Israel troops admit Gaza abuses

wes

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think just because you have certain Rabbis who say certain things means that the society is murderous. Would you really consider it fair if I said the same about certain Imams in Islam that we have both in the Middle East and in the West that say hateful things?

Okay, you seem to have completey misread my post. I never once said Israeli society is murderous. I said the IDF are, and quite frankly the IDF are murderer's.

Also, the Rabbi's I am referring to work for the IDF. These aren't random nutters or anything, but guys who are emploted by the IDF, which is very different from random Imam's. Also, you miss my point completely, which is about the IDF specifically (and the government to a lesser degree) and how they have a culture of murderous impunity, as per the orders given by the higher ups and as per the message given out by the Rabbi's employed by the IDF.

I am not saying all of Israel is like this. I am not saying all Rabbi's are murderouos nutters. I am talking about the IDF only.

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm quite aware it isn't the first time. Operation Defensive Shield in 2002 was quite notorious for abuses here. However, I'm not going to apply the minority to majority jump as other people seem to do. Not all IDF soldiers are there to abuse their positions, and the same applies for commanders also. I would like a situation where Israel didn't feel the need to have such a military structure but they do at present.

Again, the IDF as a whole are responsible. You are ignoring the fact, that the orders resulted in the atrocities, which makes the IDF as a whole responsible. This isn't a minority, but rather the organization as a whole which is at fault.

Jakkass wrote: »

"state terrorism" is merely rhethoric. What I will say is that their attacks on Gaza were really quite excessive and horrific, as was their attack on Lebanon even if they do claim that they had a legitimate Casus Belli violence on such a scale is abhorrent. I would apply the same to Hamas fearmongering Israelis to take a more conservative position in an election by firing rockets into the Negev.

No state terrorism is the reality of what the Israeli government and the IDF do to the Palestinians. This is no different than Hamas firing rockets randomly at Israel, which is also terrorism. Both groups are murderous as far as I am concerned (the IDF and Hamas).

Jakkass wrote: »

Again I don't approve of this at all. Having said that the Palestinian side isn't being punished by the West, but rather being punished by Israel.

It is being punished by the West, as the West is complicit in the siege of Gaza.

Also, the Egyptian government is also complicit.

Jakkass wrote: »

So? It was their ancestral homeland that they were removed forcibly out of by the Romans to suffer persecution in Europe.

My ancestors are from Iran. So using Zionist logic, I can go live there and start killing people and take over the country, which is absurd.

Of course not all Jews actually came from there, the existence of Berber Jews and Khazar Jews, who comes from North Africa and the Caucasus's, is sort of a huge problem for that bit of fiction.

**EDIT**
Here is an interesting bit from an interview with Professor Shlomo Sand that appeared in Haaretz:

Shattering a 'national mythology'

--SNIP--
If the people was not exiled, are you saying that in fact the real descendants of the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Judah are the Palestinians?

"No population remains pure over a period of thousands of years. But the chances that the Palestinians are descendants of the ancient Judaic people are much greater than the chances that you or I are its descendents. The first Zionists, up until the Arab Revolt [1936-9], knew that there had been no exiling, and that the Palestinians were descended from the inhabitants of the land. They knew that farmers don't leave until they are expelled. Even Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, the second president of the State of Israel, wrote in 1929 that, 'the vast majority of the peasant farmers do not have their origins in the Arab conquerors, but rather, before then, in the Jewish farmers who were numerous and a majority in the building of the land.'"
--SNIP--

So even the first Zionists knew that the Palestinians were the indigenous population and that not all Jews actually came from Palestine/Israel. So calling Zionists colonists is fair.

To call the Palestinians colonists is simply factually incorrect, they are the indigenous people.
**END EDIT**

Jakkass wrote: »

Is it really fair to claim colonisation when infact Caliph Umar in 600AD colonised the place as a part of an effort to form the Islamic Caliphate an Islamic superstate basically.

The fact that the Palestinians are the indigenous population who converted to Islam and intermarried with the various invaders. So calling Zionists colonists is fair.

Jakkass wrote: »

Again, imams are guilty of this too. Yet I don't apply it to the majority of the Islamic population. Basically when you are claiming that all the IDF are bad, or most of them are, you are claiming that the majority of Israel's youth are bad people, and I don't agree with really at all they are just put into a horrible situation.

I never said what you are claiming I said here. I was talking about the Israeli government and the IDF. I am not talking about the entire Israeli populace.

Also, the Rabbi's are employed by the IDF, I am talking about that specific group and not all Rabbi's.

Jakkass wrote: »

Also it may be best not to portray this as Jewish fundementalism because Muslims, Druze and Christians serve in IDF ranks.

So? Doesn't change the fact of what the Rabbi's hired by the IDF have said.

Jakkass wrote: »

I agree with you that Palestinians should have a right to live in Israel. I don't agree that it is colonisation.

It is colonization as per the accepted definitions of the word.

Jakkass wrote: »

I can quite frankly. They could have lived in peace, and Palestinians were allowed to live in the Israeli state, and in Jerusalem as well. They weren't being forcibly moved, it was only after the war in 1948 when Al Naqba took place, and I don't agree with that in the slightest. However I will say that the agreement in 1948 was fair and reasonable when one looks at it.

No it wasn't reasonable. The Zionists had no right to a country in Palestine. The indigenous population were against giving half there country to Europeans. They had every right to to disagree to something, that was quite unreasonable and would not have been accepted by any nation of people on the planet.

Jakkass wrote: »

Bear in mind the Palestinians had also gained that land through colonialism from the Byzantine Greeks in 600AD. We must apply our standards to all situations. We could go all the way back to Moses if we wanted to but I doubt that would be productive.

Again, the Palestinians are the indigenous population. They are a mix of all the people who lived there.

Jakkass wrote: »

I want a single state that respects Palestinian rights, we have a long way to go yet unfortunately

Sure, maybe someday.

philologos

Akrasia wrote: »

I don't think its fair to criticise the Israelis for the loss of civilian life, they clearly just have no sense of aim or direction, it did take them 40 years to walk from egypt to israel...... (its miraculous that they arrived at all)

Hah, actually in the Torah it said that the Jews were on the border with the land of Israel at the time and spies had already gone into the land of Israel to see the condition of the land (Numbers 13), the people of Israel had rebelled against Moses after this, and complained to which Moses said to be patient and wait for the Lord to guide them to the land in which the Israelites threatened to stone him to death (Numbers 14), in response to their lack of faith the Lord told Moses and Aaron that not one of them except for Caleb son of Jephunneh, and Joshua son of Nun (to which the Old Testament book of Joshua) is attributed, but that they would wander in the desert for 40 years 1 year for each of the days the spies had been in the land of Israel surveying.

Whether or not you believe this is another issue I guess.

philologos

wes wrote: »

I am not saying all of Israel is like this. I am not saying all Rabbi's are murderouos nutters. I am talking about the IDF only.

I don't think this applies to the whole IDF, but rather a sector within it.

wes wrote: »

Again, the IDF as a whole are responsible. You are ignoring the fact, that the orders resulted in the atrocities, which makes the IDF as a whole responsible. This isn't a minority, but rather the organization as a whole which is at fault.

Yes certain commanders asked that certain orders be carried out. It would call questions to why these people were allowed to hold the positions that they did. However I find to say that this is somehow true for all IDF commanders and operatives is a bit excessive.

wes wrote: »

It is being punished by the West, as the West is complicit in the siege of Gaza.

Also, the Egyptian government is also complicit.

How exactly?

wes wrote: »

My ancestors are from Iran. So using Zionist logic, I can go live there and start killing people.

Don't be ridiculous. The Zionist movement was peaceful until roughly the 1920s when the Haganah was set up to defend the Jewish population against pogroms from the Palestinians and the Arab population. There are horrible incidents that took place in which the Jewish population of Hebron was driven out and their synagogue turned into a pig sty. This is one of many incidents in which Jews were attacked for living in the land of Israel. Again, you might find the early history of modern Israel to be quite striking. There were also incidents in the 1948 war which the Israelis had carried out such as Deir Yassin which are abhorrent also. It's a two sided conflict and always has been.

wes wrote: »

Of course not all Jews actually came from there, the existence of Berber Jews and Khazar Jews, who comes from North Africa and the Caucasus's, is sort of a huge problem for that bit of fiction.

DNA evidence goes against what you are saying. Ashkenazi Jews in Europe had a very high Semitic Y-chromosone which wasn't seen in European Gentiles. Infact studies suggest the rate of interbreeding between Jews in Europe and Gentiles was as low as 2% per generation most likely due to anti-Semitism suggesting that having sex with a Jew was equivalent to beastiality.

wes wrote: »

The fact that the Palestinians are the indigenous population who converted to Islam and intermarried with the various invaders. So calling Zionists colonists is fair.

It isn't given genetic evidence to suggest otherwise.
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16548170
www.familytreedna.com/pdf/Behar_contrasting.pdf
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v15/n4/full/5201764a.html

There just isn't a case to suggest that Palestinians are more indigenous than modern Jews are.

wes wrote: »

No it wasn't reasonable. The Zionists had no right to a country in Palestine. The indigenous population were against giving half there country to Europeans. They had every right to to disagree to something, that was quite unreasonable and would not have been accepted by any nation of people on the planet.

They had every right to return to their ancestral homeland after being treated as outcasts for centuries. Their ancestors were forcibly removed by the Romans and subsequent conquesters.

wes wrote: »

Again, the Palestinians are the indigenous population. They are a mix of all the people who lived there.

I would argue that the Palestinians may have some genetic relationship to those who lived there as much as the Israelis do. There is evidence to suggest that Ashkenazi Jews have Semitic genes, just as much as there is to back up the case for Palestinians.

wes wrote: »

Sure, maybe someday.

Hopefully!

wes

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think this applies to the whole IDF, but rather a sector within it.

Again, this is something that happened due to the orders given down from higher up's, which make the organization responsible as a whole. They fact that this keep happened as well, makes things far worse in my opinion. The IDF make all kinds of claims to purity of arms etc, but the reality is that they murder civilians on a regular basis.

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes certain commanders asked that certain orders be carried out. It would call questions to why these people were allowed to hold the positions that they did. However I find to say that this is somehow true for all IDF commanders and operatives is a bit excessive.

The 1300 dead Palestinians (mostly civilians) tells me a very different story. The IDF does this all the time, so the organization needs to be held responsible and just blaming bad apples is a poor excuse.

Jakkass wrote: »

How exactly?

By supporting Israel siege.

Jakkass wrote: »

Don't be ridiculous. The Zionist movement was peaceful until roughly the 1920s when the Haganah was set up to defend the Jewish population against pogroms from the Palestinians and the Arab population. There are horrible incidents that took place in which the Jewish population of Hebron was driven out and their synagogue turned into a pig sty. This is one of many incidents in which Jews were attacked for living in the land of Israel. Again, you might find the early history of modern Israel to be quite striking. There were also incidents in the 1948 war which the Israelis had carried out such as Deir Yassin which are abhorrent also. It's a two sided conflict and always has been.

Going to some one else country with the intention of taking over is not a peaceful activity. To say otherwise is absurd. The Zionists were European colonists plain and simple. Colonization is in and off itself a violent activity and always has been. The Zionist were invaders plain and simple.

Also, early Zionists weren't shy about there intentions of "transfer".

Jakkass wrote: »

DNA evidence goes against what you are saying. Ashkenazi Jews in Europe had a very high Semitic Y-chromosone which wasn't seen in European Gentiles. Infact studies suggest the rate of interbreeding between Jews in Europe and Gentiles was as low as 2% per generation most likely due to anti-Semitism suggesting that having sex with a Jew was equivalent to beastiality.

The existence of Khazar and Berber Jews is a fact. Not all Jews are from the Middle East. Some clearly are, but there is big problem, when Zionist claim they are a single race of people, which is fiction. Also, Khazar Jews and Berber Jews would have intermarried with the Middle Easter Jewish population, and after they converted, they would not have married with the Jewish population, as you described.

Jakkass wrote: »

It isn't given genetic evidence to suggest otherwise.
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16548170
www.familytreedna.com/pdf/Behar_contrasting.pdf
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v15/n4/full/5201764a.html

There just isn't a case to suggest that Palestinians are more indigenous than modern Jews are.

The fact they were living in Palestine at the time kinda makes there case.

The fact that Zionist came from Europe (i call them Europeans as they lived there for centuries) sorta make there 2000 year old claims a bit ridiculous. Oh wait, a 2000 year old land claim is ridiculous all on its own.

Jakkass wrote: »

They had every right to return to their ancestral homeland after being treated as outcasts for centuries. Their ancestors were forcibly removed by the Romans and subsequent conquesters.

So Jews can return after 2000 years, but Israel won't let the Palestinians they ethnically cleansed return after 60. Strange double standard I see. What your saying if of course absurd, that logic means anyone can conquer a African country as we are all from there if you go back far enough.

Jakkass wrote: »

I would argue that the Palestinians may have some genetic relationship to those who lived there as much as the Israelis do. There is evidence to suggest that Ashkenazi Jews have Semitic genes, just as much as there is to back up the case for Palestinians.

I would argue, that a 2000 year old land claim (based on some questional ancestral claims) is no basis for invading another country to colonize it and ethnically cleanse the indegenous people. I would consider that completey wrong and a act of war.

Jakkass wrote: »

Hopefully!

Well fingers crossed.

philologos

wes wrote: »

Going to some one else country with the intention of taking over is not a peaceful activity. To say otherwise is absurd. The Zionists were European colonists plain and simple. Colonization is in and off itself a violent activity and always has been. The Zionist were invaders plain and simple.

Also, early Zionists weren't shy about there intentions of "transfer".

Originally Zionism was very much a peaceful ideal, infact Herzl said that he welcomed Palestinians to be citizens of the Israeli state should it be founded.

The Iron Wall, Avi Shlaim pg 4 wrote:

[Herzl] thought that as individuals they should enjoy full civil rights in a Jewish state but he did not consider them a society with collective political rights over the land in which they formed the overwhelming majority. Like many early Zionists Herzl hoped that economic benefits would reconcile the Arab population to the Zionist enterprise in Palestine.

Although there is a key notable flaw concerning political rights, there is no sense that Herzl intended the transfer of people out of a particular region that they lived in. This mentality only came into light when later thinkers such as Ben Gurion advocated it. I agree with you totally transfer is wrong. It happened in a time when it occurred in other regions of the world including the ethnic Germans in Eastern Europe who were brought back to Germany many of them dying on the way back as Finkelstein (a harsh critic of Israel) cites in his Image and Reality of the Israel - Palestine Conflict. In terms of tactics Israel came too late. It was still grossly wrong though IMO. The idea of transfer had long been seen as the solution in Europe, such as Poland suggesting that Jews should be sent to Madagascar in the mid 1930's. It's purely wrong to consider that but to say it was in Zionist ideology from the outset is wrong. Infact Herzl's Zionism although flawed is much more favourable to the modern Zionism of today.

wes wrote: »

The existence of Khazar and Berber Jews is a fact. Not all Jews are from the Middle East. Some clearly are, but there is big problem, when Zionist claim they are a single race of people, which is fiction.

The Jewish populations around the world bear Semitic Y-chromosones. You would have to provide evidence to suggest otherwise. Yes there have been Gentile converts to Judaism, but the vast majority of them have Semitic genes.

wes wrote: »

The fact that Zionist came from Europe sorta make there 2000 year old claims a bit ridiculous.

Not really. It's rather simple. There were Jews in Europe in the 1st century who left due to the conditions that the Romans put them under. In 66AD, Jews came into conflict with the Roman establishment again after the Zealot Revolt, after this again the Jews came into conflict with Rome again after Bar Kochba's revolt by which the Romans said enough is enough. They went to Europe and all around the world. So it's pretty obvious that they wouldn't be in Israel. This coupled with anti-Semitism suggests that there should be some form of redress for the situation they were put into. The solution at the time that was advocated was to bring them back to the land of their origins.

wes wrote: »

So Jews can return after 2000 years, but Israel won't let the Palestinians they ethnically cleansed return after 60. Strange double standard I see. What your saying if of course absurd, that logic means anyone can conquer a African country as we are all from there if you go back far enough.

I disagree with this, and I've made rather clear that I don't support with Israeli state policy on forced removal of Palestinians.

wes wrote: »

I would argue, that a 2000 year old land claim (based on some questional ancestral claims) is no basis for invading another country to colonize it and ethnically cleanse the indegenous people. I would consider that completey wrong and a act of war.

They didn't invade, they settled. Theres a difference. Making your home somewhere is rather different than taking it with arms.

wes

Jakkass wrote: »

Originally Zionism was very much a peaceful ideal, infact Herzl said that he welcomed Palestinians to be citizens of the Israeli state should it be founded.

The fact is that Herzl also said in his private diaries that they (the Palestinians) would need to be "transfered". The guy was a racist, who came up with a racist ideology. From its creation, Zionism was racist:

A new exodus for the Middle East?

As early as 1895, Theodor Herzl, the prophet and founder of Zionism, wrote in his diary in anticipation of the establishment of the Jewish state: "We shall try to spirit the penniless [Arab] population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our country ... The removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly."

Oh and look at the author as well. A man who can hardly be called someone who gives a crap about the Palestinians.

Also, going to someone elses country to take over, is not peaceful and is called an invasion normally.

Jakkass wrote: »

Although there is a key notable flaw concerning political rights, there is no sense that Herzl intended the transfer of people out of a particular region that they lived in. This mentality only came into light when later thinkers such as Ben Gurion advocated it. I agree with you totally transfer is wrong. It happened in a time when it occurred in other regions of the world including the ethnic Germans in Eastern Europe who were brought back to Germany many of them dying on the way back as Finkelstein (a harsh critic of Israel) cites in his Image and Reality of the Israel - Palestine Conflict. In terms of tactics Israel came too late. It was still grossly wrong though IMO. The idea of transfer had long been seen as the solution in Europe, such as Poland suggesting that Jews should be sent to Madagascar in the mid 1930's. It's purely wrong to consider that but to say it was in Zionist ideology from the outset is wrong. Infact Herzl's Zionism although flawed is much more favourable to the modern Zionism of today.

You see Herzl did intend transfer. Zionism has alway been a racist and violent ideology. So most of what you say above doesn't mean anything as Herzl knew damn well that ethnic cleansing was needed to create a Jewish state.

Jakkass wrote: »

The Jewish populations around the world bear Semitic Y-chromosones. You would have to provide evidence to suggest otherwise. Yes there have been Gentile converts to Judaism, but the vast majority of them have Semitic genes.

I have provided proof, look at the article I posted earlier. Its very simple, not all Jews are from Palestine/Israel.

Jakkass wrote: »

Not really. It's rather simple. There were Jews in Europe in the 1st century who left due to the conditions that the Romans put them under. In 66AD, Jews came into conflict with the Roman establishment again after the Zealot Revolt, after this again the Jews came into conflict with Rome again after Bar Kochba's revolt by which the Romans said enough is enough. They went to Europe and all around the world. So it's pretty obvious that they wouldn't be in Israel. This coupled with anti-Semitism suggests that there should be some form of redress for the situation they were put into. The solution at the time that was advocated was to bring them back to the land of their origins.

So Europeans murder 6 million Jews, and the indigenous population of Palestine must pay for it? Laughable. The land claim is absurd and quite frankly its on pretty shakey ground, due to the fact that the people living there were against half there country being given away to Europeans.

Europeans murdered 6 millions Jews, they should be the ones to redress the crimes committed against them and not Palestinians.

Jakkass wrote: »

I disagree with this, and I've made rather clear that I don't support with Israeli state policy on forced removal of Palestinians.

Fair enough, but this is at the heart of Zionism, which is the ideology of the state.

Jakkass wrote: »

They didn't invade, they settled. Theres a difference. Making your home somewhere is rather different than taking it with arms.

Your joking right? Going some place with the express intention of taking over is an invasion. They were invaders, as they wanted to take over Palestine. Also, they wanted to setup a "Jewish" state, which made there invasion a colonial one.

philologos

wes wrote: »

The fact is that Herzl also said in his private diaries that they (the Palestinians) would need to be "transfered". The guy was a racist, who came up with a racist ideology. From its creation, Zionism was racist:

Oh and look at the author as well. A man who can hardly be called someone who gives a crap about the Palestinians.

I'll have to research this a bit more. Thanks for giving me more information, I'm willing to accept that I might be mistaken.

wes wrote: »

Also, going to someone elses country to take over, is not peaceful and is called an invasion normally.

I'd differ with your interpretation of invasion then. I would consider an invasion as involving violent force. However what happened is was that the Zionist Congress bought land, and allowed for Jewish people to build towns and settle there. That isn't an invasion to me.

wes wrote: »

You see Herzl did intend transfer. Zionism has alway been a racist and violent ideology. So most of what you say above doesn't mean anything as Herzl knew damn well that ethnic cleansing was needed to create a Jewish state.

As I say it's something I will look into more myself.

wes wrote: »

I have provided proof, look at the article I posted earlier. Its very simple, not all Jews are from Palestine/Israel.

Yes, hence why Jews are referred to as an ethno-religious group. Gentiles did convert to Judaism and I'm not denying that. However the vast majority are descended from the people who left Israel following Bar Kochba's revolt in 120AD.

wes wrote: »

So Europeans murder 6 million Jews, and the indigenous population of Palestine must pay for it? Laughable. The land claim is absurd and quite frankly its on pretty shakey ground, due to the fact that the people living there were against half there country being given away to Europeans.

Do you really see tolerating Jewish people living in Israel a punishment?

wes wrote: »

Europeans murdered 6 millions Jews, they should be the ones to redress the crimes committed against them and not Palestinians.

Who controlled the land at the time? And if so what nation was it? Finally was said nation in Europe?

wes wrote: »

Your joking right? Going some place with the express intention of taking over is an invasion. They were invaders, as they wanted to take over Palestine. Also, they wanted to setup a "Jewish" state, which made there invasion a colonial one.

I don't see it as an invasion. Invasion implies from the get go the settlers were violent, there's no historical case for this. The land was also purchased originally if I remember correctly by the funds of the Zionist Congress.

wes

Jakkass wrote: »

I'll have to research this a bit more. Thanks for giving me more information, I'm willing to accept that I might be mistaken.

Yeah, the problem with Herzl is that he said 2 very different things, which confuses things quite a bit.

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd differ with your interpretation of invasion then. I would consider an invasion as involving violent force. However what happened is was that the Zionist Congress bought land, and allowed for Jewish people to build towns and settle there. That isn't an invasion to me.

Well, if they only wanted to just live in Palestine, then I would agree with your, but they intended to take over the country. Remember Europeans bought lands off the Native Americans, but there intent to take over still made what they were doing an invasion, just one using different tactics.

Jakkass wrote: »

As I say it's something I will look into more myself.

Fair enough.

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, hence why Jews are referred to as an ethno-religious group. Gentiles did convert to Judaism and I'm not denying that. However the vast majority are descended from the people who left Israel following Bar Kochba's revolt in 120AD.

I remain unconvinced, due to the Berber and Khazar Jewish populations, who would have inter-married with the original Middle Eastern population and would have basically merged after hundreds of years.

Jakkass wrote: »

Do you really see tolerating Jewish people living in Israel a punishment?

No, of course not, but what they were being asked was to give away half there country to Europeans. If Israeli's just wanted to live there, and not set up a Jewish state, it would be a different story, but the fact is they wanted a Jewish state and wanted to kick the Palestinians out, so it was most definetly a punishment.

That is a punishment. Why should they have to give half there country away to foreigners? The Palestinians would have reacted the exact same way if Israelis were Christian, Hindu or Wiccans. They were foreigners, who were being given half there country, of course they would be against it and they had every right to be against it.

Jakkass wrote: »

Who controlled the land at the time? And if so what nation was it? Finally was said nation in Europe?

You mean the UK? They were occupiers and had no right to give away something that quite frankly didn't belong to them.

Also, the UK fought the Nazi's and it was main land Europe that was responsible for there attempted annihilation. The main culprits was Nazi Germany, but there were many other European who joined in on the genocide. They should have been the ones to provide restitution to Jews and not Palestinians (who are semites themselves).

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see it as an invasion. Invasion implies from the get go the settlers were violent, there's no historical case for this. The land was also purchased originally if I remember correctly by the funds of the Zionist Congress.

Similar tactics have been used by other invaders. Europeans did that to the Native American's as well. The simple fact is that from the get go the Zionists planned on taking over Palestine to create a Jewish state, which would involved ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Palestinian population. Just because they didn't start kicking them out right away, doesn't change that it was an invasion. When the Zionists were strong enough, they kicked out the Palestinians. There intentions were always violent.

Nodin

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't (.....)on however.

'movement of people'? Thats one of the more sickening euphemisms I've come across and I've been following this for more than a few years now. Israel has borders. A state can't move it's populationb outside its borders and grab land where it sees fit. It most certainly can't do so at the expense of whomever those settlers happen to land upon.

Jakkass wrote: »

Surely having Jewish people living among you wouldn't really impede such a model taking place..

They live there under the authority of the Israeli state, with Israeli rights, while there Arab neighbours are treated as third class persons, dealt with under military law.

Jakkass wrote: »

Having said that the Palestinian side isn't being punished by the West,.

They ostracise Hamas, they keep links with Israel. It's fairly clear cut.

Jakkass wrote: »

It was their ancestral homeland ,.

Most of us are 'indo-European', yet I don't think we'd be given much time if we turned with our suitcases and a map in the punjab.

Jakkass wrote: »

Is it really fair to claim colonisation when infact Caliph Umar in 600AD colonised the place ,.

Bear in mind the Palestinians had also gained that land through colonialism from the Byzantine Greeks in 600AD.

More crap, thankfully removed by science......

Results of a DNA study by geneticist Ariella Oppenheim appears to match historical accounts that Arab Israelis and Palestinians,[91][92] together as the one same population, represent modern "descendants of a core population that lived in the area since prehistoric times", albeit religiously first Christianized then largely Islamized, and all eventually culturally Arabized.[93]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people#DNA_and_genetic_studies

Nodin

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see it as an invasion. Invasion implies from the get go the settlers were violent, there's no historical case for this. The land was also purchased originally if I remember correctly by the funds of the Zionist Congress.

10-12% of the land was purchased. The rest was seized after the expulsions.

Manic Moran

I am not saying all of Israel is like this. I am talking about the IDF only.

Given that the IDF involuntarily conscripts all men and women throughout the country, it's difficult to make that distinction.

NTM

wes

Manic Moran wrote: »

Given that the IDF involuntarily conscripts all men and women throughout the country, it's difficult to make that distinction.

NTM

True enough, but the fact remains that the IDF as an organisations, has engaged in so many of these atrocities, and that I have to say the IDF as a whole is to blame. This doesn't mean every single last member has engaged in murder of innocent civilians, but to say that an a organisations whose orders and there culture of impunity directly lead to the murder of civilians is due to a few bad eggs is ridiculous to me. The IDF are very much to blame for the dead civilians in Gaza.

Nodin

Manic Moran wrote: »

Given that the IDF involuntarily conscripts all men and women throughout the country, it's difficult to make that distinction.

NTM

Theres a culture of deep racism and contempt for the Palestinians in the IDF. Particularily with regards to suppressing the Palestinian population, its inevitable that they think that way. How that breaks down into numbers is another thing again, but its most certainly there, and quite prevalent.

philologos

Nodin wrote: »

Theres a culture of deep racism and contempt for the Palestinians in the IDF. Particularily with regards to suppressing the Palestinian population, its inevitable that they think that way. How that breaks down into numbers is another thing again, but its most certainly there, and quite prevalent.

I actually think that it is unfair to say that there is a culture of anything if we haven't had a clue of what actually serving in the Israeli army is like. There are certain individuals who have an extreme mindset in the IDF. That's a given, but to speak of cultures and peoples views of suppressing the Palestinians that's quite frankly nothing more than generalising surely?

The Saint

Jakkass wrote: »

I actually think that it is unfair to say that there is a culture of anything if we haven't had a clue of what actually serving in the Israeli army is like. There are certain individuals who have an extreme mindset in the IDF. That's a given, but to speak of cultures and peoples views of suppressing the Palestinians that's quite frankly nothing more than generalising surely?

You posted this before after I posted this so I thought I'd edit to include your point as I think what I've posted below has some bearing on your post'

---

The problem seems to be a large racist and anti-Arab undercurrent in Israeli society which then a leaks into a conscript army. This then makes it more likely to lead to actions like we've seen in the Occupied Territories. When people see others as being sub-human or less human then they do inhuman things.

A poll of attitudes among Israel's Jews towards their country's Arab citizens has exposed widespread racism, with large numbers favouring segregation and policies to encourage Arabs to leave the country.
The poll found that more than two-thirds of Jews would refuse to live in the same building as an Arab. Nearly half would not allow an Arab in their home and 41% want segregation of entertainment facilities.

The survey also found 40% of Israel's Jews believe "the state needs to support the emigration of Arab citizens", a policy advocated by some far-right parties in the run-up to next week's general election.
....

Among the poll's other findings was that 63% of Jewish Israelis consider their country's Arab citizens a "security and demographic threat to the state". Some 18% said they felt hatred when they heard someone speaking Arabic, and 34% agreed with the statement that "Arab culture is inferior to Israeli culture".

Linky

The Israel Religious Action Center (IRAC) recently conducted a poll in honor of Anti-Racism Day, in which 502 adult Jewish Israelis gave their opinions on racism and their Arab neighbors, Ynetnews reported Wednesday.

According to the poll, in fact, thirty-nine percent would prefer not having Arab neighbors, though a majority wouldn't object to hiring Arabs. Twenty-eight percent flat out objected to hiring Arab employees and 38 percent wouldn't work for an Arab employer.

In terms of the government, the vast majority of respondents (83%) would not accept an Arab president, only 13 percent considering the possibility. Twenty-one percent accepted having an Arab minister in the Knesset, like first-ever Arab minister Raleb Majadele, whereas 31 percent objected.

When asked the question, "Is the State of Israel more racist now that it was one decade ago?" a significant 37 percent of Israelis asked said yes.
........

A vast majority of the respondents (72%) identified the education system as a cause of the growing racism, claiming schools insufficiently acted to ameliorate the situation and stop prejudice.

Others placed the responsibility on the religious organizations, 36 percent blaming religious leaders for increasing racism, whereas 10 percent disagreed, saying that rabbis actually helped.

Linky

A recent poll by Israel's parliamentary TV station showed 76 percent of Jewish Israelis give some degree of support to transferring Palestinians living inside Israel to a future state - an option most Arab citizens strongly reject.
.............

The outbreak of the latest Palestinian intifada marked a turning-point in the way Israel treats its Arab citizens, many say, especially after 13 unarmed Israeli Arabs were killed in October 2000 when police used live ammunition to disperse protests in support of Palestinians in the occupied territories.

Rights groups say a January Israeli court decision not to indict the alleged killers due to "insufficient evidence" was tantamount to giving police a licence to kill Arabs.

Two rights groups documented the killing of 41 Arabs by Israeli police or in "racist attacks" by Jews and security guards since 2000. Of those, only one suspected killer has been indicted, said Jafar Farah, director of advocacy group Mossawa.

"The message of (this court's) decision is the following: Israel is allowed to kill Arabs and to make mass arrests," said Abeer Baker, a lawyer with advocacy group Adala in Israel, which represented the families of those killed in the 2000 protests.

Linky

Racism against Israel's Arab citizens has dramatically increased in the past year, including a 26 percent rise in anti-Arab incidents, according to the Association for Civil Rights in Israel's annual report.
......

Among Jewish respondents, 55 percent support the idea that the state should encourage Arab emigration from Israel and 78 percent oppose the inclusion of Arab political parties in the government. According to a Haifa University study, 74 percent of Jewish youths in Israel think that Arabs are "unclean."

Linky
When you send soldiers into Plaestinian areas when many would have such opinions it hardly makes it surprising why such things happen.

BlaasForRafa

wes wrote: »

My ancestors are from Iran.

That explains a lot.

BlaasForRafa

Jakkass wrote: »

I actually think that it is unfair to say that there is a culture of anything if we haven't had a clue of what actually serving in the Israeli army is like. There are certain individuals who have an extreme mindset in the IDF. That's a given, but to speak of cultures and peoples views of suppressing the Palestinians that's quite frankly nothing more than generalising surely?

Absolutely but that shouldn't be a surprise on this forum. Some people will take any story thats even remotely anti-israeli and go with it and hype it up.

If any idf personnel have breached the idf charter then they should be tried and punished by the israeli authorities.

The Saint

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

That explains a lot.

Care to elabourate buddy instead of making underhanded snide remarks about another poster you don't agree with?

turgon

I understand peoples anger at the situation, but anger should be directed at the individuals involved, not at Israel itself.

Its not as if the PM of Israel can stand behind every soldiers shoulder watching what he does.

What he can do is set up a tribunal to investigate the allegations and prosecute those involved for murder.

Nodin

Jakkass wrote: »

I actually think that it is unfair to say that there is a culture of anything if we haven't had a clue of what actually serving in the Israeli army is like. There are certain individuals who have an extreme mindset in the IDF. That's a given, but to speak of cultures and peoples views of suppressing the Palestinians that's quite frankly nothing more than generalising surely?

Given that we've detailed accounts of what being occupied by the IDF is like, compiled over the last 40 years, no, not in the slightest.

Nodin

Originally Posted by wes
My ancestors are from Iran.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

That explains a lot.

That strikes me as a rather 'racist' statement. Would you care to explain yourself?

philologos

Nodin wrote: »

Given that we've detailed accounts of what being occupied by the IDF is like, compiled over the last 40 years, no, not in the slightest.

Do you have accounts of what it is like to serve in the IDF compiled over the last 40 years? In the interest of being truly balanced that is.

Nodin

Jakkass wrote: »

Do you have accounts of what it is like to serve in the IDF compiled over the last 40 years? In the interest of being truly balanced that is.

So might we simlarily discount any treatment of Roman brutality in the same regions in their day, due to lack of testimony from with their ranks?

Are you disputing the harsh methods of the IDF in the OT, by the way, just to clarify...?

http://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/index_e.asp
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=922009
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/oct/21/israel

philologos

Nodin wrote: »

So might we simlarily discount any treatment of Roman brutality in the same regions in their day, due to lack of testimony from with their ranks?

Are you disputing the harsh methods of the IDF in the OT, by the way, just to clarify...?

I don't discount it, this is clearly you taking a strawman of what I am saying. I think an understanding of how Israeli soldiers feel and what war is like for them is important to put things into perspective.

As for the last 40 years, quite a lot has befallen on Israel in that time period between the the 1973 Yom Kippur War where on a Jewish holy day by surprise the Syrians and the Egyptians attacked Israel and on the Syrian front nearly defeated Israel there and then if it wasn't for Israeli youth being called out at speed to defend the Golan Heights and the two intifadas. We need to think about both sides clearly.

I truly do feel sorry for the Palestinians suffering, however to blame this entirely on Israel is either being intellectually dishonest or ignorant of the past.

Nodin

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't (......) ignorant of the past.

.....and what, precisely is it, thats 'forced' them to build settlements outside the borders they fought to defend, often by forcing the inhabitants out at gunpoint, and try to sell them at housing expo's in london?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/nov/16/israel

philologos

Nodin wrote: »

.....and what, precisely is it, thats 'forced' them to build settlements outside the borders they fought to defend, often by forcing the inhabitants out at gunpoint, and try to sell them at housing expo's in london?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/nov/16/israel

Yes there are cases of abuse, I haven't denied that once for a second that there have been cases of abuse in the IDF. However, I don't think we can trust the media to give us an accurate picture to describe to us what life is actually like for an Israeli soldier and I think that is a reasonable enough way to view it. I feel for the Palestinians, I can't begin to understand what life must be like for them, but I can't begin to understand what life is like for the IDF soldier to make them feel the way they may sometimes feel.

The Saint

Jakkass wrote: »

As for the last 40 years, quite a lot has befallen on Israel in that time period between the the 1973 Yom Kippur War where on a Jewish holy day by surprise the Syrians and the Egyptians attacked Israel and on the Syrian front nearly defeated Israel there and then if it wasn't for Israeli youth being called out at speed to defend the Golan Heights and the two intifadas. We need to think about both sides clearly.

Um, what this has to do with the current arguement I have no idea. Anyway, if Israel accepted the Egyptian peace offer in 1971 then there would have been no Yom Kippur war. The Golan Heights are also illegally occupied so you can't really state that Israel was legitimately defending them since they are under Isreali occupation.

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes there are cases of abuse, I haven't denied that once for a second that there have been cases of abuse in the IDF. However, I don't think we can trust the media to give us an accurate picture to describe to us what life is actually like for an Israeli soldier and I think that is a reasonable enough way to view it. I feel for the Palestinians, I can't begin to understand what life must be like for them, but I can't begin to understand what life is like for the IDF soldier to make them feel the way they may sometimes feel.

Israel and its soldiers have obligations under international law when operating within the Occupied Territories. I could not care less about how they feel just as I don't care how any belligerent force in any theatre feels personally in its military conduct. They are an occupying force with international obligations. Whether they are abiding by these obligations is all that matters.

philologos

The Saint wrote: »

Um, what this has to do with the current arguement I have no idea. Anyway, if Israel accepted the Egyptian peace offer in 1971 then there would have been no Yom Kippur war. The Golan Heights are also illegally occupied so you can't really state that Israel was legitimately defending them since they are under Isreali occupation.

It's clear that Israel didn't agree with the terms of the first one, and if it isn't agreeable with them they have the right to negotiate. The Camp David Accords of 1978 provided a better solution for the Israelis.

Do you think it is acceptable to attack a nation on a Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement) a holy day in their calendar without prior notice?

As for the Golan yes it was seized in 1967 for security purposes as it is a good vantage point for any attacker to come down from. Hence why the Syrians nearly defeated Israel in 1973. It's incredibly interesting how the battle actually was carried out, many Israeli commanders were sacked by Golda Meir for not acting quick enough.

There needs to be assurances between Israel and Syria before the Golan Heights will probably be returned. I think it is natural if one nation invades another and gets defeated that there would be the risk of losing territory for a certain period of time. Having said that I do hope that Israel will return the Golan dependant on the percentage of Israelis it would affect there.

I think it is reasonable to argue that Israel was defending itself due to the fact that if the Syrians had stayed in the Golan much longer they could have seized Tel Aviv and Jerusalem the next day.

The past history has much to do with the present, an attitude of mistrust has formed through past events such as the Yom Kippur War from the past, and the last two intifadas. It's important in realising that this is a two sided conflict.

The Saint wrote: »

Israel and its soldiers have obligations under international law when operating within the Occupied Territories. I could not care less about how they feel just as I don't care how any belligerent force in any theatre feels personally in its military conduct. They are an occupying force with international obligations. Whether they are abiding by these obligations is all that matters.

Indeed, I'd agree with you that they should be avoiding abuse. I personally do care about how they feel because I actually want peace between them, this depends very much on how the Israelis feel, and how the Palestinians feel. Ignoring the Israelis means no peace essentially, it's a foolish move to make for a diplomat anyway.

uprising

A quote from yahoo

Israel is investigating allegations of brutality by its own troops during the offensive in Gaza earlier this year. Skip related content
Related photos / videos


Israeli troops 'shot Gaza civilians'


Related content


EDIT: Just as some of us have been saying all along, then I was banned for telling people what i thought of them, now I feel vindicated, so the pro zionist minority on here will still come up with some B.S. , ... buts whats to be expected. Filth is the only words I have to describe these brutal idiots and the ever so loyal supporters, FYA.

• Israeli Army T-Shirts Mock Gaza Killings
• Israeli father marks 1,000 days without captive son
• Palestinians adjourn Cairo talks without government deal
• Related Hot Topic: Gaza

Have your say: Gaza



According to reports, some soldiers shot dead Palestinian civilians during the conflict under permissive rules of engagement they knew would not hold them to account.
Defence Minister Ehud Barak has defended the military's conduct overall but said the claims would be investigated.
The three-week Israeli military offensive on the Gaza Strip killed around 1,300 Palestinians - 900 of them civilians including scores of children - according to figures provided by Palestinians, international human rights organisations and the United Nations. Israel has disputed the numbers.
Israel said the offensive - which began on December 27, 2008 and ended with a parallel truce being declared on January 18 - was aimed at halting rocket and mortar fire into southern Israel from Gaza.
In one case reported by Israeli newspapers, an Israeli sniper killed a Palestinian woman and her two children after they misunderstood another soldier's order and turned the wrong way.
In another case, a company commander ordered that an elderly Palestinian woman be shot and killed while walking on a road, even though she was close enough for the soldiers to discern whether she posed a threat.
Soldiers also reported large-scale destruction of Palestinian property.
The soldiers cited in the newspapers relayed their accounts at a get-together with incoming recruits at a military institute where the troops had studied.
Hamas spokesman Mushir al-Masri said the allegations by Israeli soldiers provide evidence for Palestinian calls for the prosecution of Israeli leaders for war crimes following the offensive.

Nodin

Jakkass wrote: »

The past history has much to do with the present, an attitude of mistrust has formed through past events such as the Yom Kippur War from the past, and the last two intifadas. It's important in realising that this is a two sided conflict.

It's been a multi-sided conflict, between Israel, the Arab states and the Palestinian people. As Egypt and Jordan have signed peace treaties with Israel, you might explain the significance of Yom Kippur and the building 3 bedroom housing with amenities on the land of Palestinian olive farmers.