1 Israeli = 155 Palestinians

IRISH RAIL

would it even go as far as a conspiricy? there is a large jewish vote in america, simple as that.

without dragging this more off topic he was also funded by coloured people country people and white people
your statement is just stupid

Don Diego

IRISH RAIL wrote: »

Sorry but youre wrong he has said it a lot and there have been more than one translation that shows it try google theres plenty of his speeches on it

All of which have been proved false. Even scholars in Tel Aviv have confirmed it.

patser grey

IRISH RAIL wrote: »

I think you should post that in conspiricy thories
thats all it is

Well you got 1 part right, Conspiracy, but its no theory, its fact, as was said, take off your blinkers.
Actually while your here please give me a reason why Israel should exist, what right it has to exist where it is and why it has the right to displace an entire people who legitimately own the land, please give me an intelligent reply.

Mal-Adjusted

IRISH RAIL wrote: »

would it even go as far as a conspiricy? there is a large jewish vote in america, simple as that.

without dragging this more off topic he was also funded by coloured people country people and white people
your statement is just stupid

i never said anything about funding:rolleyes:

IRISH RAIL

Don Diego wrote: »

All of which have been proved false. Even scholars in Tel Aviv have confirmed it.

eh no schoars in tel aviv have confirmed it

http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/site/html/search.asp?isSearch=yes&isT8=yes&searchText=T90&pid=108&sid=13&preview=

start there and work your way back when you learn what scolars in tel aviv say then come back to me

IRISH RAIL

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

i never said anything about funding:rolleyes:

ooops sorry wrong person apologies

fryup

has israel not got the right to defend itself??

these rocket attacks by hamas have being going on for months

and i never hear you israeli knockers complaining when there's a suicide bombing by the palestians...look at all the innocent civilians they've killed

The Saint

patser grey wrote: »

Well you got 1 part right, Conspiracy, but its no theory, its fact, as was said, take off your blinkers.
Actually while your here please give me a reason why Israel should exist, what right it has to exist where it is and why it has the right to displace an entire people who legitimately own the land, please give me an intelligent reply.

Off topic but while I agree that the creation of Israel kin 1948 and the ethnic cleansing it caused was a mistake and a tragedy you can't uncreate a state. It would be wrong and immoral to ethnically cleanse the Jewish population from within the June 1967 borders. Israel is a reality and nothing will or should change that. The only real prospect for peace is a creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel with East Jerusalem as its capital. There's no point in coming up with unrealistic hypotheticals. You can only deal with facts as they are.

IRISH RAIL

patser grey wrote: »

Well you got 1 part right, Conspiracy, but its no theory, its fact, as was said, take off your blinkers.
Actually while your here please give me a reason why Israel should exist, what right it has to exist where it is and why it has the right to displace an entire people who legitimately own the land, please give me an intelligent reply.

seems we have moved to pictures and videos who am I to change that

http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?&next_url=/watch%3Fv%3DYLmc8PMuZmI

Mal-Adjusted

IRISH RAIL wrote: »

ooops sorry wrong person apologies

no worries;)

patser grey

IRISH RAIL wrote: »

would it even go as far as a conspiricy? there is a large jewish vote in america, simple as that.

without dragging this more off topic he was also funded by coloured people country people and white people
your statement is just stupid

Obama’s first Jewish cabinet appointment offered to Rahm Emanuel, Chief of Staff. Date of offer? November 5, 2008, less than 24 hours after winning the election. Emanuel will–if history is any guide–have significant input into the selection of the other cabinet officials who will be developing policy for the administration.
Emanuel, a former Bill Clinton adviser, is the son of a Jerusalem-born pediatrician who was a member of the Irgun (Etzel or IZL), a militant Zionist group that operated in Palestine between 1931 and 1948.


“Everything that President-elect Obama has done since election night has been just about perfect, both in terms of a tone and also in terms of the strength of the jews names that have either been announced or are being discussed to fill his administration,” Lieberman said during a visit to Hartford.
Lieberman praised Obama’s choices for his Cabinet - mostly becouse the Jews were overly represented more then any other peoples in the main Cabinet posts".

IRISH RAIL

Dudess wrote: »

You're describing what you'd hope would be your mindset if you were a Palestinian living in the OT, however that's not the same as actually putting yourself in their shoes.

yes as is everyone who says Israel is wrong is not putting themselves in an Israelis shoes

IRISH RAIL

patser grey wrote: »

Obama’s first Jewish cabinet appointment offered to Rahm Emanuel, Chief of Staff. Date of offer? November 5, 2008, less than 24 hours after winning the election. Emanuel will–if history is any guide–have significant input into the selection of the other cabinet officials who will be developing policy for the administration.
Emanuel, a former Bill Clinton adviser, is the son of a Jerusalem-born pediatrician who was a member of the Irgun (Etzel or IZL), a militant Zionist group that operated in Palestine between 1931 and 1948.


“Everything that President-elect Obama has done since election night has been just about perfect, both in terms of a tone and also in terms of the strength of the jews names that have either been announced or are being discussed to fill his administration,” Lieberman said during a visit to Hartford.
Lieberman praised Obama’s choices for his Cabinet - mostly becouse the Jews were overly represented more then any other peoples in the main Cabinet posts".

maybe you should move that to us election forum

IRISH RAIL

IRISH RAIL wrote: »

the us armed Israel in responce to the USSR arming eygpt back in 73 check out the cold war for further information before that Israel got most of its weapons from france

It got most of its weapons from France as part of a secret operation in the 1950s to allow Britain to enter the Suez Canal zone to secure it and remove it from Nasser's hands.

In Cabinet minutes quoted by Peter Hennessy in his book: Prime Minister: The Office and its Holders Since 1945 the Prime Minister Eden makes open reference to secret meetings held with the Israeli's in Paris. The French and British convinced the Israeli's to launch an unprovoked attack on Egypt so that SCUA (Suez Canal Owners Association) members could launch an attack on the area to secure the vital waterway and remove it from Egyptian control.

So when you talk about why and where Israel got its weapons be sure you know that the reason they had them was to conduct an illegal war to kill innocent Egyptians so a former imperial power could secure a vital trade route. It's what Chomsky refers to as State Terrorism and he is not wrong.

IRISH RAIL

IRISH RAIL wrote: »

yes as is everyone who says Israel is wrong is not putting themselves in an Israelis shoes

I think you'll find there are also a group who thinks they are both wrong. These people are known as objective.

Manic Moran

Son of a wh... The damned computer ate my last reply.

The PLO didn't recognise Israels right to exist before they went into negotiations

You'll note the negotiations never really went anywhere until they promised in 1988 to recognise Israel's right to exist. Only once that happened did Israel even start talking to them. It was formalised by three letters in 1993. Just three paragraphs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel-Palestine_Liberation_Organization_letters_of_recognition which led to various treaties and the advancements of a viable Palestinian state. How hard was that? Of interest, these same letters were referred to by the ICJ in the case which has been brought up.

Well the International Court of Justice seems to think that the Geneva Conventions are applicable to the Occupied Palestinian Territories. I think I'll go with their interpretation of international law rather than yours if you don't mind. From the ICJ:

That certainly simplifies matters. You don't mind if I read the whole opinion, and not just the bits you quoted, right?
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf

Let's see... Gaza/West bank are "Hostile States" to Israel. (Page 40). ICJ on page 51 uses the Israeli/PLO letters referenced above as evidence that Israel considers Palestine to be an independent state.
Given the conclusion that the Conventions apply, page 42 indicates "that there exists an armed conflict (whether or not a state of war has been recognized)" between the two parties.

So far, then, this is dovetailing fairly nicely with my first proposal. Taking the liberty of quoting myself: "This term is 'A state of war'. "

Given this, one then has to show that pursuant to the normal actions in a war, that Israel is carrying out 'collective punishment', and not just the routine business of blowing the sh!t out of a country as the average war would entail.

The GCs specifically allow for the fact that civilians are going to get killed when targets of military value are struck. There's no way around it. And when one country is militarily far more inferior than the other, it is reasonable to conclude that a lot more military targets on the one side than the other will be struck. One will note that not many people had sympathy for the Georgians when they ill-advisedly provoked a large response from its far more powerful neighbour.

The question is simple: Is Israel targetting civilian areas with either the intent of killing civilians? If not, and if the casualty rates are simply the expected result of dropping bombs on military targets in civilian areas, then no, you can't argue that it's collective punishment.

If Israel attacked Palestine first would that make suicide bombings a legitimate means of retaliation by a militarily inferior occupied state against an oppressor?

Absolutely legal regardless of who started it. Though it caused derision at the time, for example, the various Japanese suicide systems (Tokko-Tai, Kamikaze, Kai-ten etc) were not considered particularly underhanded, just desperate. There are ample other instances in various countries achieving Victoria Crosses, Medals of Honor, etc which arose out of situational necessity: For example, a wounded pilot in a crippled airplane deliberately aiming his craft and airplane at an enemy ship. The problem occurs with the choice of target, not the delivery system. The Japanese directed suicide weapons against military equipment and personnel, not against civilians.

Palestinians are now officially recognised as the governors of their own prison.

True. And maybe if they run it right, it'll be made less of a prison. Ireland didn't go straight from British territory to Independent Republic without hitting a few intermediate steps. Some argue that Ireland still isn't there, given the 6 counties up North are still British territory. It is a little optomistic to think that at one fell swoop of a penstroke that a viable, completely independent Palestine will be allowed to exist.

NTM

The Saint

IRISH RAIL wrote: »

seems we have moved to pictures and videos who am I to change that

http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?&next_url=/watch%3Fv%3DYLmc8PMuZmI

Sorry but that is one of the biggest horsesh1t pieces propaganda crap and untruth that I've ever seen. If you take that crap as historical fact then I feel sorry for you. If you want to be taken seriously I suggest you refrain from using such sources.

Dudess

fryup wrote: »

has israel not got the right to defend itself??

Yawn, that ancient chestnut again. Defending/disproportionate retaliation - not the same thing. Please tell me how it's correct protocol to indiscriminately wipe out hundreds.

and i never hear you israeli knockers complaining when there's a suicide bombing by the palestians...look at all the innocent civilians they've killed

Haven't you? I'd very happily complain about those fanatics' hateful actions.

IRISH RAIL wrote: »

yes as is everyone who says Israel is wrong is not putting themselves in an Israelis shoes

Actually I HAVE tried to put myself in Israelis' shoes and I would hope to have some degree of understanding of the Palestinians' anger. I would also hope to be appalled at my country's draconian strategies. Thankfully there are some Israeli people who think like that. http://www.jfjfp.org/background4_israeli-dissent/shministim_0808.htm

So you don't think Israel is wrong? Sure it needs to defend itself, sure it has to be on the alert for Palestinian extremists... but do you think the treatment of ordinary Palestinians - as little better than dogs - is not wrong? Do you think the disproportionate retaliations are not wrong?

patser grey

IRISH RAIL wrote: »

seems we have moved to pictures and videos who am I to change that

http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?&next_url=/watch%3Fv%3DYLmc8PMuZmI

Interesting video by israelzion, at 5.26 it says "Today the arabs living in Israel have more rights than arabs living in any arab country", erm earlier you said that what i said was stupid, then you post this tripe of a propeganda video.
I asked you for an intelligent answer, not zionist propeganda, have you come up with an answer yet?,

Don Diego

IRISH RAIL wrote: »

eh no schoars in tel aviv have confirmed it

Well then your source is incorrect. The false "wiped off the map" extract has been repeated infinitely without verification. Ahmadinejad's actual speech itself has been almost entirely ignored.

patser grey

quote from a quote from channel 4

Wednesday 24 December 2008
Read the translation of the Alternative Christmas Message, delivered by the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.


"In the Name of God the Compassionate, the Merciful.
Upon the anniversary of the birth of Jesus, Son of Mary, the Word of God, the Messenger of mercy, I would like to congratulate the followers of Abrahamic faiths, especially the followers of Jesus Christ, and the people of Britain.


The Almighty created the universe for human beings and human beings for Himself.


He created every human being with the ability to reach the heights of perfection. He called on man to make every effort to live a good life in this world and to work to achieve his everlasting life.


On this difficult and challenging journey of man from dust to the divine, He did not leave humanity to its own devices. He chose from those He created the most excellent as His Prophets to guide humanity.


All Prophets called for the worship of God, for love and brotherhood, for the establishment of justice and for love in human society. Jesus, the Son of Mary, is the standard-bearer of justice, of love for our fellow human beings, of the fight against tyranny, discrimination and injustice.


All the problems that have bedevilled humanity throughout the ages came about because humanity followed an evil path and disregarded the message of the Prophets.


Now as human society faces a myriad of problems and a succession of complex crises, the root causes can be found in humanity's rejection of that message, in particular the indifference of some governments and powers towards the teachings of the divine Prophets, especially those of Jesus Christ.


The crises in society, the family, morality, politics, security and the economy which have made life hard for humanity and continue to put great pressure on all nations have come about because the Prophets have been forgotten, the Almighty has been forgotten and some leaders are estranged from God.


If Christ were on earth today, undoubtedly He would stand with the people in opposition to bullying, ill-tempered and expansionist powers.


If Christ were on earth today, undoubtedly He would hoist the banner of justice and love for humanity to oppose warmongers, occupiers, terrorists and bullies the world over.


If Christ were on earth today, undoubtedly He would fight against the tyrannical policies of prevailing global economic and political systems, as He did in His lifetime. The solution to today's problems is a return to the call of the divine Prophets. The solution to these crises is to follow the Prophets - they were sent by the Almighty for the good of humanity.


Today, the general will of nations is calling for fundamental change. This is now taking place. Demands for change, demands for transformation, demands for a return to human values are fast becoming the foremost demands of the nations of the world. The response to these demands must be real and true. The prerequisite to this change is a change in goals, intentions and directions. If tyrannical goals are repackaged in an attractive and deceptive package and imposed on nations again, the people, awakened, will stand up against them.


Fortunately, today, as crises and despair multiply, a wave of hope is gathering momentum. Hope for a brighter future and hope for the establishment of justice, hope for real peace, hope for finding virtuous and pious rulers who love the people and want to serve them – and this is what the Almighty has promised.


We believe, Jesus Christ will return, together with one of the children of the revered Messenger of Islam and will lead the world to love, brotherhood and justice. The responsibility of all followers of Christ and Abrahamic faiths is to prepare the way for the fulfilment of this divine promise and the arrival of that joyful, shining and wonderful age. I hope that the collective will of nations will unite in the not too distant future and with the grace of the Almighty Lord, that shining age will come to rule the earth.
Once again, I congratulate one and all on the anniversary of the birth of Jesus Christ. I pray for the New Year to be a year of happiness, prosperity, peace and brotherhood for humanity. I wish you every success and happiness."

The Saint

Manic Moran wrote: »

Son of a wh... The damned computer ate my last reply.



You'll note the negotiations never really went anywhere until they promised in 1988 to recognise Israel's right to exist. Only once that happened did Israel even start talking to them. It was formalised by three letters in 1993. Just three paragraphs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel-Palestine_Liberation_Organization_letters_of_recognition which led to various treaties and the advancements of a viable Palestinian state. How hard was that? Of interest, these same letters were referred to by the ICJ in the case which has been brought up.

There were also behind the scenes talks between the PLO and Israel before the letters were sent. It has also been argued that behind the scenes talks led to the letters you speak of and therefore the further developments. If there were no behind the scenes negotiations with the PLO which didn't recognise Israel such letters would probably never have been sent. From Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrid_Conference_of_1991

The bilateral Israeli-Palestinian negotiations were upstaged and eventually replaced by initially secret and illegal (according to Israeli law) negotiations that finally led to the exchange of letters of 9 and 10 September 1993 and the subsequent 13 September 1993 signing on the lawn of the White House of the Declaration of Principles, which however were essentially based on terms which the Madrid round Palestinian negotiators had earlier rejected.

Manic Moran wrote: »

That certainly simplifies matters. You don't mind if I read the whole opinion, and not just the bits you quoted, right?
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf

Let's see... Gaza/West bank are "Hostile States" to Israel. (Page 40). ICJ on page 51 uses the Israeli/PLO letters referenced above as evidence that Israel considers Palestine to be an independent state.
Given the conclusion that the Conventions apply, page 42 indicates "that there exists an armed conflict (whether or not a state of war has been recognized)" between the two parties.

So far, then, this is dovetailing fairly nicely with my first proposal. Taking the liberty of quoting myself: "This term is 'A state of war'. "

Given this, one then has to show that pursuant to the normal actions in a war, that Israel is carrying out 'collective punishment', and not just the routine business of blowing the sh!t out of a country as the average war would entail.

The GCs specifically allow for the fact that civilians are going to get killed when targets of military value are struck. There's no way around it. And when one country is militarily far more inferior than the other, it is reasonable to conclude that a lot more military targets on the one side than the other will be struck. One will note that not many people had sympathy for the Georgians when they ill-advisedly provoked a large response from its far more powerful neighbour.

The question is simple: Is Israel targetting civilian areas with either the intent of killing civilians? If not, and if the casualty rates are simply the expected result of dropping bombs on military targets in civilian areas, then no, you can't argue that it's collective punishment.

Well all of this has nothing really to do with what I said. I quoted selectively to show how the Geneva Conventions do apply to the occupied territories as that is what was relevant to my arguement. The rest of what you wrote has no bearing on my arguement. My arguement was that the Geneva Conventions apply within the occupied territories and collective punishment was a violation of this which you seemed to disagree with here:

(Not least also that since the PNA hasn't signed the Geneva Conventions, Israel aren't legally bound by them in the case of Gaza Strip anyway if you want to take the above track)

I'm glad to see that you now believe that the GC apply to the occupied territories.

This was also in response to this line which you implied (maybe I misinterpreted it) that the people voted for Hamas and are therefore legitimate targets. This would make it a violation of the Geneva Conventions:

Manic Moran wrote: »

Because electing Hamas and its legitimate political position was a collective act to begin with? Ever since the election, it's a national position, with national reprecussions.

Manic Moran

I'm glad to see that you now believe that the GC apply to the occupied territories.

I'm always willing to listen to an acknowledged authority. The ICJ fits nicely.

The rest of what you wrote has no bearing on my arguement

I was furthering the contention that if the situation was basically a state of armed conflict, then one cannot go and claim 'collective punishment' simply because the place is being bombed and civilians killed.

This was also in response to this line which you implied (maybe I misinterpreted it) that the people voted for Hamas and are therefore legitimate targets.

It's an issue of distinguishing between collective punishment as a specific intent, and generally causing death/distress/discomfort which is a typical side-effect of warfare. If there is a collective decision to elect a belligerant government, then the collective negative effects inherent in a war are to be expected. It's collective suffering, but not collective punishment. It would be unrealistic to expect to unleash the dogs of war and not be at least slightly inconvenienced.

NTM

thecornerboy

Manic Moran wrote: »

By your own arguments, such a situation does not exist.

If we are to work on the basis that Hamas is the elected goverment of a state under partial occupation, and that Hamas de facto recognises the Israeli government as the government of another state, then there is a commonly used term for the situation which arises when one government declares to another government that the truce is over and starts lobbing munitions. This term is "A state of war" and there's little in the rules which says you can't blow the crap out of a nation's infrastructure if you're in a de facto state of war with it, with minor limitations. (Not least also that since the PNA hasn't signed the Geneva Conventions, Israel aren't legally bound by them in the case of Gaza Strip anyway if you want to take the above track)

On the other hand, if you wish to view the Gaza Strip as legally an Israeli territory, or take the alternate Hamas view that the Israeli government is illegitimate and should not exist, then you are not so much in a state of war as you are in an insurgency in which case the collective punishment provision of Gen IV Art 33 might possibly apply.

This seemed prophetic: http://www.welt.de/english-news/article2899574/Hamas-declares-end-of-ceasefire-with-Israel.html



NTM

You've ignored my reply in it's entirety. I've made substantial points which have just been completly ignored.

condra

How many humans have been killed by Israel in the last couple of days?

Is it more than 300 yet?

How many more have to die before we can call it "genocide", "ethnic cleansing", or "war crimes"?

"Disproportionate retaliation" sounds far to civil for this evil, cynical, US-sanctioned masacre.

Happy Monday

Did Hamas not start the bombing?

And start at a time when their European allies would pay little heed?

I mean Israel hits back strongly but why then give them a reason to hit back?

Don Diego

Happy Monday wrote: »

Did Hamas not start the bombing?

And start at a time when their European allies would pay little heed?

I mean Israel hits back strongly but why then give them a reason to hit back?

These are the actions of a desperate people. The world turns a blind eye and the US blocks any attempt at resolving the conflict. Israel is in no danger from anyone. They are a nuclear armed super-power backed by the US, another nuclear armed super-power. Israels response, as usual, was way over the top. Shamefull.

oscarBravo

AnimalRights wrote: »

Are you allowed to call someone deluded on this forum?

No.

Deleted User wrote: »

Sarcasm being the tool of the intelligent in a debate such as this. Oh, and my point stands as either a) you were serious and therefore stupid or; b) sarcastic where it is both unnecessary, unwanted and totally unfunny and are, therefore, quite stupid.

Banned for a week, as is nacho libre.

Once again: if you can't discuss the topic in a civil manner, don't discuss the topic.

Serenity Now!

epictetus2009 wrote: »

faciliation by egypt conflict resolved this and designed the recent peace but it appears from news reports the agreed timeframe for peace had ended. Why not negiotate a longer peace?

Firstly, there was no resolution if rockets were still continually being fired (which they were). Sure, negotiate a longer peace instead of 1) airstrikes into Gaza and 2) rockets into Israel.

epictetus2009 wrote: »

blame is illogical at this point unless you can give a more logical statement? Your hitting us with one of those circular arguments

If blame is "illogical" then apply these same logics to your side of the argument also. Be equivocal. Need an example? Read this thread.

epictetus2009 wrote: »

Serenity now is a good title for a book on the celtic tiger.. and its aftermath.

As if my name here matters :rolleyes:
Its a famous line from the comedy series 'Seinfeld' actually.

MR TEE

Hamas have got what they wanted; a heavy assault by Israel for the price of a few rockets and hundreds of Palestinian lives.
It makes good anti-Israeli propaganda which many in Europe swallow without objectivity. The timing should be noted; soon a new president will take power in the US, Obama may not have mentioned Israel yet but it's an issue he'll have to address as soon as he actually takes over in the White House.