Sharing the blame

[Intellectualme]

Originally posted by Mediocrates


State law is state law and as a matter of fact Jews were given the vote, the right to own property and the right to hold office in 1868 fully three years after the 13,14,15th ammendments were ratified.

Jews were expelled from the Tennessee military district under General Order 11 by US Grant and it took an appeal to Lincoln to reverse it. So yeah, places is places except some places are more different than other places.

Admit that you are wrong. Government policies change. However, the Constitution is the law of the land, and what ever that is not denied in the constituion can be done by the state. No state in the United States can do colective punishment. NEVER. It is aginsts that law of the land. A man is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY>

[elke]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Intellectualme

Thats what I am saying. They did not have land, they had a unifying belief in their religion.

Here is what you have to understand: Judaism is not solely a "religion", or a way to worship God. It is rooted in nationalism and cultural affinity. The prayers speak of Jerusalem, Land of Israel, and "People of Israel".

You are not getting my point. I am saying that a peeople, a nation of people like the Palestinians, cannot build their own country while they are ocupied. You have to understand that when you ask the Palestinians to have a strong police force, good education, etc, these thiings constitute an independant nation, which they do not have.

What exactly do you mean by "nation of people like the Palestinians"? Why shouldn't they be able to do what other nations have done? You have to understand that they do have a strong police force and educational facilities. They actually have one of the highest literacy rates in the Middle East! Their trouble is not whether they are learning, but what they are learning. It's not whether they can catch criminals, but rather which criminals they choose to catch.

You know, when I just came to the US, I skipped 3 grades. I tested out of the High School Math requirements entirely, and never attended 7th, 8th, or 9th grades. This is not a testament to my superior intellectual abilities, but rather to the amount of raw knowledge that has been crammed into my head by the Soviet educational system - and the same amount (and quality!) of the knowledge was crammed into all the other heads in the Soviet Union. Why, then, is the FSU having such a hard time competing? I think I have a clue: it has to do with what we were learning, vs. what is actually useful.

No people can have an INDEPENDANT politicl and economic infastructure with out a nation. America DID have an army, HOWEVER, the political institutions and economic independance and growth ONLY occuried AFTER they declared their independance. NOT before. Statehood give OFFICIALITY, and SECURITY to BUILD and LEGITIMAZTION to proceed in ALL aspects of society along with foreign relation agreements. Yes these institutions DO require a statehood because if a people cannot just start builiding and creating instituitions with out their recgnized independance, and with a foreign power that is a constant threat to their creation adn existance. Which people have indepenant and growing institutions while they are not even recognized as a nation? Name them.

If I remember my American history, many of the institutions, such as police for example, were in place by the time of the Revolution. It wasn't the matter of scrambling to set everything up after the Big Day on July 4, 1776.

If I remember my Israeli history, same thing can be said for Israel. Haganah and Palmach merged into the IDF, Ben Gurion had his battles of will for control with Irgun - and won! Yes, Israelis also have had independent and growing institutions well before declaring statehood. These things do not form themselves just by the virtue of a piece of paper that says a country is a sovereign over a piece of land.

The society can be ready as anything to sign agreements but both sides need to be equal partners. One cant give out while the other backs out, and the other cannot backout when the other gives out. You agree with this definition?:The act or process of holding or possessing a place.
The state of being held or possessed. Invasion, conquest, and control of a nation or territory by foreign armed forces.
The military government exercising control over an occupied nation or territory

I am not sure I understand what you are saying about the giving out-backing out. As far as agreements are concerned, it is essential that both parties have both the will and the ability to stick to whatever agreements they may sign, but otherwise this equality does not seem to exist. In more recent history, neither Germany nor Japan were on equal terms with the Allies: they were completely vanquished and had no choice but to sign whatever the Allies put in front of them.

To take this analogy further, neither Germany nor Japan became "unoccupied" until those self-same agreements were signed, which included the restrictions on military buildup of both countries. Moreover, look at what happened with Iraq in even more recent history: the "occupation" ended after the agreement was signed, but it wasn't backed up. Therefore, 10 years and countless casualties later, we are back where we started.

My dear, everyone agrees that Egypt should not have shouted Fire, but the fact is that Israel destroyed the Egyptian airforce before it ever lift off. The problem is not signing the treaty, but going through with it. No one in the world agrees with the occupation as the final solution. I undersatnd that Israel is important to you, but you also have to see the mistakes of ther country, that is not threatening its existance, that is realizing that Israel IS the stronger power WITH the ability to occupy. If Palestinians were the occupiers my argument would be no different. People have got to stop thinking that Israel does and cannot do wrong, and that Arabs are responsible for everything. No thats not the case.

I don't agree that nothing is threatening Israel's existence. In fact, IMO this is an existential battle! How would you feel if there were Pentagon-size attacks continuously, sometimes on a daily basis! How would you feel if you were vilified everywhere you went? If there were more resolutions passed against you in the UN than against anyone else? If your mortal enemy was on the Security Council? Goodness, just for one second put yourself into the Israelis' shoes!

You seem like a reasonable person, so I ask you: think about this!

No they say that if IDF can kill an innocent Palestinian 5- year old, then they can too. Sickening as it is on both sides, that the fact. Another fact, while Israeli children may be enjoying Pizzarias, Palestinian children are starving. They dont even have fruit, forget pizza. You dont have to "celebrate" a murder ; just by keeping silent they are permitting and agreeing with it. Thats not much different than "celebrating".

This is not what Hamas says. What they say is that all Israelis are targets, because they are the occupiers. As far as Israelis' ability to enjoy pizza, it was very hard won. For all the aid, help, education, etc. etc. that the Palestinians get (Most of which, granted, Arafat steals), they should be able to enjoy pizza just as much as the Israeli kids.

You have to remember, the pizza is a recent phenomenon. Much sacrifice and hard work went into the economic prosperity Israel has enjoyed. When I was there in the early '80s, inflation rate was in the 30-40%! And that was a great improvement from the hyperinflation of the '70s!

I also disagree that "keeping silent" is the same as "celebrating" death. For one thing, there is a full, full spectrum of political views in Israel. You can see it on this very board: just look at the thoughts of Gilgamesh vs. those of Fred! For another thing, as I have said before, IDF does not wake up in the morning saying "I am going to kill as many Palestinian kids as I can"! And yes, there is a real difference between the two worldviews.

I think you are being naieve, and afraid to self-criticize. For every 1 Israeli killed by Hamas, 3 Palestinaisn are killed by the IDF by accident or on purpose, not that it makes any killing less "bad", but the fact of the matter is that militants dont occupy Israel, the government is a security barrier, and the people have an identity... unfortuntely they dont feel that Palestiniansa should hae the same opportunity. There IS such as thing as STATE Terrorism, and thats the catagory that the IDF falls in while hama falls in the GROUP or SPOSORED Terrorism.

If you classify actions of the IDF as "state terrorism", then you have to admit the same of any other military force, including the peacekeepers in Kosovo, American troops in Afghanistan, etc. This is nothing but a device to attempt to prove moral equivalency between attack and defense.

You are right: Israel is very important to me. However, it is not very important in and of itself to many other people, who are clear-sighted enough to see the difference between right and wrong, between murder and self-defense.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Intellectualme
A man is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY

Nice words but theoretical. Under current law, all sorts of people including foreigners and muslims but not restricted to them, are being held without charge. The complaint I see is the length of time they are held but not the fact of it.

Similarly in time of war, alien and sedition acts have been installed (1803, 1917), habeus corpus suspended (1861, 1917) and so on. So the original case was, what does a country; Israel actually do in time of war? Well it circumscribes some of its laws & rights. We may wish to point to that and say

"See see I told you they were all fascists !!"

But that's what countries in time of war do. You find that unacceptable under the rubric of due process, or simply in and of itself. So for example if deportations occured w/in the context of due process you would accept it? Sounds like, No you would not. Ok so the due process piece is out the window and the main issue is that through whatever means these things go on, yes? And they can't in a modern society, yes?

OK so now we're getting somewhere. You say it is unacceptable, I say it is unavoidable.

[MGB8]

IM,

The Constitution has been violated many times, and in many cases we are not sure what a violation is or isn't. Its a bunch of vague words on paper.

Even when the Courts pronounce what the Constitution "mean," later courts often change those decisions or other courts and agencies simply ignore them.

In a showdown between the Courts and the President...the Courts have NEVER won in the end. Less so Congress, but that's due to the factional nature of Congress.

Moreover, you still use shoddy, vacuous definitions of your terms, and in particular the term "collective punishment."

Originally posted by Intellectualme



Admit that you are wrong. Government policies change. However, the Constitution is the law of the land, and what ever that is not denied in the constituion can be done by the state. No state in the United States can do colective punishment. NEVER. It is aginsts that law of the land. A man is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY>

[yaaqub ishaq]

Originally posted by MGB8
If they didn't hide terrorists and bombs in ambulances, then those ambulances wouldn't be stopped.

i have heard of one circumstance when a terrorist was found in an ambulance. as i recall the red crescent denied knowingly assisting him.

are you aware of any other cases, or any information discrediting the red crescent on this issue?

[danholo]

yi,

Ever think that a terrorist could car jack an ambulance and disguise himself as a medic!?

[Intellectualme]

Originally posted by elke


Here is what you have to understand: Judaism is not solely a "religion", or a way to worship God. It is rooted in nationalism and cultural affinity. The prayers speak of Jerusalem, Land of Israel, and "People of Israel".

I meant that the Jewish People had a unifying belief/identity that kept them together. What I am talking about is the physical outlines of a nation. Palestinians cannot build their own "nation" with out actually having a nation.

What exactly do you mean by "nation of people like the Palestinians"? Why shouldn't they be able to do what other nations have done? You have to understand that they do have a strong police force and educational facilities. They actually have one of the highest literacy rates in the Middle East! Their trouble is not whether they are learning, but what they are learning. It's not whether they can catch criminals, but rather which criminals they choose to catch.

If Palestinians can have their own country then they can build. However, no they do not have a solid police force anymore....if they did their soveriengty would be recognized and protected and their neighbors would not "drop in" whenever they wanted to. Palestinain kids do not have regularly regular school. remember.

You know, when I just came to the US, I skipped 3 grades. I tested out of the High School Math requirements entirely, and never attended 7th, 8th, or 9th grades. This is not a testament to my superior intellectual abilities, but rather to the amount of raw knowledge that has been crammed into my head by the Soviet educational system - and the same amount (and quality!) of the knowledge was crammed into all the other heads in the Soviet Union. Why, then, is the FSU having such a hard time competing? I think I have a clue: it has to do with what we were learning, vs. what is actually useful.

If a people and their territory is under attack, then tit really does not matter what they ;earn in schools, because no only does the occupation disrupt their daily lives and education, but also, I think they learn more when they see an innocent neighbor shot dead.

If I remember my American history, many of the institutions, such as police for example, were in place by the time of the Revolution. It wasn't the matter of scrambling to set everything up after the Big Day on July 4, 1776.

They had a revolutionary army. Palestinians are not allowed to have one. They had militias, Palestinians are not allowed to have one. The poice force is just ONE instituition, US did not have an independant economic state, or political state, or government satture, or anyof the like. They got that AFTER they got independance and the constituition itself was written in 1788.

sraeli history, same thing can be said for Israel. Haganah and Palmach merged into the IDF, Ben Gurion had his battles of will for control with Irgun - and won! Yes, Israelis also have had independent and growing institutions well before declaring statehood. These things do not form themselves just by the virtue of a piece of paper that says a country is a sovereign over a piece of land.

Yes they had SOME institutions, however, if it wasnt for that piece of paper, they would not be recognized ANYWHERE, or by ANYBODY. That piece of paper made them what they are today. The builidng came later.

. As far as agreements are concerned, it is essential that both parties have both the will and the ability to stick to whatever agreements they may sign, but otherwise this equality does not seem to exist. In more recent history, neither Germany nor Japan were on equal terms with the Allies: they were completely vanquished and had no choice but to sign whatever the Allies put in front of them.

I agre, but that is not the political reality today. Do you know how many Palestinsians haev been killed in the past month? Not a SINGLE suicide bombing. But the Palestinisna are under curfew, adn dead , or dying. How about that for keeping word.

I don't agree that nothing is threatening Israel's existence. In fact, IMO this is an existential battle! How would you feel if there were Pentagon-size attacks continuously, sometimes on a daily basis! How would you feel if you were vilified everywhere you went? If there were more resolutions passed against you in the UN than against anyone else? If your mortal enemy was on the Security Council? Goodness, just for one second put yourself into the Israelis' shoes!

Every one in the ME is fighting an existential battle over something or the other. Fact of the matter is that Israel is the most well equiped country in that hemistpshere. Even if you say it is "in danger", it is also far more then well equiped, both conventially, neuclearly, biologically, and chemically. No sympathy there. In Iraq, every 42 days enoyugh innocent people die for it to equal to 9-11. Palestinaisn children are starving. That is the REAL threat and crime. Everyone hates everyone else in one way or another. It just seems over blown when it is directled toward something you feel strongly for.

This is not what Hamas says. What they say is that all Israelis are targets, because they are the occupiers. As far as Israelis' ability to enjoy pizza, it was very hard won. For all the aid, help, education, etc. etc. that the Palestinians get (Most of which, granted, Arafat steals), they should be able to enjoy pizza just as much as the Israeli kids.

It is not the fault of the Palestinians that IDF is "trigger-happy". Thank God for Israel's free press at least.

I also disagree that "keeping silent" is the same as "celebrating" death. For one thing, there is a full, full spectrum of political views in Israel. You can see it on this very board: just look at the thoughts of Gilgamesh vs. those of Fred! For another thing, as I have said before, IDF does not wake up in the morning saying "I am going to kill as many Palestinian kids as I can"! And yes, there is a real difference between the two worldviews.

Yes and the same for Palestinians. They too have a full range of political views but why is it that everyone on the other side ignores them? They may not say that, but what they DO say, "I am going to make it so there are a hundred settlements before my next birthday!"

If you classify actions of the IDF as "state terrorism", then you have to admit the same of any other military force, including the peacekeepers in Kosovo, American troops in Afghanistan, etc. This is nothing but a device to attempt to prove moral equivalency between attack and defense.

You are right: Israel is very important to me. However, it is not very important in and of itself to many other people, who are clear-sighted enough to see the difference between right and wrong, between murder and self-defense.

America went to Kosovo to alleviate the ethnic genocide. Its like saying that when US went to stop the Holocaust they were occupying the countrioes. Thats ridiculous. NO Palestinaisn is ASKING IDF to sit there. They want them out to prevent MORE killings. There IS such a thing as self-defense, but when occupation starts, and one country has a hold on another epople, its state terrorism. Its not self-defense.

[Intellectualme]

Originally posted by Mediocrates


Nice words but theoretical. Under current law, all sorts of people including foreigners and muslims but not restricted to them, are being held without charge. The complaint I see is the length of time they are held but not the fact of it.

No, thats not theoretical. Its the law. What they are doing now is against the law, and we are fighting to the last case on that.
Dont forget it.

Similarly in time of war, alien and sedition acts have been installed (1803, 1917), habeus corpus suspended (1861, 1917) and so on. So the original case was, what does a country; Israel actually do in time of war? Well it circumscribes some of its laws & rights.

Not tmes we look upon with glee. I assure you. The acts were only in times of those wars and are in violation of the constitution. Is Israel fighting a war?

But that's what countries in time of war do. You find that unacceptable under the rubric of due process, or simply in and of itself. So for example if deportations occured w/in the context of due process you would accept it? Sounds like, No you would not. Ok so the due process piece is out the window and the main issue is that through whatever means these things go on, yes? And they can't in a modern society, yes?

OK so now we're getting somewhere. You say it is unacceptable, I say it is unavoidable.

Crimes against humanity are not self-denfese. They are against the charters and treties signed by Israel. Deportations ARE permissioble under due process!!! What law books are you taking this from?? I think yu need to refresh on the US laws. Til now, you have gotten 99% incorrect. Due Process IS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY!!! What are you thinking??

[elke]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Intellectualme

I meant that the Jewish People had a unifying belief/identity that kept them together. What I am talking about is the physical outlines of a nation. Palestinians cannot build their own "nation" with out actually having a nation.

But nationbuilding is a long-term process. If the Palestinians do not have a cohesive nation as of now, maybe the whole idea of a separate state for them is not in the cards for the near future. Again, you are confusing independence with national identity, and these are completely different concepts. Independence cannot occur without the national identity, since it's the glue that binds a society, while the national identity does not need independence to be in existence.

If Palestinians can have their own country then they can build. However, no they do not have a solid police force anymore....if they did their soveriengty would be recognized and protected and their neighbors would not "drop in" whenever they wanted to. Palestinain kids do not have regularly regular school. remember.

What do you expect them to build once they have "their own country"? What do you expect this "own country" to look like? Who is going to collect garbage, pave roads, provide hospital care, etc. etc.? If these institutions are not in place prior to independence, how do you expect them to suddenly appear? And appear they must - immediately, because life does go on, you know

If a people and their territory is under attack, then tit really does not matter what they ;earn in schools, because no only does the occupation disrupt their daily lives and education, but also, I think they learn more when they see an innocent neighbor shot dead.

This is a joke, right? You really, truly don't see that "their territory is under attack" precisely because of what they learn in schools.

They had a revolutionary army. Palestinians are not allowed to have one. They had militias, Palestinians are not allowed to have one. The poice force is just ONE instituition, US did not have an independant economic state, or political state, or government satture, or anyof the like. They got that AFTER they got independance and the constituition itself was written in 1788

.

I beg to differ: the US indeed was economically self-sufficient prior to the Revolution. In fact, as I was taught in my American History classes, this was one of the reasons that the Americans did not want to be a British colony any longer: they were no longer British, and they did not see any benefit to themselves in remaining a British colony.

Yes they had SOME institutions, however, if it wasnt for that piece of paper, they would not be recognized ANYWHERE, or by ANYBODY. That piece of paper made them what they are today. The builidng came later.

The building came before and after the Independence. You see, there are few if any people who are able to get an apartment without first having a job and a few household items. This is similar: you cannot start from scratch. You have to prove that you can be a responsible member of society. As far as I can tell, collectively the Palestinians have proven no such thing: in fact, they have created problems everywhere they went, while not being able to resolve any of their own.

I agre, but that is not the political reality today. Do you know how many Palestinsians haev been killed in the past month? Not a SINGLE suicide bombing. But the Palestinisna are under curfew, adn dead , or dying. How about that for keeping word.

It's not "keeping word" when the sole reason for "no suicide bombings" is the vigilant IDF and pure luck. Attempts to penetrate Israel and perpetrate these monstrocities are made on a daily basis. I feel very bad for the Palestinians who are under curfew, the ones who have had nothing to do with the violence, but I would feel a hell of a lot worse if more Israelis were dead and disfigured for the rest of their lives. Sorry!

Every one in the ME is fighting an existential battle over something or the other. Fact of the matter is that Israel is the most well equiped country in that hemistpshere. Even if you say it is "in danger", it is also far more then well equiped, both conventially, neuclearly, biologically, and chemically. No sympathy there. In Iraq, every 42 days enoyugh innocent people die for it to equal to 9-11. Palestinaisn children are starving. That is the REAL threat and crime. Everyone hates everyone else in one way or another. It just seems over blown when it is directled toward something you feel strongly for.

I beg to differ: the Palestinian troubles, as well as those of the Iraqis, have been inflicted upon them by their leadership. Therefore, they are not existential. If these guys stop fighting, nothing major is going to happen to them. If Israel stops fighting, its 5,000,000 Jewish inhabitants are out in the sea. So don't compare the "existential" nature of the threat to Israel with that to anyone else.

It is not the fault of the Palestinians that IDF is "trigger-happy". Thank God for Israel's free press at least.

I am not so sure that IDF is "trigger-happy" as a whole. I don't think that we can sit on our duffs in the safety of the US and have a clear picture of what these guys go through on the ground in the Territories. I am sorry, until I hear someone qualified to judge such a thing say that, I will assume that the "trigger happy IDF" is nothing more than propaganda.

Yes and the same for Palestinians. They too have a full range of political views but why is it that everyone on the other side ignores them? They may not say that, but what they DO say, "I am going to make it so there are a hundred settlements before my next birthday!"

Show me one opposing view of the Palestinians opposing both Arafat and Hamas. Just one!

America went to Kosovo to alleviate the ethnic genocide. Its like saying that when US went to stop the Holocaust they were occupying the countrioes. Thats ridiculous. NO Palestinaisn is ASKING IDF to sit there. They want them out to prevent MORE killings. There IS such a thing as self-defense, but when occupation starts, and one country has a hold on another epople, its state terrorism. Its not self-defense

But you are the one who is saying that intent doesn't matter: that "celebrating death is the same as being silent about it". If the intent doesn't matter, then going to Kosovo, for whatever reason, is going to open up the charges of "state terrorism" you are lodging against IDF!

I, of course, do not believe that. I believe that intent matters, big time! That's why I find that bogus charge of "state terrorism" ludicrous, whether levied against IDF or the American forces in Iraq or Kosovo, or Afghanistan.

[Mediocrates]

Yes Israel is fighting a war. So to are we. Arresting someone even w/o charges is not a crime against humanity. Which is what you were referring to.

You would object if it was 'legal' anyhow. That's your point.

Those periods in US history were not 'illegal'. It is only now with our thirst to reinvent the past that we call it that. I suppose we should invalidate every election held before 1920 because women didn't vote, or before 1924 because Native Americans didn't. Or before 1865 because the 15th Ammendment hadn't been ratified yet. And so on.

[MGB8]

Terrorists - I think I have only heard of one, can't recall, its been a while (policies are working)...although stops are actually poorly reported here. Bombs and ammunition however, have been spotted several times.

Originally posted by yaaqub ishaq
i have heard of one circumstance when a terrorist was found in an ambulance. as i recall the red crescent denied knowingly assisting him.

are you aware of any other cases, or any information discrediting the red crescent on this issue?

[MGB8]

Elke's response was well put.

The Judean Arab suffering right now is of their own doing. If they did not spend the billions they got on weapons but instead on infrastructure, if they did not send kids to blow up innocents, if they did not reject Oslo (they never fullfilled ONE of their obligations under it) and then the Camp David Accord, if they concentrated on LIVING instead of fighting ---- the checkpoints, mostly only about 2 years old, wouldn't be there. The interuptions. Not there. Instead, they'd have what they want.

It is up to the Arabs to start to take responsibility for themselves. They are not children.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by yaaqub ishaq
i have heard of one circumstance when a terrorist was found in an ambulance. as i recall the red crescent denied knowingly assisting him.

are you aware of any other cases, or any information discrediting the red crescent on this issue?

Yes, yaaqub.

This is from an Israeli statement of February 2002:

"In recent days Israeli security forces have witnessed an increasing use of ambulances and and medical vehicles by terrorist organizations. The terrorists are working on the premise that these vehicles do not undergo thorough examinations when they pass through IDF roadblocks and checkpoints.

The most prominent example of this phenomenon is the apparent use of a medical vehicle or medical accreditation to help carry out the suicide terror attack on Jaffa Road in Jerusalem on January 27. The woman suicide bomber, Wafa Idris, a resident of the Amari refugee camp near Ramallah, worked as a medical secretary for the Palestinian Red Crescent.

[...]

Among the group that planned the attack was Munzar Noor, a resident of the town of Anabta near Tulkarm, who also works for the Red Crescent in Ramallah. Noor is currently being questioned by the Palestinian security services.

Israeli security officials do not yet have a clear picture of how Idris made her way from Ramallah to Jerusalem. However, investigators believe that Red Crescent documentation held by the suicide bomber and her accomplices, and perhaps even a Red Crescent vehicle, helped them through IDF roadblocks and eased the checks they had to undergo.

This is not the first incident in which ambulances have been used by terrorist organizations. Last October, Israeli security forces arrested Nidal Nazal, a Hamas operative from Kalkilya, brother of Natzar Nazal, one of the leaders of the Hamas in the city. Nidal Nazal worked as an ambulance driver for the Palestinian Red Crescent and there is information indicating that Nazal exploited his relatively easy movement around the West Bank towns as an ambulance driver to serve as a messenger between Hamas headquarters in the various towns."

And on March 27, 2002:

"On March 27, 2002, at approximately 10:00 AM, Isalam Jibril, a Tanzim terrorist, born in 1971 and resident of the Balata refugee camp, was arrested at an IDF roadblock near Ramallah. He was arrested while working as the driver of a Red Crescent ambulance. An explosives belt and other explosive charges were seized from the ambulance. The ambulance driver admitted that these were given to him in Nablus by Mahmud Titi - one of the senior Tanzim operatives in Samaria and well-known to the organization's leaders, including Marwan Barghouti - in order to transport them to Tanzim operatives in Ramallah.

In addition to the wanted terrorist in the ambulance, another man, a woman and three children aged 6 months, 3 years and 4 years were present in the ambulance. The explosives belt was composed of 16 pipes containing 10 kilograms of explosive materials. The belt was concealed under the mattress of the stretcher upon which one of the children lay.

[...]

The event also supports the need of IDF soldiers to continue to closely check Palestinian ambulances that pass through checkpoints. The Palestinian Authority frequently complains to the media and to international bodies. If only it ordered its people to cease such cynical use of ambulances for the use of terror, they would better serve the well-being of the Palestinian public."

[Intellectualme]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Yes Israel is fighting a war. So to are we. Arresting someone even w/o charges is not a crime against humanity. Which is what you were referring to.

You would object if it was 'legal' anyhow. That's your point.

Those periods in US history were not 'illegal'. It is only now with our thirst to reinvent the past that we call it that. I suppose we should invalidate every election held before 1920 because women didn't vote, or before 1924 because Native Americans didn't. Or before 1865 because the 15th Ammendment hadn't been ratified yet. And so on.

What exactly are you wanting me t say. It is wrong what Israel is doing. It does not become justfiable by blaming America. Due Process is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. It is legal as long as it is proven, and there is a court case, fair trial. That is not what Israel DF does when it crumbles peoples houses. Laws change, and women did not have the right to vote at all, it has absolutely nothing to do with what we are discussing. You cannot violate a law that does not exist. Countries and NAtions progress in due time. The illegal court trials , etc during the WWII and the Japanese concentration camp thin is against our beliefs and we are not safer from doing that and it DOES violate the right of fair trial, etc. Whst i am talking about in referecnce to the US is that when the laws are made, they are followed. There are times when things go hayire, but this is the realy world, grow up. You are never goping t find a utopia. That is why we fight for the rights of otheres to preserve our nations belief when it is violated.
That is not the case in Israel.

[Mediocrates]

Actually innocent until proven guilty is an American spin on justice. All the time we hear about unique cultural aspects that should cause us to not interfere with other countries. Well in LOTS of countries - particularly those based on the Napoleanic code assume just the reverse. (Scottish law has 3 verdicts

Many countries don't normally accord jury trials for many types of charges. So I maintain that what you've overlayed a very narrow and American flavor of due process into a situation where it does not exist natively. That's all. It's not about rights, it's about how laws in each of these countries work., For example do you know that libel laws in the UK work exactly backwards as they do here? Due process in a libel trial work in such a way that the person making the charge has to defend themself from the accusation of making a spurrious charge. Anyway that's an odd example but you see my point I hope. Due process simply means different things in different places, it really does. There are countries who laugh at the American legal process and the hoops it jumps through to afford sometimes more rights to the accused than to the victim. Perhaps we have it right but we are as parochial and tribal in our practices as anyone.