Security Fence SAVES LIVES! [Archive]

Gilgamesh

01-22-2004, 09:07 AM

Originally posted by Dyeus
Why dont we just give them Gaza and West-bank but with the exception that Hamas is seen as a Palastenian Armed Force so after the "resurection" of a Palastenian State any suicide attack claimed by Hamas would be an act of war wich means that we have the right to go in to those areas and reclaim control and maybe this time we should make it officialy Israeli territory: problem solved

Not that simple.

Lebanono and Syria attack as periodicly... yet we do not declare war on them...

It is internationaly difficult to declare war to inhibbit the activities of a terror organization. Having a right and being able to excersize it freely are two different things.

Israel will be much more open to boycott or even embargo or neval blockade, if Israel will invade a sovereign state.

Also, having establish a full sovereignity, means several rights we can't agree with, rights under international law which will surly make life immpossible in Israel:

The PA state will be able to "invite" allied armies to settle in, Iranian, Syrian, Egyption, European or all of them togather... as a staging point for war... Israel situation will be much worse of. Israel will find it much harder to defend ourselves against terrorism or even full scale war. We will win, no dought here, yet the price in blood will be heavy.

Sovereignity means full control over harbours, which means advance European weapons, tanks artillary and missiles, warplanes ect... which will needlessly endanger many civilians lives.

Water... The arabs will gain control over water underground resovure. Can't live with it.

Rights of flight and reaction times. If israel will not be able to fly above PA soveriegn territory it will be immpossible for Israel to defend her self from invading war planes. In the narrow most points between Israel and the PA, like near Natanya, the distance is about 5 miles between the PA and the sea. An enemy bomber can cross it in less time then the time our SAM batteries can respond.

In case of invasion, the PA can and will cut Israel into three or four pieces, and put a siege over Jerusalem. No one will come in our rescue, but planty of foreiners will complain how crule and evil we Israelis once we will win the war, and thousands of Arab terrorist will die. Either way, it will cost us many many lives.

Palestinian state? Nocando! sorry!

What is about to happen, BTW, is dividing the Arabs into independent Kantons, each with full soverienity in all CIVILIAN issues: Education, food, labor, health, sweage and police. No army, no full statehood, no foreign affairs, no heavy weapons... Self rule, yes but no means to choose war.

Oh Jerusalem

01-22-2004, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by Ahava
Soz..
Because it is illegal to build it on occupied land.
Another reference link (http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/myths/mf22a.html) for you.
And it seems to isolate Palestinians.
We are once again in a defensive war. Why should I give a damn? Tell the poor Palestinians to protest in front of the Mukata that Arafat and his henchmen have caused nothing but grievious harm to his own people.
Is it less secure when it would be built on the '67 borders? or at least not that far into the territories.
Qucik quiz question for you: what percentage of Judea and Samaria are on the Israeli side of the security fence?

Gilgamesh

01-22-2004, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by Dyeus
Wasn't the US that stopped the march to Cairo?

It was in 1973, Yom Kippur war, and it wasn't only the US.

General Ariel Sharon's division, encircled the Egyption 3rd Army stationed on the south-western bank of the Suetz channel.

The soviets were deeply humiliated, and threatened full invasion to Israel. Nuclear armed, soviet battlecrusier was steaming in Haifa direction accompanied with several destroyers.

The US started the air lift of weapons to Israel so to single a message that invading Israel will start WWIII.

Then the Americans and the Soviets agreed on enforcing a cesefire, which allowed the Egyption 3rd Army to escape the encirclement. After three weeks of war, on the Egyption border, Israel reached a stale mate that lasted few monthes more, while we hold large portion of African soil in the western side of the Suetz Channel.

Oh Jerusalem

01-22-2004, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by Dyeus
Wasn't the US that stopped the march to Cairo?
I fail to understand the relevance.

Are you referring to the 6 Day War? What march to Cairo?

Dyeus

01-22-2004, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by Gilgamesh
Not that simple.

Lebanono and Syria attack as periodicly... yet we do not declare war on them...

It is internationaly difficult to declare war to inhibbit the activities of a terror organization. Having a right and being able to excersize it freely are two different things.

Israel will be much more open to boycott or even embargo or neval blockade, if Israel will invade a sovereign state.

Also, having establish a full sovereignity, means several rights we can't agree with, rights under international law which will surly make life immpossible in Israel:

The PA state will be able to "invite" allied armies to settle in, Iranian, Syrian, Egyption, European or all of them togather... as a staging point for war... Israel situation will be much worse of. Israel will find it much harder to defend ourselves against terrorism or even full scale war. We will win, no dought here, yet the price in blood will be heavy.

Sovereignity means full control over harbours, which means advance European weapons, tanks artillary and missiles, warplanes ect... which will needlessly endanger many civilians lives.

Water... The arabs will gain control over water underground resovure. Can't live with it.

Rights of flight and reaction times. If israel will not be able to fly above PA soveriegn territory it will be immpossible for Israel to defend her self from invading war planes. In the narrow most points between Israel and the PA, like near Natanya, the distance is about 5 miles between the PA and the sea. An enemy bomber can cross it in less time then the time our SAM batteries can respond.

In case of invasion, the PA can and will cut Israel into three or four pieces, and put a siege over Jerusalem. No one will come in our rescue, but planty of foreiners will complain how crule and evil we Israelis once we will win the war, and thousands of Arab terrorist will die. Either way, it will cost us many many lives.

Palestinian state? Nocando! sorry!

What is about to happen, BTW, is dividing the Arabs into independent Kantons, each with full soverienity in all CIVILIAN issues: Education, food, labor, health, sweage and police. No army, no full statehood, no foreign affairs, no heavy weapons... Self rule, yes but no means to choose war.

Why would one allow or accept a autonom land? I am more a whole or nothing person :D I dont believe peace will ever be an option aslong as Palastenians want or have their own state.... (and no that does not contradict with what I said earlier ;) )

Ahava

01-22-2004, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
Another reference link (http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/myths/mf22a.html) for you.

We are once again in a defensive war. Why should I give a damn? Tell the poor Palestinians to protest in front of the Mukata that Arafat and his henchmen have caused nothing but grievious harm to his own people.

Qucik quiz question for you: what percentage of Judea and Samaria are on the Israeli side of the security fence?

Despite your link, :) , "Judea and Samaria" are not from Israel and therefore it isn't legal to build a wall, sorry, fence, there.

I don't know percentages, but on the map it looks pretty deep into the territories http://www.vpro.nl/info/tegenlicht/demuur/index.html
(hope the link works).

Dyeus

01-22-2004, 09:47 AM

Originally posted by Gilgamesh
It was in 1973, Yom Kippur war, and it wasn't only the US.

General Ariel Sharon's division, encircled the Egyption 3rd Army stationed on the south-western bank of the Suetz channel.

The soviets were deeply humiliated, and threatened full invasion to Israel. Nuclear armed, soviet battlecrusier was steaming in Haifa direction accompanied with several destroyers.

The US started the air lift of weapons to Israel so to single a message that invading Israel will start WWIII.

Then the Americans and the Soviets agreed on enforcing a cesefire, which allowed the Egyption 3rd Army to escape the encirclement. After three weeks of war, on the Egyption border, Israel reached a stale mate that lasted few monthes more, while we hold large portion of African soil in the western side of the Suetz Channel.

that was what I ment :) thank you for your history lesson

I fail to understand the relevance.

I sense some hostilety :D it had maybe nothing to do with the topic more with what u said earlier and I quote

Believe me they'll keep on saying it.

Did anyone come to our aid in '67? Other than the US, and that was a half hearted effort.

Gilgamesh

01-22-2004, 09:55 AM

Originally posted by Ahava
Despite your link, :) , "Judea and Samaria" are not from Israel and therefore it isn't legal to build a wall, sorry, fence, there.

I don't know percentages, but on the map it looks pretty deep into the territories http://www.vpro.nl/info/tegenlicht/demuur/index.html
(hope the link works).

If you will accept the reasons why Jerusalem belongs to us Jews an no one else, you will understand the rest, even the entire ideas of Zionism vs. Islamism. The war over Jerusalem encapsulate the entire issue.

The fence basicly annexes entire Jerusalem to her only rightful owners, Israelis, Jews.

quarter of a million Jews live in east Jerusalem and her suberbs, beyoned the 1948 cease fire line, the so called "green line". They live there since 1967... there is no reason to ethincly cleansing them. The Arabs, do demand on athinc cleansing as a precondition for peace talks.

Oh Jerusalem

01-22-2004, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by Ahava
Despite your link, :) , "Judea and Samaria" are not from Israel and therefore it isn't legal to build a wall, sorry, fence, there.
Are you an international treaty lawyer? Care to explain your conclusion to us?
I don't know percentages, but on the map it looks pretty deep into the territories http://www.vpro.nl/info/tegenlicht/demuur/index.html
(hope the link works).
Sorry. I don't speak Dutch and the map is very vague.

Here's an exact route (http://securityfence.mfa.gov.il/mfm/Web/Main/pic.asp?pic=45880.jpg) of the fence. It envelopes about 15% of Judea and Samaria.

Here's the MFA's Legal Aspects page (http://securityfence.mfa.gov.il/mfm/web/main/document.asp?SubjectID=45665&MissionID=45187&LanguageID=0&StatusID=0&DocumentID=-1) regarding the fence.

Here's the MFA's Legal Staus page (http://securityfence.mfa.gov.il/mfm/web/main/Document.asp?SubjectID=45870&MissionID=45187&LanguageID=0&StatusID=3&DocumentID=-1) regarding Judea and Samaria.

Ahava

01-22-2004, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
Are you an international treaty lawyer? Care to explain your conclusion to us?

No, I'm not, but some others are, http://www.nlg.org/news/articles/wall.htm
Amnesty isn't happy either, http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE150992003?open&of=ENG-ISR

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem

Sorry. I don't speak Dutch and the map is very vague.

They basically say "The building of the wall (or 'security fence') has a big impact on the life of Palestinians in the Westbank."

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem

Here's an exact route (http://securityfence.mfa.gov.il/mfm/Web/Main/pic.asp?pic=45880.jpg) of the fence. It envelopes about 15% of Judea and Samaria.

Here's the MFA's Legal Aspects page (http://securityfence.mfa.gov.il/mfm/web/main/document.asp?SubjectID=45665&MissionID=45187&LanguageID=0&StatusID=0&DocumentID=-1) regarding the fence.

Here's the MFA's Legal Staus page (http://securityfence.mfa.gov.il/mfm/web/main/Document.asp?SubjectID=45870&MissionID=45187&LanguageID=0&StatusID=3&DocumentID=-1) regarding Judea and Samaria.

"As the West Bank and Gaza Strip were not under the legitimate and recognized sovereignty of any state prior to the Six Day War, they should not be considered occupied territories."

That may be, but in practice, it is occupied. you can't call it free.

Ahava

01-22-2004, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by Gilgamesh
If you will accept the reasons why Jerusalem belongs to us Jews an no one else, you will understand the rest, even the entire ideas of Zionism vs. Islamism. The war over Jerusalem encapsulate the entire issue.

The fence basicly annexes entire Jerusalem to her only rightful owners, Israelis, Jews.

quarter of a million Jews live in east Jerusalem and her suberbs, beyoned the 1948 cease fire line, the so called "green line". They live there since 1967... there is no reason to ethincly cleansing them. The Arabs, do demand on athinc cleansing as a precondition for peace talks.

Jerusalem to me, is something else than the Westbank. You say the fence is built to annex Jerusalem? Exactly what opponents suspect and what they accuse Israel of. There's no reason to ethnically cleanse J'lem, but should it be ethnically cleansed of Arabs? No.

Mediocrates

01-22-2004, 12:47 PM

They basically say "The building of the wall (or 'security fence') has a big impact on the life of Palestinians in the Westbank."

Exploding buses has a big impact on the life of Israelis in Israel and YESHA. I'm sure that if the PLO could detonate their wepons somewhere else, like say, Ramallah, the Ross Ice Shelf or the Moon the Israelis would be open to moving the Fence.

Ahava

01-22-2004, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Exploding buses has a big impact on the life of Israelis in Israel and YESHA. I'm sure that if the PLO could detonate their wepons somewhere else, like say, Ramallah, the Ross Ice Shelf or the Moon the Israelis would be open to moving the Fence.

I know. The link I gave, is from a broadcast company that's known to be leftish, they broadcasted a documentary about "The Israeli wall" (that was the title) and also the documentary made by Yoav Shamir called "Checkpoint" and there's a forum going on about these programmes where I'm also active(http://react.vpro.nl/tegenlicht/forum/list_topics/17 and http://react.vpro.nl/tegenlicht/forum/list_topics/15 , for anyone who speaks Dutch or wants to plump down a message in english :D ).

Gilgamesh

01-22-2004, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by Ahava
Jerusalem to me, is something else than the Westbank. You say the fence is built to annex Jerusalem? Exactly what opponents suspect and what they accuse Israel of. There's no reason to ethnically cleanse J'lem, but should it be ethnically cleansed of Arabs? No.

Jerusalem is ours, and yet no Arabs are ethincly cleansed from the city. The city grows as more and more Jews live in the city and her surounded suberbs.

One of the names for Jerusalem is Zion, hence the name Zionism of Israel national movement for national restoration.

Israel opponent want all the territories liberated since the six day war become ethincaly cleansed from all Jews. Also, and this is the true centre of the dabte, is the ownership of Jerusalem.

We demand Jerusalem to stay ours whole, this is the very heart and reason for Zionism. If we Jews willingly ceade over Jerusalem, we strip Zionism from it moral reasoning. As a Zionist, I'm willing to ceade over all of Israel BUT Jerusalem.

In 1948, we have faild to liberate eastern part of Jerusalem and the city was occupayed by the Arab legion of Jorden. Many Jews who lived in Jerusalem for the enire period of the diaspora, for 3,000 years straigt, were forced out and expaled. The city was liberated in the six days war, after a night and a day of bitter fighting which costed us many many lives. That important was Jerusalem to us!

The green line does go through Jerusalem, and the fence will encircle the entire city and not divide it. The Arab loose.

Ahava

01-22-2004, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by Gilgamesh
Jerusalem is ours, and yet no Arabs are ethincly cleansed from the city. The city grows as more and more Jews live in the city and her surounded suberbs.

Do you want to expel the Arabs out of Jerusalem then?

Originally posted by Gilgamesh

One of the names for Jerusalem is Zion, hence the name Zionism of Israel national movement for national restoration.

Israel opponent want all the territories liberated since the six day war become ethincaly cleansed from all Jews. Also, and this is the true centre of the dabte, is the ownership of Jerusalem.

We demand Jerusalem to stay ours whole, this is the very heart and reason for Zionism. If we Jews willingly ceade over Jerusalem, we strip Zionism from it moral reasoning. As a Zionist, I'm willing to ceade over all of Israel BUT Jerusalem.

Who's "we"? There are a lot of Jews who are willing to divide it, to give the Arabs some of East-J'lem. Even the Temple Mount.

Originally posted by Gilgamesh

In 1948, we have faild to liberate eastern part of Jerusalem and the city was occupayed by the Arab legion of Jorden. Many Jews who lived in Jerusalem for the enire period of the diaspora, for 3,000 years straigt, were forced out and expaled. The city was liberated in the six days war, after a night and a day of bitter fighting which costed us many many lives. That important was Jerusalem to us!

The green line does go through Jerusalem, and the fence will encircle the entire city and not divide it. The Arab loose.

I want entire jerusalem to stay Jewish/from Israel. But what I said, westbank is another story, the fence cuts deep in a lot of other places too, Palestinians have no access to their land, their work etc.

Gilgamesh

01-22-2004, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by Ahava
"As the West Bank and Gaza Strip were not under the legitimate and recognized sovereignty of any state prior to the Six Day War, they should not be considered occupied territories."

That may be, but in practice, it is occupied. you can't call it free. In practice, We Israelis are fully entitled to annex the entire territories, under the international law. We already annexed parts of it.

Empty land is not occupayed. much of the settlements were built on empty land.

Private land that changed hands through legal purchas is not occupation. Settlements that were not built on empty land, are built on private land. So what "occupation", are we talking about?

The WB was ileagaly occupayed by Jorden in 1948, liberated in 1967, and ceaded following our peace treaty with Jorden, in 1994. Then who owned the land? So what "occupation", are we talking about?

The so called "Palestinians" are not a seperate nation, they never were, they are Arabs exactly thesame as Jordenians, Egyptions or syrians. Many even speak the corasponding accents and have family relations and family history that started in these arab nations. The "Palestinians" never demanded sovereignity before the 70's. They were after, BTW, destroying Israel. So what "occupation", are we talking about?

since the "Palesinians" never owned a land, a "national homeland", they can not claim that we have taken land that wasn't theres on the first place. So what "occupation", are we talking about?

We did liberated the WB and Gaza, yet Egypt in 1979 and Jorden in 1994 ceaded demands for these lands. So what "occupation", are we talking about?

We do offer the Arabs living in several large population centers self rule in all civilian matters. That is what the PA means. Self rule on civilians matters.

So what "occupation", are we talking about?

Ahava

01-22-2004, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by Gilgamesh
In practice, We Israelis are fully entitled to annex the entire territories, under the international law. We already annexed parts of it.

Empty land is not occupayed. much of the settlements were built on empty land.

I won't talk about the legal aspects now in detail, but I assume that even if it's no man's land, still Israel has no right to annex it? Plus, with peace talk and the Palestinian aspiration for a state, it wouldn't be good.

Originally posted by Gilgamesh

Private land that changed hands through legal purchas is not occupation. Settlements that were not built on empty land, are built on private land. So what "occupation", are we talking about?

The WB was ileagaly occupayed by Jorden in 1948, liberated in 1967, and ceaded following our peace treaty with Jorden, in 1994. Then who owned the land? So what "occupation", are we talking about?

If it was illegal for Jordan to occupy it, then it's illegal for Israel too. Right?

Originally posted by Gilgamesh

The so called "Palestinians" are not a seperate nation, they never were, they are Arabs exactly thesame as Jordenians, Egyptions or syrians. Many even speak the corasponding accents and have family relations and family history that started in these arab nations. The "Palestinians" never demanded sovereignity before the 70's. They were after, BTW, destroying Israel. So what "occupation", are we talking about?

since the "Palesinians" never owned a land, a "national homeland", they can not claim that we have taken land that wasn't theres on the first place. So what "occupation", are we talking about?

We did liberated the WB and Gaza, yet Egypt in 1979 and Jorden in 1994 ceaded demands for these lands. So what "occupation", are we talking about?

We do offer the Arabs living in several large population centers self rule in all civilian matters. That is what the PA means. Self rule on civilians matters.

So what "occupation", are we talking about?

Occupation as in the daily life of a Palestinian. A palestinian isn't free, there are tanks, Israeli soldiers, checkpoints, settlements and all sorts of restrictions. They don't care if it's occupied conform international law, they care that they are occupied by Israel practically speaking.
I didn't say "occupied palestine", just occupied.

Gilgamesh

01-22-2004, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by Ahava
Do you want to expel the Arabs out of Jerusalem then? No! Unless they wish to leave by their own free will...

Who's "we"? There are a lot of Jews who are willing to divide it, to give the Arabs some of East-J'lem. Even the Temple Mount. True! They are not real zionists, and they are a minority, as the last elections have proven. The zionist right hold 3/4 of the seats in the Knesset.

I want entire jerusalem to stay Jewish/from Israel. But what I said, westbank is another story, the fence cuts deep in a lot of other places too, Palestinians have no access to their land, their work etc. Again, the true debate in on Jerusalem, the "deep cuts" are camoflage.

Yet, if I'd adress that problem spacificly:
1. We have rights for the land and rights for the settlements.
2. we have the right of self defence, which the fence is part of it.
3. In most cases, the Arabs are compansated for lost lands with lots and lots of money. But no one will tell you that on the news...
4. Arabs do not have a right of free travel into Israel from the WB, because it isn't their country. They do have free travel to any other Arab country which Jews don't have (freedom of travel).
5. Part of the self defence is holding key positions, mountains or valleys, which must stay within our territory. We call it stratigic depth. the narrowest point between the sea and the green line in 5 miles. (9km), in Natania. Israel has several bottle necks like that, with the modern weapons in existance all of Israeli population centers like Tel Aviv, will be highly endangered. we can not allow that. We must have a statigic depth. Also we must prevent enemy army to cross the Jorden valley, so we must sustain defensive lines on the Jorden valley instead in Natanya, Kfar Saba and Tel Aviv. We just can't defend our cities without adacuate stratigic depth.

Ahava

01-22-2004, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by Gilgamesh
No! Unless they wish to leave by their own free will...

[/b] True! They are not real zionists, and they are a minority, as the last elections have proven. The zionist right hold 2/3 of the seats in the Knesset. [/B]

I beg to differ. IMHO, you can be a zionist who's willing to make far-reaching concessions for peace.

Originally posted by Gilgamesh

Again, the true debate in on Jerusalem, the "deep cuts" are camoflage.

Yet, if I'd adress that problem spacificly:
1. We have rights for the land and rights for the settlements.
2. we have the right of self defence, which the fence is part of it.
3. In most cases, the Arabs are compansated for lost lands with lots and lots of money. But no one will tell you that on the news...
4. Arabs do not have a right of free travel into Israel from the WB, because it isn't their country. They do have free travel to any other Arab country which Jews don't have (freedom of travel).
5. Part of the self defence is holding key positions, mountains or valleys, which must stay within our territory. We call it stratigic depth. the narrowest point between the sea and the green line in 5 miles. (9km), in Natania. Israel has several bottle necks like that, with the modern weapons in existance all of Israeli population centers like Tel Aviv, will be highly endangered. we can not allow that. We must have a statigic depth. Also we must prevent enemy army to cross the Jorden valley, so we must sustain defensive lines on the Jorden valley instead in Natanya, Kfar Saba and Tel Aviv. We just can't defend our cities without adacuate stratigic depth.

1.not everyone thinks that, in fact, a lot of people don't.
2.I completely agree
3.You're right, not on the news, but I knew it. ;)
4.why? Belgium is not my country, yet I have freedom to travel there.
5.Alright. Like The Golan Height, right?
I have a question that may sound weird, but do you happen to know if on the square "Kikar Ha'atsmaut" in Netanya is a sort of jumping cushion in the shape of a panda bear? :D There used to be..

Gilgamesh

01-22-2004, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by Ahava
I won't talk about the legal aspects now in detail, but I assume that even if it's no man's land, still Israel has no right to annex it? Why is that? This is Jewish land, always was, always will, even in times Most Jews lived in diaspora.

The "occupayed territories" belong to us for thesame reasons Jews have a right for the rest of Israel, only more strongly.

Jews have a right for the land of Israel because of 1. History, 2. culture 3. religion, bible, G_d's promise to us 4. Continious recorded Jewish life in main cities and villiages in Gaza and WB, for the last 3,000 years, untill Jews were enthincly cleansed by the Arabs following the war of independence, in 1948.

Judea and Samria are the very heartlands of anciant Israel and Judea. There is no reason for Jews to conceade these lands for our own free will.

Plus, with peace talk and the Palestinian aspiration for a state, it wouldn't be good. What peace talks? There are no peace talks! There is Arab terrorism and our fight against Arab terrorism. Arab aspirations include east Jerusalem on firt phase and the rest of Israel on later phases. So the talk about the PA borders are irrelevent.

If it was illegal for Jordan to occupy it, then it's illegal for Israel too. Right? Wrong! 29/11/1947 UN resolution 181 was the creation of the state of Israel, and another Arab state of "palestain". Transe-Jorden border was set the Jorden river. Transe-Jorden ignored and denyed by action the UN resolution, by occupaying the WB. Arab leadership resisted resolution 181 for the creation of two state solution, by this they ceaded they demand for their own portion as well. Israel, is the only country authories by the UN resolution, to hold this lands.
181 UN resolution was not an suggestion, like other UN resolutions (like 193, 243 and 338), but of an abiding nature.

Occupation as in the daily life of a Palestinian. A palestinian isn't free, there are tanks, Israeli soldiers, checkpoints, settlements and all sorts of restrictions. They don't care if it's occupied conform international law, they care that they are occupied by Israel practically speaking.
I didn't say "occupied palestine", just occupied. I break in tears for the fate of the poor poor Arab... :rolleyes:

There were no cheack points, fences, wires, soldiers, tanks, 3 years ago. They came to be as a reaction to Arab terrorism. No terrorism-no tanks. There is terrorism, there will be tanks. As simpe as that. Action and reaction. Terrorism, and IDF soldiers fighting off terrorism.

Since no terrorist carries a flag saying, "I'm your terrorist for the day, have a pleasent bus ride", we must stop and cheack every Arab we see. That's what the cheack points and them moving restriction are for.

But since Euroepans are so worried about Arabs, I do suggest your goverments will allow more Arabs to settle in, and escape the warzone, at least for a little while...

Gilgamesh

01-22-2004, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by Ahava
I beg to differ. IMHO, you can be a zionist who's willing to make far-reaching concessions for peace. A complicate issue... let's leave it, for now.

1.not everyone thinks that, in fact, a lot of people don't. More Jews thinks like me, and the Israeli elected goverment now in place. [/quote][/b]
4.why? Belgium is not my country, yet I have freedom to travel there. AFIK, at the moment Holland is not at war with you. Secondly, Myself, Americans or Chinees citizens will be questioned and delayed for some time both in Holland and Belguim. I'm quite sure I need a visa to enter Europe.

5.Alright. Like The Golan Height, right? Right, and east Jerusalem and her suberbs.

I have a question that may sound weird, but do you happen to know if on the square "Kikar Ha'atsmaut" in Netanya is a sort of jumping cushion in the shape of a panda bear? :D There used to be.. I see you've been in Israel lately :D Good !!!

I'm sorry, I hadn't been in Natanya as late.

Ahava

01-22-2004, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by Gilgamesh
Why is that? This is Jewish land, always was, always will, even in times Most Jews lived in diaspora.

The "occupayed territories" belong to us for thesame reasons Jews have a right for the rest of Israel, only more strongly.

Jews have a right for the land of Israel because of 1. History, 2. culture 3. religion, bible, G_d's promise to us 4. Continious recorded Jewish life in main cities and villiages in Gaza and WB, for the last 3,000 years, untill Jews were enthincly cleansed by the Arabs following the war of independence, in 1948.
[/B]

Only reason 4 MAY apply, but it sets in no way an international claim on the parts of land. It doesn't belong to israel under international law.

Originally posted by Gilgamesh

Judea and Samria are the very heartlands of anciant Israel and Judea. There is no reason for Jews to conceade these lands for our own free will.

What peace talks? There are no peace talks! There is Arab terrorism and our fight against Arab terrorism. Arab aspirations include east Jerusalem on firt phase and the rest of Israel on later phases. So the talk about the PA borders are irrelevent.
[/B]

At the moment there are no peace talks, but peace talks in the past and future. The establishment of a palestinian state is what they're aimed at. Palestinians and a lot of other people see settlements as THE obstacle to peace.

Originally posted by Gilgamesh

Wrong! 29/11/1947 UN resolution 181 was the creation of the state of Israel, and another Arab state of "palestain". Transe-Jorden border was set the Jorden river. Transe-Jorden ignored and denyed by action the UN resolution, by occupaying the WB. Arab leadership resisted resolution 181 for the creation of two state solution, by this they ceaded they demand for their own portion as well. Israel, is the only country authories by the UN resolution, to hold this lands.
181 UN resolution was not an suggestion, like other UN resolutions (like 193, 243 and 338), but of an abiding nature. [/B]

Did the resolution say "in case the Arabs don't establish their state on the part that they got according the partition plan, Israel is allowed to grab it"? Israel is more justified in conquering and keeping the territories in that it was an agressive war of Jordan, and a defensive one for Israel.

Originally posted by Gilgamesh

I break in tears for the fate of the poor poor Arab... :rolleyes:

There were no cheack points, fences, wires, soldiers, tanks, 3 years ago. They came to be as a reaction to Arab terrorism. No terrorism-no tanks. There is terrorism, there will be tanks. As simpe as that. Action and reaction. Terrorism, and IDF soldiers fighting off terrorism.

Since no terrorist carries a flag saying, "I'm your terrorist for the day, have a pleasent bus ride", we must stop and cheack every Arab we see. That's what the cheack points and them moving restriction are for.

But since Euroepans are so worried about Arabs, I do suggest your goverments will allow more Arabs to settle in, and escape the warzone, at least for a little while... [/B]

I didn't expect to break in tears for them, no. :rolleyes: But you could at least try to have a little understanding for them and their lives. Not all of them are terrorists, you know. Not all of them deserved what they're getting now. About checkpoints, I don't know if you ever served there, but if you do, I hope you treat the Palestinians with a little respect and not as animals, that's the least you can do.

Ahava

01-22-2004, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by Gilgamesh
A complicate issue... let's leave it, for now. [/B]

Alright. I'm glad you don't dismiss it at once.

Originally posted by Gilgamesh
More Jews thinks like me, and the Israeli elected goverment now in place.

AFIK, at the moment Holland is not at war with you. Secondly, Myself, Americans or Chinees citizens will be questioned and delayed for some time both in Holland and Belguim. I'm quite sure I need a visa to enter Europe. [/B]

That's right. It's a weird situation anyway, Palestinians working in israel, going to the hospital in israel. It's just not nice for them to be waiting for sometimes hours.

Originally posted by Gilgamesh
Right, and east Jerusalem and her suberbs.

I see you've been in Israel lately :D Good !!!

I'm sorry, I hadn't been in Natanya as late. [/B]

Yes, well it's longer ago now, but I'm planning to go to Israel this spring, hopefully.

Gilgamesh

01-22-2004, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by Ahava
Only reason 4 MAY apply, but it sets in no way an international claim on the parts of land. It doesn't belong to israel under international law. Jews have a right of self determination, national sovereignity. The only logical place, more place for us to restore our sovereignity is on the land of our forefathers. [u]Any other place will be in deed imperialistic occupation.

If the intenational law does support our claim (and it does support our claim for sovereignity and self determination), then the law is wrong, immoral and must be resisted.

Any law is legitimate only if it is moral, logical and aplicable.

[b]At the moment there are no peace talks, but peace talks in the past and future. The establishment of a palestinian state is what they're aimed at. Palestinians and a lot of other people see settlements as THE obstacle to peace. Once the peace talks will continue, a better, more feasble solution should be found.

Israel is more justified in conquering and keeping the territories in that it was an agressive war of Jordan, and a defensive one for Israel. You are perfectly right! I missed that argument and it is crusal!

I didn't expect to break in tears for them, no. :rolleyes: But you could at least try to have a little understanding for them and their lives. Sorry, I don't!
I'm not feeling pity for crimminals sitting in jail for the crime they did. I'm not feeling sorry for German civilians killed in allied bombings of WWII, and I don't feel sorry for the Arabs who suffer because the support terrorism. Had there been no terrorism, there was no sufferings! Action and reaction. Please rememeber that!

Not all of them are terrorists, you know. Not all of them deserved what they're getting now. Can you tell the difference between civilians and terrorists? Terrorist hide among civilians exactly becauese of that, exploiting humanitarian easings to mass murder more. Using elderly to transfare and collect intel, using children school bags to move weapons, ambulances to move explosive belts and terrorists...

Arab civilians don't do enough (and quite often fully and willingly collaborate with the terrorists). A civilians might become a terrorist as soon as he/ she finds a weapons... even a knife or a hand granade....

There is a collective responsibilty, and collective participance of all Arabs in terrorism, in one degree or another. The mobilized their population against us, ilegaly indoctrinate small children to become child soldiers and terrorists... Their society is sick, we have to pity ourselves first, before piting others for their mistakes and whickedness.

About checkpoints, I don't know if you ever served there, but if you do, I hope you treat the Palestinians with a little respect and not as animals, that's the least you can do. I don't do checkpoints. I don't think the soldiers are animales. I do know most soldiers treat most Arabs with respect.
Of course, there will always be the firinge, extrem and wired stories the media like so much... after all, that's what makes the reporters living... No Arabs died in a checkpoint or suffered really. Most stories are blown out of proportions.

Gilgamesh

01-22-2004, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by Ahava
That's right. It's a weird situation anyway, Palestinians working in israel, going to the hospital in israel. It's just not nice for them to be waiting for sometimes hours. If I had it my way, no Arab would've passed, for any reasons. There are jobs and hospitals in Jorden and Egypt. If not, it's Arab internal problem. then there will ne no ques and no waiting... none should pass!

since they wait, they should put the blame on the right people. They should blame the terrorists and their own leadership. No us, for trying to defend oursleves. Again, you cannot tell a terrorist from other civilians, unless you check and double check, and this process takes time!

Yes, well it's longer ago now, but I'm planning to go to Israel this spring, hopefully. I'm glad to hear that! Enjoy yourself, give me a call!

Ahava

01-22-2004, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by Gilgamesh
Jews have a right of self determination, national sovereignity. The only logical place, more place for us to restore our sovereignity is on the land of our forefathers. [u]Any other place will be in deed imperialistic occupation.

If the intenational law does support our claim (and it does support our claim for sovereignity and self determination), then the law is wrong, immoral and must be resisted.

Any law is legitimate only if it is moral, logical and aplicable.

Jews have those rights, and int.law gives that right, but it doesn't give the right over the Westbank. International law isn't based on religious claims, and that's perfectly logical as not everyone has a/the same religion. Understandably, palestinians are not impressed by the biblical jewish claim on Judea and Samaria, for them it's just the place they live/used to live.

Originally posted by Gilgamesh

Once the peace talks will continue, a better, more feasble solution should be found.

You are perfectly right! I missed that argument and it is crusal!

[/b] Sorry, I don't!
I'm not feeling pity for crimminals sitting in jail for the crime they did. I'm not feeling sorry for German civilians killed in allied bombings of WWII, and I don't feel sorry for the Arabs who suffer because the support terrorism. Had there been no terrorism, there was no sufferings! Action and reaction. Please rememeber that!

[/b] Can you tell the difference between civilians and terrorists? Terrorist hide among civilians exactly becauese of that, exploiting humanitarian easings to mass murder more. Using elderly to transfare and collect intel, using children school bags to move weapons, ambulances to move explosive belts and terrorists...

Arab civilians don't do enough (and quite often fully and willingly collaborate with the terrorists). A civilians might become a terrorist as soon as he/ she finds a weapons... even a knife or a hand granade....

There is a collective responsibilty, and collective participance of all Arabs in terrorism, in one degree or another. The mobilized their population against us, ilegaly indoctrinate small children to become child soldiers and terrorists... Their society is sick, we have to pity ourselves first, before piting others for their mistakes and whickedness. [/B]

Even if 80% would support terrorism, still 20% don't. What can an individual do in a regime like that from the PA? They have to fear their life if they'd speak out against terrorism, and it's probably easier for them to keep quiet anyway, as they're confronted with mild oppression every day, while they haven't done anything yet. And, as you mention yourself, the inciting propaganda, that's a real problem.

Originally posted by Gilgamesh

I don't do checkpoints. I don't think the soldiers are animales. I do know most soldiers treat most Arabs with respect.
Of course, there will always be the firinge, extrem and wired stories the media like so much... after all, that's what makes the reporters living... No Arabs died in a checkpoint or suffered really. Most stories are blown out of proportions. [/B]

No, i meant that the soldiers don't treat the Palestinians like animals, like in the docu I mentioned, there was 1 soldier who said "they're not human, we're human, they're animals". And some were treated in a very unfair way, like all of a sudden they're not allowed to go through the checkpoint.
I hope you're right, that most soldiers treat Palestinians with respect. I want to believe you, and i want to think positive about the often good-looking Israeli soldiers(but that's beside the point).

Ahava

01-22-2004, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by Gilgamesh
If I had it my way, no Arab would've passed, for any reasons. There are jobs and hospitals in Jorden and Egypt. If not, it's Arab internal problem. then there will ne no ques and no waiting... none should pass!

since they wait, they should put the blame on the right people. They should blame the terrorists and their own leadership. No us, for trying to defend oursleves. Again, you cannot tell a terrorist from other civilians, unless you check and double check, and this process takes time! [/B]

You're right, and I know that there has been smuggling of weapons/explosives in ambulances, and other events of abusing the trust of soldiers and misguiding them, as a result ambulances are investigated etc, I solely blame the terrorists for that. But whoever is to blame, it's still sad.
I think it's a mistake that's made very, very often by many people. they see the suffering of Palestinians (out of context) and automatically put the blame for that on Israel. Like "suffering Palestinians" and "evil Israel" are inherently connected.
And one image tells more than a 1000 words. Images we get to see are heart-breaking at times. But there's nothing that breaks my heart more than seeing the consequences of a suicide attack.

Originally posted by Gilgamesh

I'm glad to hear that! Enjoy yourself, give me a call! [/B]

I will! :) May I ask, where do you live?

Gilgamesh

01-22-2004, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by Ahava
Jews have those rights, and int.law gives that right, but it doesn't give the right over the Westbank. Why? Can you show me where is it written?

I think the Arabs made up this law and now they are pushing it...

International law isn't based on religious claims, and that's perfectly logical as not everyone has a/the same religion. Understandably, palestinians are not impressed by the biblical jewish claim on Judea and Samaria, for them it's just the place they live/used to live. Intenational law isn't based on religious claims. It is based on human rights. One of the chief human rights is "national self determination". Jewish national self determination included religion, among other things such as culture, history, and land (which included the WB and Gaza)!

Even if 80% would support terrorism, still 20% don't. For the sake of the argument, I'll accept your numbers. although, personaly I don't believe in those, I don't think there are Arabs not involved in terrorism in some way.

What can an individual do in a regime like that from the PA? For example, Take Marlen Ditrich, a German hero of mine, not Jewish. She was an actress and a model who hated Hitler with all her heart. So she stayed in the USA and contributed in her own means to the war effort to liberate Germany from the Natzi ragime. There were more Germans and other Europeans like her, although very few! Of course they could not defeat the Nazis and Facist ragimes, they left their mother country so to join others and mighters to liberate their own people, by helping others to fight their home country.

There are very few Arabs like that. Most of these few, do not act from ideological motives. Sometimes, they even shift sides, time and time again. Arabs who resent terror should take an example from Marlen Ditrich, Maestro Arturo Toskanini and other scientists, celebrities and simple men alike who left their home just so not to take part and blame in their mother nation crimes.

They have to fear their life if they'd speak out against terrorism, and it's probably easier for them to keep quiet anyway, as they're confronted with mild oppression every day, while they haven't done anything yet. And, as you mention yourself, the inciting propaganda, that's a real problem. You must agree that there are ragime far worse then the PA, yet many heroic individuals left their home, and some even contributed their skills to liberate their country from evil. There are no such evil. No tianmen studend marches, no spring of prauge, no workers demonstration against the militry ragime in seol, no mothers of May square demonstrating against the Hunta in Argentina... I can think of any country of the world that had heroic civilians who battled the crimes and evils of the ragime...

There are non among the Arabs. Not a single "peace now" activist among them, anywhere.

No, i meant that the soldiers don't treat the Palestinians like animals, like in the docu I mentioned, there was 1 soldier who said "they're not human, we're human, they're animals". And some were treated in a very unfair way, like all of a sudden they're not allowed to go through the checkpoint.
I hope you're right, that most soldiers treat Palestinians with respect. I want to believe you, and i want to think positive about the often good-looking Israeli soldiers(but that's beside the point). In Jewish culture, being human, a mench, is the highest order one can achive. It is synenom with culture and compasion, and mannares. Arabs fail that with their beasty blood lust for Jewish babies. Human beings have compasion. Arabs don't. Pity, but their ideology made them less human. They are insane society. Sorry!

Gilgamesh

01-22-2004, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by Ahava
I will! :) May I ask, where do you live?

Send me private message...

Ahava

01-23-2004, 03:16 AM

Originally posted by Gilgamesh
Why? Can you show me where is it written?

I think the Arabs made up this law and now they are pushing it...
[/B]

Maybe it is written somewhere, but even if it's not: you can't write down for every country what does NOT belong to it! So show me where it's written that israel has the right on the westbank.
In resolutions it says Israel is not allowed to keep territories conquered in the war. that's not to say I'm in favour of unilateral withdrawal, but Israel is obliged to withdraw when Palestinians do their part of the job.
In 1947 the UN decided what would become Israel, Westbank not included.

Originally posted by Gilgamesh

Intenational law isn't based on religious claims. It is based on human rights. One of the chief human rights is "national self determination". Jewish national self determination included religion, among other things such as culture, history, and land (which included the WB and Gaza)! [/B]

What about the Palestinians human rights? they have a right of self-determination too.

Originally posted by Gilgamesh

For the sake of the argument, I'll accept your numbers. although, personaly I don't believe in those, I don't think there are Arabs not involved in terrorism in some way.

[/b] For example, Take Marlen Ditrich, a German hero of mine, not Jewish. She was an actress and a model who hated Hitler with all her heart. So she stayed in the USA and contributed in her own means to the war effort to liberate Germany from the Natzi ragime. There were more Germans and other Europeans like her, although very few! Of course they could not defeat the Nazis and Facist ragimes, they left their mother country so to join others and mighters to liberate their own people, by helping others to fight their home country.

There are very few Arabs like that. Most of these few, do not act from ideological motives. Sometimes, they even shift sides, time and time again. Arabs who resent terror should take an example from Marlen Ditrich, Maestro Arturo Toskanini and other scientists, celebrities and simple men alike who left their home just so not to take part and blame in their mother nation crimes.

[/b] You must agree that there are ragime far worse then the PA, yet many heroic individuals left their home, and some even contributed their skills to liberate their country from evil. There are no such evil. No tianmen studend marches, no spring of prauge, no workers demonstration against the militry ragime in seol, no mothers of May square demonstrating against the Hunta in Argentina... I can think of any country of the world that had heroic civilians who battled the crimes and evils of the ragime...

There are non among the Arabs. Not a single "peace now" activist among them, anywhere.
[/B]

That's something that strikes me, too. No peace demonstrations, peace organisations, noone seems to be self-critical, all the blame is put on someone else. That's why I don't understand people who say the Arabs want peace and the Israelis don't. The only Arab I know that takes Israel's side lives in America and is called Joseph Farah!

Originally posted by Gilgamesh

In Jewish culture, being human, a mench, is the highest order one can achive. It is synenom with culture and compasion, and mannares. Arabs fail that with their beasty blood lust for Jewish babies. Human beings have compasion. Arabs don't. Pity, but their ideology made them less human. They are insane society. Sorry! [/B]

Er...do you have compassion for the Arabs, then?

Gilgamesh

01-23-2004, 06:59 AM

Originally posted by Ahava
Maybe it is written somewhere, but even if it's not: you can't write down for every country what does NOT belong to it! So show me where it's written that israel has the right on the westbank. In the bible, in our history, in our culture. Judea and Smaria, like Gaza, are part of our national self determination, part of our lands. the lands of our fore fathers. We don't need, really, anybody approval about our culture or self determination or history. No UN law can take this rights from us. They can only ask us to ceade lands over, and we can always rightfuly refuse.

Besides, who said the WB and Gaza are arab lands? who said so? The Arabs? I think I have an equal rights to set a claim, and a better right to make use of it.

In resolutions it says Israel is not allowed to keep territories conquered in the war. that's not to say I'm in favour of unilateral withdrawal, but Israel is obliged to withdraw when Palestinians do their part of the job. resolution 242 an 338 are made as an suggestion, not obligatory request. also, it says we should redrawle from SOME of the territoris, and it doesn't say in favour of whome. We already ceaded land in favour of the Egyptions, the Sinai, so our obligation is fullfilled.

In 1947 the UN decided what would become Israel, Westbank not included. Right. But the Arabs rejected that resolution, and started a war! A war we call the war of independence. By rejecting UN partion plan, Arabs ceaded their demands for the territories designated for them in resolution 181.
None can eat the pie and live it whole. Hold the stick on both ends. Rejecting UN partian plan, launching a war and demand lands they lost in battle. (which weren't theirs on the first place).

What about the Palestinians human rights? they have a right of self-determination too. Only a people, a nation, can demand self determination. The defenition of a nation is quite clear. People with defined cultural uniqness, unique language or accecnt, unique history, unique food! "Palestinians" got nothig of the sort. Even Arafat himself talk Arabic in Egyption accent, while some of his henchmen talk in a Syrian or Iraqi accent. Their religion is Islam, their history is non existant and not different from any other Arab in any other Arab country. "Palestinians" got every right of self determination... among their own people: Egypt, Syria, Jorden, Iraq.

Er...do you have compassion for the Arabs, then? As much compassion they have for me and my fellow Jewish brotheren... not very much, I'm afraid.

I understand most Europeans love Arabs for what they do to us Jews, but I don't. After 1,200 murdered Jews since 1993, over 900 since 2000. I kinda hate Arabs... their culture of death, their attempt to deny me from my rights, their announced objective to genocide the Jewish people... I try hard to find the good side in them... and I'm still trying to find it... I'll call you once I find something...

Ahava

01-23-2004, 07:20 AM

Originally posted by Gilgamesh
In the bible, in our history, in our culture. Judea and Smaria, like Gaza, are part of our national self determination, part of our lands. the lands of our fore fathers. We don't need, really, anybody approval about our culture or self determination or history. No UN law can take this rights from us. They can only ask us to ceade lands over, and we can always rightfuly refuse.

Besides, who said the WB and Gaza are arab lands? who said so? The Arabs? I think I have an equal rights to set a claim, and a better right to make use of it.

If that would be a basis for a right, another people could come up with a book they believe in and that says they have the right over entire Europe. No, it's not the way it works. Arabs could have a right over the area because the majority of population was and is Arabs.

Originally posted by Gilgamesh

resolution 242 an 338 are made as an suggestion, not obligatory request. also, it says we should redrawle from SOME of the territoris, and it doesn't say in favour of whome. We already ceaded land in favour of the Egyptions, the Sinai, so our obligation is fullfilled. [/B]

As a suggestion, but made compulsory in peace treaties. The parts of land you have to withdraw from have to be decided through negotiations, not?

Originally posted by Gilgamesh

Right. But the Arabs rejected that resolution, and started a war! A war we call the war of independence. By rejecting UN partion plan, Arabs ceaded their demands for the territories designated for them in resolution 181.
None can eat the pie and live it whole. Hold the stick on both ends. Rejecting UN partian plan, launching a war and demand lands they lost in battle. (which weren't theirs on the first place). [/B]

One can argue that they lost their rights by refusing the plan and starting a war. But in the light of ever wanting and being able to reach peace, one should now accept the palestinians want a state now, and have a right on that.

Originally posted by Gilgamesh

Only a people, a nation, can demand self determination. The defenition of a nation is quite clear. People with defined cultural uniqness, unique language or accecnt, unique history, unique food! "Palestinians" got nothig of the sort. Even Arafat himself talk Arabic in Egyption accent, while some of his henchmen talk in a Syrian or Iraqi accent. Their religion is Islam, their history is non existant and not different from any other Arab in any other Arab country. "Palestinians" got every right of self determination... among their own people: Egypt, Syria, Jorden, Iraq. [/B]

They consider themselves to be a people, so acknowledge them as such. It's a 'made' people, but they do feel bound, now. Even though it's only since 30, 40 years, they are a people now.

Originally posted by Gilgamesh

As much compassion they have for me and my fellow Jewish brotheren... not very much, I'm afraid.

I understand most Europeans love Arabs for what they do to us Jews, but I don't. After 1,200 murdered Jews since 1993, over 900 since 2000. I kinda hate Arabs... their culture of death, their attempt to deny me from my rights, their announced objective to genocide the Jewish people... I try hard to find the good side in them... and I'm still trying to find it... I'll call you once I find something... [/B]

Since you're superior :rolleyes: , you should be able to feel more compassion for them than they do for you.
It's not true what you say about most Europeans.
Yea, gimme a call. :cool:

Dyeus

01-23-2004, 07:20 AM

Ahava are you sympathetic to the so-called "Palestenians"? (I am just wondering)

Ahava

01-23-2004, 07:24 AM

Originally posted by Dyeus
Ahava are you sympathetic to the so-called "Palestenians"? (I am just wondering)

Less than the average European, I'd say. What do you mean exactly? Whether I "pick their side"? Or whether I understand their grievances?

Mediocrates

01-23-2004, 08:03 AM

That's a key distinction. Their 'grievances' are a complicated melange of demands, delusions, requirements, hates, needs, whims, prejudices, necessities and lies. 'Their' is really only important in the context of the PA, Fatah, Arafat, Hamas, etc. There isn't anyone, even from the rareified ignorant heights of Mount Brussels to imagine that the Palestinian people have any say in the matter or that anyone cares if they do.

Gilgamesh

01-23-2004, 08:10 AM

Originally posted by Ahava
If that would be a basis for a right, another people could come up with a book they believe in and that says they have the right over entire Europe. No, it's not the way it works. I happened in entire European history, and produced many wars. Sometimes it worked, sometimes not. But Europeans butchered each other for 15 centuries over moraly equal claims about land rights.

In some point, one must take sides, according to his heart leaning. Do Jews deserve to have a land and a sovereignity? If so, where? Why's there? Try answering these questions.

Since we exist, we have human rights for self determination. "Palestinians" are not a seperate nation, which entitles for equal self determination.

Arabs could have a right over the area because the majority of population was and is Arabs. Then, if I kick all Arabs from my lands, or other lands, I'll have the "right" for these places? Demographics can change easy, and very fast in the ME in special. Demography got NO international recognition as an relevant argument, that I know of.

In Amsterdam there are whole quarter filled with Muslems. Is it not? Imagion a day when they demand indepence, in places they hold suprim demographic superiority... will it make it right?

In the whole ME, Jews are a tiny minority. According to your Demographic argument, Israel does not have a right to exist.

Besides, the places in the WB israel will annax or had annexed, like east Jerusalem, there is already Jewish demographic superiority. Yet the Arabs claim the land, baselessly.

As a suggestion, but made compulsory in peace treaties. The parts of land you have to withdraw from have to be decided through negotiations, not? Could be done, but not in the imediate or near future, so it's totally irrelevent argument. Both parties can agree, for example that Israel does not have to produce matrial redrawles. So what's then?

One can argue that they lost their rights by refusing the plan and starting a war. But in the light of ever wanting and being able to reach peace, one should now accept the palestinians want a state now, and have a right on that. They want land? fine with me. Not on MY expance. They can claim their lands from Jorden or Egypt, only the do not dare. They know the Egyptions or the Jordenians will exterminate them within a blink of an eye.

Arabs can not hold the stick in both ends. War with us for a century and become our neighbors over night. I don't trust them. I've got no reason to trust them. I don't want them as a neghiboring country.

They consider themselves to be a people, so acknowledge them as such. It's a 'made' people, but they do feel bound, now. Even though it's only since 30, 40 years, they are a people now. I'm not convinced like you are. I think it's a trick to deprive me, as a Jew, from my birthrights on the land of Israel, the land of my forefathers. I think the "Palestinians" are not a real nation and do not deserve rights of self determination.

Since you're superior :rolleyes: , you should be able to feel more compassion for them than they do for you. Why? I think the Arabs are more powerful. Arabs are quarter of a billions. Muslems are 1.2 billion men. Arabs got all the oil in the world. I don't. More money the us, Israelis... I feel the inferior. So back at you! Where is the compassion I deserve from the Arabs? (according to your logic).

Then there is the idea of Justace:
Think about a convicted crimminal that seats in jail. Isn't the police and justace system are far more powerful then the sole little convicted crimminal? Is he worthy of compassion? Wasn't he responsible for his own actions? I think not! No compassion. Justace!

Christian style compassion often inerferes with Justace making. If I feel compassionate on the crimminal, where is my compassion for the crimminal victim? Where is the Justace in demanding the crimminal to pay for his crime, to suffer a punishment for his deed? Punishment must fit the crime, and no place for compassion. This is the moral reasoning, for a single crimminal. I works equally well for a crimminal society, like the Arab's.

It's not true what you say about most Europeans. Odd. I heared different, yet you are the one living there...

Yea, gimme a call. :cool: I'd love to!

Mediocrates

01-23-2004, 08:17 AM

Special Dispatch - Syria/Lebanon/Arab Antisemitism Documentation Project
January 23, 2004
No. 649

To view this Special Dispatch in HTML format, please visit:
http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD64904

Lebanese Member of Parliament: 'The Fall of One Jew, Whether Soldier or Civilian, Is a Great Accomplishment'

Walid Jumblatt, chairman of the (Druze) Socialist Progressive Party and member of the Lebanese parliament, praised the January 14, 2004 suicide bombing by a Palestinian woman in Gaza. The following are excerpts from his statements:(1)

"Yesterday, the Palestinian mother Reem Al-Riyashi sacrificed herself, and by so doing joined the columns of the brave Jihad warriors and broke the atrocious and troublesome Arab silence, the helplessness, and the retreat that precede failure and disintegration. She offered hope in a sea of complacency, indecisiveness, and fear. It is a new Intifada. It is the Intifada of the revolutionary Palestinian woman and of the land, opposing the 'Jewification' [of Palestine], the Jewish reality, and the Arab regimes. Did it come out of despair?

"No, and again no. It is an act of belief and it is the correct path, because the fall of one Jew, whether soldier or civilian, is a great accomplishment in times of decline, subservience, and submissiveness, as a way to undermine the plan to 'Jewify' all of Palestine.

"I say 'Jew' and I apologize to the Lebanese intellectuals, or at least some of them, who welcomed the Geneva initiative, applauded it, and considered it an historical solution to the Middle East conflict. They play word games [and differentiate] between Jew and Israeli, between Right and Left, and between doves and hawks. Some of them may have forgotten, or pretend that they have forgotten, that basically Israel was the product of the Zionist Left starting with Weizmann, Ben-Gurion, and Peres through Yossi Beilin. Have they forgotten that the Labor Party went to war in 1967 and since then began to settle Jews in the West Bank? Even the separation wall today is the brainchild of the Labor Party during Barak's time... And there are those who made Rabin into a hero because of an obscure promise that we are still bragging about [concerning Israel's willingness to withdraw from the Golan Heights]. Wasn't he the one who instated [the practice of] breaking the bones of Palestinian!
detainees...?

"Reem Al-Riyashi is the last roadblock. What is it that she and other [women] are seeking or demanding? A few weapons, explosives, or anti-tank missiles, [and to be able to pass] through Jordan, Rafiah, Lebanon, Syria, or any other possible doorway in order to prevent the 'Jewification' plan, or at least to delay it, while the [weapon] depots of the Arab armies are full to the brim..."

Endnote:
1 Al-Nahar (Lebanon), January 19, 2004.

*********************
The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) is an independent, non-profit organization that translates and analyzes the media of the Middle East. Copies of articles
and documents cited, as well as background information, are available on request.

MEMRI holds copyrights on all translations. Materials may only be used with proper attribution.

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI)
P.O. Box 27837, Washington, DC 20038-7837
Phone: (202) 955-9070
Fax: (202) 955-9077
E-Mail: memri@memri.org
www.memri.org

If you no longer wish to receive this publication via email, please reply and enter only the word "UNSUBSCRIBE" in the subject line.

Ahava

01-23-2004, 08:38 AM

Originally posted by Gilgamesh
I happened in entire European history, and produced many wars. Sometimes it worked, sometimes not. But Europeans butchered each other for 15 centuries over moraly equal claims about land rights. [/B]

Exactly, colonialism and imperialism was ok for centuries, now, in these modern times, it isn't ok anymore, like you said, it produced many wars and is not considered moral anymore. So go with international law from now on, which is there to prevent wars.

Originally posted by Gilgamesh

In some point, one must take sides, according to his heart leaning. Do Jews deserve to have a land and a sovereignity? If so, where? Why's there? Try answering these questions.
[/B]

Jews deserve to have a land, and the place is, where Israel is now. Pre-'67 borders. There, because that's the place jewish history lies, the holy city, the place with biblical importance. It doesn't mean, however, that the Jews are entitled to the entire piece of land (Westbank included), simply because there are also other people there, with their own demands.

Originally posted by Gilgamesh

Since we exist, we have human rights for self determination. "Palestinians" are not a seperate nation, which entitles for equal self determination.

[/b] Then, if I kick all Arabs from my lands, or other lands, I'll have the "right" for these places? Demographics can change easy, and very fast in the ME in special. Demography got NO international recognition as an relevant argument, that I know of.

In Amsterdam there are whole quarter filled with Muslems. Is it not? Imagion a day when they demand indepence, in places they hold suprim demographic superiority... will it make it right? [/B]

No, but Holland is 'ours', it's an acknowledged and all-settled country. the Westbank is at the moment no man's land, really.
I do say the Palestinians are a people, and as a people they have a right of self-determination. They feel bound, can't you acknowledge and accept them as a people?

Originally posted by Gilgamesh

In the whole ME, Jews are a tiny minority. According to your Demographic argument, Israel does not have a right to exist.

Besides, the places in the WB israel will annax or had annexed, like east Jerusalem, there is already Jewish demographic superiority. Yet the Arabs claim the land, baselessly. [/B]

Demography is not THE argument you can base your claim on, but it is a logical one. Logical when it's a place where noone has decided anything on. Yea, in 1947, but then they rejected it. Now they come crawling back to that decision and I don't think their right officially expired?
About East-Jerusalem, yeah if you refuse and lock it off long enough for Arabs, there'll automatically come a Jewish majority. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Gilgamesh

Could be done, but not in the imediate or near future, so it's totally irrelevent argument. Both parties can agree, for example that Israel does not have to produce matrial redrawles. So what's then? [/B]

If the Palestinians agree on Israel's annexing of the Westbank, perfect! Great! Let's do it! Otherwise, not.

Originally posted by Gilgamesh

They want land? fine with me. Not on MY expance. They can claim their lands from Jorden or Egypt, only the do not dare. They know the Egyptions or the Jordenians will exterminate them within a blink of an eye.

Arabs can not hold the stick in both ends. War with us for a century and become our neighbors over night. I don't trust them. I've got no reason to trust them. I don't want them as a neghiboring country. [/B]

Understandable. And yes, I too think Jordan is the first logical choice for them.

Originally posted by Gilgamesh

I'm not convinced like you are. I think it's a trick to deprive me, as a Jew, from my birthrights on the land of Israel, the land of my forefathers. I think the "Palestinians" are not a real nation and do not deserve rights of self determination.

[/b] Why? I think the Arabs are more powerful. Arabs are quarter of a billions. Muslems are 1.2 billion men. Arabs got all the oil in the world. I don't. More money the us, Israelis... I feel the inferior. So back at you! Where is the compassion I deserve from the Arabs? (according to your logic). [/B]

No, it's not about who's most powerful or who has the most "brothren" :p , it's about moral compassion. I was talking about your moral superiority. You said Arabs are less human (basically)because they are not able to feel compassion, unlike you. So i said, you should be able to feel more compassion for them than vice versa, since you're superior. See?

Originally posted by Gilgamesh

Then there is the idea of Justace:
Think about a convicted crimminal that seats in jail. Isn't the police and justace system are far more powerful then the sole little convicted crimminal? Is he worthy of compassion? Wasn't he responsible for his own actions? I think not! No compassion. Justace!

Christian style compassion often inerferes with Justace making. If I feel compassionate on the crimminal, where is my compassion for the crimminal victim? Where is the Justace in demanding the crimminal to pay for his crime, to suffer a punishment for his deed? Punishment must fit the crime, and no place for compassion. This is the moral reasoning, for a single crimminal. I works equally well for a crimminal society, like the Arab's. [/B]

In palestinian eyes, the Jews are the ones who stole their land, the ones who are oppressing and occupying them, etc. Vicious cycle.

Originally posted by Gilgamesh

Odd. I heared different, yet you are the one living there...
[/B]

Yep, and no, average person here does not love Arabs, and especially not because of what they do to the Jews. I personally wouldn't vote for the mass immigration of Arabs here, no thank you.

Originally posted by Gilgamesh

I'd love to! [/B]

:)

Ahava

01-23-2004, 08:55 AM

Originally posted by Mediocrates
That's a key distinction. Their 'grievances' are a complicated melange of demands, delusions, requirements, hates, needs, whims, prejudices, necessities and lies. 'Their' is really only important in the context of the PA, Fatah, Arafat, Hamas, etc. There isn't anyone, even from the rareified ignorant heights of Mount Brussels to imagine that the Palestinian people have any say in the matter or that anyone cares if they do.

It is a key distinction. I have understanding for some of their grievances, well, not for their lies, delusions and hates, but for their suffering, and the daily reality they face, the restrictions, the society they happened to be born in.
I do not "pick their side", I'm clearly pro-Israel. In fact, I've been called a "blind, Sharon-loving (Sharon=devil for many leftish and moroccan people here) zionist (also a swear word of those people) insensitive (LOL) and extremist person".
:rolleyes:

Gilgamesh

01-23-2004, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by Ahava
Exactly, colonialism and imperialism was ok for centuries, now, in these modern times, it isn't ok anymore, like you said, it produced many wars and is not considered moral anymore. So go with international law from now on, which is there to prevent wars. Imperialism is occupation of lands which do not belong to one. The WB and Gaza belong to Jews more then Tel Aviv itself! So, colonialism or imperialism is exactly how I define Arab settelment in our, Jewish lands.

I can not "occupay" lands that I believe to be rightfuly mine!

AS for international law, sadly it is misused to strip us Jews from our rights. Such law cannot be accepted. I cannot accept, even and international law that ignores my culture my history, my right for self determination. Luckly, there is no such international law.

Jews deserve to have a land, and the place is, where Israel is now. Pre-'67 borders. There, because that's the place jewish history lies, the holy city, the place with biblical importance. It doesn't mean, however, that the Jews are entitled to the entire piece of land (Westbank included), simply because there are also other people there, with their own demands. We don't have to bow and surreder to every demand so one has. So Arabs have some claims and some demands. Always unreasonable ones. Why should I prefer THEIR demands over mine?

I'm glad you think like me, about Jews right for self determination in the land of Israel. Yet, Hebron, the anciant most capital of Judah tribe, Beith Lehem, David home town, Schem, Rachel grave... is integral part of our self determination. We have lesser rights for Tel Aviv, then Hebron. Why keep Tel Aviv and ceade over Hebron?

No, but Holland is 'ours', it's an acknowledged and all-settled country. the Westbank is at the moment no man's land, really. Not quite... it's no mans land only in terms of international law. In practice, there is no vacume. Thousands of Jews settle the WB and thousands more will join them.

Laws and ideas change... not people. International law will now have to accept Jewish residance and rightful claims for the WB.

You calimed demographics as a reason why the WB isn't ours. Again, imagion France, or Holland to have similar demographic problem, with in Amsterdam. Would you find it moral for Dutch to forsake Amsterdam? Wouldn't it become foreign occupation of Asterdam you're entitled to resist?

I do say the Palestinians are a people, and as a people they have a right of self-determination. They feel bound, can't you acknowledge and accept them as a people? No doubt the "palestinians" are people. So are the Germans and the convicted crimminals and murderers sitting in our prison. The "palestinians" simply chose wrongly. prefered evil over good. And we must, regretably fight them for our survival.

Demography is not THE argument you can base your claim on, but it is a logical one. Logical when it's a place where noone has decided anything on. Yea, in 1947, but then they rejected it. Now they come crawling back to that decision and I don't think their right officially expired? Their right is expired. Reality has greatly changed since 1947. One can not revolve the weal of history back. I wish I could, but it is unreal. It high time the Arabs get a firm grip on the realities of life.

About East-Jerusalem, yeah if you refuse and lock it off long enough for Arabs, there'll automatically come a Jewish majority. :rolleyes: Jerusalem was unlocked since 1967, and there is already Jewish majority in the city.

If the Palestinians agree on Israel's annexing of the Westbank, perfect! Great! Let's do it! Otherwise, not. I'll save the world a great truble. let's ignore what the "Palestinians" think, and promote our own intrests. The Arabs and the rest of the world will lern to live with it. Egypt lerned (for now) to accept Israel right to exist. They and the rest of the Arab world, can and should make a little effort more and live to our legitimate demands.

Understandable. And yes, I too think Jordan is the first logical choice for them. Great! we agree! Now we Israelis should wait or act, to promote this.

No, it's not about who's most powerful or who has the most "brothren" :p , it's about moral compassion. I was talking about your moral superiority. You said Arabs are less human (basically)because they are not able to feel compassion, unlike you. So i said, you should be able to feel more compassion for them than vice versa, since you're superior. See? I see, and I disagree! I have no compassion to those who want to kill me! I'm Jew, not the pope!

In palestinian eyes, the Jews are the ones who stole their land, the ones who are oppressing and occupying them, etc. Vicious cycle. Then we fight. Once we will win, the Arabs will recognize their moral mistake.

Yep, and no, average person here does not love Arabs, and especially not because of what they do to the Jews. I personally wouldn't vote for the mass immigration of Arabs here, no thank you. I believe, Europe is lost and gone. Europe days are numbered. Soon it'll become an Islamist state, within our lifetime.

Ahava

01-23-2004, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by Gilgamesh
Imperialism is occupation of lands which do not belong to one. The WB and Gaza belong to Jews more then Tel Aviv itself! So, colonialism or imperialism is exactly how I define Arab settelment in our, Jewish lands.

I can not "occupay" lands that I believe to be rightfuly mine! [/B]

According to international law, it does not belong to you. Only maybe when you interpret international law in a creative way and how it fits you. Like you're doing.

Originally posted by Gilgamesh

AS for international law, sadly it is misused to strip us Jews from our rights. Such law cannot be accepted. I cannot accept, even and international law that ignores my culture my history, my right for self determination. Luckly, there is no such international law.[/B]

I do think international law (and human rights) are being abused by some pro-Palestinian groups, yes, absolutely. Like Alan Dershowitz says, "maybe it's time to change that law then."

Originally posted by Gilgamesh

[/b] We don't have to bow and surreder to every demand so one has. So Arabs have some claims and some demands. Always unreasonable ones. Why should I prefer THEIR demands over mine? [/B]

How about compromise?

Originally posted by Gilgamesh

I'm glad you think like me, about Jews right for self determination in the land of Israel. Yet, Hebron, the anciant most capital of Judah tribe, Beith Lehem, David home town, Schem, Rachel grave... is integral part of our self determination. We have lesser rights for Tel Aviv, then Hebron. Why keep Tel Aviv and ceade over Hebron? [/B]

Because it's what the UN decided.. based on how many Jews and how many Arabs lived in Tel Aviv, Hevron, etc.

Originally posted by Gilgamesh

Not quite... it's no mans land only in terms of international law. In practice, there is no vacume. Thousands of Jews settle the WB and thousands more will join them. [/B]

And THAT'S a big frustration for the Palestinians!

Originally posted by Gilgamesh

You calimed demographics as a reason why the WB isn't ours. Again, imagion France, or Holland to have similar demographic problem, with in Amsterdam. Would you find it moral for Dutch to forsake Amsterdam? Wouldn't it become foreign occupation of Asterdam you're entitled to resist? [/B]

You can also follow this theory from a palestinian perspective. "What if Hindu's massively invaded your land and claimed to have historical roots there and demanded a state to be established there?"

Originally posted by Gilgamesh

I see, and I disagree! I have no compassion to those who want to kill me! I'm Jew, not the pope! [/B]

Alright! :D

Originally posted by Gilgamesh

I believe, Europe is lost and gone. Europe days are numbered. Soon it'll become an Islamist state, within our lifetime. [/B]

I don't believe that. I just don't. Not every muslim is a fundamentalist. Most aren't. I do not declare Europe to be lost, and people won't let it happen. The western society is strong, successful, I don't see that change within now and some decades.

Gilgamesh

01-23-2004, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by Ahava
According to international law, it does not belong to you. Only maybe when you interpret international law in a creative way and how it fits you. Like you're doing. I don't think one need to be creative interperting the law. It's quite straite forward. What I don't understand is why you seem to prefer the Arab's interpertation over mine? I know peer presure is great on you, in Europe, yet Jews always knew how to overcome them, see reality the way it is despite strong doctrines emposed on them from the outside.

I do think international law (and human rights) are being abused by some pro-Palestinian groups, yes, absolutely. Like Alan Dershowitz says, "maybe it's time to change that law then." Right on!

How about compromise? Tried, failed. Tried and faild again. Unrealistic. Besides... there are many kinds of comprimises. Compromises don't have to include Jewish surrender.

Because it's what the UN decided.. based on how many Jews and how many Arabs lived in Tel Aviv, Hevron, etc. Then UN decisions are irrelevent. UN must take in SOME consideration the reality... demographics change, you cannot build a reasonable argument upon it.

You can also follow this theory from a palestinian perspective. "What if Hindu's massively invaded your land and claimed to have historical roots there and demanded a state to be established there?" We Jews already fighting people who claim our lands are theirs... you do not have to reinvent analogies to things that exist right now!

I don't believe that. I just don't. Not every muslim is a fundamentalist. Most aren't. I do not declare Europe to be lost, and people won't let it happen. The western society is strong, successful, I don't see that change within now and some decades. We will waite and see. Time will tell. So far, the demographics are like less then 15% of Europe population is muslem? one in six or seven, right? Like Israel in the 80's!!!

Ahava

01-23-2004, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by Gilgamesh
I don't think one need to be creative interperting the law. It's quite straite forward. What I don't understand is why you seem to prefer the Arab's interpertation over mine? I know peer presure is great on you, in Europe, yet Jews always knew how to overcome them, see reality the way it is despite strong doctrines emposed on them from the outside.

It's not just the Arab interpretation. UN is international law, too. Tell me where it says that you have the right over the Westbank. Cause I just don't know!

Tried, failed. Tried and faild again. Unrealistic. Besides... there are many kinds of comprimises. Compromises don't have to include Jewish surrender.

No, but you know that the Palestinians will never accept Israel annexing the Westbank. That's for sure.

Then UN decisions are irrelevent. UN must take in SOME consideration the reality... demographics change, you cannot build a reasonable argument upon it.[/B]

And you can build a reasonable argument upon a religious claim?

We Jews already fighting people who claim our lands are theirs... you do not have to reinvent analogies to things that exist right now! [/B]

But think about it. Imagine you are a Palestinian living in Be'er Sheva in the year 1930. Jews and more Jews immigrate to where you live, and then claim they have a right to establish a state there. They're strangers to you. just imagine.

We will waite and see. Time will tell. So far, the demographics are like less then 15% of Europe population is muslem? one in six or seven, right? Like Israel in the 80's!!! [/B]

Demographics will change, but that doesn't HAVE to be a problem as long as they westernize.

Gilgamesh

01-23-2004, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by Ahava
It's not just the Arab interpretation. UN is international law, too. Tell me where it says that you have the right over the Westbank. Cause I just don't know! International law doesn't say the WB or Gaza aren't ours. Finders keep! We got it, and it nobody elses wants it, it ours to keep!

No, but you know that the Palestinians will never accept Israel annexing the Westbank. That's for sure. Then I guess they have a problem! A big and real problem, don't you think?!

And you can build a reasonable argument upon a religious claim? What's wrong with religious argument, among other things? What's wrong with our religion?

We are going in circles: You've asked that before! The answer is self determination. I am a Jew, this is my land. It is my land for historical reason, cultural reason, religious reasons is among them. For all purposes, national self determination is our reason.

Also, we have no other land for ourselves to live in, and many of us distrust Europeans and others, for us to safely live with for prolong periods of time.

But think about it. Imagine you are a Palestinian living in Be'er Sheva in the year 1930. Jews and more Jews immigrate to where you live, and then claim they have a right to establish a state there. They're strangers to you. just imagine. Cool! I like Jews, I want them to be my friends, we become allies and I serve in their army against other Arabs!! BTW, it's part of the real history of Be'er Sheva!!

Demographics will change, but that doesn't HAVE to be a problem as long as they westernize. Are they westernizers?

Ahava

01-23-2004, 01:23 PM

International law doesn't say the WB or Gaza aren't ours. Finders keep! We got it, and it nobody elses wants it, it ours to keep!

Nobody else wants it? I name..the Palestinians?? Oh, you "found" the westbank so now you can keep it! :rolleyes: Just like with Columbus..or summin.

Then I guess they have a problem! A big and real problem, don't you think?!

Er, I guess. But what should happen to them, you think? And what will happen to israel? ongoing terrorism.

What's wrong with religious argument, among other things? What's wrong with our religion?

There's nothing wrong with judaism! I didn't say anything like that! But you simply can't use religious arguments because it means nothing to non-Jews! Simple and understandable. If moslems claim on behalf of Quran they should rule the world, you wouldn't accept that, right?

Cool! I like Jews, I want them to be my friends, we become allies and I serve in their army against other Arabs!! BTW, it's part of the real history of Be'er Sheva!!

:D ha ha, I see you still have to work on your empathy. Kunsjt, you ARE a Jew! But what if the immigrants were muslims?

Are they westernizers?

Some are, others aren't. I find it hard to estimate the number that are westernized and the number that aren't. It may change too, every next generation will be more western, on average. Turks are doing well, I think.

Mediocrates

01-23-2004, 01:30 PM

While we're sitting here arguing with each other about how much to sacrifice the PA is patiently waiting for us to destroy ourselves with our squabbling. Let's agree on something even if we have to make it up. Let's agree that some separation will be necessary and important and that at least half of the responsibility for that lies with the PA. Let's agree the sky is blue - anything but let's agree. Then we can tear each other's heads off.

The simple fact, Ahava is that the PA agrees to nothing. Not the border not the wall not the Temple Mount or Jerusalem or even a single beating Jewish heart in Palestine. We're not the people you have an argument with.

Gilgamesh

01-23-2004, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by Ahava
Nobody else wants it? I name..the Palestinians?? Oh, you "found" the westbank so now you can keep it! :rolleyes: Just like with Columbus..or summin. But the "Palestinians" don't have a say! They are not a nation! Just a big bunch of Syrians, Egyptions and Jordenians. The rest is Arab propaganda.

Check out: http://www.jabotinsky.org/
GoTo: Jabotinsky world. Find the "Iron wall" and "the Ethics of the iron wall". Read it fully.

Er, I guess. But what should happen to them, you think? And what will happen to israel? ongoing terrorism. First answer, I don't care. Second answer, they will enjoy full self rull in their main population centers, on all civilian matters, or move onwards, to Holland!!!

You Euore like them? Keep them! It won't matter to me one little bit!

As for terrorism, i want the believe the hard times are behind us, we win. Their commanders are arrested or killed, and they fight each other from time to time... good for us. What ever we will do, peace or no peace, terrorism in some degree will remain. It has been so for the last century. It wont stop there.

There's nothing wrong with judaism! I didn't say anything like that! But you simply can't use religious arguments because it means nothing to non-Jews! Simple and understandable. If moslems claim on behalf of Quran they should rule the world, you wouldn't accept that, right? No, of course I resist Islamic world domination as much as I resist Islamic claims for my lands. Their religious claims aren't part of their national self determination. They are Arabs, and self rule themseleves on their lands, with out my lands ontop!

:D ha ha, I see you still have to work on your empathy. Kunsjt, you ARE a Jew! But what if the immigrants were muslims? then I won't let them in! Israel is a nation state, not a nation of all it citizens!

Some are, others aren't. I find it hard to estimate the number that are westernized and the number that aren't. It may change too, every next generation will be more western, on average. Turks are doing well, I think. Well, the future of Europe and a Western civilization is on the balance.

Gilgamesh

01-23-2004, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by Mediocrates
The simple fact, Ahava is that the PA agrees to nothing. Not the border not the wall not the Temple Mount or Jerusalem or even a single beating Jewish heart in Palestine. We're not the people you have an argument with.

Can't agree more! You are perfectly right.

However, I do suspect Ahava agree with us, she only want to know the good argument to support what she already feels.

Communication

01-23-2004, 02:01 PM

IF I RULED THE WORLD
Tony Bennett
Words by Leslie Bricusse/Music by Cyril Ornadel

If I ruled the world, ev'ry day would be the first day of spring
Every heart would have a new song to sing
And we'd sing of the joy every morning would bring

If I ruled the world, ev'ry man would be as free as a bird,
Ev'ry voice would be a voice to be heard
Take my word we would treasure each day that occurred

My world would be a beautiful place
Where we would weave such wonderful dreams
My world would wear a smile on its face
Like the man in the moon has when the moon beams
If I ruled the world every man would say the world was his friend
There'd be happiness that no man coud end
No my friend, not if I ruled the world
Every head would be held up high
There'd be sunshine in everyone's sky
If the day ever dawned when I ruled the world

Communication

01-23-2004, 02:02 PM

NAS LYRICS

"If I Ruled The World"
(feat. Lauryn Hill)

[Intro: Nas (Lauryn Hill singing in the background)]

Life..... I wonder....
Will it take me under.... I don't know

[Verse One: Nas]

Imagine smoking weed in the streets without cops harassin
Imagine going to court with no trial
Lifestyle cruising blue behind my waters
No welfare supporters more conscious of the way we raise our daughters
Days are shorter, nights are colder
Feeling like life is over, these snakes strike like a cobra
The world's hot my son got not evidently
It's elementary, they want us all gone eventually
Trooping out of state for a plate knowledge
of coke was cooked without the garbage we'd all have the top dollars
Imagine everybody flashin, fashion
Designer clothes, lacing your click up with diamond vogues
Your people holdin dough, no parole
No rubbers, go in raw imagine law with no undercovers
Just some thoughts for the mind
I take a glimpse into time
watch the blimp read "The World Is Mine"

[Chorus: Lauryn Hill, Nas]

If I ruled the world
Imagine that
I'd free all my sons, I love em love em baby
Black diamonds and pearls
Could it be, if you could
be mine, we'd both shine
If I ruled the world
Still livin for today, in
these last days and times

[Verse Two: Nas]

The way to be, paradise like relaxin black, latino and anglo-saxon
Armani exchange the reins
Cash, Lost Tribe of Shabazz, free at last
Brand new whips to crash then we laugh in the iller path
The Villa house is for the crew, how we do
Trees for breakfast, dime sexes and Benz stretches
So many years of depression make me vision
The better livin, type of place to raise kids in
Open they eyes to the lies history's told foul
But I'm as wise as the old owl, plus the Gold Child
Seeing things like I was controlling, click rollin
Trickin six digits on kicks and still holdin
Trips to Paris, I civilized every savage
Gimme one shot I turn trife life to lavish
Political prisonner set free, stress free
No work release purple M3's and jet skis
Feel the wind breeze in West Indies
I make Coretta Scott-King mayor the cities and reverse themes to Willies
It sounds foul but every girl I meet to go downtown
I'd open every cell in Attica send em to Africa

[Chorus: Lauryn Hill, Nas]

If I ruled the world
Imagine that
I'd free all my sons, I love em love em baby
Black diamonds and pearls
Could it be, if you could
be mine, we'd both shine
If I ruled the world
Still livin for today, in
these last days and times

And then we'll walk right up to the sun
Hand in hand
We'll walk right up to the sun
We won't land
We'll walk right up to the sun
Hand in hand
We'll walk right up to the sun
We won't land

Ahava

01-23-2004, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by Gilgamesh
But the "Palestinians" don't have a say! They are not a nation! Just a big bunch of Syrians, Egyptions and Jordenians. The rest is Arab propaganda.

Check out: http://www.jabotinsky.org/
GoTo: Jabotinsky world. Find the "Iron wall" and "the Ethics of the iron wall". Read it fully.

Interesting, very interesting. And then to realise he wrote this in 1937..oh, if only he'd know what was to happen. Actually, he confirms my point when I asked you to put yourself in their position, you said you would welcome them, Jabotinksy basically says you wouldn't, you naturally wouldn't. The Palestinians came to call themselves palestinians only later, I know, but among them are a lot who lived in what is now Israel.

First answer, I don't care. Second answer, they will enjoy full self rull in their main population centers, on all civilian matters, or move onwards, to Holland!!!

You Euore like them? Keep them! It won't matter to me one little bit!

You can't just ignore them, like they don't exist. if you annex the Westbank, demography and with that time is against you! they'll become the majority! And then?
I'm not "Europe", you keep saying 'we' like them so much, I already told you, no thanks.

As for terrorism, i want the believe the hard times are behind us, we win. Their commanders are arrested or killed, and they fight each other from time to time... good for us. What ever we will do, peace or no peace, terrorism in some degree will remain. It has been so for the last century. It wont stop there.

I think that's true, unfortunately.

No, of course I resist Islamic world domination as much as I resist Islamic claims for my lands. Their religious claims aren't part of their national self determination. They are Arabs, and self rule themseleves on their lands, with out my lands ontop!

then I won't let them in! Israel is a nation state, not a nation of all it citizens! [/B]

The Arabs happened not to have a nation officially, but that's not their fault. It's their bad luck.

Well, the future of Europe and a Western civilization is on the balance.

And America? Is that essentially different?

Ahava

01-23-2004, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by Gilgamesh
Can't agree more! You are perfectly right.

However, I do suspect Ahava agree with us, she only want to know the good argument to support what she already feels.

I'm on 'your' side, as I said, I'm very pro-Israel (especially compared to average European) and I do agree with a lot. I'm just raising questions here and seeing that some people really have zero understanding or compassion for the palestinians, which I can have more because of stories and docu's I'm fed with here, and people emphasising it time and again, and not living in Israel.
I'm always trying to be nuanced etc. And I like playing devil's advocate ;) , here in Holland all I do is defending Israel towards all those people who know NOTHING, and NOTHING and NOTHING.

Gilgamesh

01-24-2004, 04:50 AM

Originally posted by Ahava
I'm on 'your' side, as I said, I'm very pro-Israel (especially compared to average European) and I do agree with a lot. I'm just raising questions here and seeing that some people really have zero understanding or compassion for the palestinians, which I can have more because of stories and docu's I'm fed with here, and people emphasising it time and again, and not living in Israel.
I'm always trying to be nuanced etc. And I like playing devil's advocate ;) , here in Holland all I do is defending Israel towards all those people who know NOTHING, and NOTHING and NOTHING. You sure play the devil's advocate great!
I am truly happy one like you is on our side!

Gilgamesh

01-24-2004, 05:07 AM

Originally posted by Ahava
Interesting, very interesting. And then to realise he wrote this in 1937..oh, if only he'd know what was to happen. Actually, he confirms my point when I asked you to put yourself in their position, you said you would welcome them, Jabotinksy basically says you wouldn't, you naturally wouldn't. The Palestinians came to call themselves palestinians only later, I know, but among them are a lot who lived in what is now Israel. Quite true! Some of them, like the Badawins who live out side Be'er Sheva, or the Druz and othe Badawins who live in the Galilay, are our allies and do serve in the IDF.

You can't just ignore them, like they don't exist. if you annex the Westbank, demography and with that time is against you! they'll become the majority! And then? This is why we do not annex the entire WB, although we can, international law speaking. Part of Jerusalem, which are beyonned the greenline, were annexed, despite Arab's wrath. So other parts of the WB where there is today Jewish majority, will be annexed quite soon, according to Sharon's current plan. In the future, other parts of the WB will be annexed as well. I believe that the Jorden valley will be annexed, even this year.

What you should realy ask your self, and we in Israel really do, is the fate of "Israeli-Arabs" who consider themselves "Palestinians" and under suffer "occupation" and life under "racist ragime" (which keeps sending them social benefits and different welfare pansions). Some of their majore population centers, already are on the "green line". Why don't we offer these people the possibility of territory and population swap with the PA.

The Arabs refuse, they hate loosing their social benefits and walfare pansions.

I'm not "Europe", you keep saying 'we' like them so much, I already told you, no thanks. You are the devil advocate who represents in views, the wide held opinion of the avarage Euro. So I keep answering the advocate, not personaly you, Ahava...

The Arabs happened not to have a nation officially, but that's not their fault. It's their bad luck. It not bad luck and wrong choises. They tried to genocide us, back in 1948 and the dream of driving us into the sea ever since. I got exactly what they deserve. It's not bad luck the prevented them from having their own country but justace, and Jewish desperation and many many Israelis and soldiers huge personal secrifices.

And America? Is that essentially different? Abit... Muslems are only 6 million in America, and only 3 million of them, Arabs.

Ahava

01-24-2004, 05:23 AM

Originally posted by Gilgamesh
This is why we do not annex the entire WB, although we can, international law speaking. Part of Jerusalem, which are beyonned the greenline, were annexed, despite Arab's wrath. So other parts of the WB where there is today Jewish majority, will be annexed quite soon, according to Sharon's current plan. In the future, other parts of the WB will be annexed as well. I believe that the Jorden valley will be annexed, even this year.

Really? And what is this Sharon-talk about a Palestinian state he says to be in favour of? About that international law..you still have to prove to me where it says you're allowed to annex it.

What you should realy ask your self, and we in Israel really do, is the fate of "Israeli-Arabs" who consider themselves "Palestinians" and under suffer "occupation" and life under "racist ragime" (which keeps sending them social benefits and different welfare pansions). Some of their majore population centers, already are on the "green line". Why don't we offer these people the possibility of territory and population swap with the PA.

If they want to go to future Palestine, the Westbank, voluntarily, I wouldn't see a problem in that. You think they don't want that? Well, what you could do to make them less hostile toward you, is give them equal chances, equal treatment, because I hear they get far less money from the state to develop things, build houses, get money for schools etc. Non-official discrimination.

You are the devil advocate who represents in views, the wide held opinion of the avarage Euro. So I keep answering the advocate, not personaly you, Ahava...

Oh, alright ;) , and I still like you too.
But the wide held opinion of average Euro is far more harsh, more anti-Israel, you would probably go crazy here..

It not bad luck and wrong choises. They tried to genocide us, back in 1948 and the dream of driving us into the sea ever since. I got exactly what they deserve. It's not bad luck the prevented them from having their own country but justace, and Jewish desperation and many many Israelis and soldiers huge personal secrifices.

I meant before that, it was bad luck they had no official state before the Jewish immigration, and therefore couldn't just not let the Jews in (like you said you would do). I know what happened after, and I'm very very glad they didn't succeed in driving Jews into the sea, and i'm very glad the Jewish state came into being.

Ahava

01-24-2004, 05:38 AM

Additionally, all this talk about evil Europe, but who belongs to Europe when it comes to Eurovision Song Contest, and Europe football cup (except that you guys are not good enough to ever come further than qualifications)? Israel! :D

Gilgamesh

01-24-2004, 07:17 AM

Originally posted by Ahava
Really? And what is this Sharon-talk about a Palestinian state he says to be in favour of? About that international law..you still have to prove to me where it says you're allowed to annex it. That's exactly the point! Laws are writen to define what one can not do, not what he is allowed!

The International law does not enforces us to surrender the territoris! Aspecialy once the Jordenians and Egyptions droped all claims for it!

If they want to go to future Palestine, the Westbank, voluntarily, I wouldn't see a problem in that. You think they don't want that? Well, what you could do to make them less hostile toward you, is give them equal chances, equal treatment, because I hear they get far less money from the state to develop things, build houses, get money for schools etc. Non-official discrimination. Population swap does not mean to uproot people from their homes, just to redraw the border line in a way that many Israeli Arabs will be included in the PA territories.

Oh, alright ;) , and I still like you too.
But the wide held opinion of average Euro is far more harsh, more anti-Israel, you would probably go crazy here.. Oh, yeah, I know... good thing we do not share a border with them...

I meant before that, it was bad luck they had no official state before the Jewish immigration, and therefore couldn't just not let the Jews in (like you said you would do). I know what happened after, and I'm very very glad they didn't succeed in driving Jews into the sea, and i'm very glad the Jewish state came into being. Right! Zionism exploited an historical window of opetunity. The demise of the Othoman empire and an age of national liberation all over the world.

Either wise, Jews had other plans, like having or purchasing the consent of the rulling empire, just like in the end of the first exile, when Kuresh, king of persia allowed the restoration of the Jewish nation state in the land of Israel.

Justcurious

01-24-2004, 07:56 AM

Which one saves more lives, the Fence or the Berlin Wall? We shall see.

ibrodsky

01-24-2004, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by Justcurious
Which one saves more lives, the Fence or the Berlin Wall? We shall see.

We can already see. The Berlin Wall was intended to prevent people from escaping tyranny. The Israeli security fence is designed to prevent Arab racists from massacring Jewish women, children, and elderly.

There were significantly fewer Arab mass murder attacks during 2003. The most recent Arab mass murder attack targeted a checkpoint used to allow Palestinian workers to enter Israel from the Gaza strip, as Palestinian jihadists can no longer just walk into Israel from the West Bank. The attack led to Israel temporarily closing the entrance, which harmed Palestinians as much or more than it harmed Israelis.

The only valid complaint the Arab barbarians have against the security fence is that it prevents them from plying their murderous trade and, consequently, dims their hopes of destroying Israel and replacing it with one of their patented Muslim totalitarian apartheid states.

Leon

01-24-2004, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by Justcurious
Which one saves more lives, the Fence or the Berlin Wall? We shall see.

I never knew the Berlin wall was designed to save lives? Was it there to prevent East Germans (or vise-versa) from entering and massacring innocent people? Well you learn new things every day...

Leon

01-24-2004, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by ibrodsky
We can already see. The Berlin Wall was intended to prevent people from escaping tyranny. The Israeli security fence is designed to prevent Arab racists from massacring Jewish women, children, and elderly.

There were significantly fewer Arab mass murder attacks during 2003. The most recent Arab mass murder attack targeted a checkpoint used to allow Palestinian workers to enter Israel from the Gaza strip, as Palestinian jihadists can no longer just walk into Israel from the West Bank. The attack led to Israel temporarily closing the entrance, which harmed Palestinians as much or more than it harmed Israelis.

The only valid complaint the Arab barbarians have against the security fence is that it prevents them from plying their murderous trade and, consequently, dims their hopes of destroying Israel and replacing it with one of their patented Muslim totalitarian apartheid states.

Just to add Ibrodsky: No-one (not even a Euro-sceptic) raised any objections to the anti-terror fence in Gaza. Aside from the checkpoint incident (she didnt even get passed the checkpoint!) no terrorist had come from Gaza to do their dirty deeds in Israel in the whole 3 years of the intifada!

So I dont understand why there are objections to this fence been built in the West .Bank (which is already doing the job by been a major inconvience to the terrorist mass murderers.) Yes, the fence becomes a major inconvienance to Palestinians - but inconveinances should be less trivial than SAVING AN ACTUAL HUMAN LIFE. Unfortunatley, the immoral europeans and the internaitonal community (corruppted by Arab oil) are unable to see this.

It has to be noted that under the Geneva convention the responsibility for the predicament of innocent civilians (in this Palestinians) lies with their terrorist leadership who resort to non-conventional warfare. Nevertheless, the international community allows the Palestinians to distort international law. So its no suprise that a bunch of predominatley totelterian police states are allowed to raise such issues within the UN and vote in favor of bringing this issue to the Internatoinal court of justice.

I wonder what Justcurious thinks of such a distortion of international law...particularly when a case against Israel (the only democracy in the middle east) is brought by countries who happen to be among the worst police states and abusers of human rights?

Oh Jerusalem

01-25-2004, 04:41 AM

Before it changes, have a look at the current What Do You Think page (http://www.theonion.com/4003/wdyt.html), at The Onion. :)

Gilgamesh

01-25-2004, 07:50 AM

Originally posted by Justcurious
Which one saves more lives, the Fence or the Berlin Wall? We shall see. The fence, already did!

Noam

01-25-2004, 10:44 AM

FUNNY
Shaul Menashe in his reprot tonight of recent Arab writings ...quotes some blogger from Qatar who says that HARK HARK:

THE FENCE IS THE PROOF TO ALL THOSE WHO THINK ISRAEL STILL WANTS TO GOBBLE UP LAND AND EXPAND (ALA JABOTINSKY ) FROM THE EHPHRATE TO THE SEA.... THAT ISRAEL IS SELF IMPOSING BORDERS ON ITSELF....

RATHER HILLARIOUS IF YOU ASK ME.

Ahava

01-25-2004, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by Gilgamesh
That's exactly the point! Laws are writen to define what one can not do, not what he is allowed!

So you're exploiting, or abusing the law? In fact, I do think it says you're not allowed, but i would need an international law expert on this...anyone?

The International law does not enforces us to surrender the territoris! Aspecialy once the Jordenians and Egyptions droped all claims for it!

Resolution 242 doesn't?

Population swap does not mean to uproot people from their homes, just to redraw the border line in a way that many Israeli Arabs will be included in the PA territories.

I think you got me wrong, then. Of course I didn't mean you should start non-official discrimination, I said you should STOP it, in order to make the Arabas less hostile towards you, and so that it doesn't matter if they stay and, ever, become the majority.

Oh, yeah, I know... good thing we do not share a border with them...

Oh that's great indeed, instead you share a border with your beloved neighbours Egyptians, Syrians and Jordanians, yeah you're so lucky! :rolleyes:

Gilgamesh

01-25-2004, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by Ahava
So you're exploiting, or abusing the law? In fact, I do think it says you're not allowed, but i would need an international law expert on this...anyone? I don't think I need a law to allow me do anything. I need law only to explain me how things are done or forbiden.

Show me one UN resolution that sets the borders of France, or China. There is none! Why Israel is the ONLY country in the world her borders must be decided by UN?

Have you ever thought about the UN as an organization? It is that holy? Is is a lagitimate organization at all? Where Arabs enjoy the automatic majority because of the automated support of every dictatorship and every tyrant. If you follow blindly and totally UN insturctions, you basicly follow the commands of the world's greated mass murderers and human rights abusers of this times!

Resolution 242 doesn't? Sorry, it doesn't! 242 is only a suggestion, not a committing resolution, that one must follow or else. It doesn't include sanctions and it based on a different UN Chapter. Read Alen Dershawitz book!

Besides, it does set borders or boundiris. It only says Israel must redrowl from some of the territories. not all of them.

I think you got me wrong, then. Of course I didn't mean you should start non-official discrimination, I said you should STOP it, in order to make the Arabas less hostile towards you, and so that it doesn't matter if they stay and, ever, become the majority. What discrimmination? Aren't you aware Arabs enjoy privilages Jews don't? If there is a discrimination in Israel, it's against Jews!!! And what hostility? You think we Jews are hated by Arabs because of amount of social benefits? because of money? You're dreaming!

And what is that line means:" so that it doesn't matter if they stay and, ever, become the majority." Are you in favour of Arab majority in Israel? Are you sure you want Israel to stop to exist as the nation state of the Jewish people?

I don't think you realy believe in what you say. Are you "devil advocating again, since it get to easy. Anti Zionist devil has no moral grounds to argue about.

Oh that's great indeed, instead you share a border with your beloved neighbours Egyptians, Syrians and Jordanians, yeah you're so lucky! :rolleyes: No one, not even the cursed arabs are as evil as the Europeans can become.

Ahava

01-26-2004, 07:37 AM

Originally posted by Gilgamesh

Show me one UN resolution that sets the borders of France, or China. There is none! Why Israel is the ONLY country in the world her borders must be decided by UN?

Have you ever thought about the UN as an organization? It is that holy? Is is a lagitimate organization at all? Where Arabs enjoy the automatic majority because of the automated support of every dictatorship and every tyrant. If you follow blindly and totally UN insturctions, you basicly follow the commands of the world's greated mass murderers and human rights abusers of this times!

The Netherlands can't just go conquer parts of Belgium. Even though Westbank is under no sovereignty, Israel can't just take it. If it could, Jordan could do that as well if they wish, and that's ground for war. I mean, there must be a resolution or something in international law that forbids Israel to do that?
The UN is not holy, no. However, it's a worldwide acknowledged institute, and it passed the resolution that brought Israel into being.

Sorry, it doesn't! 242 is only a suggestion, not a committing resolution, that one must follow or else. It doesn't include sanctions and it based on a different UN Chapter. Read Alen Dershawitz book!

Besides, it does set borders or boundiris. It only says Israel must redrowl from some of the territories. not all of them.

I do have Dershowitz' book actually, Case for Israel, but I have just read parts of it uptill now. 242 is a suggestion, but hasn't it become compulsory in some peace treaty?

What discrimmination? Aren't you aware Arabs enjoy privilages Jews don't? If there is a discrimination in Israel, it's against Jews!!! And what hostility? You think we Jews are hated by Arabs because of amount of social benefits? because of money? You're dreaming!

What privileges do Arabs enjoy that Jews don't? They don't have to serve in the army (but nor do the ultra-orthodox, right?) but what else? You're saying there is no discrimination? Arab communities getting less government funding from the interior/housing ministry, less funding for Arabs in schools. Government spending for Arabs is far less. I don't think the Palestinians hate you for that, I do think the Israeli Arabs are more frustrated and hostile, because of that.

And what is that line means:" so that it doesn't matter if they stay and, ever, become the majority." Are you in favour of Arab majority in Israel? Are you sure you want Israel to stop to exist as the nation state of the Jewish people?

I don't think you realy believe in what you say. Are you "devil advocating again, since it get to easy. Anti Zionist devil has no moral grounds to argue about.

I've never said I wanted Israel to stop exist, absolutely not. I'm not in favour of Arab majority, where do you get that from? I'm NOT an anti-zionist!! I'm just being realistic when I'm saying the Arabs will probably become the majority one day. It doesn't mean I'm IN FAVOUR of that. It seems you read what you wanna read, or you're just suspicious.

No one, not even the cursed arabs are as evil as the Europeans can become.

Now that's insulting!

Leon

01-26-2004, 08:16 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ahava [/i]
[B]The Netherlands can't just go conquer parts of Belgium. Even though Westbank is under no sovereignty, Israel can't just take it.

First of all, prior to Israeli occupation did the Palesitnian territories ever comprise of a soverieng or independent state...much like Belguim or Holland (was it ever an independent state?) Or was it occuppied...in this case by Jordan?

Secondly, did Belguim ever launch an aggressive war of annihialation against Holland? If so...and lets say Belguim won and conquered territory...than under international law it has a right to keep it.

Let me place this in a better context: Germany lost allot of its territory to Poland, the Baltic states and Chekoslavakia respectivley as a result of losing two agressive wars. Did the Germans ask for it back? Like the Palesitnians under Arafat, the Germans under Adolf hitelr after the first world war did ask (no they demanded) to have the territories back. They learnt not to ask a second time round. Poland and other countries have every right to keep lost German territory. They continue to do so, legally under international law, to this very day - with no German demands to have it back.

Likewise, Israel has every right to keep territory which it gained in a war which it won. Resolution 242 does allow Israel to keep some of the land it gained - and Israel is doing just that. 95% of the Palesitnian population, with all major Palestinian cities and towns are under the Palestinian Authority and not Israeli control.
The Israelis have every right to build a fence on the remainder of the territory that it is allowed to keep under 242.

If it could, Jordan could do that as well if they wish, and that's ground for war.

Jordan did just that back in 1948 - when they broke the partition, broke international law and prevented the creation of a viable and independent Palestinian state. They invaded and annexxed the land to their own country! No-one (not even the so called 'Palestinians') had any objections. The 'Palestianians' automatically became Jordanian. East Jerusalem even became a second capital where the parliament of Jordan sat.

I mean, there must be a resolution or something in international law that forbids Israel to do that?

If there was - than poland has to give Germany some of its territory back.

European nations have to realise that they are in the same boat as Israel and stop letting tyrannical and despotic regimes distort international law. The trial at the international court is just one example.

Mediocrates

01-26-2004, 08:27 AM

.....To many of those disturbed by the contrast between the world's treatment of Israel and its treatment of Iraq, it is rights and wrongs, not details of law, that matter here. Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza has endured for 35 years, against the will of the Palestinian inhabitants, who dearly want, and in the eyes of the world have long deserved, a state of their own. But whereas Israel is supported economically and diplomatically by America, America is the prime mover against Iraq. Simple justice, or so the argument goes, requires even-handed behaviour by the superpower in the two conflicts.

That may be so. But a quite distinct sort of claim is also made in the "double standards" debate. This holds that Israel stands in breach of Security Council resolutions in just the way Iraq does, and therefore deserves to be treated by the UN with equal severity. Not so.

WHAT THE LAW SAYS
The UN distinguishes between two sorts of Security Council resolution. Those passed under Chapter Six deal with the peaceful resolution of disputes and entitle the council to make non-binding recommendations. Those under Chapter Seven give the council broad powers to take action, including warlike action, to deal with "threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of aggression". Such resolutions, binding on all UN members, were rare during the cold war. But they were used against Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait.

None of the resolutions relating to the Israeli-Arab conflict comes under Chapter Seven. By imposing sanctions--including military ones--against Iraq but not against Israel, the UN is merely acting in accordance with its own rules.

The distinctiveness of Chapter Seven resolutions, and the fact that none has been passed in relation to Israel, is acknowledged by Palestinian diplomats. It is, indeed, one of their main complaints. A Palestine Liberation Organisation report, entitled "Double Standards" and published at the end of September, pointed out that, over the years, the UN has upheld the Palestinians' right to statehood, condemned Israel's settlements and called for Israel to withdraw. But "no enforcement action or any other action to implement UN resolutions And international law has been ordered by the Security Council."

But what if, for the sake of argument, the main Security Council resolutions on the Arab-Israeli conflict had been Chapter Seven resolutions? The problem would then arise that Resolution 242 of 1967, passed after the six-day war and frequently cited in the double-standards argument, does not say what a lot of the people who quote it think it says It does not instruct Israel to withdraw unilaterally from the territories occupied in 1967. It does not condemn Israel's conquest, for the good reason that most western powers at that time thought it the result of a justifiable pre-emptive war. It calls for a negotiated settlement, based on the principle of exchanging land for peace. This is a very different matter.

In the case of Iraq, the Security Council has instructed Mr Hussein to take various unilateral actions that he is perfectly capable of taking. Resolution 242 cannot be implemented unilaterally, even if Israel wanted to do so.

Why? First is the question of borders. Some of the diplomats who drafted Resolution 242 said afterwards that they intended to allow for some changes in the armistice lines that separated Israel and its Arab neighbours before the war of 1967. There has been a dreary argument for three decades over the meaning of the absence of a definite article (in the English text) before the phrase "territories occupied in the recent conflict". The Arabs maintain that the resolution requires a complete withdrawal from every inch. But even if this were so, the resolution cannot be implemented without arriving at a negotiated agreement.

For example, the resolution calls for a "just" settlement of the Palestinian refugee issue. Meaning what? The Palestinians say that a UN General Assembly resolution, 194 of 1948, gives all the Palestinian refugees of 1948 the right to return, or to get compensation. Israel, denying responsibility for their flight, says that the same resolution stipulates that these refugees had to be willing to "live at peace with their neighbours" and that the Palestinians, having rejected the UN-sanctioned partition of Palestine, were not prepared to live in peace with the new Jewish state. More than half a century later, the refugee population has grown from about 700,000 to at least 3.8m, making the return of all of them an impossibility, says Israel. It may be possible to negotiate a compromise on this issue, as Yasser Arafat and Ehud Barak attempted without success at Camp David in 2000. But there exists no Security Council blueprint to solve it.

Israel says that it has already implemented much of 242, and that it stands ready to implement the rest of it. It returned land to Egypt and Jordan in return for peace. Two years ago, when he was prime minister, Mr Barak offered the bulk of the Golan Heights in return for peace with Syria. All the agreements made between Israel and the Palestinians under the Oslo peace process were predicated on Resolution 242. Israel subsequently withdrew from the main Palestinian population centres (although it has returned to them since the INTIFADA) pending negotiation of a final settlement. And though there are strong grounds to question his sincerity, Israel's new prime minister, Ariel Sharon, claims to accept George Bush's peace "vision", set out in June, of an Israeli withdrawal and a free Palestine based on the borders of 1967.

It is commonly asserted that Israel's occupation is "illegal". This is questionable. In March, for the first time ever, Kofi Annan, the UN's secretary-general, called Israel's occupation illegal, but it is no accident that he has not repeated this claim. In the view of Sir Adam Roberts, professor of international relations at the University of Oxford, it was a "serious mistake" to describe the occupation itself, as opposed to some of Israel's actions as an occupier, in this way. In a subsequent letter to the NEW YORK TIMES, Mr Annan's spokesman admitted as much. The secretary-general, he said, had not intended to refer to the legality of Israel's occupation of the territories during the war of 1967, only to breaches of its obligations as
an occupying power.

This is where Israel has put itself squarely on the wrong side of the Security Council. Since 1967, the UN has rejected all Israel's attempts to change the legal and demographic status of the captured territories, by annexing Jerusalem, applying Israeli law to the Golan Heights and planting Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza How can vigorous attempts to colonise the occupied territories be reconciled with Israel's claim to accept 242 and the principle of land for peace that underlies it?

They can't. The plain fact is that Israel, citing history ancient and Modern (Jerusalem has had a Jewish majority since the 19th century), decided after conquering its Jordanian half in 1967 to make the city its eternal "unified" capital. The Labour governments of that period also began to dot the Jordan valley and Golan Heights with Jewish settlements, ostensibly in order to guard the new borders against a still hostile Arab world. After 1977, the Likud governments of Menahem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir set out frankly, for religious-ideological reasons, to make the occupied territories part of a Greater Israel, in defiance of the UN and of the logic of 242. Here Israel cannot plead innocence. All it can enter is a plea of mitigation.

Legal or not, the occupation has lasted a terribly long time. But this is not solely Israel's fault. In 1967, it was the Arabs who rejected Resolution 242. They certainly did not accept Israel's new post-war borders, but nor did they recognise its pre-war borders. They did not, in fact, acknowledge Israel's right to exist at all. This posture persisted for a dozen years after 1967, until Egypt alone made peace. The Palestinians, pledging still to "liberate" all Palestine and dissolve the Jewish state, waited longer. Not until the late 1980s, some 40 years after Israel's birth and 20 years after the 1967 war, did Mr Arafat's PLO indicate an interest in a two-state solution. Under the rules of "belligerent occupation", Israel should not have mucked about during those 20 years with the status of the captured lands. But it is not wholly surprising, given the continuing rejection and siege, that it did.

When the Palestinians decided that they were no longer bent on its extirpation, Israel responded. In 1993 it signed an agreement with the PLO under which the two sides undertook to implement Resolution 242 by negotiation, thus putting all the contentious issues--Jerusalem, the settlements and the refugees--on the bargaining table. Two years ago the talks failed, to be followed by a new Palestinian INTIFADA and the election of the unyielding Mr Sharon. The Israelis claim that their agreement to negotiate the thorny issues with the Palestinians supersedes the relevant UN resolutions on settlements and the rest, a view which the Security Council might accept if the negotiations got back on track. In the meantime, the council's rulings on Jerusalem and the settlements stand.

Ahava

01-26-2004, 09:05 AM

Thanks Mediocrates. What can one conclude from this? The occupation is not illegal - I already knew this, and my opinion is that even if it were according to the UN, maybe Israel still shouldn't withdraw, for security reasons.
But..does Israel have the right to annex the Westbank? It's clear that this is not in line with the intentions of UN resolutions and peace negotiations, however, I haven't read (yet) that it would be illegal for Israel to do so.

Gilgamesh

01-26-2004, 09:27 AM

Ahava, Leon and Medi Answered your concerened far better then what I could ever attempt, in this forum. So I'll jump up to the points directed only at me or points they have chose to skip.

Originally posted by Ahava
What privileges do Arabs enjoy that Jews don't? They don't have to serve in the army (but nor do the ultra-orthodox, right?) but what else? You're saying there is no discrimination? Arab communities getting less government funding from the interior/housing ministry, less funding for Arabs in schools. Government spending for Arabs is far less. I don't think the Palestinians hate you for that, I do think the Israeli Arabs are more frustrated and hostile, because of that. Money, or lack of it is not a moral justification for crime, let alone terrorism. The luck of funding is caused mostly because Arabs don't like paying taxes, so they don't! Simple as that. Since they can't left without water phone or electricity, they enjoy these services, free of charge, and the rest of the Jewish public pays the bill for them.

Also, Arabs developments is brought into a standstill by unresolved internal local politics, curroption, based on clan politics, some clans are compaletly involved in crimminal activity, such as women sex slavory and women smuggling, guns running and hostail inteligiance selling. Clan warfare, over internal politics, is relativly common, as mass riots and shoot outs errupt within towns of mixed clans population. Also, police enforcement is hard. Partly because the clan resist Jewish police presence in some towns, and enforcemt might develop into intefada like riots, rocks throwings and shoot outs. Secondly many Badewins are already heavly armed, both with leagal and illegal weapons. Thierd, Some of the clans are already enlisted to the police, army or border guards. Forth, Arab elected representative in the Knesset, Academy or Judical system do not do the job they were elected to do. Instead they focus on the "Palestinian" conflict.

I've never said I wanted Israel to stop exist, absolutely not. I'm not in favour of Arab majority, where do you get that from? I'm NOT an anti-zionist!! I'm just being realistic when I'm saying the Arabs will probably become the majority one day. It doesn't mean I'm IN FAVOUR of that. It seems you read what you wanna read, or you're just suspicious. I'm sorry I didn't understood your preior passage. I can only read what you write! I'm glad to read your clearafication on the subject and I'm most happy you're a real fast standing Zionists.

According to most common calculations, arabs will not become a majority. However, I fail to understand your moral objections to set the border between self rulling PA and Israel in away that will include Israeli-citizens Arabs, who already upset with the very idea of of Jewish national state.

Now that's insulting! I'm sorry, but I do speak about proven and recent European history. Europeans do have a huge dark side, which might reveal itself, again any minute now. With the Arabs we can handle some how. With Euros, it's a whole different story.

Mediocrates

01-26-2004, 09:34 AM

I think the key is to negotiate a final status which is predicated on having a rational responsible representative party which with to negotiate. It's simply nonsense for the 'world' to chirp and warble like baby bluebirds 'twofourtwo twofourtwo twofourtwo' like it's some magic talisman. The key point in the end is that nothing is either legal or illegal if there is no enforcement. We could I suppose impose all sorts of 'legal' restrictions on the PA which of course would be silly since there is no possible way anyone would let you enforce them.

So the whole question of what is legal is somewhat meaningless. Terrorism is 'illegal' - I don't see the fine people of the UN knocking each other down to fight that - -. In end I think we can thank the nation of Franchermany for the gift of UN irrelevance. As soon as they their ball and went home they made passive aggressive indifference the official policy tool of the UN. OK let's work with that. Let's call their bluff. Will Israel 'annex' the entirety of YESHA? No I don't think so nor do I think there are any official statements to that effect either. I do believe though that all of the Golan is off the table, as is virtually all of E. Jerusalem. I do believe that the so called Green Line will move to encompass the major Jewish neighborhoods outside of Jerusalem. I do believe that since nearly half of all Jewish residents in YESHA live in only 7 towns that they will not move either and the case can be made that if Gaza and the West Bank can be made 'virtually' contiguous then so too can Kiryat Arba, Hevron and other towns be made 'virtually' contiguous to the rest of Israel. It stands to reason. The rest? The smaller towns outside of Jerusalem and outside of the 7 towns will I think be given up including all of Gaza. But again, all of that needs to be negotiated and if there is no one to do that with then it's kind of silly to try - they will just slam Israel with the "you can't act unilaterally" charge anyway.

Ahava

01-26-2004, 10:28 AM

Originally posted by Gilgamesh
Money, or lack of it is not a moral justification for crime, let alone terrorism. The luck of funding is caused mostly because Arabs don't like paying taxes, so they don't! Simple as that. Since they can't left without water phone or electricity, they enjoy these services, free of charge, and the rest of the Jewish public pays the bill for them.

Also, Arabs developments is brought into a standstill by unresolved internal local politics, curroption, based on clan politics, some clans are compaletly involved in crimminal activity, such as women sex slavory and women smuggling, guns running and hostail inteligiance selling. Clan warfare, over internal politics, is relativly common, as mass riots and shoot outs errupt within towns of mixed clans population. Also, police enforcement is hard. Partly because the clan resist Jewish police presence in some towns, and enforcemt might develop into intefada like riots, rocks throwings and shoot outs.

Of course lack of money is no justification for crime, but I was talking about the average Israeli Arab, no criminal, just normal worker, normal people. They get disadvantaged, on all different kind of things, like housing, school etc. It's the Israeli government that has to take care of that, for every Israeli.

I'm sorry I didn't understood your preior passage. I can only read what you write! I'm glad to read your clearafication on the subject and I'm most happy you're a real fast standing Zionists.

According to most common calculations, arabs will not become a majority. However, I fail to understand your moral objections to set the border between self rulling PA and Israel in away that will include Israeli-citizens Arabs, who already upset with the very idea of of Jewish national state.

Objection to what exactly? I don't mind if the Israeli Arabs come under PA law if they don't mind and don't have to be dislocated for that.. And what to do with Jewish colonists who live on the Westbank?