1 Israeli = 155 Palestinians

lwellan dowd

wes wrote: »

Odd that the wall was built on more stolen Palestinian land.

Why not build the wall on there own land? It would work just as well there. Of course the wall is just another land grab.

Don't find it odd at all. Pragmatic Israelis, always thinking outside the box.

wes

lwellan dowd wrote: »

Don't find it odd at all. Pragmatic Israelis, always thinking outside the box.

Its not pragmatic, stealing more land in a conflict about land is pretty stupid.

The simple fact of the matter is that Israel is engaged in a violent colonial process. There can be no excuses for this act of state terrorism. There colonial process is also in stark violation of international law.

youcrazyjesus!

lwellan dowd wrote: »

Don't find it odd at all. Pragmatic Israelis, always thinking outside the box.

The objective is to pen Palestinians in, not keep them out of Israel. A better wall could be built inside Israeli's legal borders and be even more effective.

I support Israel's right 100% to build a wall, any size, as long as it doesn't steal even more land that does not belong to Israel.

Zynks

Good article on the New York Times on Thursday written by Rashid Khalidi, a professor of Arab studies at Columbia University.

Link

Followed by the list of 102 resolutions by the UN Security Concil, mostly ignored by Israel

Zynks

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

I support Israel's right 100% to build a wall, any size, as long as it doesn't steal even more land that does not belong to Israel.

I wonder if they would need a wall if they were not stealing land

Manic Moran

The IDF have already changed their position on this.

Fair point, but apparently so did the UN position change. Looks like it was an initial statement on both sides before either of them had the chance to look into it: What happened to the tanks which that report claimed had shot at the school?

UK vs Argentina

More Argentina vs UK, actually. The recapture of the Falklands was a very close-run thing, but the Argentine invasion was pretty much a walkover.

the point seems to have gone over your head.....the only examples he could give of one country with overwhelming military might attacking another country was Hitlers Germany and Saddam's Iraq. Not a great comment on Israel in the current situation.

"Could?" No, I can give others, but those are two pretty well-known ones and they certainly were wars.

Wars in which one participant has overwhelming military might over the other tend indeed to be started by the side with the larger might. Mainly because the smaller side is usually not stupid enough to start the fight in the first place. There are exceptions, of course such as the War of the Triple Alliance (Which Paraguay started, and then lost something like 3/4 of its male population by fighting three larger countries at once) or the Georgia/Russia thing a few months ago. There was also that bizarre incident in Zanzibar when they declared war on the British, which was so unbelievably stupid (It lasted about 45 minutes) that it's generally considered a humorous incident more than a war. You can make an argument for the Iraq-Britain war during WWII, but that is really only evident in hindsight: On paper the Iraqis had a very good chance.

Then again, you also have the converse in 1948: The Arab armies really should have militarily wiped out the Israelis given the knowledge of the time, only after the fighting started was the supposed imbalance discovered to not actually be so. I'm sure the Japanese were equally surprised in 1597 when their 300+ ships were turned back by a mere 13 in one of their Korean expeditions.

NTM

cabinteelytom

An embargo is an act of war.
The next UN resolution must hold Israel in breach of Friday's resolution (immediate ceasefire and withdrawal) and should demand that Israel and Egypt permit trade by Gazans with the rest of the world.

Let us unravel an evil EU policy.

Serenity Now!

Perestroika wrote: »

Don't be so selective.
Israel us/need excuses.

For Lebanon 2006 it was ''kidnapped soldiesrs''

Now there's "selective" if ever there was :rolleyes:

What gave the Israeli govt an excuse for Sth Lebanon was rocket and ATR attacks across the border by Hizbollah. The soldiers who were taken were a consequence. Not a cause. The primary motivation of attacking convoys at the border was for kidnap-to-negotiate in prisoner exchanges.

If you think Israel wanted to invade Lebanon and expand its borders, you're a loop. Even the US won't station themselves there again after 1982.

Nodin

lwellan dowd wrote: »

Don't find it odd at all. Pragmatic Israelis, always thinking outside the box.

If it was pragmatic, it would have been on wheels.

solarant

Did you know Hamas recently introduced Crucifixion as a punishment.

---

http://newsblaze.com/story/20081224160149zzzz.nb/topstory.html

Hamas members of the Palestinian Legislative Council in Gaza have approved a new bill "to implement Koranic punishments," including hand amputation, crucifixion, corporal punishment and execution. Drinking, owning or producing wine is punished by 40 lashes, while drinking in public adds three months' imprisonment. Several laws are directed against Hamas's Palestinian rivals, including a law intended to inhibit non-Hamas negotiators by sentencing to death anyone who was "appointed to negotiate with a foreign government on a Palestinian issue and negotiated against Palestinians' interest."

The following is the description as it appears today on the Al Arabiya website:

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2008/12/24/62699.html

Headline: Hamas approves law of punishment by lashes, amputating hands, crucifying, and execution - in order to implement the Islamic Sharia law. Hamas members of the Palestinian Legislative Council approved in its meeting in Gaza a new bill proposed by the Hamas who have a majority in the Legislative Council, whose purpose is "to implement Koranic punishments."

The newspaper Al Hayat of London reported on Dec. 24, 2008, that this step is seen as unprecedented, and has brought criticism and concern from human rights organizations in the Gaza Strip, especially as this law includes punishments by lashes, cutting off of hands, crucifixion, and execution... The language of the law proposes "primary and secondary" laws. Primary laws include: "Koranic laws, blood revenge, lashes, crucifixion, and execution ..."

The text stresses: "These punishments will not be canceled or pardoned ... except if pardoned by the victim himself... Section 59 of the law establishes that "punishment of death will be enacted on any Palestinian who intentionally does one of the following: Raised a weapon against Palestine on behalf of the enemy during war, was appointed to negotiate with a foreign government on a Palestinian issue and negotiated against Palestinians' interest, performed a hostile action against a foreign country in a way that endangers Palestine in war or in harming political relations, served a foreign army in time of war, advised or helped soldiers to enlist in this army, weakened the spirit or the force of resistance of the people, or spied against Palestine especially during war."

The punishment of lashes appears in many sections of the law. Section 84 states that: "Whoever drinks wine, owns or produces wine will be punished with 40 lashes if he is Muslim, and anyone who drinks wine, or angers another person [with wine], or causes him distress when drinking wine in a public place, or goes to a public place while drunk, will be punished with no less than 40 lashes and imprisonment for the minimum of three months." [Al-Arabiya, Dec. 24, 2008]

ionix5891

hey @solarant

nice to see the GIYUS crowd converging here

any comments on your armed forces killing women and children? or are you gonna feed us the the same propaganda devised by your government?

I dont see any reports on BBC news about people being crucified ( well except the nutjobs in Philippines who do it every year to themselves )

But there are plenty of reports of hundreds of people (alot of kids too) being murdered by the IDF, including UN workers, what do you have to say about that

Hamas are a bunch of extremists [url=ttp://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8449]BUT they were put in place and funded by your government [/url]

you reap what yee sown


.

ionix5891

i think all the members here should be aware of the flood of propaganda being unleashed by the Israeli government


more interesting reading here
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/09/israel-foreign-ministry-media

The hasbara brigade strikes again! You always hear about Israeli attempts at media manipulation. Everyone knows it's going on but usually the process happens through cyber insurgents like those involved with Giyus (and its media monitoring software, Megaphone). Now, we know that the Israeli foreign ministry itself is orchestrating propaganda efforts designed to flood news websites with pro-Israel arguments and information.

Nodin

solarant wrote: »

Did you . 24, 2008]

And do we have reportage on it from say the BBC, CNN, that kind of thing....?

ionix5891

there was an excellent article on Palestine 13 months ago in the National Geographic Magazine

read it for free on their site and accompanying photo gallery and video for the article

talks about the separation wall and Bethlehem in the west bank



well worth reading (as with many nat geo articles, which are all free now on their site)

TOMASJ

solarant wrote: »

Did you know Hamas recently introduced Crucifixion as a punishment.

Hello Solarat,
"Did you know" that the Israelis Army have introduced "burning woman and baby's by white phosphorous" (crime) - for being Palestinian,

PeakOutput

Hello Solarat,
"Did you know" that the Israelis Army have introduced "burning woman and baby's by white phosphorous" (crime) - for being Palestinian,

link please

ionix5891

PeakOutput wrote: »

link please

i presume hes referring to this

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23611375-details/Israel+uses+phosphorus+shells+as+smokescreen+for+troops/article.do

Israel uses phosphorus shells as smokescreen for troops
Robert Mendick, Chief Reporter
05.01.09


ISRAELI forces are using white phosphorus shells which can cause horrific burns, it was claimed today.

The weapon, seen above over the northern Gaza strip,provides cover to advancing ground troops by creating a huge smokescreen, shielding soldiers from incoming fire. Phosphorous shells can also illuminate large areas when used at night. It is highly flammable and ignites on contact with oxygen. If it hits someone's body, it will burn until deprived of oxygen.

Under the Geneva Treaty of 1980, white phosphorous is banned as a weapon of war in civilian areas because of the severe injuries it causes.

see the bolded bit

TOMASJ

PeakOutput wrote: »

link please

Press TV has footage of children burned being carried into hospital in Gaza,
if you take the time to listen to the Doctors who from time to time are being interviewed by Press TV & Al-Jazeera in the Gaza hospital you will hear them describe in detail the effects on their patients in that hospital of W.P and Depleted Uranium weapons,

PeakOutput

ionix5891 wrote: »

i presume hes referring to this

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23611375-details/Israel+uses+phosphorus+shells+as+smokescreen+for+troops/article.do





see the bolded bit

ah i see, so they havnt actually introduced burning into their law as punishment as hamas seem to have done with crucifixion as punishment for people who are not appointed by hamas to talk about palestinian issues. i was confused there for a second

TOMASJ wrote: »

Press TV has footage of children burned being carried into hospital in Gaza,
if you take the time to listen to the Doctors who from time to time are being interviewed by Press TV & Al-Jazeera in the Gaza hospital you will hear them describe in detail the effects on their patients in that hospital of W.P and Depleted Uranium weapons,

see above israel are not deliberately burning women and children, hamas appear to be deliberately, or want to at least, inflicting crucifixion as a punishment there is a massive massive difference

ionix5891

yes but theres a big difference

Israel are actually killing people by the hundreds (just switch on your tv or goto any news website for confirmation) here Hamas haven't killed anyone this way

anyways Hamas are bunch of Nutjobs but you have to remember HAMAS were encouraged and funded by Israel so this mess is the fault of Israel they wanted Hamas in control to takedown the left wing PLO



anyways linky on depleted uranium from Irish Sunday Business Post

http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=TOM+MCGURK-qqqs=commentandanalysis-qqqid=38729-qqqx=1.asp

.

marius

munchester29 wrote: »

Like it or not, the borders will be redrawn in a real peace agreement. Thinking otherwise is naive and not realistic. Check the endings of any land disputes in the past.

In any case, gotta go now, see you all tomorrow:)

This is absolutely disgsting and goes to the heart of this conflict.

The flippant and light hearted way you throw this into the debate makes me sick...

Loosely translated......Israel has decided it has a claim to the land, despite internatiol law deciding otherwise, but Israel does not give a fcuk as Isreal knows that if they keep attacking and murdering people for a long enough time that they will probably get some type of peace agreement where they get a bit more land.....

TOMASJ

PeakOutput wrote: »

ah i see, so they havnt actually introduced burning into their law as punishment as hamas seem to have done with crucifixion as punishment for people who are not appointed by hamas to talk about palestinian issues. i was confused there for a second

And what Law was introduced by the Israles for the murder that is being committed in their name in Gaza,
Or do they not need Laws passed to carry out their barbarism,

see above Israel are not deliberately burning women and children,

So that makes it ok then,
Tell that to the victims of the IDF.

munchester29

ionix5891 wrote: »

The EU, The UN and the International Court of justice have all called the settlements and the wall illegal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Supreme_Court_Opinions_on_the_West_Bank_Barrier

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAl.NSF/85255e950050831085255e95004fa9c3/3740e39487a5428a85256ecc005e157a!OpenDocument

If only everything was really always so simple…

From your first link (in Wikipedia):
“On two occasions the Israeli government has been instructed by the Supreme Court of Israel to alter the route of the barrier to ensure that negative impacts on Palestinians would be minimized and proportional”

So, to sum it up, Israel (Israeli human rights organizations, by the way), made sure that Palestinians will be impacted as little as possible. I don’t see how it supports your point.

Your second link:
Wow, impressive, all sounding very legal and binding and important, in a press release from 2004, published by The International Court of Justice (ICJ), entitled
“Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall
in the Occupied Palestinian Territory

Advisory Opinion”

Three problems with this argument of yours:
1. “Jurisdiction is often a crucial question for the Court in contentious cases. The key principle is that the ICJ has jurisdiction only on the basis of consent”

This means, for example, that if Israel hasn’t agreed for a case to be judged by the ICJ, the ICJ has no jurisdiction over Israel. The ICJ’s mandate is to resolve disputes when both parties agree to it.

2. You didn’t notice the words “Advisory Opinion” did you?

“In principle, the Court's advisory opinions are only consultative in character, though they are influential and widely respected.”

Key word: Consultative.

3. The whole advisory opinion itself, by the way, was, and I quote:
“The case was viewed by many governments (including the United States and the European Union) as lacking standing, because the jurisdiction of the ICJ is limited to member states to the body, and the plaintiffs in the case lacked this designation”

Better start reading…

More reading can be done in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_Consequences_of_the_Construction_of_a_Wall_in_the_Occupied_Palestinian_Territory#United_Nations_and_International_Court_of_Justice

ionix5891

PeakOutput wrote: »

see above israel are not deliberately burning women and children, hamas appear to be deliberately, or want to at least, inflicting crucifixion as a punishment there is a massive massive difference

not they are just lobbing shells into a densely populated area and killing people

using weapons prohibited by the Geneva conventions


oh i forgot theres nothing wrong with that, they are not human and are all terrorists!

munchester29

wes wrote: »

Under international law they have no right to this land. Hence they are land grabs. This the point several of us are making. You are ignoring this for some odd reason.

Future negotiations have no bearing on the fact that presently what they are doing is illegal under international law.

Also, you yourself have said, what may happen in the future doesn't matter, but you have completely changed this position and seem to think what may happen in the future now matters.

See my last comment, about the "International law" claim.

PeakOutput

ionix5891 wrote: »

yes but Israel are actually killing people by the hundreds here Hamas haven't killed anyone this way

and see my links in earlier posts regarding

HAMAS were encouraged and funded by Israel


on depleted uranium

http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=TOM+MCGURK-qqqs=commentandanalysis-qqqid=38729-qqqx=1.asp

its war, hundreds if not thousands of people die in war. the war is a symptom of a much larger problem. israel withdrawing does not cure the problem of having a terrorist organisation in control of 1.5million people.

everyone seems outraged that israel are not listening to the un. the un has long been shown to be an absolute joke when it comes to serious conflicts like this. iirc if it wasnt for people going against un resolutions alot more rowandan civilians would of been killed during the genocide.

lets say for arguments sake israel is telling the truth and simply wants to stop the attacks. this attack on gaza succedes in getting rid of hamas and after a time of peace and of israel not being attacked any restrictions and the so called 'siege' are lifted but in the process 10,000 people die on one or both sides. was it worth it? imo it was because it would potentially save many more lives in the long run.

its peoples automatic assumption that people are dieing as a result of israeli attacks therefore israel are evil and should be ostricised that i just cant understand. its non sensical and if it was listened to our world would be a far worse off place today

dresden8

PeakOutput wrote: »

ah i see, so they havnt actually introduced burning into their law as punishment as hamas seem to have done with crucifixion as punishment for people who are not appointed by hamas to talk about palestinian issues. i was confused there for a second



see above israel are not deliberately burning women and children, hamas appear to be deliberately, or want to at least, inflicting crucifixion as a punishment there is a massive massive difference

I suppose it's lucky the Israelis are bombing them so that Hamas can't crucify them.

BlaasForRafa

Perestroika wrote: »

Don't be so selective.
Israel us/need excuses.

For Lebanon 2006 it was ''kidnapped soldiesrs''.
Whatever the reason for a wall, they didnt have to divide communities with it. They also stole even more land with it.

So soldiers weren't kidnapped then eh?

You seem to ignore the fact that Hamas and Hizbollah are proxy armies for Iran to hit Israel with. Where do you think their funding comes from. Do they conjure their grad rockets from thin air?

Israel will always defend itself from aggression. The sooner Hamas puts the interests of the palestinian people before its own warped religious beliefs and the urgings of the Iranians the sooner things will get better for the Palestinian people.

munchester29

Nodin wrote: »

Dear o dear. A few examples

http://thenational.ae/article/20080731/FOREIGN/639654697/0/var
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/nov/25/israel.foreignpolicy
http://www.merip.org/mer/mer225/225_blecher.html
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/feature-stories/unlawful-homes-israeli-settlers-demolitions-palestinians-20080331

Still missing the point, and still bombarding with these interesting links?

Your first link is from an Abu Dhabi site, talking about a demolition from 4 years ago, and seems to be revolving around building permits issues…

Your second link, from our favourite source, The Guardian.
Let’s ignore for a second that it is from 2005, talks about a “secret” UK document that “accuses Israeli policies are designed to prevent Jerusalem from becoming a Palestinian capital, particularly settlement expansion in and around the city”.

The Israelis said in the same link:
"Israel believes that Jerusalem should remain the united capital of Israel. At the same time Israel has committed itself that Jerusalem is one of those final status issues."

Key words by Israel: “Final status issues”

Thanks for helping reinforce a point I had in another post, by the way…

Your third link…
Won’t really bother, it’s from 2002.

Fourth link: Personally, I don’t like to use “unbiased” sites like Amnesty for debates in this conflict, but since you seem to consider them as a fair observer:
The report is interesting, what I found most interesting was the picture on the side, showing the Palestinians who had their homes demolished, were already starting to rebuild them!
Interesting way Israel has to get control of a land, and put mobile homes on it (?)…

munchester29

wes wrote: »

You said there were no evictions. You were completely wrong.

Also, just because the people who were kicked out managed to drag things out in this one case, doesn't change the fact, it is still colonialism.

Of course my reply was just to point out you were wrong about evictions.

This single eviction had a long legal proceeding all to itself.

This is not colonialism, unless you think Israel is doing it to the Palestinians one house at a time.