What action should be taken against Israel?

bonkey · 18-02-2004 10:46am

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
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.

Sorry Biffa, but thats just crap. If you don't own the land, you do not have the right to build on it, full stop, end of story.

If Israel need a wall for security, then - as I said at the start - let them build it on their own land, where they have the unquestionable right to do so.

I'm not questioning whether they feel they need it, or whether it is necessary.....just where its built. There is no logical reason for building the wall where it is as opposed to on Israeli territory, other than to justify land-acquisition.

It would not have been in my opinion.
.....
Their views would still be wrong though.

And this is what it boils down to, isn't it. Your opinion is what determines whether other people are right or wrong. Not fact, not law, not anything else. Just your opinion.

You know....when you aren't interested in even considering the possibilty that the facts may validly support more than one opinion, and therefore that differing from your opinion is not necessarily wrong.....I honestly don't see the point in continuing the discussion.

Originally posted by Sand

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

Logically Arafat was a terrorist at some point in the past. Whether or not he still commits acts of terrorism is an open question.

And personally, I'd like to see both men - Arafat and Sharon - tried for their crimes. However, given that we're talking about two national leaders, I would not accept either being tried with the other being let off scott free on any justification.

Hold both accountable for their past actions, or excuse both, but lets apply our standards equally.

jc

sparkyisdum · 18-02-2004 8:24pm

israel is the only aggressor in the region and the USA has to stop backing the hawks in the israeli coaliation.

check out whatreallyhappened.com
for the real story!!!

Biffa Bacon · 18-02-2004 10:48pm

Sorry Biffa, but thats just crap. If you don't own the land, you do not have the right to build on it, full stop, end of story.

First of all, if that’s true, then no one, neither Arab nor Israeli, has a right to build anything in the West Bank, as the status of the territory has not been determined. No roads, no houses, no hospitals, no schools, nothing.

And the second implication of what you’re saying is that no state should be permitted to carry out any security operations in territory it has occupied in time of war. Because if you’re not allowed to erect a security fence on the grounds that you don’t own the land, then what right have you either to erect roadblocks, construct bases, capture enemy combatants or attack enemy positions?

There is no logical reason for building the wall where it is as opposed to on Israeli territory, other than to justify land-acquisition.

The barrier is being built where it is because of topographical considerations and in order to protect Jewish settlements that have been built close to the Israeli border. The Israelis have made clear that it is a temporary security barrier and that the border between Israel and any Palestinian state will be determined by negotiation.

You know, I can’t help thinking that people are seeing this as a land-grab because they know full well that the Palestinians will never make peace with Israel and thus the fence will never come down.

And this is what it boils down to, isn't it. Your opinion is what determines whether other people are right or wrong. Not fact, not law, not anything else. Just your opinion.

You know....when you aren't interested in even considering the possibilty that the facts may validly support more than one opinion, and therefore that differing from your opinion is not necessarily wrong.....I honestly don't see the point in continuing the discussion.

Oh I can consider the possibility that I’m wrong, I wouldn’t be responding to your points otherwise. Just don’t expect me to accept as valid views based on ignorance, lies, hypocrisy or immorality.

Originally posted by sparkyisdum
israel is the only aggressor in the region…

Well that’s certainly a very valid point. Let’s consider the evidence:
1. Israel has repeatedly attacked every single one of its neighbours with the express intention of annexing their territory and massacring their civilian population.
2. Arab countries have willingly returned to Israel territory they captured during these wars, only asking for an end to hostilities in return.
3. Arab refugees from these wars have been welcomed into various Arab states with open arms and fully integrated into their societies. Jewish refugees in contrast have been kept in squalid conditions in refugee camps in Israel for over fifty years. They are treated as second class citizens and are cynically being used by the regime in order to keep the Arab-Israeli conflict alive.
4. Arab countries only ever attack military targets, whereas Israel routinely and deliberately attacks civilian targets. In fact, Israel actively encourages and supports acts of terror against civilians in Arab countries.
5. Arab states are democratic, respectful of individual liberty, tolerant of dissent and governed by the rule of law. Israel in contrast is a totalitarian dictatorship that tortures and kills critics of the regime. Its media is strictly censored and is used by the state to incite anti-Arab hate among the citizens of Israel.

sparkyisdum · 18-02-2004 11:00pm

Israel is the only aggressor in the region…

Well that’s certainly a very valid point

please read PITY THE NATION BY ROBERT FISK and then explain to me Sabra and Chatila massacres ?

sovtek · 19-02-2004 8:18pm

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
First of all, if that’s true, then no one, neither Arab nor Israeli, has a right to build anything in the West Bank, as the status of the territory has not been determined. No roads, no houses, no hospitals, no schools, nothing.

Actually it has in GA resolution 181.

The barrier is being built where it is because of topographical considerations and in order to protect Jewish settlements that have been built close to the Israeli border.

Which are illegal by resolution 242 as they consist of land taken by force, as well as being inhabited by people who have been "imported" (many American) from other countries and given Israeli citizenship based on their Jewish religion.

The Israelis have made clear that it is a temporary security barrier and that the border between Israel and any Palestinian state will be determined by negotiation.

They also promised to end settlements but instead they've actually increased them...and that's only since 2000. nevermind since Oslo.

You know, I can’t help thinking that people are seeing this as a land-grab because they know full well that the Palestinians will never make peace with Israel and thus the fence will never come down.

I don't know what people you are referring to, but most people think that they won't take the wall down because Israel has NEVER ceded land that it has taken by aggression.

Just don’t expect me to accept as valid views based on ignorance, lies, hypocrisy or immorality.

Unlike your own, of course.

1. Israel has repeatedly attacked every single one of its neighbours with the express intention of annexing their territory and massacring their civilian population.

Say that without "massacring their civilian population" and your not far from the truth. Of course you don't have to committ murder to be guilty of genocide.

2. Arab countries have willingly returned to Israel territory they captured during these wars, only asking for an end to hostilities in return.

No they were kicked out of their territories and asked for the right of return or compensation, which is why Oslo is actually a huge capitulation of their part.

3. Arab refugees from these wars have been welcomed into various Arab states with open arms and fully integrated into their societies.

Actually some have and some haven't. Jordan is 40% Palestinian. They have rightly argued that they aren't able to take any more.
Of course you'd be willing to take all those Africans that want to come over here because their countries have been ruined by generations of European exploitation! Nevermind that Israel has taken territory from these same Arab neighbors.

Jewish refugees in contrast have been kept in squalid conditions in refugee camps in Israel for over fifty years. They are treated as second class citizens and are cynically being used by the regime in order to keep the Arab-Israeli conflict alive.

?????

4. Arab countries only ever attack military targets, whereas Israel routinely and deliberately attacks civilian targets.

Nobody has suggested that Hamas and other resistance groups haven't attacked innocent civilians.
They also attack military targets.
The IDF do attack civilians on a daily basis. That's besides destroying homes, checkpoint's galor (with it's inherant humiliation "do not start your car...I said HUMANS could move forward!".

In fact, Israel actively encourages and supports acts of terror against civilians in Arab countries.

It gives and gets support from groups in other countries that do.

5. Arab states are democratic, respectful of individual liberty, tolerant of dissent and governed by the rule of law.

Such as making ones citizenship based upon ones religion, suppresing dissent, arresting/beating/expulsion of non-Jewish dissent quite readily. That last ones really funny considering the pile of UN resolutions it's violating.

Israel in contrast is a totalitarian dictatorship that tortures and kills critics of the regime.

Unlike the democratically elected leader Arafat? How many peace activists have been killed in the past two years by the IDF...and you can only count the western foreignors if you want.

Its media is strictly censored and is used by the state to incite anti-Arab hate among the citizens of Israel.

Actually it is censored and does incite anti-Arab hatred/Zionism.

Sand · 20-02-2004 12:08am

Logically Arafat was a terrorist at some point in the past. Whether or not he still commits acts of terrorism is an open question.

I think he can turn it on and off like a tap to be honest. Its widely accepted that if the Israelis want an end to the terror attacks then they must speak to Arafat. All parties, including the Palestinians accept this - except for the Israelis. The only conclusion you can draw is that he has a large degree of control of the terrorist organisations and by extension is reponsible for their acts. If doesnt have a large degree of control then why bother talking to him? Its not like he can keep up his end of the deal.

And as the link I gave shows, the Palestinian police force is also taking part in terror attacks. If Sharon must answer for the acts of his soldiers, then so must Arafat.

And personally, I'd like to see both men - Arafat and Sharon - tried for their crimes. However, given that we're talking about two national leaders, I would not accept either being tried with the other being let off scott free on any justification.

Yep, agreed. Unfortunately whilst there is an easily shown line of command to Sharons doorstep, its much harder to prove in a court of law that Arafat was/is in control of terrorist forces. Sharon may stand trial for warcrimes ( unlikely - a peace deal will probably include a truth and reconcilliation type tribunal , but it will mean immunity from actual prosecution ) but Arafat never, ever will in my opinion.

bonkey · 20-02-2004 12:38pm

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Just don’t expect me to accept as valid views based on ignorance, lies, hypocrisy or immorality.

All your offered reasons for discarding an argument are based on personal judgements as to how you consider the argument.

So, you can rephrase that to say "just don't ask me to accept as valid views that I disagree with".

Good starting position.

jc

sovtek · 20-02-2004 6:08pm

Originally posted by Sand
I think he can turn it on and off like a tap to be honest.

Whilst being in a virtual prison?

Its widely accepted that if the Israelis want an end to the terror attacks then they must speak to Arafat.

"Widely accepted" don't make it so.
Hamas and other resistance groups have stated that the terrorist attacks will stop when the IDF pull out of the Occupied Territories and they stop assassinating their leaders.

Yep, agreed. Unfortunately whilst there is an easily shown line of command to Sharons doorstep, its much harder to prove in a court of law that Arafat was/is in control of terrorist forces. Sharon may stand trial for warcrimes ( unlikely - a peace deal will probably include a truth and reconcilliation type tribunal , but it will mean immunity from actual prosecution ) but Arafat never, ever will in my opinion.

If the same standard were to be applied to all then Bush, Blair, Howard and a few others would be right behind them. Thats why it will never happen.
Imagine that...a former peace prize winner on trial for war crimes...how's that for irony?

bonkey · 22-02-2004 4:22pm

Originally posted by Sand
Yep, agreed. Unfortunately whilst there is an easily shown line of command to Sharons doorstep, its much harder to prove in a court of law that Arafat was/is in control of terrorist forces. Sharon may stand trial for warcrimes ( unlikely - a peace deal will probably include a truth and reconcilliation type tribunal , but it will mean immunity from actual prosecution ) but Arafat never, ever will in my opinion.

The only people who could - in my opinion - ever possibly try Arafat for war crimes would be the Palestinian people. For Sheron, the Israelis.

I'd rank both possibilities in the "never never land" area myself.

jc

Sand · 22-02-2004 11:23pm

Whilst being in a virtual prison?

Yes.

"Widely accepted" don't make it so.

So then Arafat doesnt have control, thus cant even make a reasonable undertaking to prevent terror attacks and thus is about as valid a negotiating partner for the Israelis as say, yourself for example? Thus the Israeli position that Arafat isnt worth talking to is correct in your view?

Hamas and other resistance groups have stated that the terrorist attacks will stop when the IDF pull out of the Occupied Territories and they stop assassinating their leaders.

So again, the Israelis need to be negotiating with Hamas and their representives and quit wasting their time with Arafat?

If the same standard were to be applied to all then Bush, Blair, Howard and a few others would be right behind them. Thats why it will never happen.

If their forces committed war crimes under orders then yes it would. If its simply because those particular leaders undertook policies you disagreed with then it wouldnt. Of course, the primary reason why Bush, Blair and Howard are there are because those particular leaders undertook policies you disgreed with. Putin and the Russians would be the more obvious example right behind Sharon (hell even ahead), but then again hes not in the White House so he doesnt get the same heat. Carte blanche as it were.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/63/083.html

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V120/N27/massacre_27.27w.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/572119.stm

http://www.chechenpress.info/english/news/2004/02/08/02.shtml <----unashamedly pro rebel (who are as bad themselves) webpage so take it with a hefty dash of salt.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3184161.stm

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/russia_chechnya3/Chech006.htm

The Russians are getting smarter though. Reporters are discouraged from going to Chechnya , some are dissapeared to intimidate the rest. In comparison Im to get worked up about Bush, Blair and Howard not doing what the un tells them?

Yeah, right.

Imagine that...a former peace prize winner on trial for war crimes...how's that for irony?

Imagine a permament security council member being tackled on clear and flagrant massacres and abuse of civillians? Nah, Israel is more newsworthy tbh.

The only people who could - in my opinion - ever possibly try Arafat for war crimes would be the Palestinian people. For Sheron, the Israelis.

I'd rank both possibilities in the "never never land" area myself.

Yeah, tis unlikely but its more likely Sharon will be charged as their is an opposing moderate faction in Israeli politics which favours negotiation over purely military solutions - theyre unpopular as the terror attacks make strong military reponses more popular but at some point in the future its conceivable they might have the power to tackle Sharon on abuses.

I dont think theres any such faction in Palestinian politics that will have the strenth to tackle Arafat in his lifetime. Arafat reminds me of DeValera, a gunman turned politician, a bad leader but at the same time a national institution - an untouchable.

What action should be taken against Israel?

Comments