Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
1 Israeli = 155 Palestinians
Options
Comments
-
munchester29 wrote: »No, and you have no evidence that the Israelis fired WP intentionally and illegally on civilians. Didn’t stop you from reaching your own conclusions though.
So what are you saying, it was accidental and legal?
Innocents died in the most painful and horrific manner as a result of this. Whether WP is prohibited by Israels interpretation of the rules of war is somewhat irrelevant here.
You fire chemical shells into a refugee camp and civilians will die.0 -
munchester29 wrote: »Funny how you make a claim in the first sentence, yet basically admit that you can't base it on any proof in the second one.
Hardly an accurate portrayal of what was posted.munchester29 wrote: »Again - Israel fired WP, they never said they didn't. They say it was done legally and they are investigating claims that WP use was not legal. That is all the information out there that can actually be verified at this point.
Well, no it can't be verified. Those are the IDF claims, which they changed several times.0 -
Here is the link again:So the Palestinians are able to get the people in Europe to present false hoods then? Any proof of this?
http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/UNRWAs_Hamas_Employees.asp
“May 2004: Armed Palestinians are filmed (at left) using UNRWA ambulances to transport terrorists and, possibly, remains of fallen Israeli soldiers in Gaza.
● Sept. 2003: After the Israeli military court convicts three UNRWA employees for terrorist activities (such as throwing firebombs at a public bus), Israel detains at least 16 other UNRWA staff members for various security-related matters.
● Dec. 2002: A Shin Bet report indicates that numerous UNRWA facilities in the West Bank and Gaza had been used by Palestinian terrorists as meeting grounds and for weapons storage.
● Sept. 2002: Nahd Attala, a senior official of UNRWA in Gaza, reveals that in June-July 2002, he used his UNRWA car for the transportation of armed members of Fatah who were on their way to carry out a missile attack against Jewish settlements. In addition, Nahd admits he used an UNRWA car to transport a 12 kg explosive charge for his brother-in-law, a Fatah member.
● August 2002: Nidal Nazzal, a Hamas member and ambulance driver employed by UNRWA, confesses to transporting weapons and explosives in an UNRWA ambulance, and that he had taken advantage of the freedom of movement he enjoyed to transmit messages among Hamas members in various Palestinian towns.
● February 2002: Alaa Muhammad Ali Hassan, a Tanzim member, confesses during interrogation that he had carried out a sniper shooting from the school run by UNRWA in the al-Ayn refugee camp near Nablus. He also told his interrogators that bombs intended for terrorist attacks were being manufactured inside the UNRWA school's facilities. “0 -
munchester29 wrote: »Here is the link again:
http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/UNRWAs_Hamas_Employees.asp
“May 2004: Armed Palestinians are filmed (at left) using UNRWA ambulances to transport terrorists and, possibly, remains of fallen Israeli soldiers in Gaza.
● Sept. 2003: After the Israeli military court convicts three UNRWA employees for terrorist activities (such as throwing firebombs at a public bus), Israel detains at least 16 other UNRWA staff members for various security-related matters.
● Dec. 2002: A Shin Bet report indicates that numerous UNRWA facilities in the West Bank and Gaza had been used by Palestinian terrorists as meeting grounds and for weapons storage.
● Sept. 2002: Nahd Attala, a senior official of UNRWA in Gaza, reveals that in June-July 2002, he used his UNRWA car for the transportation of armed members of Fatah who were on their way to carry out a missile attack against Jewish settlements. In addition, Nahd admits he used an UNRWA car to transport a 12 kg explosive charge for his brother-in-law, a Fatah member.
● August 2002: Nidal Nazzal, a Hamas member and ambulance driver employed by UNRWA, confesses to transporting weapons and explosives in an UNRWA ambulance, and that he had taken advantage of the freedom of movement he enjoyed to transmit messages among Hamas members in various Palestinian towns.
● February 2002: Alaa Muhammad Ali Hassan, a Tanzim member, confesses during interrogation that he had carried out a sniper shooting from the school run by UNRWA in the al-Ayn refugee camp near Nablus. He also told his interrogators that bombs intended for terrorist attacks were being manufactured inside the UNRWA school's facilities. “
So they control the entire UN then?
You still haven't given any proof of how the Palestinians can control the whole UN. What you present does not prove this at all.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
munchester29 wrote: »Not what I said.
Fair enough.munchester29 wrote: »The Palestinians do not control the UN, but the Palestinians in Gaza control every piece of information the UN officials in Gaza have.
So they control the UN just in Gaza.
Any proof they control all information? None of your links proved this.
Also, why are Palestinians inherently untrustworthy, but the IDF are?0 -
Fair enough.
So they control the UN just in Gaza.
Any proof they control all information? None of your links proved this.
Also, why are Palestinians inherently untrustworthy, but the IDF are?
It would seem obvious that if 99% of UN employees in Gaza are Palestinians, the information the UN gathers is based on Palestinian testimony.
The Palestinians have proven themselves to be untrustworthy many times in the past, so that's enough for me.
As for the IDF - they are also untrustworthy at times, but less so than Hamas.0 -
munchester29 wrote: »It would seem obvious that if 99% of UN employees in Gaza are Palestinians, the information the UN gathers is based on Palestinian testimony.
Not really. Plenty of other sources. Plenty of Palestinians who are not members of any faction, who are perfectly trustworthy.
So you have no proof the control all the information then?munchester29 wrote: »The Palestinians have proven themselves to be untrustworthy many times in the past, so that's enough for me.
So your judging the entire race on the actions of the few?munchester29 wrote: »As for the IDF - they are also untrustworthy at times, but less so than Hamas.
Matter of opinion.0 -
munchester29 wrote: »
Israel has agreed to a two state solution.
Israel has left Gaza, uprooting Israeli settlements and thousands of families in the process.
Israel has stopped building new settlements (talked about expansion much earlier in the thread)
Here is an update from this morning on settlements from Haaretz today
"Peace Now: Israel settlement building accelerated in 2008
Settlements and outposts in the West Bank expanded more quickly in 2008 than the previous year, a Peace Now report said Wednesday.
According to the group, 1,257 new structures were built in settlements during 2008, compared to 800 in 2007, an increase of 57 percent.
The group said in the report that building more than doubled in outposts, which unlike settlements are not recognized by the Israeli government. It says 261 structures were built in outposts, compared to 98 the year before.
The government has promised to dismantle outposts. The Palestinians demand a complete halt to settlement building in the West Bank during peace negotiations, saying their expansion is taking land they demand in any final settlement "
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1059483.html0 -
Here is an update from this morning on settlements from Haaretz today
"Peace Now: Israel settlement building accelerated in 2008
Settlements and outposts in the West Bank expanded more quickly in 2008 than the previous year, a Peace Now report said Wednesday.
According to the group, 1,257 new structures were built in settlements during 2008, compared to 800 in 2007, an increase of 57 percent.
The group said in the report that building more than doubled in outposts, which unlike settlements are not recognized by the Israeli government. It says 261 structures were built in outposts, compared to 98 the year before.
The government has promised to dismantle outposts. The Palestinians demand a complete halt to settlement building in the West Bank during peace negotiations, saying their expansion is taking land they demand in any final settlement "
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1059483.html
I’ll ignore the fact that this report was made by the “Peace Now” movement…
According to the last agreements signed between Israel and the Palestinians, Israel has the right to continue building in existing settlements until a permanent solution is agreed on.
Israel also has valid claims to areas which are considered as settlements by the Palestinians.
I’ve expanded on this issue at least twice before, suffice to say that the Israeli & Palestinian claims will only be addressed during real peace negotiations, when the final borders will be decided upon.0 -
Advertisement
-
munchester29 wrote: »I’ll ignore the fact that this report was made by the “Peace Now” movement…
According to the last agreements signed between Israel and the Palestinians, Israel has the right to continue building in existing settlements until a permanent solution is agreed on.
Israel also has valid claims to areas which are considered as settlements by the Palestinians.
I’ve expanded on this issue at least twice before, suffice to say that the Israeli & Palestinian claims will only be addressed during real peace negotiations, when the final borders will be decided upon.
Still illegal under international law. This has already been addressed, several times before.
Also, can you point out the text of this agreement you refer too? I am sure you can find the full document and point exactly where it says what you claim it does. Also which agreement are you talking about?
Last I checked, what they are doing is violating the road map?
Also:
Israel reneges on settlement pledge
As can be seen from the article the Palestinians, seem to think Israel is violating the agreement, so what your saying is hardly accurate then.0 -
munchester29 wrote: »I can’t watch the youtube videos from work, but I’ve seen enough similar videos to get your point.
The problem with your logic is that the most basic fundamental human right there is - is the right to live.
All other human rights pale in comparison, and one might argue that if the right to live is taken from you, all other human rights mean nothing to you since you are dead.
That leads me to the conclusion that as far as Israel is concerned, maintaining the right of the Israeli people to live has higher priority over the human rights of the Palestinians. Can’t blame them for that – their citizens mean more to the Israeli government than the Palestinians.
I don’t see anything in the letter that shows Israel is not interested in peace.
This is a perfect example of how half truths and lies are used to give the wrong impression.
Even if you think about it logically, you will see that these claims are absurd – how will leaving Gaza stop the peace process?
A bit more reading about the Weissglas article, if you want the whole picture:
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=31&x_article=793
Sorry but it's one thing to not care about another race of people whom you have dispossessed from their lands, their livelihood and their dignity. It's quite another thing to try to wipe them off the face of the earth. You are coming accross as saying that an Israeli's life is worth more than a Palestinian's and there lies the core of the problem in the Middle East today.
You totally missed the point of the letter.
The letter represents the US Roadmap argreements that Israel came to.. Weiglass is agreeing to the conditions and promising to implement them.
In the second link he brags about stalling the agreements and fooling the US senate and states that the Palestinians will have their own state (and therefore no peace in the region ) "Palestinians would have to turn into Finns" before this could happen.
The contrast to what they agreed and their duplitious dealings behind the scenes show that they were never serious about peace and just went through the motions to keep the US onside.
That is just one of the deals that they reneged on and have no intention of co-operating with anyone to give the Palestinians their own state because they will not make any concessions on their part.
The facts speak for themselves, a lot of the details in the Roadmap agreement have still not been implemented almost 5 years later.
TBH I don't blame anyone for not trusting them.0 -
Still illegal under international law. This has already been addressed, several times before.
Also, can you point out the text of this agreement you refer too? I am sure you can find the full document and point exactly where it says what you claim it does. Also which agreement are you talking about?
No, it's not illegal. That's the point.
http://wiretap.area.com/Gopher/Gov/Treaties/Mideast/Israeli-PLO-Peace-agreement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Law/Legal%20Issues%20and%20Rulings/ISRAEL-S%20SETTLEMENTS%20-%20CONFORMITY%20WITH%20INTERNATION
"Article V
TRANSITIONAL PERIOD AND PERMANENT STATUS NEGOTIATIONS
1. The five-year transitional period will begin upon the
withdrawal from the Gaza strip and Jericho area.
2. Permanent status negotiations will commence as soon as
possible, but not later than the beginning of the third year of
the interim period between the Government of Israel and the
Palestinian people representatives.
3. It is understood that these negotiations shall cover
remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements,
security arrangements, border, relations and cooperation with
their neighbors, and other issues of common interest.
4. The two parties agreed that the outcome of the permanent
status negotiations should not be prejudiced or preempted by
agreements reached for the interim period."
“Annex II: Israel's continuing responsibilities
It was understood that, subsequent to the Israeli withdrawal, Israel would continue to be responsible for external security, and for internal security and public order of settlements and Israelis. Israeli military forces and civilians would be allowed to continue using roads freely within the Gaza Strip and the Jericho area.”
“Although the status of the territories is not strictly "occupied territory", Israel complies with the provisions of international law regarding occupied territory. It does not confiscate or seize private land, nor does it displace the local population. Professor Eugene Rostow has written:
"The Jewish right of settlement in the area is equivalent in every way to the right of the local population to live there" (AJIL, 1990, vol. 84, p. 720).”0 -
munchester29 wrote: »No, it's not illegal. That's the point.
They are. This has been proven. You are insisting otherwise, and thats all your doing.munchester29 wrote: »http://wiretap.area.com/Gopher/Gov/Treaties/Mideast/Israeli-PLO-Peace-agreement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Law/Legal%20Issues%20and%20Rulings/ISRAEL-S%20SETTLEMENTS%20-%20CONFORMITY%20WITH%20INTERNATION
"Article V
TRANSITIONAL PERIOD AND PERMANENT STATUS NEGOTIATIONS
1. The five-year transitional period will begin upon the
withdrawal from the Gaza strip and Jericho area.
2. Permanent status negotiations will commence as soon as
possible, but not later than the beginning of the third year of
the interim period between the Government of Israel and the
Palestinian people representatives.
3. It is understood that these negotiations shall cover
remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements,
security arrangements, border, relations and cooperation with
their neighbors, and other issues of common interest.
4. The two parties agreed that the outcome of the permanent
status negotiations should not be prejudiced or preempted by
agreements reached for the interim period."
“Annex II: Israel's continuing responsibilities
It was understood that, subsequent to the Israeli withdrawal, Israel would continue to be responsible for external security, and for internal security and public order of settlements and Israelis. Israeli military forces and civilians would be allowed to continue using roads freely within the Gaza Strip and the Jericho area.”
“Although the status of the territories is not strictly "occupied territory", Israel complies with the provisions of international law regarding occupied territory. It does not confiscate or seize private land, nor does it displace the local population. Professor Eugene Rostow has written:
"The Jewish right of settlement in the area is equivalent in every way to the right of the local population to live there" (AJIL, 1990, vol. 84, p. 720).”
The last bit seems to be an opinion, as the text does not state Israel can build more colonies anywhere. This is just a bizare Israeli claim and nothing more.
As shown above the Palestinian disagree with the Israeli interpretation. So all you have proven is that Israel claims they aren't doing anything wrong, which doesn't amount to proving your point, just that Israel thinks there right.0 -
Sorry but it's one thing to not care about another race of people whom you have dispossessed from their lands, their livelihood and their dignity. It's quite another thing to try to wipe them off the face of the earth. You are coming accross as saying that an Israeli's life is worth more than a Palestinian's and there lies the core of the problem in the Middle East today.
Not what I said.
I said that the Israeli government cares about Israeli civilians more than they care for Palestinian civilians.
I doubt there is any country in the world that cares more about another country’s civilians than its own.
In addition, so far the only ones who try to wipe people off the face of the earth are the Palestinians led by Hamas. That’s what they declare in their charter and in their speeches, and that is what all their actions revolve around.You totally missed the point of the letter.
The letter represents the US Roadmap argreements that Israel came to.. Weiglass is agreeing to the conditions and promising to implement them.
I didn’t miss the point of the letter, didn’t see how it supports your claim, and it doesn’t – it’s just a letter confirming Israel’s commitment to the road map.In the second link he brags about stalling the agreements and fooling the US senate and states that the Palestinians will have their own state (and therefore no peace in the region ) "Palestinians would have to turn into Finns" before this could happen.
The contrast to what they agreed and their duplitious dealings behind the scenes show that they were never serious about peace and just went through the motions to keep the US onside.
That is just one of the deals that they reneged on and have no intention of co-operating with anyone to give the Palestinians their own state because they will not make any concessions on their part.
TBH I don't blame anyone for not trusting them.
The second link you supplied can only be described as out of context.
I hope you read the article I supplied in return, or at least the original article in “Haaretz” – you will see how your understanding of what was said changes (at least I hope you will).
Seriously, try to think about it logically for a second – Even if you think Sharon actually wanted to stop the peace process - How does leaving Gaza and dismantling the settlements result in the peace process being stuck?0 -
munchester29 wrote: »Again - Israel fired WP, they never said they didn't. QUOTE]
proved wrong once again,
6th Jan
"Israeli military spokesmen deny that their forces have used phosphorus in Gaza, despite photographs and film of munitions showing similar characteristics to the potentially lethal shells"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/06/gaza-israel-palestine-munitions0 -
munchester29 wrote: »I’ll ignore the fact that this report was made by the “Peace Now” movement…
According to the last agreements signed between Israel and the Palestinians, Israel has the right to continue building in existing settlements until a permanent solution is agreed on.
Israel also has valid claims to areas which are considered as settlements by the Palestinians.
I’ve expanded on this issue at least twice before, suffice to say that the Israeli & Palestinian claims will only be addressed during real peace negotiations, when the final borders will be decided upon.
You said in another post that Israel had stopped building these settlements, obviously they have not done anything of the sort.
Israel have no valid legal claims to any area of Palestine except what was given to them in 1947/48.0 -
Jack Bauer999 wrote: »munchester29 wrote: »Again - Israel fired WP, they never said they didn't. QUOTE]
proved wrong once again,
6th Jan
"Israeli military spokesmen deny that their forces have used phosphorus in Gaza, despite photographs and film of munitions showing similar characteristics to the potentially lethal shells"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/06/gaza-israel-palestine-munitions
The Guardian are experts in half truths. What the Israelis actually said was:
"IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi said: "The IDF operates weapons in accordance with international law. We do not use phosphorus, only "smoke curtains" (smoke screens).''
Smoke screens constitute a legal use of WP. The IDF only said that they haven't used WP illegaly.
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,,,PSE,,49705109c,0.html0 -
You said in another post that Israel had stopped building these settlements, obviously they have not done anything of the sort.
Israel have no valid legal claims to any area of Palestine except what was given to them in 1947/48.
No, I've said that Israel stopped building new settlements.
The validity of Israel's claims will be judged when the time comes.
I guarantee you that neither you nor I will have a say in the matter.0 -
munchester29 wrote: »No, I've said that Israel stopped building new settlements.
The validity of Israel's claims will be judged when the time comes.
I guarantee you that neither you nor I will have a say in the matter.
The ICJ, has stated what they are doing is illegal under international law.0 -
Advertisement
-
The ICJ, has stated what they are doing is illegal under international law.
The ICJ ruling was specifically in regards to the wall in the west bank, and is not legally binding.
The ruling basically states:
"that in principle the fence is illegal as long as any part of it is built beyond the 1967 Green Line"
Also, and most important:
"The ICJ ruling has not had adverse practical consequences, The US and other countries blocked an Arab sponsored move to bring the matter to the security council. However, the ruling turned European opinion against Israel, especially in Holland, where people resented the fact that Israel is flouting the opinion of the International Court at the Hague, and it has served as a focal point for anti-Israel propaganda. The Israel High Court has ruled that specific portions of the barrier had to be moved in order to spare Palestinian Arab residents inordinate suffering, but it also ruled that the barrier itself does not in principle violate international law"0 -
munchester29 wrote: »Not what I said.
I said that the Israeli government cares about Israeli civilians more than they care for Palestinian civilians.
I doubt there is any country in the world that cares more about another country’s civilians than its own.
In addition, so far the only ones who try to wipe people off the face of the earth are the Palestinians led by Hamas. That’s what they declare in their charter and in their speeches, and that is what all their actions revolve around.
I didn’t miss the point of the letter, didn’t see how it supports your claim, and it doesn’t – it’s just a letter confirming Israel’s commitment to the road map.
The second link you supplied can only be described as out of context.
I hope you read the article I supplied in return, or at least the original article in “Haaretz” – you will see how your understanding of what was said changes (at least I hope you will).
Seriously, try to think about it logically for a second – Even if you think Sharon actually wanted to stop the peace process - How does leaving Gaza and dismantling the settlements result in the peace process being stuck?
It confirms that 5 years after the Roadmap agreement Israel has still not implemented most of the conditions they agreed and obviously have no intention of doing so. They are still carrying on with their expansionist policies and their pograms against the Palestinians and not just in Gaza.
Therefore that leads me to believe they have no interest in "Peace" despite their mealy mouthed statements to the UN, US and the press.
Dismantling the settlements in Gaza was the one thing they did stick to but the troops never fully withdrew, the borders were closed and the 1.5million were imprisoned, with a stifling and inhuman seige that has destroyed their economy, their health (over 60% of children in Gaza are malnourished) their live and freedom of movement. They then moved 12,000 settlers into the West Bank and continued unabated to build more settlements and take over more of the WB.
So NO, I don't think Sharon or anyone of those in power in Israel want a peace and it's abundantly clear to anyone from the outside that they have been using stalling tactics for years .0 -
munchester29 wrote: »The ICJ ruling was specifically in regards to the wall in the west bank, and is not legally binding.
The ruling basically states:
"that in principle the fence is illegal as long as any part of it is built beyond the 1967 Green Line"
So clearly illegal then. Do you even read what they are saying? You know you have just proven me right?munchester29 wrote: »Also, and most important:
"The ICJ ruling has not had adverse practical consequences, The US and other countries blocked an Arab sponsored move to bring the matter to the security council. However, the ruling turned European opinion against Israel, especially in Holland, where people resented the fact that Israel is flouting the opinion of the International Court at the Hague, and it has served as a focal point for anti-Israel propaganda. The Israel High Court has ruled that specific portions of the barrier had to be moved in order to spare Palestinian Arab residents inordinate suffering, but it also ruled that the barrier itself does not in principle violate international law"
As stated earlier, they know more about the law than you or me and have said they are illegal. Whether this practically mean anything, does not change the fact they are illegal.
You have yet to prove this in any way shape or form, that they are not. In fact your own post here proves me right.
The above uncredited opinion you have presented above, does not change the fact that the wall is illegal as it goes into Paletinian land and also the Israeli High court does not trump the Hague, the Hague trumps them. The uncredited opinion you presented is clearly wrong and not proof of anything. Just presenting Israel absurd claims and nothing more.
So again, you have not provided any proof, you just insist you are right, which you are not. You own post proves me right.0 -
It confirms that 5 years after the Roadmap agreement Israel has still not implemented most of the conditions they agreed and obviously have no intention of doing so. They are still carrying on with their expansionist policies and their pograms against the Palestinians and not just in Gaza.
Therefore that leads me to believe they have no interest in "Peace" despite their mealy mouthed statements to the UN, US and the press.
Dismantling the settlements in Gaza was the one thing they did stick to but the troops never fully withdrew, the borders were closed and the 1.5million were imprisoned, with a stifling and inhuman seige that has destroyed their economy, their health (over 60% of children in Gaza are malnourished) their live and freedom of movement. They then moved 12,000 settlers into the West Bank and continued unabated to build more settlements and take over more of the WB.
So NO, I don't think Sharon or anyone of those in power in Israel want a peace and it's abundantly clear to anyone from the outside that they have been using stalling tactics for years .
Well, that's the Israeli predicament - damned if they do, damned if they don't.
I would argue that the blame for all the suffering you described, while touching and sad, lies at the feet of Hamas.
If Hamas didn't keep attacking Israel and spending all the aid money they received on weapons, the Palestinians could have had a better quality of life and the road to peace would have been that much shorter.
The equation is simple- no Hamas attacks = no closed border posts, no Israeli attacks. Hamas can’t seem to stop attacking Israel though, so Israel has no choice – it is either going into Gaza again causing hundreds of casualties, or keeping a blockade.
Even recent events show this - Israel leaves Gaza again and ends its operation – Hamas responds by attacking an Israeli patrol a few days later, killing an Israeli soldier.
As for the settler movement:
There were about 8500 settlers altogether in the Gaza area, so I doubt 12,000 of them moved anywhere.
Most of the settlers which were evicted of their homes are now staying in caravan settlements within Israel.
Some, I’m sure, have gone to the settlements in the west bank, but they did so under their rights as free citizens of Israel, not because of government policy or instructions. This did not result in building of new settlements.0 -
munchester29 wrote: »Well, that's the Israeli predicament - damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Perhaps setting up a state with a pre-exisiting indeigenous population was a bad idea.munchester29 wrote: »I would argue that the blame for all the suffering you described, while touching and sad, lies at the feet of Hamas.
If Hamas didn't keep attacking Israel and spending all the aid money they received on weapons, the Palestinians could have had a better quality of life and the road to peace would have been that much shorter.
If Israel could stop attacking the Palestinians and stealing there land, there lives would be better.munchester29 wrote: »The equation is simple- no Hamas attacks = no closed border posts, no Israeli attacks. Hamas can’t seem to stop attacking Israel though, so Israel has no choice – it is either going into Gaza again causing hundreds of casualties, or keeping a blockade.
Its simple, no land theft and Israeli attacks, then no Hamas attacks.munchester29 wrote: »Even recent events show this - Israel leaves Gaza again and ends its operation – Hamas responds by attacking an Israeli patrol a few days later, killing an Israeli soldier.
Israel launched attacks after they declared there cease fire.munchester29 wrote: »As for the settler movement:
There were about 8500 settlers altogether in the Gaza area, so I doubt 12,000 of them moved anywhere.
This was proven earlier. You responded to the post and just dismissed it.munchester29 wrote: »Most of the settlers which were evicted of their homes are now staying in caravan settlements within Israel.
Has no bearing on 12000 going to the West Bank.munchester29 wrote: »Some, I’m sure, have gone to the settlements in the west bank, but they did so under their rights as free citizens of Israel, not because of government policy or instructions. This did not result in building of new settlements.
It resulted in more land theft.0 -
So clearly illegal then. Do you even read what they are saying? You know you have just proven me right?
You really have to start noticing the fine print…
The ICJ ruling was only in regards to the wall, and only the parts that were built on Palestinian land. And all that - “In principal”
These specific words used are used for a reason and they have meaning, and it is not what you would like them to mean.As stated earlier, they know more about the law than you or me and have said they are illegal. Whether this practically mean anything, does not change the fact they are illegal?
They are not the only law makers in the world, it is only their opinion (which in the UN can change drastically when the political climate and needs require it) and there are other opinions – I’ve expanded on that before.The above uncredited opinion you have presented above, does not change the fact that the wall is illegal as it goes into Paletinian land and also the Israeli High court does not trump the Hague, the Hague trumps them. The uncredited opinion you presented is clearly wrong and not proof of anything. Just presenting Israel absurd claims and nothing more.
Haven’t we covered this already?
The ICJ issued an “advisory opinion”. Nothing more. An opinion.
And I showed you a different opinion.0 -
munchester29 wrote: »The Guardian are experts in half truths. What the Israelis actually said was:
"IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi said: "The IDF operates weapons in accordance with international law. We do not use phosphorus, only "smoke curtains" (smoke screens).''
Smoke screens constitute a legal use of WP. The IDF only said that they haven't used WP illegaly.
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,,,PSE,,49705109c,0.html
Errr, while they can use them quite legally as smoke screens, they still contain phosphorus....
Two lines down from your quote is the followingIn an interview on Israeli TV Channel 1 on 12 January, Reserve Maj-Gen Yiftach Ron Tal said: ''Israel is using smoke screens that include phosphoric elements.''0 -
munchester29 wrote: »Jack Bauer999 wrote: »
The Guardian are experts in half truths. What the Israelis actually said was:
"IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi said: "The IDF operates weapons in accordance with international law. We do not use phosphorus, only "smoke curtains" (smoke screens).''
Smoke screens constitute a legal use of WP. The IDF only said that they haven't used WP illegaly.
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,,,PSE,,49705109c,0.html
so as i said the IDF claimed they never used WP?
or is there another meaning for " We do not use phosphorus" that
i dont know about?
maybe another israel source
On 13 January Brig-Gen Avi Benayahu, chief spokesman for the Israel Defense Force (IDF), said that in its assault on Gaza Israel was using weapons in accordance with international treaties and conventions. He denied Israel was using white phosphorus. ''I repeat Commander in Chief Ashkenazi’s words: The allegations of the IDF using WP [white phosphorus] are false.''
or do you want another source?0 -
munchester29 wrote: »You really have to start noticing the fine print…
The ICJ ruling was only in regards to the wall, and only the parts that were built on Palestinian land. And all that - “In principal”
These specific words used are used for a reason and they have meaning, and it is not what you would like them to mean.
No, they covered the colonies as well. You just quote one bit about the wall. The said clearly they are illegal. You want it to mean something else, not me.munchester29 wrote: »They are not the only law makers in the world, it is only their opinion (which in the UN can change drastically when the political climate and needs require it) and there are other opinions – I’ve expanded on that before.
Yes, and they know International law better than anyone, as thats there job.munchester29 wrote: »Haven’t we covered this already?
The ICJ issued an “advisory opinion”. Nothing more. An opinion.
And I showed you a different opinion.
No, you showed the criminal claiming to be innocent. The Hague know international law better than anyone else.0 -
Advertisement
-
Perhaps setting up a state with a pre-exisiting indeigenous population was a bad idea.
Jews were also a part of the pre-existing indigenous population in Israel.If Israel could stop attacking the Palestinians and stealing there land, there lives would be better.
Israel has only been attacking the Palestinians as response to Palestinian attacks. When there are no Palestinian attacks – there are no Israeli attacks.
I’ve already commented about the land issue.Israel launched attacks after they declared there cease fire.
No, they didn’t. Hamas attacked a patrol and killed an Israeli soldier. Then Israel attacked.This was proven earlier. You responded to the post and just dismissed it.
Has no bearing on 12000 going to the West Bank.
It resulted in more land theft.
All these comments are wrong.
The numbers used are wrong (12000 vs 8500, for example), and the data goes against actual statistics accumulated on the growth of existing Israeli settlements, and land confiscation details which are available for anyone to check. This data has been posted on this thread in the past.0
Advertisement