Need for wars by Israel

wes

Deleted User wrote:

Threads like these make me feel like simply giving up the ghost, overloading the sarcasmometer, and conceding that yes of course the Jews have a genetic predisposition that makes them love a good bloody scrap, they really enjoy killing people for fun, the case for the proposition is accepted, and can we now move along...

All Humans are violent to a degree. Why would that be different for any particular group of people?

Kroko

Israel is as bad as its neighbours? Wes, what are you talking about? I never said and will never say Israel is a country of innocent doves and angels, but.. comparing it the surrounding Arab regimes is a bit not fair.

Examples:
Syria: In 1982 Syrian Hafiz Assad alawi regime sent its crack (mostly alawi) troops to surround a city of Hama. Hama then was a hotbed of Sunni-muslim terrorism, vying for power with the alawi-socialist regime of Assads. After two weeks of indiscriminate bombings the town was "liberated" from the hands of Sunnis. 20-40 thousand innocent civilians were killed by fellow Syrians.

Jordan: black September 1970. When Palestinians became too strong, independent and decided to do in Jordan what the Jews did to them in Israel (ie set up their own state) king Abdullah unleashed his loyal bedouin army and quickly got rid of the problem. Dozens of thousands of Palestinians were killed, the exact number unknown.

Lebanon: Sabra and Shatila Massacres (Maronites vs Palestinians). Mount of Lebanon massacres (the Druse vs Maronites).

When did the Israelis resorted to indiscriminate killing of thousands of other people, based only on their ethnic/religious community? Because when bombs were being dropped in southern Beirut last years, they were dropped on targets in Shiite neighbourhoods because Hizbullahs decided to set up their bases in densely populated neighbourhoods. In southern Lebanon, where many Christians live Hizbullahs used Christian property very often to hide their stashes of rockets - and in the end Israelis bombed Christians in the South as well as Shiites in Beirut.

So how come Israel is no better than its neighbours? IDF never engaged in indiscriminate mass-killings of Arabs - unlike the surrounding Arab regimes.

wes

Kroko wrote:

So how come Israel is no better than its neighbours? IDF never engaged in indiscriminate mass-killings of Arabs - unlike the surrounding Arab regimes.

They have used proxies to do there dirty work. Plausible denialbility and all that.

Oh and there is Jenin and Qana.

Just go to any reputable Human rights sites for the list of Human rights abuses Israel commits, you will notice they include there neighbors also.

There also the Cluster bombs they sprinkled all over southern Lebanon in the last few days of the conflict.

Also Noam Chomsky has written quite a bit about Israel.

InFront

Deleted User wrote:

Well, since I'm not balanced in this, is it ok for me to make excuses for them. Afterall, its quite common to see loads of excuses being made for Palestine, so it seems only fair, that I have the same chances to do the same for Israel.

Do so as you wish, it certainly isn't my position to tell anyone what viewpoint to take. I question the principles of a person who supports Israel as you do, though.

I can think of very, very and I'll say again, very few posters on boards capable of making a balanced view of the situation. I'm certainly not one of them. Do you honestly think you are one of them yourself?

Yes. I have no allegiance to Palestinians or Palestine, I'm not a Palestinian, and I suppose I'm relieved that I'm not really.
Neither would I let whatever religious ideals I happen to have skew my judgement on what is, despite the apocolyptic dimensions ascribed to it by political editors, essentially a squirmish over geography.
People who believe otherwise - the individual Muslims, Jews and fundamentalist Christians who believe that their religious-ethnic identity endows them with a specific political allegiance that overlooks guilty actions - are the people who dig in their heels to make the conflict worse.

You seem to be of the opinion that anyone who doesn't adapt a neutral "I dunno" stance on Palestine must be imbalanced. I don't have a bias between white South Africans and black South Africans to know that if I were a few years older I wouldn't have been neutral on (South African) apartheid, and I doubt you wouldn't have been either, although Israel did keep up links with that country when nobody else would.

The same goes for Israeli apartheid. I believe that a few decades from now expressing support for that regime will be just as publicly unacceptable as the South Africa one is now.

Invasion of lands not theirs.

Who ruled Palestine before the creation of Israel? Who governed, made laws, had the military, etc? Where was the palestinian government, the Palestinian military, the Palestinian trade bereau, etc? Nowhere, because while there were a palestinian people, there was no palestinian state.

Who ruled Ireland before the creation of the free state? Who governed, made laws, had the military, etc? Where was the irish government, the irish military, the irish trade bereau, etc? Nowhere, because while there were a irish people, there was no irish state.

Who ruled South Africa before the creation of South Africa? Who governed, made laws, had the military, etc? Where was the South African government, the South African military, the South African trade bereau, etc? Nowhere, because while there were a South African people, there was no South African state.

Who ruled Kenya before the creation of Kenya? Who governed, made laws, had the military, etc? Where was the Kenyan government, the Kenyan military, the Kenyan trade bereau, etc? Nowhere, because while there were a Kenyan people, there was no Kenyan state. ....

The question is never about name-calling, it's about the people who live there and are native to the territory. Palestine was not some empty tract of wasteland with no human life like the Arctic or Northern Alaska or The Sahara Desert. Palestine was the populated Arab territory that was invaded with Zionism from around the beginning of the 20th century. People lived there on the land, a lot of Arabs, some Christians and some orthodox Jews, real people.

Israel was a figment of the Zionist imagination.

However, if we talk about responsibility, then the manner of the Palestinian "resistance" plays a rather large role in all of it. But, hey, thats outside scope of most pro-palestinian radar.

I don't know why you say "resistant" I wouldn't have thought their resistance was under any question.
This is my whole point - there is huge Palestinian responsibility for the conflict, but it is dominated by Israeli responsibility - not by the pro Palestinian mindset, but by Israeli actions.
You already seem to have admitted that a state the wealth of Israel with an 8 billion dollar military should be able to control their civilian casualties better than the relatively incompetent Palestinians, that their responses are disproportionate, that they ought not be acting with such malice toward innocent Palestinians on a level that far surpasses the Palestinian fighters and that their settler policy is unacceptable and that they should not be ignoring the rather large list of UN Resolutions that have been put to them.
Please tell me how this makes Palestinian culpability "equal"? Do you - honestly - think that the Palestinians cause trouble in equal proportion?

Totally agree. Do you agree that Palestinian forces have openly decided to target Israeli civilians, reprisals non-withstanding?

I don't mean to start the usual, "well, Israel is bad, but Palestinians are just as bad" conversation. I'm genuinely curious to know whether you think the manner of the Palestinian response, has impacted on the numbers of deaths on the Palestinian side?

Of course, I have no sympathies with that whatsoever.
I find it funny how you say "reprisals notwithstanding" as if Israel has the right to respond by killing civilians. Where is the money for their intelligence gone? Shrapnel in Palestinian and Lebanese bodies I'd guess.

Do you not understand if you use the above argument, that you have to face up to what the Israelis are setting the scene for when they exterminate all of those Palestinians at the one time in a clean sweep "reprisals notwithstanding". And how they could be using their military capability and American money to attack opposition bases as opposed to civilians.

InFront, can you acknowledge that Palestinian groups have never been shy about targeting Israeli women & children?

I find it irritating that you still seem to equate taking an opinion as being as unbalanced as you are. The point is that a person takes a balanced opinion, not a balanced non-opinion.
So of course I don't just "acknowledge" these things, I can condemn them without hesitation. The militants who do this are like dogs in their nature, on a level that a normal human cannot identify with - but for maybe, a modern day Zionist.

I always find it interesting that Israel is the only aggressor in all of this. [Other Arab nations etc.]

The most pathetic argument of Zionist violence. It reduces the excuse to a schoolyard bully's "I wasn't the only one who punched him"... Better still is when they try to shift the focus... like a Zionist pointing to Darfur or Jordan or Saudi or somewhere saying "why aren't you so vocal about that" when the obvious response is that if they want to compare Israel to those sorts of nations then obviously they're not as straight and democratic as they would have themselves believe, and aren't aspiring to very much at all.

We see many nations with resolutions outstanding against them, but its Israel thats expected to follow all of them.

No - everybody is expected to follow all of them in line with international law. It's the United Nations, not The Complete Rules of Ultimate Frisbee.

But I agree that Israel should follow some of them

Originally posted by
Some people support Israel, because it is the only working democracy in the Middle East
Other people support Israel, because it is the only country in the Middle East where some form of human rights are observed

"Some form" of human rights are observed in Jordan and Bahrain, and Iran and Lebanon and Syria
Israel is a democracy like the way Iran is a 'democracy' but the only political parties you can vote for are the ones approved by the clerics. In Israel, you are banned as a political party if you do not support Israel as a Zionist State.

There are Jewish-only towns, government benefits are dependent on serving in the IDF but the Israeli Arabs that they didn't kick out of the country or shove into Gaza thus don't qualify for any governmental services because they don't agree to join.
The Arab towns the government didn't bulldoze are in poverty while the non Arab neighbourhoods get subsidies for everything and in terms of infrastructure just do not compare.

You are a religious minority perhaps? You can be a Christian in Israel and have pretty much the same rights as atheists/Jewish people. I have Christian friends in Israel that serve in the Israeli army, have businesses, churches and so on.

There is special Jewish-only new immigrant funding and subsidy. There is a law that prohibits the granting of any residency or citizenship status to Arabs from East Jerusalem (or any of the OPTs) who are married to Israeli citizens - they can't even live in the same house, they have to leave Israel and move into the occupied territories. If you leave to go to university, you might not get back in. There are Palestinians in Ireland today in that very situation, are you even aware of this? Arab communities in Israeli territories are notoriously impoverished as well, but we won't hear you advertise that.

Tell us about your Arab friends living in their communities in Israel, and their human and civil rights.

I'm sure that 1930s Germany was a great place to live so long as you weren't Jewish, I'm sure that 1980s South Africa was pretty good too so long as you weren't black.

InFront

InFront wrote:

I'm sure that 1930s Germany was a great place to live so long as you weren't Jewish, I'm sure that 1980s South Africa was pretty good too so long as you weren't black.

Or how about being a Jew in the West Bank or Gaza Strip in the 1940s, and facing a choice of being killed by the Arabs or expelled into Israel?

Didn't anyone ever tell the Arab countries that the policy of mass expulsions of Jews into Israel might be a great example for them of that old cliché 'you reap what you sow'?

InFront

InFront wrote:

Yes. I have no allegiance to Palestinians or Palestine, I'm not a Palestinian, and I suppose I'm relieved that I'm not really.
Neither would I let whatever religious ideals I happen to have skew my judgement on what is, despite the apocolyptic dimensions ascribed to it by political editors, essentially a squirmish over geography.

InFront, your posts are not balanced. They're not unbiased. They don't try to deal with the responsibility of both parties. While you make minor acknowledgements of Palestinian involevement, you place emphasis on the
Israel actions. Thats not being balanced. I know.... Because its what i do with reagrds to the palestinians. And we've both agreed that I'm not balanced in my viewpoints about the conflict.

You seem to be of the opinion that anyone who doesn't adapt a neutral "I dunno" stance on Palestine must be imbalanced. I don't have a bias between white South Africans and black South Africans to know that if I were a few years older I wouldn't have been neutral on (South African) apartheid, and I doubt you wouldn't have been either, although Israel did keep up links with that country when nobody else would.

Nope. For example, out of all the posters to this thread, I would consider Sand to be the most balanced in his opinions. He highlights the actions of both parties, their responsibility for those actions, and the responsibility both parties tend to bear for the reprecussions. He can be as harsh to the Israeli actions as he can with the Palestinian. And usually what he says makes perfect sense.

That to me is a "balanced" opinion. A "balanced" poster. You and I are not balanced posters. We both make token comments about the negative aspects our our respective stances, but focus most of our attentions on Israel/Palestine. That is what I mean about Balanced. Actually, it was you that started commenting about being balanced/unbalanced.

Who ruled Ireland before the creation of the free state? Who governed, made laws, had the military, etc? Where was the irish government, the irish military, the irish trade bereau, etc? Nowhere, because while there were a irish people, there was no irish state.

Yup, totally agree. There was no Irish government or Irish nation until we gained our independence from the British crown. Up until that moment, people living in Ireland were british subjects, under british rule.

The question is never about name-calling, it's about the people who live there and are native to the territory. Palestine was not some empty tract of wasteland with no human life like the Arctic or Northern Alaska or The Sahara Desert. Palestine was the populated Arab territory that was invaded with Zionism from around the beginning of the 20th century. People lived there on the land, a lot of Arabs, some Christians and some orthodox Jews, real people.

The question is about control. Prior to the creation of Israel, the region of Palestine was governed in every way by the British. Before that under Ottoman control. Before that, the Byzantine empire, i think.

The people lived there under the administration of those nations/empires/etc. They were citizens of those empires/nations.

Israel was a figment of the Zionist imagination.

And now its a very real place in the world, while Palestine is only starting to emerge as a state/nation.

You already seem to have admitted that a state the wealth of Israel with an 8 billion dollar military should be able to control their civilian casualties better than the relatively incompetent Palestinians, that their responses are disproportionate, that they ought not be acting with such malice toward innocent Palestinians on a level that far surpasses the Palestinian fighters and that their settler policy is unacceptable and that they should not be ignoring the rather large list of UN Resolutions that have been put to them.
Please tell me how this makes Palestinian culpability "equal"? Do you - honestly - think that the Palestinians cause trouble in equal proportion?

There's two parts to this I want to talk about. Firstly, Israel is responsible for the deaths of civilians in its responses of Palestinian resistance. They have the ability to limit the "collateral damage" to a minimum but rarely try to. Their use of artillery, missiles, mortors, tanks etc all show a contempt for seeking to avoid civilian casualties.

The second part is something that you probably won't agree with. Most pro-palestinian supporters won't acknowledge it. The tactics used by the Palestinian resistance have placed their own people in direct harm. Firstly by dressing in civilian atire when making attacks, increases the chances that Isreali forces will mistake civilians as threats. Secondly the use of women, and children as suicide bombers, has introduced the prospect that any Palestinian can be seen as a true danger. Lastly, their own lack of restraint in targeting Israeli civilians & children has generated enough backlash that many israeli's feel no shame/hesitation in responding in kind.

Do I think the Palestinians cause damage in equal proportion? Nope. I don't. Do they cause as much trouble? Yes, I think they do.

Do you not understand if you use the above argument, that you have to face up to what the Israelis are setting the scene for when they exterminate all of those Palestinians at the one time in a clean sweep "reprisals notwithstanding". And how they could be using their military capability and American money to attack opposition bases as opposed to civilians.

What is the largest single massacre of Palestinians by israeli forces? How many were killed? Now, what would Israel have to do to exterminate all of those Palestinians?

There is a big deal made about Israel commiting ethnic cleansing, and many posters here on boards will make comments about israel trying to wipe out all the Palestinians. Well, I would ask them, if Israel has had 40 years (since 1967) to kill the Palestinians, why haven't they? Why has the Palestinian population grown during those periods?

I find it irritating that you still seem to equate taking an opinion as being as unbalanced as you are. The point is that a person takes a balanced opinion, not a balanced non-opinion.

I find it irritating that firstly you accuse me of being unbalanced about my views when I never said I was, and then come out with your belief that you yourself are balanced in your views. I think the conversation we've had in this thread will show to most people that neither of us is particularly balanced on the whole conflict.

So of course I don't just "acknowledge" these things, I can condemn them without hesitation. The militants who do this are like dogs in their nature, on a level that a normal human cannot identify with - but for maybe, a modern day Zionist.

If you're as balanced as you claim, why can't you criticise Palestinian actions, without throwing the little bit at the end? :rolleyes:

The most pathetic argument of Zionist violence. It reduces the excuse to a schoolyard bully's "I wasn't the only one who punched him"... Better still is when they try to shift the focus... like a Zionist pointing to Darfur or Jordan or Saudi or somewhere saying "why aren't you so vocal about that" when the obvious response is that if they want to compare Israel to those sorts of nations then obviously they're not as straight and democratic as they would have themselves believe, and aren't aspiring to very much at all.

No. No. No. This isn't pasing the buck. Israel/zionism is partially responsible in all of this. I've said this many times already. What I'm pointing out is the responsibility of the other parties that have been involved in this conflict... Why is that so hard for you to take in?

Do you deny that the Arab countries invaded when Israel was created? Do you deny that they occupied Palestinian areas? Do you deny that they did not create or promote a Palestinian state until after the 1967 war?

Lets finish this up with one question. Is Israel always going to be the only guilty party in your eyes reagrdless of what any other nation/faction/group/etc has done to affect the situation?

[I'm moving to Australia in a few days and I can't continue this topic much longer]
__________

Lastly, if you're going to repsond to someone elses posts, can you put their name in the quote rather than leaving it with your responses to mine? I didn't write what you responded to last.

Sand

You ignore the scale of what Israel does when compared to Palestinian terrorists.

I dont see how scale exonerates the Palestinians [or the Israelis] to be honest. But seeing as you mentioned it, let look at scale. Palestinians strap explosives to themselves, attempt to enter Israeli civillian areas and to murder as many people as they can. I'm often told the Palestinians are fighting with the best weapons they have available - human smart bombs. On the scale of what is capable, the Palestinians thus show little restraint.

The Israeli response is usually assassinations of terrorist leaders, bombings of hamas/palestinian government or party buildings etc etc often with civillian casualties. Its relatively very restrained compared to what Israel *could* do. Hence, scale doesnt really make the Palestinians look better.

And honestly, as I've asked before why is it not enough to say "a plague on both your houses"?

Firstly, I doubt the man who wrote the words of your signature would approve of his sentiments being expressed side by side with your posts on this issue. War is peace Sand, eh?

I dont know if he would or not, I certainly wouldnt approve of everything Orwell wrote either. I like his quote though because its still true to this very day - look at the pseudo liberal support for a group like Hamas. And the style of argument is the exact same.

On the above quote; that's not even a sentiment klaz is expressing, it's even more pro-Israel. At least klaz recognizes that the settler policy and the occupation of Palestinian territories are wrong, you seem, all for hanging onto it.

I didnt say that, I in fact said the exact opposite in an earlier post that the Israelis should withdraw from the West Bank.

My point is given Hamas *precondition" for some undefined possible potential vague moves on their part is the withdrawal, what exactly does Israel have left to negotiate for peace with? I always understood the basis of a settlement would be land for peace. Is the negotiation now to be Israel gives the Palestinians everything they want, and hope Hamas recognises they exist and doesnt pursue them into the rest of the old Palestinian mandate to achieve the old dream of driving the jews back into the sea? That simply is not going to fly with the Israelis. Negotiated peace, yes that can be sold in the right enviroment - mass suicide pact, probably not.

You're essentially arguing "why should Israel obey the UN or International Court of Justice, they'd have nothing to gain". We clearly have a disagreement of principles right there, and it's probably best to leave it at that.

See above. Theres a lot of things that "should" be done, by both sides in that particular conflict.

Demanding Israeli withdrawal without even a promise of negotiated peace is a nonsense offer that would be automatically dismissed as nonsense, and whats more Hamas arent idiots. They knew that it would be laughed off by the Israelis. The offer was made as PR for the pseudo liberals who support them in their freedom fighting.

InFront

Originally posted by Deleted User
InFront, your posts are not balanced. They're not unbiased. They don't try to deal with the responsibility of both parties... minor acknowledgements of Palestinian involevement... emphasis on the Israel actions.

Just because you keep saying it will not make it true. I'm not neutral simply because I have an opinion, but neither am I unbalanced. I have no reason to be. It's like telling someone who opposed South African apartheid that they must be unbalanced - it's ridiculous.
Also, I have not made "minor acknowledgements" of Palestinian terrorism, I said I condemn it absolutely, I pointed out examples of such acts of terror, and I have no problem condemning it any more than Israeli state terrorism. I said Israel has the right to exist, and that failing to recognise that is a block to peace, that the IPSC is rubbish, and that Palestinians have often demonstrated a real disinterest in peace.
I really don't see where you're getting this opinion from apart from the fact that I don't share your love for Israel and think that they have actually been even more belligerent in their actions against civilians.

There is a big deal made about Israel commiting ethnic cleansing

Poor Israel, nobody should mention that:rolleyes:

So of course I don't just "acknowledge" these things [Palestinian terrorist attacks], I can condemn them without hesitation. The militants who do this are like dogs in their nature, on a level that a normal human cannot identify with - but for maybe, a modern day Zionist.

...why can't you criticise Palestinian actions without throwing the little bit at the end?

Why is it that important? What do you want, a sentence condemning Palestinians that you can admire without having to face up to Zionist atrocities in the same breath? That's what it seems like.

Lets finish this up with one question. Is Israel always going to be the only guilty party in your eyes reagrdless of what any other nation/faction/group/etc has done to affect the situation?

Israel, or more to the point Zionism, is no longer the only guilty party, nor has it ever been. The only reason I hold it more accountable is in terms of civilian casualties and human rights abuses towards natives. Other than that the Palestinians are just as bad. On the one hand you admit to this Israeli disparity, but on the other you defend it, I don't really understand that.

Sand wrote:

I dont see how scale exonerates the Palestinians [or the Israelis] to be honest.

But who mentioned exoneration before this? Who ever said Palestinians were innocent?

My point is that Israel has been unmeasured in its actions, there is a disparity in the levels of aggression they show, that while Palestinians have fallen short on committing to peace, Israel has fallen doubly short by not just noncommittal, but by making it Government policy to antagonise the Palestinians in the occupied territories and in Israel itself. And of course there is the death toll.

I'm often told the Palestinians are fighting with the best weapons they have available - human smart bombs. On the scale of what is capable, the Palestinians thus show little restraint.

This is part of the Palestinian shortcoming I'm talking about.

The Israeli response is usually assassinations of terrorist leaders, bombings of hamas/palestinian government or party buildings etc etc often with civillian casualties.

That is a lie, nothing less. There are many recorded examples of Israel deliberately targeting civilians and non-combatents, such as this one (involving Irish troops). The attack on the Red Cross Ambulances in Lebanon was another, the UN have regularly implicated Israel in others, I presume you've heard of Qana. It's really a matter of how long you want to go on for, just please don't come out with rubbish like the above in defence of Israeli responses.

LINK - COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

Many official investigations of Israeli abuses found Israel guilty of extensive violations of international law, including the massacre of civilians, the illegal use of cluster bombs, and incendiary and fragmentation munitions, (phosphorous and flechette shells) as well as acts of violence directed against civilian objectives.

According to UNIFIL officials, the IDF was repeatedly informed by telephone that it was shelling civilians. UNIFIL officials told the press that only one or two minutes into the barrage, they contacted Israel and informed it that its forces were shelling their base. For at least 11 to 12 minutes after the initial UNIFIL contact was made, the Israeli forces continued to fire artillery at the base despite continued frantic requests by UNIFIL to cease fire.

Its relatively very restrained compared to what Israel *could* do.

That's not an argument it's just a pointless comment. Iraq is very restrained compared to what the USA *could do* - they could fire a nuke, so what? It doesn't matter to the dead whether they were killed by nukes or cluster bombs.

My point is given Hamas *precondition" for some undefined possible potential vague moves on their part is the withdrawal, what exactly does Israel have left to negotiate for peace with?

I always understood the basis of a settlement would be land for peace.

Who cares? These are UN resolutions, they don't come with bows and conditions attached. Just like Resolution 181 regarding the creation of the state, they must follow through on other resolutions. Regardless of what Palestinians say or do, or say they will do.

Demanding Israeli withdrawal without even a promise of negotiated peace is a nonsense offer

Do you think that Resolution 181 was "an offer"?

These are not "offers" - except to offer unequivocal partnership when Israel actually do what they have been told to do by the United Nations.

wes

Here is an interesting article from the BBC which illustrates how both sides have lost the plot.

Star-crossed lovers quit West Bank

Sand

But who mentioned exoneration before this? Who ever said Palestinians were innocent?

I didnt, and it seems you dont, and I dare say Wes if challenged wouldnt. So we all agree the Palestinians arent innocent. So lets stop talking about scale. Kthx.

That is a lie, nothing less.

No its not - see, heres an example. Israel does assassinate various terrorist and political figures in Palestine.

Who cares? These are UN resolutions, they don't come with bows and conditions attached. Just like Resolution 181 regarding the creation of the state, they must follow through on other resolutions. Regardless of what Palestinians say or do, or say they will do.

They dont come with much weight attached to them either. If everyone followed UN resolutions, the world would be a wonderful paradise I'm sure. Unfortunately resolutions are rarely followed unless enforced for realpolitick goals, and often those lofty resolutions are drafted to achieve those goals. The realpolitick is Israel will not vacate the occupied territories if it feels its security will be threated. Simple as. They would be stupid to do so. Hence land for peace. Israel will not hand over territory to an enemy that continues to attack it.

Israel will not accept a mass suicide pact. Why you delude yourself that they will or should bemuses me.

Do you think that Resolution 181 was "an offer"?

These are not "offers" - except to offer unequivocal partnership when Israel actually do what they have been told to do by the United Nations.

And in reality resolution 181 is just a piece of paper. Much like the international laws the Palestinians regularly flout when they deliberately attack civillians.

Israel should leave the occupied territories. They will not do so unless it is part of peace deal that guarantees their security from terrorist or conventional attack. Palestine should cease terrorist acts. They will not do so until they achieve a deal that grants them a viable state. If you you disagree with that, then it is reality that is your enemy, not me.

InFront

Sand wrote:

we all agree the Palestinians arent innocent. So lets stop talking about scale.

No, scale is a valid aspect of the Palestinian conflict. Do you accept that Israel is an artificially strengthened military, that it has been unrestrained and disproportionate in its actions towards Palestinian civilians, and that it targets civilians in a manner that is not reflective of its intelligence capabilities, being one of the world wealthiest armies or not?

Israel does assassinate various terrorist and political figures in Palestine.

That's not in question, nonetheless the article you posted was about 6 years old, this is from yesterday. Note fate of taxi driver.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2023363,00.html

What I'm telling you is that they don't stop at activists, that despite their immense wealth, and surveying a particularly small patch of land, that their civilian casualties are disproportionate to the conflict, and that their advanced military capabilities often seem targeted towards civilians, and that this would lead any reasonable person to assume that they differentiate little between civilians and activists.

They dont come with much weight attached to them either. If everyone followed UN resolutions, the world would be a wonderful paradise I'm sure.

Not an excuse.