Israel

Sand

Clinton i remember someone else quoting a link to some rather anti - israel article that reported similar figures so id assume theyre broadly accurate.

without him there i can see this little war spreading to neighbouring arab states and then to europe and america.

Thats your expert, non hysterical opinion then? Why wont Africa and Asia get involved in this Third World War/Biblical Armageddon over a terretorial dispute?

I agree with Gopher. The Israelis would welcome the halt in terrorist attacks that the deal would offer, but as Gopher mentions it makes any further defence of Israel all the harder. You never know, maybe the Palestinians will be satisfied with a fraction of what was once Palestine, but maybe not. The fact that people are urging negotiations while Israel is still under attack doesnt bode well in that regard.

Typedef

anti - israel article
Sand firstly the figures are true, so how does truth factor into your anti-Israeli plot? Does the truth bite so much that you have to label it anti-Israeli propaganda?

Im no Israel supporter but one reason that the Israelis dont want to give back the West Bank,Gaza,is that the Palestinians could use this area to base foreign troops[e.g Iraqis]who would be able to invade Israel from the West Bank.

Yeah right that's why, the fourth biggest army in the world has 'alot' to fear from the 750,000 refugees it made of the people of Palestine now doesn't it? I always find such jocular repugnance with arguments that seek to blame the 'oppressed' for their oppression, arguments like this, "Oh if the Israelis didn't oppress Palestine then (it might be possible) that given the first sign of peace and normal life for Palestine for 54 years at the first given opportunity they might allow 'foreign' troops to plot to overthrow Israel from the West Bank". Of course there's not question the ethereal 'foreign troops' might attack 'before' the West Bank was freed, no of course not, you must be right from a tactical military point of view so long as the West Bank is occupied, Israel is safe. I trust you can find the glaring ludicrousness of your logic without further indemnification by me.

Clintons Cat

Didn't the Clinton administration threaten to withold part of its funding unless isreal withdrew from south lebanon as required under the terms of the camp david agreement?
The israelis duly complied.
The Bush administration has the leverage to demand isreal withdraws from the occupied territories,unfortunatly it does not have the inclination to do so.And unfortunatly in the wake of sept11 i feel no optimism for this position changing.

Sand

Oh No Typedef, nothing like that. I described it as anti- israel because it described US politicians as being good or bad depending on their voting record on Israel. Good being those who voted against Israel consistently. I think even you would recognise that as not being entirely unbiased. So climb down of that horse, its a bit high for you.

CC I dont know about the south leb thing but you might be overestimating the value of the aid- at least in Sharons mind. Hell do a cost-benefit analysis and if he feels its better for him to stay in regardless of the US then he will. Sanctions were meant to have dealt with a certain Iraqi dictator a long time ago.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
CC I dont know about the south leb thing but you might be overestimating the value of the aid- at least in Sharons mind. Hell do a cost-benefit analysis and if he feels its better for him to stay in regardless of the US then he will. Sanctions were meant to have dealt with a certain Iraqi dictator a long time ago.

Isnt one of the usual lines trotted out as to *why* the US spends so much of its foreign aid on a relatively well-off country that "it wouldnt exist if we didnt support it militarily, because everyone in the region wants them gone".

If the US is threatening to withdraw its support and the Israeli's arent that worried about it, then the US should cop the fsck on and realise that it doesnt *need* to spend all that money, because obviously the Israeli's no longer need it.

Cutting off un-needed support is not a sanction - its economic sense. If the support is still needed, then it would be a highly effective sanction. If its not still needed, cutting it off simply shows that the US arent going to be taken for a ride by the "needy" Israeli's any more.

jc

Von

Looks like there's some anti-israeli JPFers within the Israeli cabinet according to The Guardian

The failure of his iron-fisted military strategy stared the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, in the face yesterday after 10 Israelis - including seven soldiers - were shot dead by a lone Palestinian sniper at the end of one of the deadliest weekends for the Jewish state in 18 months.

Hellrazer

In june of 1999(b4 all the current conflict had started)I had the oppurtunity to visit israel on a holiday.I was actually going to visit a friend who was working out there,and I have to say that Israeli people are the most ignorant,rude and obnoxious people I have ever come accross.They wont talk to foreigners if you cant speak Hebrew.They treat the arabs worse than Hitler ever treated the Jews.Here are 2 experiences I had while there.Firstl I pulled into a service station in to fill the car.I put the petrol in and went into the shop which was empty except for the cashier.I bought a couple of bottles of coke and put them on the counter.I was the only person in the shop but was ignored by the cashier for a total of 20 minutes. This was after me asking to be served about 10 times,only to be ignored further.So I left the shop (still hadnt paid for anything)got into the car and proceeded to drive away.Suddenly I was stopped by the cashier and 2 israeli soldiers who dragged me from the car with guns pointing at me and told me that I was being arrested.When I explained what had happened I was told that foreigners are not welcome and I should have got my petrol in a different service station.
Then when we were on the way home the flight was delayed by 24 hours.We were queing to get on a flight and I was next in line.Suddenly hoardes of Jews skipped the que with stacks of tickets for their friends and family etc.I went nuts!!!I called the BA rep and told them to stop this as I was in danger of missing my flight home due to this.I was told that this goes on all the time because the Jews" consider themselves above everyone else".So the next person to skip I pushed out of the way.I had another gun put at my head and was told that I was a possiple "terrorist" and could be held for 3 days.I eventuall got the flight but not after making sur that I got the final say.Getting on the plane I shouted that it was a pity hitler didnt have a few more gas chambers.No one sat near me for the flight!!.Seriously I do regret saying this but after 2 weeks of being ignored,ripped off,searched on the street I was pissed off big time.The jews treat the arabs like this,considering themselves above everyone else.Israel is a beautiful country and Iwould whole heartedly recommend it for a holiday if there was peace and the people werw able to treat holiday makers in a civil tone.I never met one Jew who you could treat you in a nice manner.
Israel has the most beautiful beaches,scuba diving and scenery but until its people learn that because they were hard done by this does not give them an excuse to treat everyone else in this manner.
The world is starting to get pissed off with theUS letting them bomb villages where the people(arabs)are friendly,courteous and yet have so little material wealth themselves.

Hobbes

I think we can invoke godwins law now?

ReefBreak

What does the 18 stand for in your name? A.H. perhaps?

All the jewish people I've met were very nice. A (brief) ex-girlfriend was jewish. I travelled with a few in Oz and they were fine. I do accept that a large propertion of them are considered rude, etc. But as Kevin Myers recently noted, if you had 6 million of your brethren murdered during WWII, and were then landed in the middle of a group of nations that absolutely despise you, you'd have a fairly defensive mindset also. Similar to the anti-english mindset that some Irish have as a result of the famine.

Personally, I don't believe half your story (assuming you were ever in Israel at all). Particularly the bit about: "Getting on the plane I shouted that it was a pity hitler didn't have a few more gas chambers". Yeah pal, sure you did. Isn't this type of thing a very serious offence in Israel? Remember the case of the bus driver shouting the "nig-nog" comment in Ireland last year. He got done for incitement to hatred... I do believe they are far more harsh with justice in Israel.

Canaboid

Did anyone read the article on parents of victims in the Sunday Times yesterday ? I can't find it on their website now but I'll check tonight and post a link.
Twas an interesting read. Have a look if you've got the paper lying about.

Victor

Richie, I do think that you are over stepping the line in saying "Israeli" = "Jew". You seem to be one of those people who go out of their way to make trouble for themselves.

You could have just left the money on the counter in the petrol station (you don't say why you didn't).

Yes many Jews are Israeli and vice-versa. But not all are. The problem is not with either of these two general groups, but with more extreme sub-sets within them. That and an extreme sub-set opposing them.

Hellrazer

Sorry reefreck,Just to reply to your last post.Everything I said was true.The incident with the service station is 100% true.It happened just outside a small village called Ashkelon about 20 minutes from Gaza and the only reason I wasnt detained in the airport was because I was already on the way home and had queued for over 12 hours to get on the plane.Surley if you had 6 million of your brethren killed then it would teach you not to treat your enemies with that same kind of hatred.
As for why I didnt leave the money on the counter,the change was equivalent to about 20 irish pounds and I wasnt leaving that as a tip to someone who had ignored me like that.
I did actually apologise in the airport and I do have to say that most of the people I gave out about were American Jews.
I never made any trouble for myself,I was there on a holiday with friends who were working in a well-known high tech manufacturing plant.All of these people had similar experiences during their time there.And if this is thre way they treat holiday makers then Id hate to be an Arab in Israel.I spent most of my time with Arabs because I found them to be more friendly and courteous than any Jew I met while there.
I make no apologies for my previous post because what I saw in Israel is horrendous.The Israelis can even control whether the Gaza strip has water on any given day.The arabs have no indigenous industry due to the fact that they are allowed to have nothing unless Israel says so. THIS IS DISGRACEFUL AND THE UN SHOULD PUT SANCTIONS IN PLACE AGAINST ISRAEL AND/OR BRING THEM TO THE HAGUE FOR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.

Sand

Bonkey afaik the US supports Israel because of the pro israeli lobby in the US. It doesnt make economic sense for them to support Israel in the first place but it came about in a major fashion after the Yom Kippur war when Israel was attacked by its arab neighbours equipped with "modern" soviet weapons paid for by Saudi and Kuwaiti cash (They also cut off oil supplies to try and pressure the US into abandoning Israel). The US supported Israel to try and redress that imbalance.

While the need is not as great now the pro-israeli lobby remains. There is still a need but if Sharon has a choice between losing US support and what he sees as national suicide then hell pick the former.

I see the palestinians actually managed to kill the odd soldier- perhaps the Guardian is as shocked as I am because seems your safest if your an Israeli soldier these days- obviously a case of poor aim as the others they killed that weekend were civillian, 6 of them children at a bar mitzvah. Then again maybe children can be viewed as valid targets for these heroic freedom fighters.

Canaboid

As above here is the link to the Suday Times Article.

http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/article/0,,185-219776,00.html

Its a tad long but very interesting. You may have to register but it takes 2 secs and there is no mail back.

bonkey

Thanks for the "reasons US support Israel" info Sand - appreciated.

I see the palestinians actually managed to kill the odd soldier- perhaps the Guardian is as shocked as I am because seems your safest if your an Israeli soldier these days- obviously a case of poor aim as the others they killed that weekend were civillian, 6 of them children at a bar mitzvah. Then again maybe children can be viewed as valid targets for these heroic freedom fighters.

Now, to be fair, the soldiers were killed by a sniper taking shots at a checkpoint. For once, we have a genuine guerrila tactic being used against "legitimate" targets. While still not an ideal situation, I do find it far less reprehensible than sending a suicide bomber into a bar mitzvah populated mostly with women and children (apparently).

jc

Hobbes

While Richie could learn to get his point across better I would well believe his story.

I can certainly relate similar stories on my trips to the north (I have the pleasure of being Irish with an English accent). Although never had any run in with security forces. Had a gun near point blank pointed at my face one time though (at a border checkpoint) but people tell me that's normal.

Also I don't believe what you met on the border reflects everyone on either side. Each side has it's share of nutters and decent people. You can't equate a group of bad people to a race.

Btw, I had friend who was in Israel during 9/11. When I met him some months later and we were chatting about it I mentioned about Israel invading palistine and blowing up houses on the day of 9/11 (BBC News) and he said it was never reported on TV/paper there.

Clintons cat's quote on the aid is correct. Also recently Israel told the US they wanted more (or they couldn't survive), and the US sent in auditors and then told them to go swing.

I do know of the aid package, subtracting the military part of the budget the rest makes up to 10% of thier countries budget. That's only the aid package, it doesn't include the money recieved by other means (for example, US citizens can offset thier tax by submitting to Israeli charities. Don't know if they can do that for all countries though).

What amazes me is that with so much cash the US has an easy leveraging tool to enforce a peace.

Lastly each side has it fair share of nutters. People who go on about the Palistine side attacking non-military should prehaps take a look at the other side. For example the recent cease fire called was broken when an Israeli solider shot and killed a man trying to get his pregnant wife to a hospital.

bonkey

I know its incidental to the current discussion, but SciAm had an article recently which meantioned that the US implemented a law making it illegal for US companies to sell satellite imagery of Israel to anyone.

I wonder how many other nations would be able to get the US to place such types of restrictions on their own companies. For example - when the US went into Afghanistan, they contacted the US commercial satellite imaging companies and purchased exclusivity for the duration.

I find it funny that the US dont mandate against their own companies selling information about current US military activity, but purchase said images instead, and yet mandate that images of a seperate nation cannot be sold to anyone!

jc

Boston

sands argument is that if you dont take an action with the sole aim of killing non combatants then its ok if you do kill non combatants.

you talk about 6 israli kids killed, what about the two palestinian kids killed in one of isreals tageted assainations. they said it went wrong, the only mistake they made was that the father wasnt in the car(a hamas officer). To the isrealis it is exceptable to kill, w3eman and children if they get there target, so whats the difference between that and what the palestinians are doing. Your arguing that intent plays a part in this situation, it doesnt.

Typedef

Last night I happened across a 'CNN' report on TV that told of how a Hamas leader had been targeted for asassination/execution by the IDF or Israeli army. Anyway this leader was in hiding because he knew an Israeli army death squad was out to kill him and the day before yesterday he had wanted to drive his three children to school, but his wife stopped him saying because of the death squad that she would do the driving.

The Israeli army killed the wife and three children while she was driving those children to school, those people were murdered with a tank shell I believe. A tank shell funded by the American government, in effect it was the American government who murdered that woman and her three children.
What's worse is that the US vindicates this policy of Sharon's, heck it must be obvious by now that there will never be peace for Palestine, because the Israeli government is simply a proxy government for US interests. Instead of colonizing like the imperialists of the 1800's the Americans simply artifically inflate Israel to do their dirty work as a policy of colonization wouldn't swing with the US public.

Of course Israel is being manipulated by the US and it's interests, the example of the irrational imbalance of US support of Israel is endemnafied by the example Hobbes gave of 'Tax breaks' for contributing to Israeli charities and the article Canaboid posted is and apt and ostensibly accurate description of US support for this neo colonialist and totalitarianly religiously supremecist and repressive state that is Israel.

Clearly if American 'military' financial assistance accounts for 10% of the Israeli budget there can be little doubt that Israel is merely a puppet statelette for American foreign policy aims. Clearly the protection of percived Oil interests is the mainstay of American support of Israel, so lets not beat about the bush with the rightness and wrongness of Israeli occupationism, it is an effect of carte blanche American support as without such support the UN would have long ago enforced the will of the international community on Israel.

The stated aim of the Americans for 'reducing our dependance on Middle Eastern Oil' is vauntable and if it brings about a more amicable arrangement with regard to the millions of people of Palestine it should be welcomed, but I have to ask, will the world simply end up facing yet another middle eastern type problem but in some different part of the world because of such a 'relocation' of oil interests?

bonkey

Originally posted by Boston
Your arguing that intent plays a part in this situation, it doesnt.

Of course it does, as it does in any situation.

The Israelis are guilty of killing innocents, but they *tried* to limit themselves to what most would consider a valid target. Yes, it went wrong, but to say that this is the same as walking a bomb into a public gathering and wreaking havoc is ridiculous. In the suicide-bombing actions that the Palestinians take, there isnt even an attempt to target anything except the general populace.

Take a parellel in conventional law...

Run someone over by accident, and its an accident - manslaughter or death by misadventure. Run them over deliberately, and you have comitted murder. Plan to run them over, and then do so, and you have comitted premeditated murder. Plan to run them over, attempt, and fail, but run-over someone else and you have comitted attempted premeditated murder on one party, and probably manslaughter on a second.

You are saying that all of these are essentially the same thing, as intent has no part. Do you really believe that? That there is no distinction between manslaughter, death by misadventure, murder, and premeditated murder? If so, then your beliefs would be at odds with centuries of legal and moral thinking.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Typedef
The Israeli army killed the wife and three children while she was driving those children to school, those people were murdered with a tank shell I believe. A tank shell funded by the American government, in effect it was the American government who murdered that woman and her three children.
What's worse is that the US vindicates this policy of Sharon's,

Why is it worse? The US uses exactly the same tactics. Witness the reported "belief" that some senior Taliban had been killed, because a suspicious group were seen meeting in the hills by a UAV. How did the US respond? By letting rip with the Hellfire FnF missile on said UAV.

You believe you have a valid target, and you take the shot. This is how its done. Sometimes you get it wrong.

Yes, in principle I agree with you on how tragic this is, but in reality, its nothing new, and therefore it is disingenuous for us to be using this as "proof of the atrocities of the Israelis". There are a thousand stories of innocent deaths caused by mistaken identities, incorrect intelligence, and plain human error. This is just another one.

Hyping it beyond that is only undermining the basic argument - that all countries must accept that the current way in which war is waged in unacceptable. The innocent deaths are not an unfortunate necessity of war, except that those waging war dont want to have to take responsibility for their actions.

Witness the changes we have had in warfare in the last century. We have progressed from the millenia-old trench-warfare of WW1 (little changed from the tactics of the Roman empire) to a completely set of new tactics and strategies. About the only thing which hasnt changed is the belief that war will always involve innocent deaths.

And why has this belief not changed? Because the war-mongers dont want us to believe that it can change. But why cant it? Almost every other facet of war has changed in the past century.

From the rape and plundering of medieval times to the "tactical errors" of modern warfare and the deliberate targetting of innocents in terrorism, the face of innocent death has changed drastically, changing to suit the face of war, belying the fact that it is "intrinsic" to war. Hundreds of years ago, innocent people typically died *between* the battles, not during them. They were not killed by accidental arrows leaving the field of play, but rather by the victors enjoying their spoils of war, or before the battle, but the antagonist trying to provoke someone.

As we improved our morality, and condemned "foraging", raping and pillaging by armies, we shifted from these "in-between" deaths to "during" deaths, mostly caused by inaccurate weaponry, combined with the increasing scale of war. No longer do two armies meet on a field - they may fight seperated by huge distances. This increase in distance is the primary factor leading to innocent deaths. The other is the willingness of modern armies to fight in urban surroundings. Buildings give great cover, and remove much of the large equipment from the field - unfortunately, those pesky innocents happen to be in the way. No matter - tell everyone that its unavoidable, and off we go.

So, the Israelis are no guiltier than any other modern nation in the manner in which they carry out their warfare, and are definitely a level above the Palestinians in much of their conduct (but not that much more above them). I personally dont have a major problem with their specific activities, rather than the overall situation which is of their own creation in many respects.

jc

Boston

Originally posted by bonkey


Of course it does, as it does in any situation.

The Israelis are guilty of killing innocents, but they *tried* to limit themselves to what most would consider a valid target. Yes, it went wrong, but to say that this is the same as walking a bomb into a public gathering and wreaking havoc is ridiculous. In the suicide-bombing actions that the Palestinians take, there isnt even an attempt to target anything except the general populace.

It like this, in an military operation, they are told the probability of suggest and the chances of killing innocents. For the isrealis they level of innocent sluaghter is much more excpetable at higher levels, mroe so then most civilized nations.

Im saying that isrealis dont view palestinians as human, and this is why they are will to take such large chances with there lifes.

so the intent makes no difference, its your actions. Isreali troops lunching an attack on a target which is surrounded by innocent people shows just as much contempt and disreguard for human life as a palestianian walking into a shop with a bomb to just kill people.

You talk abo0ut running someone over in your car, tell me this whats the changes of you getting into your car now and killing someone, probably one in 10,000, depending on you.

you dont start shelling a refugee camp and then when some people are killed turn around and say, o sorry were only interested in killing terrorist so this must be clearly an accident, anyway we ordered all non terrorist out of the camp so therefore all those that remained must be terrorists.

Sand

Bonkey pretty much covered what Id have said to Boston and have said in the past several times regarding the difference between deliberate and accidental. One might look at the difference when civillians get killed - The Israelis apologised when that tank hit the car, the palestinians held a street party to celebrate the deaths of the 6 children at the bar mitzvah. Much like the street parties they held to celebrate the civillian deaths in 9/11. Accidental ( Apologise), Deliberate (Celebrate). And one more time Boston, for the Israelis the civillians were not the target - they gain absolutely nothing from their deaths and in fact lose quite alot, for the Palestinians the children *were* the target.


The point you (Bonkey) raised about civillian deaths not occuring during battles in medevil times- that would be a result of the type of warfare then, when armies clashed in set piece battles out in some field a good distance from anywhere. Not to say civillians werent badly treated during these wars, during the hundred years war I belive an English castle threw out its civillians when under seige. The French army wouldnt let them through their lines in case they were hostile, and so the civillians died en masse from disease and starvation.

Hard to say when that (few civillian deaths) changed, air power and bombing raids certainly brought the war to the cities, and nowadays guerilla armies and terrorists and so on attempt to use cities and civillians as cover to negate an enemys advantage, which usually lies in stuff like airpower, armour, artillery etc etc. However civillian casualties have reduced sharply since WW2 etc. Im not aware of the exact figures but I believe that more civillians died in a single night of Allied bombing of german cities than during the afghan war or the gulf war.

Point was made that with so much aid going to Israel that the US has easy leverage to force a peace deal. One qualification is that it can *maybe* force the Israelis to the negotiating table. Second is that it doesnt mean they can force the Palestinians to make peace. Thirdly, if theyre forced the Israelis wont respect even the spirit of any deal.

Typedef

Two brief points, the Palestinian authority (what little aurhority Israel lets it have) is 'not' responsible for the deaths of Israeli civilians, lets not talk of what we know, think we know or suspect, the fact is the Israeli army in it's official capacity as the armed wing of the Israeli state acts in the name of Israel and Ariel Sharon, the same cannot be said for the official Palestinian police for example, that is the difference.
Israel 'retailites' against Palestine for things that are 'not' officially carried out in the name of Palestine and Israel occupies Palestinian land contrary to 'international law' (for those who recognise such a concept).

Secondly I posted the CNN reporting of this particular death because I thought it was entirely out of character for the American media to give such a visable and graphic face to Palestinian suffering. As I'm sure most people are aware in the past it has been reported how Israeli civilian <namex> <n> years old was killed buy a 'suicide bomber', which for me is telling of the distinction draw between Israeli and Palestinian, but watching the report on CNN I found a 'personalisation' of Palestinian suffering and thus a humanisation of the 'enemy' that has been fairly abscent from media coverage of the mid eastern conflict(s).

Also I would make the point that total war a concept developed in the great war is another consequence of human's ever developing technical prowess. It is this concept where whole countries as in the Great War and whole continents like Eurasia during the Second War or if/when the third war breaks out the entire globe become the field of battle. It this concept of 'total war' or shades of the same, that negates somewhat the concept that better technology somehow allows for more targeted civilian deathst. It is the very fact that entire populations can be wiped out during modern warfare that makes anything but war on the level of Korea and Vietnam the only thinkable extremity. War between nuclear capable combatants would invariably be a turning point in the history of the human species and life on this planet. The point being that advanced technology and the ability to 'target attacks' does not mean that such digressions from the usual moral 'ethic' of war take place, more likely the thought of large civilian deaths or the actually act of the same is one of the 'trump cards' of modern warfare.

That is what one can now witness in the Middle East, in effect two combatants murdering each other wholesale and inflicting fairly heavy civilian damage 'be it supposedly unintentional or otherwise' in a ferocious attempt to simply break the will of the other through megadeath.

My difficulty is that as I have said the USA is funding the Israeli incursions carte blanche.

Lemming

Hmmm .. a new low has been reached in this whole sorry debacle.

An Israeli terror group has claimed responsibility for an attempt to kill 400 palestinian children in a primary school with two bombs primed to detonate as they were in the yard before mornign classes. Fortunately the bombs were discovered. The group claimed to be acting in response to the deaths of the children at the bar mitzvah attack.

But in the same article, Ariel Sharon has been quoted with some fairly worryign comments about that there can be no peace until the Palestinians have been hit again and again until they realise that they are wrong to oppose Israel. It also goes on to point out an increasing unhappiness with Sharon's policies and leadership

I read it all in today's "Daily Record" (scottish newspaper - my mum gets it, being a scottish national and whatnot)

Sand

A new low? Where have you been for the last 18 months or so? Palestinians have been planning and carrying out as bad for at least that long. I condemn it utterly but I find it ironic that suddenly people forget that BUT, and actually remember its terror, not "terror".

As for Sharon could you quote what Sharon said please? Because I heard a quote along the lines of Sharon saying they needed to hit the palestinians from several directions at once very hard so that they would learn that terrorism would never work. The quote was repeated in several papers. I dont remeber a quote which replaced the terrorism doesnt work part with opposing Israel doesnt work part.

As for reduced support for Sharon, thats true. He still enjoys something like 54%. Noonan dreams of such support.

Typedef

It is not the place of Ariel Sharon to unilaterally enforce 'law & order' on the Palestinians. It is in fact chillingly laughable to think that Israel a country that has for so long flouted the basic requirements of 'international law' on it with regard to it's occupation of Palestine, is attempting to militarily dictate 'law' and unilaterally enforce it, when the same cannot be said of it's own 54 year transgressions.

I suppose it one set of 'laws' for one set of particularly affluent people who have a massive lobby in the United States and another set of "laws" for those who don't. Where 'laws' = 3 billion dollars of Us aid every year, and "laws" = bombing on your country by F-16 fighters. Though that said maybe you have a point Sand, perhaps the Palestinians and the entire UN are being unreasonable and the US and Israel are the supreme exponents of the 'right way'. Not that I would be suggesting that the occupation has gone much too far and is supressing people who had absolutely nothing to do with the war which started it and even if they had that does not make Israel judge, jury and executioner, but perhaps in the insular pro-Israeli view people can acutally find pause to use logic and fairness and realise the truth of the Middle Eastern conflict. It's not about 'state-terrorism' versus "terrorism", it's not about Jew versus Muslim (that much), it's about (apparently) the US having a strong allay in the region to protect it's oil interests, I don't know if I actually believe that but, still since when have US lobbies and interests been so forceful that 'people' can simply chuck logic into the bin and not objectively evaluate the reality of Israeli 'illegal' occupation annexation and 'ethnic' supremecy?

Lemming

Originally posted by Sand
A new low? Where have you been for the last 18 months or so? Palestinians have been planning and carrying out as bad for at least that long. I condemn it utterly but I find it ironic that suddenly people forget that BUT, and actually remember its terror, not "terror".

I've been here all along thank yiou very much Sand. And yes .. a "new low". A deliberate attempt aimed SPECIFICALLY at the mass murder of children. That to me is a new low. And as things stand, they were pretty low anyway.

As for Sharon could you quote what Sharon said please? Because I heard a quote along the lines of Sharon saying they needed to hit the palestinians from several directions at once very hard so that they would learn that terrorism would never work. The quote was repeated in several papers. I dont remeber a quote which replaced the terrorism doesnt work part with opposing Israel doesnt work part.

I can't make the quote right now since it was yesterday's paper and I don't have it here on me.

bonkey

Originally posted by Lemming
I've been here all along thank yiou very much Sand. And yes .. a "new low". A deliberate attempt aimed SPECIFICALLY at the mass murder of children. That to me is a new low. And as things stand, they were pretty low anyway.

Its a new low for one simple reason. If the allegations are true, the Sharon and the Israeli's have lost whatever moral high ground they ever claimed to have.

Up until now, Israel has justified its actions on the grounds that it limited itself to military, police, and "suspected terrorist" targets. If Israeli's are now resorting to terrorism, then until Sharon quashes that entirely, he has absolutely no moral grounds to dictate "no terrorism" policies to Palestine.

jc

Hobbes

Someone looking for Sharon quotes?

I don't know something called International Principles. I vow that I'll burn every Palestinian Child will be born in this area. The Palestinian Woman and Child is more dangerous than the Man, Because the Palestinian Child existence refers that Generations will go on, but the man causes limited danger. I vow that if I was just an Israeli Civilian and I met a Palestinian I would burn him and I would make him suffer before killing him. With One hit I've killed 750 Palestinians ( in Rafah, 1956). I wanted to encourage my soldiers by raping Arabic Girls as The Palestinian Woman is a slave for Jews, and we do whatever we want to her and Nobody tells us what we shall do but we tell others what they shall do. - Ariel Sharon, In an interview with General Ouze Merham, 1956

Jordan is a part from Eretz Israel in history. -Ariel Sharon, When he became the Prime minister, 2000.

At this point, a furious Sharon reportedly turned toward Peres, saying "every time we do something you tell me Americans will do this and will do that. I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it." - 3 October, 2001 on Israel radio station when told that Israels actions would turn the US against them

more quotes here