Israeli Tape Shows Militants Using Vehicles Marked "UN"

Possibly my choice of sentence structure was misleading. However, it was not my intent to blame the UN for the rocket attacks. But just to point out that the UN again took a one sided approach when dealing with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

The Israeli's have stolen land. Sharon is only withdrawing from Gaza, the westbank is still occupied.

Violence increases now due to Israeli incursions, because the wall signals Israels intention of never returning large chunks of the west bank, and because quite a lot of palestinians are losing their homes to the wall.

Quote:

Five times have the arab states grouped to destroy the state of Israel and toss all Israelis to the sea*.

And Israel has almost always been to blame.

Because only Israel has taken land that didn't belong to them.

All Israeli's either are will be or has been reservists, or soldiers. I'm not suporting terrorism, but I could make a case for it. And Israel is the agressor in this conflict.

Yet the Palestinians have honored ceace fires during peacetalks, and even a peace treaty which Israel did not honor.

Quote:

I too wish we could all live in peace. The Muslims have the whole of Africa and some of Asia.

Time to brush up on some geography?

Quote:

Israel is tiny (parks in the US are bigger).

And what does this matter to the millions who has lost their homes?

Quote:

What do we have other then Israel? The land of our ancestors?

Assuming "we" are the Israeli's, it isn't really the home of your ancestors is it.

It is evident that Israel has consistently denied the Palestinians things which, according to internatonal law, they have a right to. The right of return is being denied them, because the Israeli's won't allow the ethnic clensing they have accomplished to be reversed.

So, can any of you pro Israeli people justify why Israel should be allowed to keep vital parts of the occupied territories, despite international law explicitely forbidding acquiring land by war?

By the way - does UN enables online access to all of its resolutions, including those of 1948?

Anyone who tries to go down the middle and be fair is accused by one side or the other of having a one-sided approach, as in not sufficiently on their side.

You can get this (actually from 1946 onwards) and everything else via the Un-websites.

Security Council Resolutions

King Solomon once formulated a rule which I believe should be universally used: when judging, do not take in account a rich man's wealth and a poor man's poverty. That is, a crime is a crime, a murder is a murder, no matter how a murderer grew up.

If the international community used this rule, no one would side with the Palestinians. Israel has lands that populated mostly by Palestinians? Fine. These lands should be given to them. But put away those murderers. Unfortunately, the international community is so biased towards the poor terrorists that there is a zero chance countries like Israel will be fairly treated.

Definitely. Jerry was a little wrong about Africa, I'm afraid, but let's count.

Arab world - Northern Africa and Persian Gulf.
Some of the countries in Central Africa.
Iran, a huge country by itself.
Uzbekhistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kirgizstan, basically, the entire Middle Asia (not to be confused with the Middle East).
Northern Caucasus.
Indonesia (that's 200 million people).
Malaysia.
Pakistan, Bangladesh.
Mindanao in the Philippines... a sad story by itself.

In overall, Muslim population is over 1.5 billion people, I think.

Refugees is a painful subject... Personally, I don't get it how someone can't settle after 50 years but let it be... It's just that mass migration of people hostile to this country automatically means its annihilation. While it might be fully acceptable by you and that funny international law you refer to, it doesn't make me and anyone living here, including Israeli Arabs, very happy.

Einherjar wrote:

The Israeli's have stolen land. Sharon is only withdrawing from Gaza, the westbank is still occupied.

"Stolen"? Could you please recreate the events showing how exactly Gaza was "stolen"?

Einherjar wrote:

Violence increases now due to Israeli incursions, because the wall signals Israels intention of never returning large chunks of the west bank, and because quite a lot of palestinians are losing their homes to the wall.

Increases? Really? Look here:

http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Al_Aqsa_Fatalities_Tables.asp

Don't worry, these guys always exaggerate numbers on the Palestinian side.

Just out of curiosity, did you have factual information that it increased? Or you just feel like making conclusions?

With all do respect, I believe that peace with the Palestinians, at this time, is impossible. What brings me to this assumption is the blury cause the Palestinians are fighting for; they claim Israel has taken a certain piece of land from them, and now, when Sharon says he is going to with-draw from the "stolen" areas, the violence increases. Why now?

You also might want to make correlation between Israeli incursions and number of Israeli casualties. I believe it makes a great illustration that well planned military offensive is more effective than singing "We are the world, we are the children".

Einherjar wrote:

Quote:

Five times have the arab states grouped to destroy the state of Israel and toss all Israelis to the sea*.

And Israel has almost always been to blame.

Please correct me, if I am wrong.

Independence War started immediately after Israel declared its independence. What was then to blame?

1955 - here I won't argue, I still don't understand the motives... probably aiding to the Big Brothers, UK and France.

Six Day War - what would you do if 5 countries moved their armies to your border and promised to toss all the citizens to the sea?

Yom Kippur War - you gotta be kidding, right?..

1982, invasion to Lebanon - well, again, some people might choose otherwise, but getting shot and bombed regularly all over the northern region is not as pleasant as it might seem.

Einherjar wrote:

Because only Israel has taken land that didn't belong to them.

This land passed between too many hands.

Do check in whose possession were Gazza and East Jerusalem and why they didn't return to their previous owners.

And do explain, why when Israel is about to leave Gazza, the Gazza terrorists are activating. Because Israel has leaving land that didn't belong to them?

Einherjar wrote:

All Israeli's either are will be or has been reservists, or soldiers. I'm not suporting terrorism, but I could make a case for it. And Israel is the agressor in this conflict.

No, not everyone. That's what Hamas is saying when they specifically target 14 years old girls. I do understand why these bastards say it, but I don't get your motivation behind bringing it up. Most, but not all.

What is the role of Israel in this conflict...
I'ld say it's a country trying to survive. It does the same things other countries would do, sometimes they're downright nasty and shouldn't be done (like bombs on overpopulated districts, or that unverified Kassam / stretcher), but...

King Solomon once formulated a rule which I believe should be universally used: when judging, do not take in account a rich man's wealth and a poor man's poverty. That is, a crime is a crime, a murder is a murder, no matter how a murderer grew up. Unfortunately, in a world ruled by lawyers, most people (and you too!) think otherwise.

I remember someone even said about those poor kids in Beslan, "They're Russians. This was their fault" .

If the international community used this rule, no one would side with the Palestinians.

Israel has lands that populated mostly by Palestinians? Fine. These lands should be given to them.

But put away those murderers. Unfortunately, the international community is so biased towards the poor terrorists that there is a zero chance countries like Israel will be fairly treated.

Einherjar wrote:

Yet the Palestinians have honored ceace fires during peacetalks, and even a peace treaty which Israel did not honor.

Selective recall? Do you know what "hudna" means?

Einherjar wrote:

Quote:

I too wish we could all live in peace. The Muslims have the whole of Africa and some of Asia.

Time to brush up on some geography?

Definitely. Jerry was a little wrong about Africa, I'm afraid, but let's count.

Arab world - Northern Africa and Persian Gulf.
Some of the countries in Central Africa.
Iran, a huge country by itself.
Uzbekhistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kirgizstan, basically, the entire Middle Asia (not to be confused with the Middle East).
Northern Caucasus.
Indonesia (that's 200 million people).
Malaysia.
Pakistan, Bangladesh.
Mindanao in the Philippines... a sad story by itself.

In overall, Muslim population is over 1.5 billion people, I think.

Oh yeah, and I, too, wish we could live in peace.

Einherjar wrote:

Quote:

Israel is tiny (parks in the US are bigger).

And what does this matter to the millions who has lost their homes?

Millions?! Numbers please.

Einherjar wrote:

Quote:

What do we have other then Israel? The land of our ancestors?

Assuming "we" are the Israeli's, it isn't really the home of your ancestors is it.

OK, nevermind the Bible.

You do know where Arafat was born, don't you? And who taught him to hijack planes and tell about the ancestors' tombs?

Einherjar wrote:

It is evident that Israel has consistently denied the Palestinians things which, according to internatonal law, they have a right to. The right of return is being denied them, because the Israeli's won't allow the ethnic clensing they have accomplished to be reversed.

Ethnic cleansing? Do you know that most of Israeli Arabs are still here?

Refugees is a painful subject... Personally, I don't get it how someone can't settle after 50 years but let it be...

It's just that mass migration of people hostile to this country automatically means its annihilation. While it might be fully acceptable by you and that funny international law you refer to, it doesn't make me and anyone living here, including Israeli Arabs, very happy.

By the way - does UN enables online access to all of its resolutions, including those of 1948?

Einherjar wrote:

So, can any of you pro Israeli people justify why Israel should be allowed to keep vital parts of the occupied territories, despite international law explicitely forbidding acquiring land by war?

Nope. No one, except for the extreme right wing settlers, needs these territories. Gazza is an overpopulated hornets' nest which nobody wants (including its previous owners). It's just there are no guarantees they won't start fireworks on Israeli territory. Very few people in Israel believe the Palestinians, and as much as I want to, I can't find the reasons to do so either.

What do you mean by "international law explicitely forbidding acquiring land by war"? What does that international law allow to do during the war?

Galilite wrote:

King Solomon once formulated a rule...

That sounds fine if you are just judging the crime. But what do you consider when you are trying to prevent crime?

What you say makes sense except that Israel has made it clear they have no intention of giving that land over. And I absolutely agree that the murderers should be put away.

Assassinating them by firing rockets into apartment buildings is kind of overkill when you could just go in and arrest them.

Quote:

Definitely. Jerry was a little wrong about Africa, I'm afraid, but let's count...

Isn't this a little like saying the Jews own everything?..

It should be hard for anyone who's not completely biased to stand up and say with sweeping generality that it's all the Palestinians' fault. Certainly it takes two to tango.

BTW, very interesting web site. I hadn't seen that before.

Galilite wrote:

You also might want to make correlation between Israeli incursions and number of Israeli casualties...

I've never found websites that does this, and I dont know of any websites which lists all off Israels incursions. It would seem you do, and I encourage you to share them with me.

Galilite wrote:

Please correct me, if I am wrong.

Independence War started immediately after Israel declared its independence. What was then to blame?

Israeli ethnic clensing. Hundreds of thousands of Arabs were fleing the country. These have never been alowed to return to their homes in Israel, which dispells any doubts that the ethnic clensing was deliberate.

The Arab countries just didn't intervene before the Brits were out of there bacause they didn't want war with the brits.

Here is a timeline: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/israel/timeline/timeline2.html

The Irgun attacks the Arab village of Deir Yassin on the road from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, killing most of the inhabitants. Hundreds of thousands of Arabs begin to flee Palestine.

Galilite wrote:

Six Day War - what would you do if 5 countries moved their armies to your border and promised to toss all the citizens to the sea?

The sanctions imposed by the arab nations were imposed due to massive Israeli incursions in palestinian residenses in Israel, and the gradual buildup of force was intended to tie down Israeli forces, and thus halt the Incursions.

Galilite wrote:

1982, invasion to Lebanon - well, again, some people might choose otherwise, but getting shot and bombed regularly all over the northern region is not as pleasant as it might seem.

Although the Israeli's had to invade ALL of Lebanon, and refuse to leave afterwords

The arabs despised being under any foreign rule that treated them as second clas citizens. The indigenous population has a valid claim to the land, as they have had since the UN was created.

Galilite wrote:

Do check in whose possession were Gazza and East Jerusalem and why they didn't return to their previous owners.

Yeah, like I didn't know that Egypt and Jordan held these territories. Yet they seemed to get along fine with the indigenous population didn't they. Treated them like people and all.

Galilite wrote:

Most, but not all.

I'll take your word for it.

Galilite wrote:

What is the role of Israel in this conflict...
I'ld say it's a country trying to survive. It does the same things other countries would do, sometimes they're downright nasty and shouldn't be done (like bombs on overpopulated districts, or that unverified Kassam / stretcher), but...

Yet if they didn't practice ethnic clensing and treated their citizens the same regardless of etnicity existing might have gotten a whole lot easier.

I will decide what I think thank you. I do not take wealth into account, but I do take into account which alternatives are available to the offender.

If anyone blamed that on the kids they must have been joking. Although the Russians (particularly their leaders) are as a whole to blame for the conflict.

Galilite wrote:

If the international community used this rule, no one would side with the Palestinians.

Untrue

Galilite wrote:

But put away those murderers. Unfortunately, the international community is so biased towards the poor terrorists that there is a zero chance countries like Israel will be fairly treated.

I disagree, international oppinion is in fact biased in favor off Israel

Galilite wrote:

Einherjar wrote:

Yet the Palestinians have honored ceace fires during peacetalks, and even a peace treaty which Israel did not honor.

Selective recall? Do you know what "hudna" means?

I have no idea, should I?

In January 2004, senior Hamas leader Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi offered a 10-year hudna in return for complete withdrawal from all territories captured in the Six Day War, and the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. Rantissi said the hudna was limited to ten years and represented a decision by the movement because it was "difficult to liberate all our land at this stage. The hudna would however not signal a recognition of the state of Israel..."

According to Umdat as-Salik, a medieval summary of Shafi'i jurisprudence, hudnas with a non-Muslim enemy should be limited to 10 years: "if Muslims are weak, a truce may be made for ten years if necessary, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made a truce with the Quraysh for that long, as is related by Abu Dawud" ('Umdat as-Salik, o9.16).

Galilite wrote:

Jerry was a little wrong about Africa, I'm afraid, but let's count...

In overall, Muslim population is over 1.5 billion people, I think.

I remember seing a calculation like the one you seem to be hinting at. It concluded that population density was slightly higher in Israel, but it included Sahara for the muslims. Not exactly prime farmland, and Palestine used to be one of the roman empires chief suppliers of grain.

But then there is also the oil. Anyway, I object to the arabs being treated as one entity. What does it matter to those who have lost their homes that someone of the same religion does not share their fate.

Galilite wrote:

...Millions?! Numbers please.

Scroll about halfway down this site

Galilite wrote:

You do know where Arafat was born, don't you? And who taught him to hijack planes and tell about the ancestors' tombs?

No, and in fact I fail to see how it matters.

Galilite wrote:

Ethnic cleansing? Do you know that most of Israeli Arabs are still here?

I understand that the arabs make up about 20% of the Israeli population, and that Israel would have a clear arab majority if the refugees were alowed to return. How do you come to the conclution that the majority of arabs

Galilite wrote:

Refugees is a painful subject... Personally, I don't get it how someone can't settle after 50 years but let it be...

They're not allowed to settle anywhere are they...

The Palestinians would probably accept a treaty giving them the occupied territories back even if they had to give up the right to return.

Galilite wrote:

By the way - does UN enables online access to all of its resolutions, including those of 1948?

URLs...

They have made ceasefires and treaties in the past. They have kept treaties and ceasefires in the past. They have agreed to less beneficial deals (from a palestinian point of wiew) in the past. What's the problem?

Galilite wrote:

What do you mean by "international law explicitely forbidding acquiring land by war"? What does that international law allow to do during the war?

Kill enemy combatants among other things. It allows anything which it does not explicitly forbid.

This document explicitly states that the acqusition of land through force is inadmissible

But we're talking about a crime, not about its prevention.

I'll say this again, no matter how poor you are it takes a murderer to become a murderer. There is always an alternative of peaceful protest - this is the way India got its independence.

FreeDuck wrote:

What you say makes sense except that Israel has made it clear they have no intention of giving that land over. And I absolutely agree that the murderers should be put away.

What about the peace talks in Barak's era? Palestinians were offered about 97% of those lands, plus compensations for the rest.

FreeDuck wrote:

Assassinating them by firing rockets into apartment buildings is kind of overkill when you could just go in and arrest them.

No, you can't.

No one ever offered compensation to the Jewish refugees from the Arab countries, by the way.

FreeDuck wrote:

It should be hard for anyone who's not completely biased to stand up and say with sweeping generality that it's all the Palestinians' fault. Certainly it takes two to tango.

I agree with you here.

But for me, the main fault of the Palestinian politicians is that they use war to bargain.

I don't think it's a matter of rich vs. poor so much as a matter of who has the upper hand. This isn't as simple as you would like it to be. I wonder if you think that shooting unarmed civilians is also a crime? Or does the uniform offer immunity.

Yes, he should have taken it, even though it provided for a non-contiguous state where Palestinians would have to pass through Israel to get to parts of their own country.

But the 'facts on the ground' were that settlements were expanding. Do you think they believed that they would get that land back?

Quote:

FreeDuck wrote:

Assassinating them by firing rockets into apartment buildings is kind of overkill when you could just go in and arrest them.

No, you can't.

Yes, you can. Israel can do whatever it wants. There's no reason why they couldn't have gone in and arrested those they chose to assassinate.

Quote:

No one ever offered compensation to the Jewish refugees from the Arab countries, by the way.

You'll have to be more specific -- I don't get exactly what and when you're talking about.

Approximately 900,000 Mizrahi Jews indigenous to Arab Middle East and North Africa emigrated between 1945 and 1956. Israel absorbed about 600,000 of them. Many of these were Jewish refugees who were forced to abandon their property; hence Israel claims there is a quid pro quo, and cite other similar or larger population transfers, such as those between Greek and Turkish populations after the 1922 Greco-Turkish War, the transfer of Sudeten Germans after World War II, or between Muslim and Hindu populations after the 1947 Partition of India. Arabs commonly respond that both Palestinian and Jewish refugees should be allowed return to their native countries...

Quote:

But for me, the main fault of the Palestinian politicians is that they use war to bargain.

Is there any question that both sides are doing this?

There is always an alternative of peaceful protest - this is the way India got its independence.

What about the peace talks in Barak's era? Palestinians were offered about 97% of those lands, plus compensations for the rest.

But for me, the main fault of the Palestinian politicians is that they use war to bargain

"Stolen"? Could you please recreate the events showing how exactly Gaza was "stolen"?

Can't find a link, but from my memory the largest offensive was in April 2002, when suicide bombers were going off daily - and there is a sharp decrease afterwards...

I quote your link:

Seattle Times wrote:

The Irgun attacks the Arab village of Deir Yassin on the road from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, killing most of the inhabitants. Hundreds of thousands of Arabs begin to flee Palestine.

A very interesting interpretation indeed. The Irgun attacks a village, hundreds of thousands flee. Must be a metropolis village. And... look, I don't want to undermine credibility of Seattle Times, but they are not exactly experts on the subject.

In another link you posted, Israeli population in 1948 consisted of 646,000 Jews and 160,000 Muslims. There is also 826,000 Palestinian refugees coming either after or before the first figures.

Do you seriously assume that a bunch of Jews who barely survived the Holocaust (hope you don't deny it happened)

Code:The antisemite allegation, I was wondering when that would be made. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and consider this a bad joke.

without any regular arms supply and state army surrounded by numerically superior Arab states, ruled by Brits who didn't exactly sympathize with the Zionist cause, started looking for military adventures?

Israeli incursions in 1967?!

Code:There was something going on.

"Gradual buildup of force"? Do you deny that all the Arab countries moved their forces to the Israeli border?

Code:nope

Do you deny that every one of them explicitly announced, "We are ready for a war"?

Code:nope

Do you deny that Nazer promised to toss all the Jews to the sea?

Code:nope

Or it was a way to express the readiness for peace talks?

In the next years (after Fatahland was destroyed) Israel was only occupying Southern Lebanon.

Einherjar wrote:

The arabs despised being under any foreign rule that treated them as second clas citizens. The indigenous population has a valid claim to the land, as they have had since the UN was created.

Well, nobody denies it.

Seems that "like you didn't know" about the Black September. When King Hussein killed 30,000 Palestinians and all. Not to mention little unimportant things that Jews cannot become citizens in some Arab countries.

Besides, it seems that your image of pre-Israeli Middle East is too perfect. Ever been to any Arab country or Israel?..

You might want to find out who are Druses and why do they live in the mountains, why Jordan has difficult relationships with the rest of the Arab world, what kind of relationship is between bedouins and other Arabs, how Lebanon developed, why bedouins, Druses and Cherkess immediately joined forces with the Israelis when the Independence War began.

You mean, Israeli Arabs?

Unfortunately, when it comes to personal relations, most Israelis are biased towards Arabs (although not bedouins or Druses). What makes it worse is that as anywhere in the Middle East, business is advanced here mostly by personal relations.

However, Israeli law makes no differences between the citizens. Arabic is one of the state languages in Israel; the state 1st channel TV broadcasts Arabic programmes about an hour or two daily; there are Arab judges, I think even in the Supreme Court; Arabs don't have to serve in the army. Sometimes, the lame political correctness and the desire not to mess with political affairs allows Arab citizens of Israel to do thing which others would be punished for. Like build houses on land they didn't buy. Or go to Syria and meet with Assad despite the law that forbids contacts with officials from states which are in state of war with Israel (an Israeli Jew was put behind the bars for such stunt).

Good!

I say that a peaceful protest would yield better results. Remember Mahathma Ghandi?

Einherjar wrote:

If anyone blamed that on the kids they must have been joking. Although the Russians (particularly their leaders) are as a whole to blame for the conflict.

Mostly, but not completely.

Einherjar wrote:

Galilite wrote:

If the international community used this rule, no one would side with the Palestinians.

Untrue

Impossible to prove either claim, so I take my words back.

Einherjar wrote:

I disagree, international oppinion is in fact biased in favor off Israel

Whaaaat?!

I wish it were true.

I'm not sure but I think UN somehow shows international opinion. And those polls in Europe when people who thought that Israel is a size of France country voted that it is the most dangerous country on earth.

when people who thought that Israel is a size of France country

Palestine supplied grain?!.. We're talking Israel, Earth - not Israel, Mars or Venus. I think you need a primer. Israel looks like a stretched triangle on the map; in this triangle, more than half consists of deserts (not very different of Sahara, by the way) where population is fairly scarce. There are mountains on the north (that's where I live) where population is more dense, but still scarce. There is Jerusalem somewhere in the middle closer to the eastern border; and, finally, there is Tel Aviv and surrounding cities where 75% of Israelis live. Neither Israel nor Palestinian authority do not grow grain in commercial quantities because the land and the climate are not suitable.

However, if the Arab countries at least devoted the resources that the Jewish refugees of the Arab countries left behind to aid and settle the Palestinian refugees, or at least gave them citizenship, the problem would've been solved.

It says 826,000.

Then it grew to 4 millions, God knows how (must be the genocide). But you can't say that the descendands lose their homes.

It matters because the symbol of the Palestinian fight for freedom was born and raised in Egypt. When the Soviets were supplying Egypt with tanks and power plants he got acquainted with Nazer and with KGB and later underwent one of their useful courses.

This makes his passionate rhetorics about the ancestors' tombs sound somewhat doubtful.

I don't understand what you meant by that unfinished sentence, but - in the event of ethnic cleansing how come 20% remained (according to your own 1948 statistics)? I believe the goal of an ethnic cleansing is getting to 0%, am I right?

Jordan gives them citizenship. And there's Palestinian authority.

Einherjar wrote:

They have made ceasefires and treaties in the past. They have kept treaties and ceasefires in the past. They have agreed to less beneficial deals (from a palestinian point of wiew) in the past. What's the problem?

Trust. Provocations.

Yes, when it goes for Israel.

I wonder if there's a document that states this in universal context (Geneva?).

You'll have to be more specific -- I don't get exactly what and when you're talking about.

Free Duck wrote:

Yes, he should have taken it, [Baraks offer] even though it provided for a non-contiguous state where Palestinians would have to pass through Israel to get to parts of their own country.

There was a so-called "safe passage" for that, but yes, this was bad. It was crafted according to the demographic situation and I think there was no other option.

Yes, settlements are a problem. The solution to it is feasible though.

Just wanted to say this is one of the most polite discussions I've seen on this topic, and it is a hot topic! I'm done with the point by point as it makes me tired and it's all been said, but I'm enjoying reading the other posts as the posters are better informed than I am.