Sharing the blame

[elke]

Originally posted by yaaqub ishaq
some members of this board are very keen to point out the original UN partition plan as evidence of israel's legitimacy. can you explain how invading syria and jordan is compatible with this 'adherence' to UN resolutions, in particular with reference to UN resolution 242?

i personally feel that people can let bygones be bygones. past killings on both sides are possible to move on from. but land is another issue. even the tri-axis powers of ww2 were handed their land back (germany lost some after ww1 i think from memory).

Well, the UN Partition Plan presupposed the acceptance of same by all parties. Unfortunately, we all know that it's not what happened, as well as who were the belligerents who prevented it from happening. Can you explain how invading Israel by - what was it - 6 countries? is adherence to any UN resolution?

As far as land being given back... well, based on research, it seems that Jordan and Egypt do not want these lands back. To be more exact, they don't want these lands' inhabitants back. It seems that we will all need to let bygones be bygones, but for that to happen these "bygones" need to actually be gone!

[marinade]

“As for the Palestinian threats of Jihad againt the Jewish people if an Israeli Jew would like to visit the site of Judaism's holiest temple, that is ridiculous. About as ridiculous as it would be to hear an Israeli threaten to slaughter thousands of Muslims if the Saudi Prince dares to enter Mecca.”

If Hitler were to visit some Jewish holy site, there would be some protests too. Sharon is regarded as a butcher among the Palestinians, everyone knows that. Barak, the US, the PA all warned what would happen. Sharon went there with 1000 body guards, he knew what would happen. It is widely known that he visited the site, not to pray, but as a way of either stopping the peace process, stopping Barak from getting re-elected, or both.

“You need to understand and explain to the terrorists you support,”

What the heck is this about?? When have I ever said that I support terrorists?

“that Israel is the Jewish homeland and Jerusalem is Israel's capital. Arabs will never be able to impose an apartheid regime whereby Jews are not free to walk in their own capital and visit Judaism's holy sites.”

You mean like the IDF does to the Palestinians? Boy that would be something. I guarantee you that if this were to happen, we would be talking about Jewish terrorists. And rightfully so. See, everyone has a right to resist occupation or an oppressive foreign government, the Americans did, the Indians did, the blacks did it, the Palestinians are doing it, and the Jews would do it if they were forces to walk in different shoes.

“Now let's talk about collective punishment. The fact is that the Palestinians are collectively guilty of terrorism. Many Palestinians have blood on their hands directly, and most others are equally guilty of supporting the killers in many ways, including harboring the murderers, aiding the murderers, honoring the families of the murderers and making the murderers legitimate members of Palestinian society. Therefore, the Palestinians are collectively guilty and should be collectively punished.”

In our country lots of crime comes from people in the inner city, blacks, Hispanics, and immigrants. Should we just arrest all those people regardless? Perhaps we should jail all accounting firms for the acts of Authur Anderson. We don’t do these things because we are better than that. It’s against our way to punish people without a trial, without evidence, without rights.

“However, just today, Israel's Supreme Court formally ruled against collective punishment in the form of expulsions of the families of the suicide bombers, because collective punishment is unfortunately illegal in Israel.”

Actually the Supreme Court ruled that it was OK to expel family members as a deterrent.

[marinade]

“There IS NO OCCUPATION!!!! First, there isn't a "race" of Palestinians - they are Arabs, pure and simple. Pre 1960's there are direct quotes of High level Arabs saying that the term "Palestinian" was a Zionist-propaganda tool to take away from the fact that Israel belonged to Syria.”

The term Palestinian is a representation of Arabs living in Palestine. Much like an Irishman is white. It doesn’t really matter where the term may or may not have derived from, today it is used to describe the Arabs living in Palestine.

“Second, the land belonged to Jordan and was captured in a defensive war. All other captured land was captured in other defensive wars.”

It doesn’t change the fact that there are people living under occupation (yes there is an occupation). These people want independence. They don’t want some reservation where they are prisoners in their own so-called sovereign land, where they would have no control over water, roads, air space, boarders, or their military. They want a real country. Israel is blocking this. That is a fact.

“Third, settlements are not "illegal" per se, they are "illegal" based on one, very slanted and hypocritically used, set of rules.”

"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." —Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949
"We consider these settlements to be contrary to the Geneva Convention, that occupied territory should not be changed by establishment of permanent settlements by the occupying power". President Carter (Q&A with American Jewish Press Association, June 13, 1980, Washington)

"Since the end of the 1967 war, the U.S. has regarded Israel as the occupying power in the occupied territories, which includes the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. The U.S. considers Israel's occupation to be governed by the Hague Regulations of 1907 and the 1949 Geneva Conventions concerning the protection of civilian populations under military occupation."—US Ambassador to the UN Pickering (27 November 1989)

You can try and rewrite history all you want, there is an has been an occupation, and the settlement activity is illegal, not just some extreme view.

“By putting "myth" in quotes you show that you are simply an anti-zionist masquerading as something else. Your mask is now off. Good day.”

First, Why don’t you explain “zionist” to me. I hear a different definition every day. Is it the same as being a Jew? Not from what I’ve read. If it is, then I am definitely NOT an Anti-Zionist. If it means that I’m against illegal expansion of Israel at the expense of innocent people, then perhaps I am. Let me know what a Zionist is, then I’ll confirm or deny what I am.

[Mediocrates]

Sharon went there with 1000 body guards, he knew what would happen. It is widely known that he visited the site, not to pray, but as a way of either stopping the peace process, stopping Barak from getting re-elected, or both.

With PA prior notification and approval. Clearly he didn't go there to pray he's not muslim. Is that a requirement?

we would be talking about Jewish terrorists.

you usually are so don't be coy.

See, everyone has a right to resist occupation or an oppressive foreign government,

I love this word resist. All the armchair freedom fighters throw it around so it must be true. Anybody can claim it anybody can use it it's the all purpose pipe wrench of cafe communists everywhere. The Shining Path resists, the Pathet Lao, FARC, Taleban - everyone is resisting something. It must be a good thing cause I read it on a flyer in Starbucks.

the blacks did it with mortars? I didn't know the blacks were occupied, where was that?

In our country lots of crime comes from people in the inner city, blacks, Hispanics, and immigrants. Should we just arrest all those people regardless? We don’t do these things because we are better than that. It’s against our way to punish people without a trial, without evidence, without rights.

That is monumentally misinformed. We do do that. Ask anyone who lives in public housing what would happen to them if someone in their household was convicted of a drug felony. They would be evicted. It's called deterence. It has nothing to do with evidence (which there is), nor rights (which are collectively enforced for the people not actually running around killing someone). It's nice to know you have such a patronizing attitude toward the poor - maybe you should live among them. I have.

[danholo]

marinade:

They want a real country. Israel is blocking this. That is a fact.

It is, and there is a good reason for this.

Your opinion is, that Israel is doing anything in it's power to prevent an independent Palestinian state, just because of Jewish evil intetions towards "oppressed" Palestinans.

Israel has all the right to block the formation of a state, whose culture advocates the killing of Jews and the annihilation of Israel.
This is a fact in Palestinian society. What is taught in school to children wont be erased so easily.

[MGB8]

The difference between the situation in Israel and WWII is that Japan, Germany and Italy were long established countries with traditions and a real ethnic population (IE - an "Italian" means more than "a white person from Italy" it has culture, history...A "Palestinian" means ONLY that its an Arab living in the West Bank or Gaza.)

There never was a Palestine, so there is no sovereign nation to give the land back to...and there is no one with a more-compelling claim to historical sovereignty of the area than the Jewish people.

As for people wanting their own nation - the Basque people want there own country out of parts of France and Spain....the Kurds want there own country out of Iraq, Iran and Turkey...many Scotts want more independence from England...the Tibetans want there own country...I'm sure that many American Indians wouldn't mind nationhood status and land given back...also true of Canadian Indians...in fact more true...lets not even go into Africa or the former soviet union....

I'm sure that Mexico would like California back...

I don't see people clamoring about the Geneva convention in regards to the former soviet union, or for all the things that have happened in Africa and South-East Asia...or even the Balklans!

Its argued with force in only one context...

As for being a Zionist...it means simply a person who believes in Israel as the historic and spiritual home of the Jewish people...

There is land that in certain areas has a population that opposes the leadership...if that is occupation than almost every Arab nation is an occupier....the UK is an occupier with parts of Northern Ireland and with the Falkland Islands...China, India, Pakistan, Greece, France, Spain...OCCUPIERS!

Soon Germany will be an occupier with its large Turkish minority.

As for what the Judean Arabs want...its understandable...but, frankly, it is not nearly as important as Israeli security...and as long as they threatan Israeli security, or a "Palestinian" state would be a threat to Israeli security and the lives of Israelis, then Israel has a DUTY to oppose Palestinian Arab Nationalism.

Originally posted by marinade
“There IS NO OCCUPATION!!!! First, there isn't a "race" of Palestinians - they are Arabs, pure and simple. Pre 1960's there are direct quotes of High level Arabs saying that the term "Palestinian" was a Zionist-propaganda tool to take away from the fact that Israel belonged to Syria.”

The term Palestinian is a representation of Arabs living in Palestine. Much like an Irishman is white. It doesn’t really matter where the term may or may not have derived from, today it is used to describe the Arabs living in Palestine.

“Second, the land belonged to Jordan and was captured in a defensive war. All other captured land was captured in other defensive wars.”

It doesn’t change the fact that there are people living under occupation (yes there is an occupation). These people want independence. They don’t want some reservation where they are prisoners in their own so-called sovereign land, where they would have no control over water, roads, air space, boarders, or their military. They want a real country. Israel is blocking this. That is a fact.

“Third, settlements are not "illegal" per se, they are "illegal" based on one, very slanted and hypocritically used, set of rules.”

"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." —Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949
"We consider these settlements to be contrary to the Geneva Convention, that occupied territory should not be changed by establishment of permanent settlements by the occupying power". President Carter (Q&A with American Jewish Press Association, June 13, 1980, Washington)

"Since the end of the 1967 war, the U.S. has regarded Israel as the occupying power in the occupied territories, which includes the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. The U.S. considers Israel's occupation to be governed by the Hague Regulations of 1907 and the 1949 Geneva Conventions concerning the protection of civilian populations under military occupation."—US Ambassador to the UN Pickering (27 November 1989)

You can try and rewrite history all you want, there is an has been an occupation, and the settlement activity is illegal, not just some extreme view.

“By putting "myth" in quotes you show that you are simply an anti-zionist masquerading as something else. Your mask is now off. Good day.”

First, Why don’t you explain “zionist” to me. I hear a different definition every day. Is it the same as being a Jew? Not from what I’ve read. If it is, then I am definitely NOT an Anti-Zionist. If it means that I’m against illegal expansion of Israel at the expense of innocent people, then perhaps I am. Let me know what a Zionist is, then I’ll confirm or deny what I am.

[Intellectualme]

Originally posted by marinade
?As for the Palestinian threats of Jihad againt the Jewish people if an Israeli Jew would like to visit the site of Judaism's holiest temple, that is ridiculous. About as ridiculous as it would be to hear an Israeli threaten to slaughter thousands of Muslims if the Saudi Prince dares to enter Mecca.?


that Israel is the Jewish homeland and Jerusalem is Israel's capital. Arabs will never be able to impose an apartheid regime whereby Jews are not free to walk in their own capital and visit Judaism's holy sites.?

You mean like the IDF does to the Palestinians? Boy that would be something. I guarantee you that if this were to happen, we would be talking about Jewish terrorists. And rightfully so. See, everyone has a right to resist occupation or an oppressive foreign government, the Americans did, the Indians did, the blacks did it, the Palestinians are doing it, and the Jews would do it if they were forces to walk in different shoes.

?Now let's talk about collective punishment. The fact is that the Palestinians are collectively guilty of terrorism. Many Palestinians have blood on their hands directly, and most others are equally guilty of supporting the killers in many ways, including harboring the murderers, aiding the murderers, honoring the families of the murderers and making the murderers legitimate members of Palestinian society. Therefore, the Palestinians are collectively guilty and should be collectively punished.?

Jerusalem is a city for all three faiths and through out the course of history all three have given it the richness that it now possesses.

If you are talking from history, it was Saladin and Omar who brought back Jewish families to live in Jerusalem after the Crusader Franks had settled in and massacred the population in the city when it conquered.

The two state solution is the only solution now... or else mass extermination.... or a mass exile.

No there are many many many Palestinians who are innocent. If teh terrorists commit terror, they should be brought to justice but why the innocent? And about the families.... in a deomcratic state, one is innocent until proven guilty. One cannot abolutely say that ALL families teach hate... thats incorrect. Innocent Palestinians ARE human being after all, and they must be treated as such... even though the right wings on both sides would not like that to happen.

[Intellectualme]

Originally posted by Mediocrates




That is monumentally misinformed. We do do that. Ask anyone who lives in public housing what would happen to them if someone in their household was convicted of a drug felony. They would be evicted. It's called deterence. It has nothing to do with evidence (which there is), nor rights (which are collectively enforced for the people not actually running around killing someone). It's nice to know you have such a patronizing attitude toward the poor - maybe you should live among them. I have.

If in case that a person is convicted of a felony, the people of his house hold DO have the right to a trial if they know that they have not commited the act ad it was beyond their control. If the person commiting the drug offense was a minor, his parents would pay fines, etc, and no not have to simply give up thei home, that is a serious conviction. if the person in the household is an adult, they other members of his household are not punished for his actions.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Intellectualme



If in case that a person is convicted of a felony, the people of his house hold DO have the right to a trial if they know that they have not commited the act ad it was beyond their control. If the person commiting the drug offense was a minor, his parents would pay fines, etc, and no not have to simply give up thei home, that is a serious conviction. if the person in the household is an adult, they other members of his household are not punished for his actions.

Housing court - ever been there? Rubber stamp. No appeal or if there is one it takes forever. Person is a minor charged as an adult under Fed guidelines - no difference. If the person is an adult - no difference. Not where I'm from. Not ever.

We do do it. All niceties aside.

[Intellectualme]

Originally posted by Mediocrates



Housing court - ever been there? Rubber stamp. No appeal or if there is one it takes forever. Person is a minor charged as an adult under Fed guidelines - no difference. If the person is an adult - no difference. Not where I'm from. Not ever.

We do do it. All niceties aside.

Housing court ---never needed too, but I have sound knowledge on the subject, I read all their publishings.


Wrong. As much as you hate to say it, the US justice system is NOT like the Israeli Justice system. If there is no lawyer, one is provided, and if the person is wrongfully convicted, then there are numerous volunteer agencies that are ready to asist.

I really dont know where you are from, but in the United States of America, you are innocent until proven guilty and have all the right to challenge your conviction that does not involve appeal courts. If a person is worngfully convicted, or if a family member is using the drugs with out the permission, and it is not known or allowed by the gaurdian, or living mate, they are able to keep there house. The charge will be brought in court anyway, but the burden of proof is on the person wrongfully convicted.

Tenants should know that they are responsible to prevent known illegal activities of family members and other occupants of the tenant's household. This is particularly true in public housing, where most leases forbid drug related criminal activity of any member of the tenant's household. If it is obvious, or even likely, that the tenant would have seen the illegal activity (for example if the tenant was present when drugs are in plain view, or if drugs are found in areas occupied by the tenant, such as a bedroom or kitchen), the tenant may face eviction for participating or acquiescing in the occurrence of the illegal activity in the apartment. Moreover, 24 CFR 966.4 (the public housing counterpart to 24 CFR 247.3 and 24 CFR 247.4) was also amended to specify grounds for drug related criminal activity, and clearly requires a 30 day notice of termination.

For more information read the Housing Court statements, they come out regularly. Appealate process also work, not beautifully, but they most certainly do.


These are not niceties, this is JUSTICE. You may be referring to a few wayward cases, but the law is the law, and the law does not agree with you.

[Intellectualme]

Some examples of recent drug eviction cases:

Case Caption:

Vega v. New York City Housing Authority

Issues/Legal Principles:

NYCHA tenant's tenancy was wrongfully terminated for son's isolated instance of drug
possession in the building complex.


Court:

Supreme Court, New York County

Judge:

Hon. Beatrice Shainswit

Date:

February 23, 1999

Citation:

NYLJ, page 26, col 2

Referred Statutes:

CPLR 7804(g)

The Court noted that the purpose of an administrative sanction is not to punish the tenant for the actions of her family members, but rather to impose conditions that are designed to protect the future health and safety of the residents of NYCHA projects. The Court ruled that the attempt to evict the tenant and the sanction that her son could no live with her were disproportionate penalties to the offense


Another thing: Just because America makes a mistake or does something wrong does not mean
that it is right for others to do it, and justify themsleves by blaming America. We have
problems: but we also work for rock solid solutions for equality for all, and innicent
until proven guilty. This country is not praised for its good Judicial System because it
works in the interest of the governemnt or pregudice people.. NO. It is praised for its
work for justice and for the people: regardless of who they are. That is the inderlying
principle. Blaming America does not correct human right violations, or make the actions
any less terrible.

Case Caption:

PIM Consultants Corp. v. Santos

Issues/Legal Principles:

In a narcotics holdover proceeding, judgment in favor of tenant when tenant has no knowledge of unlawful activity in her apartment.

Court:

Civil Housing Court, Bronx County

Hon. Roman

Date:

February 21, 2001

Citation:

NYLJ, page 25, col 5

Referred Statutes:

RPAPL 711[5], RSC2524.3[d]

[minusthejihad]

when tenant has no knowledge of unlawful activity

I think that is the key.

[Mediocrates]

That wasn't your question - your orginal question was how can this Israeli law be so unfair and unjust. The fact is there is such a thing as collective punishment - it's merely a matter of scale.

There are all sorts of American laws, like the confiscation of cars from drunk drivers to RICO statutes that punish collectively and that really is there intent. So while the Palestinians might like to paint their plight in the colors of racism it simply isn't true or even that different.

[5-alef]

conviniently ignored is the fact that those people sent to Gaza were proven to participate in terrorist activities. pure and simple.
the third man was found not guilty and therefore wasnt sent to GS. unfair? unjust?

[Intellectualme]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
That wasn't your question - your orginal question was how can this Israeli law be so unfair and unjust. The fact is there is such a thing as collective punishment - it's merely a matter of scale.

There are all sorts of American laws, like the confiscation of cars from drunk drivers to RICO statutes that punish collectively and that really is there intent. So while the Palestinians might like to paint their plight in the colors of racism it simply isn't true or even that different.

Collective punishments are not part of the American Way. There is such a thing as colective punishment, but its is against all democratic ways, and it goes against any and all of the democratic principles. Doesnt matter what laws you look at: American or World Laws as signed in the Geneva Convention, collective punishment is UNLAWFULL AND PROHIBITED.

Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 states, "No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or terrorism are prohibited."

US law prohibits the use of US-supplied weapons against civilian populations.

You have not made clear what type of "collective punishment Car laws" you are talking about. Which laws are you reffering to. Collective Punishment is against the LAw of the United States. The US does not sign any International LAw that goes completely against its princilples. Also, collective punishment is against US law, in that a person is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

Painting a brush against all Palestinians as not deserving their rights as human being is against all the "rights" we demand for oursleves. Not paying attention to the innocent Palestinians is unjustified and inhuman. If Terrorist attacks against innocent Israelis is wrong and appalling, so are the terrorist attacks byt eh IDF against the innocent Palestinian population. You cannot condemn one and not condemn the other. You are directly contradicting yourslef and your fight for justice if you do that. killing of any civilian is worng, and the life of one is just a important and real as the life of another.