complete Israeli domination through negotiation. These tactics (if they continue) will eventually lead them to the point where the Israelis will start to target civilians as well, and this will be the end of the Palestinian people and problem.
I hope that negotiations can bring some peace. Perhaps then the Palestinian children can go to school where they can hopefully learn (unlike now) that there is more to life than losing wars and being "martyred". They live in what is largely self-imposed misery in the name of nationalism for what has never been a state, and for absolute control of their religion's "third holiest site". What a waste. Nonetheless they have free will, and if this is what they choose then it is up to the Israelis to then make their choice. Fortunately for them the status quo is a lot rosier, and their strategic options a good deal more robust.
As for what is moral, I don't care for some of the Israeli police tactics and I abhor Palestinian targeting of civilians. Given the balance of power I lay more of the blame for the continuance of the conflict on the Palestinians. Their war aims are ridiculous considering their military capabilities. I mean when did they pretend to give up the idea of wiping Israel off the map? They have been fortunate indeed that the Israelis give a damn about human rights at all. Most states in most periods of history would have simply wiped them out and scattered the survivors to the four winds by now.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Goingonit
|
 |
Toronto, Canada - AECCP member
Apr 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by nato
I think I have a good point about situations like Israel, so I would like to share it.
Basically, I agree with GePap. Israel clearly stole Palestinian land from the original occupants. There is no way to deny this.
Therefore, those original people who came in and stole the land were clearly in the wrong.
However ... it gets complicated when those original invaders give birth to and raise children there.
No one can control where they are born, and its not fair to expect young children to control where they are raised.
Therefore, those Israelis born and raised in Palestine have as much right to call that land home as the original Palestinians. It is not their fault they were born there, and they are not in the wrong to want to live at "home".
But of course the Palestinians are totally justified in wanting the land that was stolen from them back!
So my point is once "land thieves" have children there, there is no longer a simple right and wrong side. Both sides are right. That is why it is a big ugly insoluable mess.
Two other identical situations are the U.S. vs all the Native Americans and the British in Northern Ireland. The U.S. and Britain clearly stole the land, and were clearly in the wrong. But once they had children there ... those children can claim the land as home fairly.
So I agree with GePap's original post in that the original Israelis were clearly wrong ... however now it is not clear cut. There is no good solution as long as Israelis and Palestinians cannot adjust to each other and give each other a fair share of "home".
Thats just how I see it, I could be wrong. Thanks for reading. |
I think that what some people don't realize is that there was a significant number of Israelis in Israel pre-1948 who bought the land - literally - from the Arabs. They didn't steal it, or grab it underhandedly. And these people after 1948 were attacked by the Arabs who, until then, were living peacfully next door. Then, Israel safeguarded its population, and the Arabs living within Israel mostly withdrew - of their own accord.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Natan
|
 |
New York State
Sep 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
That is not quite true: It is not their war displacement, but the Zionist ideology which made the Jewish settlers flock to Palestine. |
Not true. The first wave who came under the Ottomans were thus motivated, but the subsequent waves were motivated by the need to get out of Europe. From the late nineteenth century until the resettlement of the Holocaust survivors, Jews in Eastern and central Europe were desperately trying to get to whereever they could. America was usually the first choice, followed by Britain, but they would go anywhere they could. I know that my Great-Grandfather sent his relatives in Russia tickets to Palestine because the change in immigration laws barred them from America. Later, Holocaust survivors were allowed to come to Germany or America if they had relatives to sponsor them, but otherwise, they went to Israel, albeit after a few years in refugee camps in Cyprus. If you look at the statements of contemporary Zionist ideologists, they were actually quite upset by the non-ideological nature of immigrants from the 1920s on.
quote:
The intention to drive non-Jews out of the country was also there from the start |
Not true. Ben-Gurion (Israel's first Prime Minister) and the other Zionists were not so much malevolant towards the Arabs as they were misinformed. (Incidentally, I think the same can be said of most Arab leaders, except for Faisal Husseini) They believed that the Arab population would be grateful for Jewish technical expertise and that the two ethnic groups would cooperate in a socialist system - as it happened, this didn't work out, but I hardly think you can say their intent from the beginning was to drive out the Palestinians. They even placed the new Jewish communities in the more sparsely inhabited coastal plain rather than the historically more important central mountains to avoid conflict with the Arab inhabitants.
quote:
so this reminds me too much of Nationalsocialism to gain any of my sympathies. |
There difference between expulsion and extermination is quite wide. Comparing the two is an insult to the victims of the latter.
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-02-2002 05:00
You donīt say there can be unintentional ethnic cleansing?
|