What action should be taken against Israel?

Sand

Thing is that a huge proportion of the palestinian casualties were teenagers/children that were killed mostly unarmed at the hands of a legitimate army(Israeli) and no accountability has taken place. Suicide bombers are not a legitimate army, they are genocidal terrorists.

Actually you should check out this study which analyses a lot of the statistics on casualties. Its already been the subject of debate on the Boards. Search for it if youre interested. Palestinian casualties are overwhelmingly male (95%), A similar proportion are young (90% under 45 years of age ), with the vast majority being teens -twenties. You might be right to say teenagers are are huge part of the palestinian casualties but youd be even more correct to say male teenagers. And whilst "huge proportion" is subjective, I dont think its fair to lob a small percentage ( children i.e. 10 and under) in with a much, much larger demographic to try and increase emotional impact. What does it tell you when casualties are overwhelmingly male and young? That there are no women or elderly in Palestine for the Israelis to riddle with machine guns in market places?

But thats inconseqeuntial to the point I was making. Bonkey later takes it the same way you did so lets try to satisfy you both. It is clear that the Israeli military is given a fairly "loose" hand in how it operates in the occupied terretories. They seem to be more worried about offending the americans than facing censure for any actions they take.

However, my point wasnt that the Israelis are rigoursouly held to a high standard of human rights and the rules of war. My point was that the Israeli government is ( or should be - note my use of should be initially as well ) responsible for the actions of the IDF. If it ever comes to pass that the IDF is seriously investigated for abuses in the occupied terretories it will go all the way to the politicians.

On the other hand the PA can simply deny any and all responsibility for the actions of the terrorist organisations. So whilst the IDF may meet a day of reckoning where it will have to account for its acts, as will its political masters the Palestinians and their political leadership can engage in an orgy of bloodshed without any fear of censure. Its Sinn Feinn/IRA middle east style. Wholly seperate and one and the same as and when it suits them - like when Arafat is the only one the Israelis should be dealing with, yet he has no influence over the terrorists when hes asked to rein them in.

That point was made in response to the idea that whilst the Israelis should be punished for crimes committed that so should the Palestinians. This will never, ever happen. Ever. Maybe a radical scapegoat will be made, but youll never see anyone seriously investigating or punishing the Palestinian leadership. Because A) Theyll deny it, and Youll be warned you might bring the bad old days back.

The same can be said for the people who send in the suicide bombers that kill unarmed civilians except these instances get more attention.

Exactly. One side get the media.

somehow videos are not very common after massacre of palestinians, might be something to do with restriction of media in the occupied territories ?

Same point really. If I was to describe a photo of a young boy cowering behind his father in obvious terror by a wall would you know the photo Im talking about - especially if I was to mention the child was shot dead shortly after the photo was taken? Most of the world knows that photo. It was on every news channel and news paper around the world.

Like I said RTE will never show a video like that. Better to report it as "9 dead, many more wounded" so as not to humanise the situation like a photo of a small boy screaming in terror might do. Wouldnt want to challenge conventional wisdom that only the Palestinians suffer, or that their suffering is somehow more newsworthy, would we.

Its this sort of balance that allows someone to title a thread "What action should be taken against Israel" when referring to solutions to the Israeli-Palestine (notice two sides there? ) and be taken seriously.

And before anyone comes back saying "Oh yeah, well the Israelis did this that and the other to the Palestinians". I know. I find that wrong as well. But by posting a link to that video Im trying to achieve some balance - horrifying as it may be to comprehend the Israelis suffer too.

If its the 57mb file on that page i couldnt be bothered using up my cap.

So i assume you wont be commenting on the video then?

Gearoid

Big response lads thanks, but please keep on topic, I asked what would YOU do not
to have a big arguement amongst yourselves, so if someone writes something you don't agree with why don't you post YOUR idea if u disagree with him.

Dasilva94

Originally posted by Sand


Same point really. If I was to describe a photo of a young boy cowering behind his father in obvious terror by a wall would you know the photo Im talking about - especially if I was to mention the child was shot dead shortly after the photo was taken? Most of the world knows that photo. It was on every news channel and news paper around the world.

Like I said RTE will never show a video like that. Better to report it as "9 dead, many more wounded" so as not to humanise the situation like a photo of a small boy screaming in terror might do. Wouldnt want to challenge conventional wisdom that only the Palestinians suffer, or that their suffering is somehow more newsworthy, would we.

Its this sort of balance that allows someone to title a thread "What action should be taken against Israel" when referring to solutions to the Israeli-Palestine (notice two sides there? ) and be taken seriously.

If the photo you are talking about is that of the killing of Mohammed al-Dura, then there is a strong likelihood that rather than being shot by the IDF he was killed by Palestinian gunmen, and as is typical of the propaganda war, a distorted image of Israelis as inhuman baby killers was presented to the world.

As to the OP, I think that considering Sharon has announced that he intends to withdraw the settlers from the Gaza Strip, which could be a precursor to withdrawal from the West-Bank and the granting of a Palestinian state, there is probably no need at the moment for an increase in pressure on Israel.

Capt'n Midnight

Perhaps the UN should remind all regimes in the area of the treaties they signed and each one of the resoultions against them and the actions the UN is allowed to take for non-compliance - oh yeah and add in the timescales for when enforcement action is to be taken.

PHB

You realise the only military capable of projecting force properly into Israel would be the united states.

Also the idea of forcing an agreement onto the Israeli's:

For people who think it was unfair to force an agreement on the Palestinians its kinda hypocritcal dontcha think?

Capt'n Midnight

A US lead arms & intelligence embargo would hurt - how much do they get in US military aid each year ? (two chances of an EU naval blockade)

But the main thing needed is fairness - as long as both sides feel that the same rules apply. Once you are in a position where either side feels the other can get away with a lot more than the other (negotation includes a lot of finding out what you can get away with) it's hard to offer concessions.

As the fella said you can tell when you reach a good compromise - both sides are equally dissatisified.

mycroft

A US lead arms & intelligence embargo would hurt - how much do they get in US military aid each year ? (two chances of an EU naval blockade)

Israeli gets $4.5 BILLION dollars in aid each year from America making it the main benifiactor of US aid in the World.

$1.7 billion of the that aid is purely miltary aid.

How exactly can the US claim that the seek peace in the middle east seriously if they are putting guns into the hands of one side? You can see how the Palestinians are dubious about US led peace intiatives.

So if you wanted Israeli to seriously consider a decent peace plan, the US should hold aid until a workable two state solution is on the table.

How exactly can the US claim that the seek peace in the middle east seriously if they are putting guns into the hands of one side?

well putting guns into the hands of both sides is hardly pushing for peace. I daresay the US originally held that Israel would win completely with US backing. However at this stage, Israel is their only real ally in the M.East, so they're sortof obliged to continue with support.

Perhaps the UN should remind all regimes in the area of the treaties they signed and each one of the resoultions against them and the actions the UN is allowed to take for non-compliance - oh yeah and add in the timescales for when enforcement action is to be taken

the UN is rather toothless. It makes alot of noise, but rarely can follow up. Its the US that gives the UN the ower to follow up on its decisions. Now, the other nations in the UN could provide enough support to make the UN a power again, but they haven't to date. Its been the US that has implemented the UN mandates, and provided the majority of firepower. As we've seen the US support Israel in this.

mr_angry

Originally posted by klaz
the UN is rather toothless. It makes alot of noise, but rarely can follow up. Its the US that gives the UN the ower to follow up on its decisions. Now, the other nations in the UN could provide enough support to make the UN a power again, but they haven't to date. Its been the US that has implemented the UN mandates, and provided the majority of firepower. As we've seen the US support Israel in this.

To rephrase that slightly: The US as a top-level member of the UN has the power to veto any discussion on the subject. This is what makes the UN "toothless" when it comes to talking about Israel. You can find a complete list of the vetoes here.

As mentioned by Bono many times:
The 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council: USA, UK, France, Russia, China
The 5 biggest arms-dealers in the world today: USA, UK, France, Russia, China.

Speaks for itself really.

mycroft

well putting guns into the hands of both sides is hardly pushing for peace. I daresay the US originally held that Israel would win completely with US backing. However at this stage, Israel is their only real ally in the M.East, so they're sortof obliged to continue with support.

Thats a suprious argument. I never said they should arm Palestine. And I don't see how you could take what I said to mean that.

Israeli is also one of the most destablising infulences in the middle east. Osama used the treatment of Palestinians as part of his justification for terrorist acts. The oppression and assaults by Israeli in the occupied terrorities and the US's unwilliness to intervent is a bone of contention for arab states. An evenhanded enlightened approach to the peace process would,

A) Weaken the recuritment pool for Arab terrorist organisations, maybe european isalmic terrorists have said after their arrest that they joined the infanitia partially because of Israeli's actions in palestine.

Demostration the US's williness to seek a stable lasting peace in the middle east, which would lead to improved relations with arab countries.

As for your second argument, mr angy has pointed out that the UN is toothless because of US muzzling them. He's correct.

Thats a suprious argument. I never said they should arm Palestine. And I don't see how you could take what I said to mean that.

I'm sorry but i quote what you said, and still reading over it, it seems to appear like:
well if both sides were being given weapons, there'd be peace. <shrugs> A misunderstanding on my part then.

Israeli is also one of the most destablising infulences in the middle east. Osama used the treatment of Palestinians as part of his justification for terrorist acts. The oppression and assaults by Israeli in the occupied terrorities and the US's unwilliness to intervent is a bone of contention for arab states. An evenhanded enlightened approach to the peace process would,

here i disagree totally. Osama could have used Bugs Bunny as a reason and it wouldn't have mattered. Palestine means nothing to him. His attacks are for his own reasons. I'm not really going to believe what someone who's an acknolwdged terrorist has to say for his reasons. Anything he says is too suspicious and possibly misleading.

The Bone on contention in the Arab states is that they believe that their religion is the only one that matters. All other religions are the enemy. Isreal more so, because its right in the middle of the Middle East. As for the rest of the west, partially its hatred over the crusades and partially because they've seen western nations squable in the Middle East for centuries.

But yes, Israel is a destabilising influence only in so far, as the Arabs interacting with them. By Interacting i mean the terrorist attacks on their country. Israel is destabilising only for being in existance. Occupation of Palestine is also destabilising but for different reasons.

An evenhanded enlightened approach to the peace process would,

A) Weaken the recuritment pool for Arab terrorist organisations, maybe european isalmic terrorists have said after their arrest that they joined the infanitia partially because of Israeli's actions in palestine.

Demostration the US's williness to seek a stable lasting peace in the middle east, which would lead to improved relations with arab countries.

An Evenhanded Enlightened approach? Um, i'm curious to know what that is. You see i've heard many approaches to stop the conflict, but all i've heard are very pro-Palestinian ideas (which disadvantage Israel too much - Including the dissolving of Israel) and very Pro-Israel Ideas. I haven't heard one that might world. (Except one i heard last week on the boards abt walling off Israel to its original territories)

A:) Israel is a target regardless. The Media place Israel in the limelight all the time. Hence all the references to Israel & Palestine. Its like Hitlers use of the Master Race. Its an excuse. If it wasn't Israel, it would be US bases in Turkey, or US occupation of Iraq. Or the UN boycotting some nation.However saying that, I'm sure that there are a number of groups that have been created from the occupation of Palestine. Just as i'm sure theres been Israeli terrorist groups that have been created from the killing of their own families.

B:) Hardly. They'd see it as another ploy to gain influence. Besides, if the US were to drop their main ally in the M.East, who would trust them in regards to old enemies? Trust, in regards to the M.East will take decades. Peace in Israel/palestine is the 1st step. Whether thats Israeli withdrawal or a merging of the two states, i dunno, but its there that's its got to happen.

As for your second argument, mr angy has pointed out that the UN is toothless because of US muzzling them. He's correct.

From where i sit, thats exactly what i've said. The UN is toothless without US support. However the other nations within the UN could easily compensate with their own military, but that hasn't happened to date. And i seriously doubt it will in the near future.

mycroft

How exactly can the US claim that the seek peace in the middle east seriously if they are putting guns into the hands of one side? You can see how the Palestinians are dubious about US led peace intiatives.

I cannot see how you can take that to mean I support US arms to Palestine. I suggest that you can't defend US aid funding 1.7 billion dollars of military aid to Israeli, while claiming they're looking for peace; so instead you throw baseless accusations back at me.

here i disagree totally. Osama could have used Bugs Bunny as a reason and it wouldn't have mattered. Palestine means nothing to him. His attacks are for his own reasons.

I concur, however oppression of muslims in Chechyen and Palestine is used as a valid reason by terrorist and fundamentalists recruiting young men in Mosques from Finchely park, to Nigeria. While some of these people will undoubtably still want to continue this Holy war, a peaceful palestitian state co-existing next to a peaceful Israeli state, will knock the wind out of most of their arguments.

The Media place Israel in the limelight all the time. Hence all the references to Israel & Palestine. Its like Hitlers use of the Master Race. Its an excuse. If it wasn't Israel, it would be US bases in Turkey, or US occupation of Iraq. Or the UN boycotting some nation.However saying that, I'm sure that there are a number of groups that have been created from the occupation of Palestine. Just as i'm sure theres been Israeli terrorist groups that have been created from the killing of their own families.

Yes poor Israeli it's a target cause of bad timing, backing into the limelight if you will. Nothing to do with the death of over three thousand Palestinians, illegal settlements in the occupied territories, deaths of international observors, human rights abuses, firing rockets from helicopters into settlements, to hit tunnels. Destruction of Palestinian infrastructure, roads, houses, and the rampant destruction of their only source of income 100 year old olive trees. Not to mention an illegal wall which will destroy communities and shatter families.

God yes I see it now, Israeli was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Not it's fault at all.

They'd see it as another ploy to gain influence. Besides, if the US were to drop their main ally in the M.East, who would trust them in regards to old enemies? Trust, in regards to the M.East will take decades. Peace in Israel/palestine is the 1st step. Whether thats Israeli withdrawal or a merging of the two states, i dunno, but its there that's its got to happen.

Long and protracted I agree. But we're irish we know everything about long protracted peace processes. And y'know what bring it out. I want talks, I want talks to go on and on, argue about the biscuits on the table, and the size of the flags. Because as long as they're talking they're not fighting. And the longer the keep on talking, the better chance you have of people rebuilding there lives.

Forget the religious angle for a moment. You must be desperate to become a sucide bomber. It's a tactic born out of desperation. If someone has a job, and a family, and a future they're alot less likely to strap bags of nails and bombs to their chests.

If that €1.7billion was spent restoring Palestinian infrastructure, and creating jobs, they're be a better chance for peace in the middle east.

I cannot see how you can take that to mean I support US arms to Palestine. I suggest that you can't defend US aid funding 1.7 billion dollars of military aid to Israeli, while claiming they're looking for peace; so instead you throw baseless accusations back at me.

lol. Baseless accusations? I look at your statement and see something. You look and see something else. I've already apologised for misunderstanding.

As for US support of Israel in regards to military financing, i agree i can't defend it, cause i don't support it. Happy now?

I concur, however oppression of muslims in Chechyen and Palestine is used as a valid reason by terrorist and fundamentalists recruiting young men in Mosques from Finchely park, to Nigeria.

Just as I heard how the British raped the land of Ireland for centuries in an effort to hate the British. And do you know what? It worked. However, i grew up in an environment that allowed me to learn from my mistakes. Unfortuently its just too easy for these people to gain weapons, and act on that hatred. Especially since its all so bloody pointless.

Yes poor Israeli it's a target cause of bad timing, backing into the limelight if you will. Nothing to do with the death of over three thousand Palestinians, illegal settlements in the occupied territories, deaths of international observors, human rights abuses, firing rockets from helicopters into settlements, to hit tunnels. Destruction of Palestinian infrastructure, roads, houses, and the rampant destruction of their only source of income 100 year old olive trees. Not to mention an illegal wall which will destroy communities and shatter families.

And the list goes on and on. And that is one of the reasons why peace is so hard to come by. Everyone is so intent on repeating the huge list of offenses. And do you want to know another reason? Israeli's have just as long a list for Arab offenses, and are just as intent on screaming those offenses.

God yes I see it now, Israeli was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Not it's fault at all.

Oh it is. Not for being situated where it is, but rather for its actions after UN recognition. I freely admit this, and as many people on these boards know, i am quite pro-Israel. Just as i admit that the Arab states in the M.East including palestine are just as responsible for the mess that they have all created.

Long and protracted I agree. But we're irish we know everything about long protracted peace processes. And y'know what bring it out. I want talks, I want talks to go on and on, argue about the biscuits on the table, and the size of the flags. Because as long as they're talking they're not fighting. And the longer the keep on talking, the better chance you have of people rebuilding there lives.

I'm Irish. And do you know something? I know nothing about a peace process. Strangely enough, while growing up i got to the stage where i ignored the North when it was on the news. It was always the same, and it went on and on.

So, i'm not really going to state that being Irish gives me an unique view of a peace process. (This is not a dig at you, since alot of Irish people were and are interested in the peace process in the North)

Forget the religious angle for a moment. You must be desperate to become a sucide bomber. It's a tactic born out of desperation. If someone has a job, and a family, and a future they're alot less likely to strap bags of nails and bombs to their chests.

I daresay theres alot more to it than that. I'd be inclined to do it if i was promised that my family would be well cared for, or that they would be protected. But then, i wouldn't do it. I'd move my family elsewhere. I believe in Ireland, and i would fight for my Nation. However, my family would be more important. But thats just me, so your example might suit other posters here.

If that €1.7billion was spent restoring Palestinian infrastructure, and creating jobs, they're be a better chance for peace in the middle east.

I dunno. I'm not completely disagreeing, its just that rebuilding infrastructure/jobs doesn't remove the mindset of the people. Take away the bitter old men that encouyrage such a mindset and peace has a chance. And i'm not just talking about Palestinian old men.

chill

Originally posted by klaz
the UN is rather toothless. It makes alot of noise, but rarely can follow up. Its the US that gives the UN the ower to follow up on its decisions. Now, the other nations in the UN could provide enough support to make the UN a power again, but they haven't to date. Its been the US that has implemented the UN mandates, and provided the majority of firepower. As we've seen the US support Israel in this.

The political reality now is that the UN is finished when it comes to dealing with the big issues anymore.
The system of vetoes has been exposed as no longer sustainable after Iraq and their practice of putting terrorist states on UN human rights committees has destroyed it's crdibility even further.
The Security Council needs to be renegotiated with new nations and the veto principle jettisoned, otherwise the UN is going to limp on into the sunset.

Also... if people want to counteract America's mishandling of the middle east then we need Europe to step up to take it's place on the world stage of military power. If everything is left to America then they will do what every state does - look after it's own interests.
The surest way of changing that is to return the world to some kind of balance where America is not left as the sole power in the world.

Redleslie

Originally posted by chill
Also... if people want to counteract America's mishandling of the middle east then we need Europe to step up to take it's place on the world stage of military power. If everything is left to America then they will do what every state does - look after it's own interests.
The surest way of changing that is to return the world to some kind of balance where America is not left as the sole power in the world.

If this Paul Wolfowitz statement of policy is anything to go by, the US doesn't plan on allowing the EU or anybody else get above themselves.

"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and Southwest Asia."

Source.

chill

Originally posted by Redleslie
If this Paul Wolfowitz statement of policy is anything to go by, the US doesn't plan on allowing the EU or anybody else get above themselves.

"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and Southwest Asia."

Hardly surprising. What country wants it's powers limited. However Europe could not, ever, be described as a hostile power.

Fact is he and the US don't have any power to limit Europe. Europe's economic power has been rising steadily and is now matching the US in most aspects. The only power that the US has that Europe doesn't is military - and that is useless to stop Europe joining it as a comparable military power.
Notice the failure of the US to veto the new satellite navigation system to rival GPS and other issues too.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Gearoid
What action do you think should be taken against Israel for the landgrabbing and walling in of Palestinian terroties? Politicans in Europe complain but Israel doesn't seem to give a damn, it seems once they have the USA behind them they will do as they want. Any other non USA backed state wouldn't be left off so lightly, so what would you do?

I think the international community should rally in support of Israel and congratulate them for the positive steps for peace they are taking. Then send them plenty of JCB's to help them demolish terrorists' houses. And UN peacekeepers to shoot on sight any terrorists trying to cross over to commit acts of genocide.

The only thing I'd worry about is that they're not building the wall high enough.

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
I think the international community should rally in support of Israel and congratulate them for the positive steps for peace they are taking. Then send them plenty of JCB's to help them demolish terrorists' houses. And UN peacekeepers to shoot on sight any terrorists trying to cross over to commit acts of genocide.

The only thing I'd worry about is that they're not building the wall high enough.

rofl.

But seriously-no middle ground then?
No attempt at conflict resolution?
No biting of tongues and deep breaths in an other attempt to solve this?
The day one gives up trying, is the day someone bad has suceeded.

Redleslie

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
The only thing I'd worry about is that they're not building the wall high enough.

No the height shouldn't be a problem. It's 25 feet high. The Berlin wall was only 11 feet high at most, and that did its job and the Warsaw ghetto wall was even smaller but as this photo of terrorists/criminals in action shows, it didn't always provide 100% security.

sovtek

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
I think the international community should rally in support of Israel and congratulate them for the positive steps for peace they are taking.

Like what? Defying any number of UN resolutions, killing civilians on a daily basis, illegally occupying territory, building a wall into said territory, summary executions...etc?

Then send them plenty of JCB's to help them demolish terrorists' houses.

Yes lets help them commit war crimes.

And UN peacekeepers to shoot on sight any terrorists trying to cross over to commit acts of genocide.

It could be argued that Israel's whole "security" policy is to promote genocide.
Should we equally committ those UN "peacekeepers" to shoot on sight any IDF crossing into Palestinian territory..or better yet any illegal settlers?

The only thing I'd worry about is that they're not building the wall high enough.

What Redleslie said.

Do you actually believe this garbage or are you just trying to provoke? :rolleyes:

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Redleslie
No the height shouldn't be a problem. It's 25 feet high. The Berlin wall was only 11 feet high at most, and that did its job

Though the Berlin wall was more sophisticated with multiple barriers and traps, than the Israeli one.

Redleslie

Originally posted by SkepticOne
Though the Berlin wall was more sophisticated with multiple barriers and traps, than the Israeli one.

That's why I said that height is not a problem. But they've got 100 metres of bulldozed no mans land adjacent to the wall to play with and it's early days yet.

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
The only thing I'd worry about is that they're not building the wall high enough.

Funnily, I would agree with Biffa 100% here......if the wall was entirely built on Israeli land.

Unfortunatley, it isn't....but that apparently doesn't seem to concern some people. I'm sure it will be justified on the "but the Israeli's are threatened by them, so we have a right to...."

I'm just wondering how those who would put such an argument would have considered a wall of a similar nature, being built in Monaghan, Cavan, Dundalk, Donegal, etc. by the British because of the actions of the IRA back (say) in the 80s.

jc

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Man
But seriously-no middle ground then?
No attempt at conflict resolution?
No biting of tongues and deep breaths in an other attempt to solve this?
The day one gives up trying, is the day someone bad has suceeded.

Conflict resolution is only possible where both sides are willing to compromise. Unfortunately, in this conflict, only the Israelis have shown any desire to make peace. The Palestinians have never done anything to suggest they will accept anything less than the total destruction of Israel. Until they do, they only credible solution is a security one.

Originally posted by Redleslie
No the height shouldn't be a problem. It's 25 feet high. The Berlin wall was only 11 feet high at most, and that did its job and the Warsaw ghetto wall was even smaller but as this photo of terrorists/criminals in action shows, it didn't always provide 100% security.

Phew. Thanks for putting my mind at rest.

Originally posted by sovtek
Like what? Defying any number of UN resolutions, killing civilians on a daily basis, illegally occupying territory, building a wall into said territory, summary executions...etc?

No, by erecting a security barrier to prevent genocidal fanatics from entering Israel in order to murder innocent civilians.

Yes lets help them commit war crimes.

No lets help them deter people from encouraging and aiding terrorists.

It could be argued that Israel's whole "security" policy is to promote genocide.

Only by idiots.

Should we equally committ those UN "peacekeepers" to shoot on sight any IDF crossing into Palestinian territory..or better yet any illegal settlers?

No, because the IDF and the settlers are acting legally.

Do you actually believe this garbage or are you just trying to provoke?

Do I believe that democratic states have a right to protect their civilian population from attack by terrorists whose aims are explicitly genocidal? Absolutely.

Originally posted by bonkey
Unfortunatley, it isn't....but that apparently doesn't seem to concern some people. I'm sure it will be justified on the "but the Israeli's are threatened by them, so we have a right to...."

Correct, the fact that the state of Israel is at war with terrorist groups operating out of the West Bank, a territory that has no internationally recognised legal status or political authority, gives Israel the right to erect a security barrier within the West Bank.

I'm just wondering how those who would put such an argument would have considered a wall of a similar nature, being built in Monaghan, Cavan, Dundalk, Donegal, etc. by the British because of the actions of the IRA back (say) in the 80s.

Monaghan, Cavan, Dundalk and Donegal are legally part of the Republic of Ireland. Therefore any attempt to construct a security barrier on these territories by a foreign power would have been an act of war. Whether such a war would be justifiable would depend on the nature of the terrorist threat and the degree to which the government and security forces of the Republic were complicit in terrorist activity.

sovtek

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Conflict resolution is only possible where both sides are willing to compromise. Unfortunately, in this conflict, only the Israelis have shown any desire to make peace. The Palestinians have never done anything to suggest they will accept anything less than the total destruction of Israel. Until they do, they only credible solution is a security one.

Phew. Thanks for putting my mind at rest.

No, by erecting a security barrier to prevent genocidal fanatics from entering Israel in order to murder innocent civilians.

No lets help them deter people from encouraging and aiding terrorists.

Only by idiots.

No, because the IDF and the settlers are acting legally.

Do I believe that democratic states have a right to protect their civilian population from attack by terrorists whose aims are explicitly genocidal? Absolutely.

Correct, the fact that the state of Israel is at war with terrorist groups operating out of the West Bank, a territory that has no internationally recognised legal status or political authority, gives Israel the right to erect a security barrier within the West Bank.

Monaghan, Cavan, Dundalk and Donegal are legally part of the Republic of Ireland. Therefore any attempt to construct a security barrier on these territories by a foreign power would have been an act of war. Whether such a war would be justifiable would depend on the nature of the terrorist threat and the degree to which the government and security forces of the Republic were complicit in terrorist activity.

Can you really be that ignorant of the situation or is this just more baiting?

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Monaghan, Cavan, Dundalk and Donegal are legally part of the Republic of Ireland.

Yes, and therefore they are not lands which the United Kingdom has any legal claim to.

So what about the lands which do not belong to Israel where the wall is being built???? They have no legal claim to those lands either.

The only reason they are disputed in the first place is because the Israeli's seized lands which are not theirs in the name of defence / retaliation / whatever. It would be no different had the UK decided to annex parts of the Republic of Ireland in retaliation for and defense against continued Republican terrorist attacks, and then built a wall on it. So stop evading the question and tell me whether or not you would support it, because other than location, the situation is essentially identical.

Therefore any attempt to construct a security barrier on these territories by a foreign power would have been an act of war.

So are you admitting that Israel has performed an act of war against Palestine here as well? Or can you explain the difference in the two cases?

Whether such a war would be justifiable would depend on the nature of the terrorist threat and the degree to which the government and security forces of the Republic were complicit in terrorist activity.

But the Israeli's are making these decisions unilaterally. So therefore the UK could have made their "threat assessment" and resultant decisions regarding action equally unilaterally.

After all, you absolutely support the right of a democratic nation to defend itself against terror. If the United Kingdom had decided that annexing parts of the Republic of Ireland in response to the terrorist attacks, and then building a wall on it to prevent further attacks was necessary in its fight on terror, then surely you'd have supported such an action, just as you support the Israeli's doing the same.?

And would you have had any problem had they started, say, shelling Irish police stations and military bases because our nations failure to deal with its own terrorists was a clear sign of collusion???? After all, we clearly did a p1ss poor job of eliminating terrorism, resourcing, arms storage, criminal activity.....

So how about it Biffa? Where's the difference?

jc

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by bonkey[/I]
So what about the lands which do not belong to Israel where the wall is being built???? They have no legal claim to those lands either.

Israel does have a legal claim to those lands as there Israeli citizens living there, occupation of that land is vital to Israeli security and the final status of the territory has not yet been determined.

But regardless, Israel’s right to build a wall within the West Bank is derived from the fact that it is required for national security during time of war, not because of any legal claim to the land. If Israel was not at war with terrorist groups operating out of the West Bank and if in any political settlement those territories were given over to the Palestinian Authority, then Israel would no longer have any right to maintain a defensive wall there.

So stop evading the question and tell me whether or not you would support it, because other than location, the situation is essentially identical.

No I would not support it because the nature of the threat posed by republican terrorists and the degree of complicity by the Irish state were not serious enough to justify war between the UK and the Republic.

So are you admitting that Israel has performed an act of war against Palestine here as well?

Yes of course.

But the Israeli's are making these decisions unilaterally. So therefore the UK could have made their "threat assessment" and resultant decisions regarding action equally unilaterally.

Correct.

If the United Kingdom had decided that annexing parts of the Republic of Ireland in response to the terrorist attacks, and then building a wall on it to prevent further attacks was necessary in its fight on terror, then surely you'd have supported such an action, just as you support the Israeli's doing the same.?

No because I would not have agreed with such a threat assessment. In Israel’s case however I fully agree with their threat assessment. They are facing an enemy whose goal is the destruction of Israel and the extermination of its population. They have tried negotiation, compromise and gestures of goodwill and all it got them was more terror. There are no other options left open to them.

After all, we clearly did a p1ss poor job of eliminating terrorism, resourcing, arms storage, criminal activity.....

Well that much we’re agreed on.

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Israel does have a legal claim to those lands as there Israeli citizens living there, occupation of that land is vital to Israeli security and the final status of the territory has not yet been determined.

Now you're contradicting yourself. If the statuys of the territory is yet to be determined, then Israel has no established right to it, and therefore has no right to build a wall on that land.

But regardless, Israel’s right to build a wall within the West Bank is derived from the fact that it is required for national security during time of war, not because of any legal claim to the land.

Can you show me where Israel has formally declared war against the Palestinian State please?

If Israel was not at war with terrorist groups operating out of the West Bank

Oh right...its not at war with Palestine...its with Palestinian terrorists. So the UK could have seized land from the Republic's side of the border in teh North because it was at war with the IRA. Riiiiiight.

No I would not support it because the nature of the threat posed by republican terrorists and the degree of complicity by the Irish state were not serious enough to justify war between the UK and the Republic.

So you then agree that if someone holds this view concerning the nature of the threat posted to Israel, and the level of complicity between the Palestinian Authority and Palestinian terrorists......then they are perfectly justified in reaching the conclusion that Israels actions should not be supported.

First time I've seen you admit that.

Now all you have to do is prove that the nature of the threat faced by Israel in the absencve of Israeli aggression today would indeed be serious enough....and that complicity still exists between the Palestinian authorities and the Palestinian terrorists, and you'll be well on your way to having a defensible argument.

jc

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by bonkey
Now you're contradicting yourself. If the statuys of the territory is yet to be determined, then Israel has no established right to it, and therefore has no right to build a wall on that land.

I never said Israel had an established right, I said they had a legal claim, as do the Palestinians. But their right to build the wall derives from the fact that it is necessary for their security and because the final status of the territory has not been determined.

Can you show me where Israel has formally declared war against the Palestinian State please?

There is no Palestinian State to declare war against. But anyway, you don’t have to declare war in order to be at war.

Oh right...its not at war with Palestine...its with Palestinian terrorists. So the UK could have seized land from the Republic's side of the border in teh North because it was at war with the IRA. Riiiiiight.

But that would have been an overt act of war against the Republic of Ireland. You have to ask yourself, would such a war have been justified by the nature of the terrorist threat and the Republic’s degree of complicity? It would not have been in my opinion.

In any case, the situation in Israel is different as the wall is being built on territory already occupied by Israel.

So you then agree that if someone holds this view concerning the nature of the threat posted to Israel, and the level of complicity between the Palestinian Authority and Palestinian terrorists......then they are perfectly justified in reaching the conclusion that Israels actions should not be supported.

Well it would be a conclusion logically consistent with their views. Their views would still be wrong though.

Now all you have to do is prove that the nature of the threat faced by Israel in the absencve of Israeli aggression today would indeed be serious enough....and that complicity still exists between the Palestinian authorities and the Palestinian terrorists, and you'll be well on your way to having a defensible argument.

Well I don’t know what you mean by “in the absence of Israeli aggression”. There is no Israeli aggression. Israel is conducting defensive military options in response to Arab aggression.

The exact degree of collusion at the moment between the terrorist Arafat and other Arab terrorists I can’t say for sure, but I don’t think anyone seriously questions Arafat’s role in aiding and promoting terror? The fact remains that there are no Palestinian leaders that Israel can seriously be expected to trust to put an end to terrorism.

Sand

The exact degree of collusion at the moment between the terrorist Arafat and other Arab terrorists I can’t say for sure, but I don’t think anyone seriously questions Arafat’s role in aiding and promoting terror?

His police force has committed terrorist attacks on Israel

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3444705.stm

Israeli atrocities are enough to convict sharon of war crimes so logically Arafat is a terrorist as well.