ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

It was less dangerous for the Palestinians than if the Israelis had to do it, and there was far less loss of innocent life.

You're going to need to back that statement up with evidence. But no matter the justification you are still talking about soldiers hiding behind civilians to protect themselves.

Quote:

Nevertheless, when ordered to do so, by the Israelis, the soldiers stopped that practice.

I give the Israelis Supreme Court full kudos and believe that the IDF did mostly stop the practice. However there are reports of human shields being used as recently as the Gaza invasion:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1073243.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/23/gaza-human-shields-claim

Quote:

Where is the order from the Palestinian leadership to stop using their own women and children as human shields?

Which leadership, pray tell? The Palestinians have no state much less a Supreme Court. It's certainly a fair criticism of Hamas and those who do it should be prosecuted.

The difference, of course, is that everyone expects Hamas to behave this way. They are not ruling an independent country and have not ratified the Geneva Conventions. Israel purports to be a first world western democracy, which is why we are fine with arming them to the teeth with first rate high tech weapons and why Palestinian weapons are mostly home-made. The standards are, and should be, higher for them.

But the point is that blaming Hamas for "using human shields" in order to justify the high civilian casualties -- many of whom were nowhere near a military target -- is nothing less than white wash.

1 Reply

@FreeDuck,

Many were nowhere near a military target? Where is your justification for that? In war, a presumed military target is justification for attack. I have posted many times support for everything I said in my post and I believe I did justify my comments with what I have posted. I choose not to post the same supporting stuff everytime I am asked to repeat myself, however.

If there is no Palestinian leadership or government, then who is Israel supposed to turn the land over to? Those manifestos that include the intention to destroy Israel just appear out of thin air I guess? Every time....and that is EVERY time, Israel has turned any of the captured lands back to the Palestinians, SOMEBODY has renewed terrorist attacks on Israel. And based on their unwavering consistency, of course everybody expects Hamas to behave the way they do. So what justification is there to demand that Israel not deal with that? What rationale can be used to show Israel that it has ANYTHING to gain and not everything to lose by accommodating the Palestinian demands?

Why is everything demanded of Israel but nothing demanded of the Palestinians?

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxie wrote:

Quote:

If there is no Palestinian leadership or government, then who is Israel supposed to turn the land over to?

Return it to the people they stole it from. Gee, how simple can it be?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

And who is that? Freeduck says there is no state; therefore no leadership and no government; so nobody to hold accountable for anything that the Palestinians do there. So who do you turn the land back over to? The guys firing the rockets and putting the bomb packets together?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

It's up to the government of Israel to keep track of property ownership since they control all properties to some degree. Your ignorance about how Israel obtains property and controls it shows you have very little knowledge about Israel.

The following is from Wiki:

Quote:

Land and Property Laws in Israel
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Land and Property laws in Israel)
Jump to: navigation, search
This article may be inaccurate or unbalanced in favor of certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page.

Land and Property laws in Israel refers to the legal framework governing land and property issues in Israel. Following its establishment, Israel designed a system of law that legitimized both a continuation and a consolidation of the nationalisation of land and property, a process that it had begun decades earlier. For the first few years of Israel’s existence, many of the new laws continued to be rooted in earlier Ottoman and British law. These laws were later amended or replaced altogether.

In 1945, although the habitations in the different cities and villages might have varied by location, about 85% of the arable land in Palestine was owned by Arabs.[1] [2] [3] By 1949, some 700,000 Palestinians had been displaced and/or fled from their lands and villages. Israel was now in control of some 20.5 million dunams (approx. 20 500 km²) of lands in what had been Mandate Palestine. In 1949, only about 8 percent (approx. 1,650 km²) of all the Israeli-controlled lands were Jewish-owned, 6% (approx. 1,300 km²) were Arab-owned, with the balance held under some form of government control[4].

The first challenge facing Israel was to transform its control over land into legal ownership. This was the motivation underlying the passing of several of the first group of land laws[5].

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

And what does that have to do with the occupied territories?

Focus CI. You're wandering again.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

It has "everything" to do with it. Something you'll never understand.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Perhaps but at least I know what Freeduck and I were talking about. You apparently don't.

Of course since you seem to believe you are so much more knowledgeable you could explain it. The unlinked (again) piece you posted sure didn't have anything to do with it.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Many were nowhere near a military target? Where is your justification for that?

The link I provided plus numerous eyewitness accounts.

Quote:

In war, a presumed military target is justification for attack. I have posted many times support for everything I said in my post and I believe I did justify my comments with what I have posted. I choose not to post the same supporting stuff everytime I am asked to repeat myself, however.

Specifically, I'm looking for evidence that "it was less dangerous for the Palestinians than if the Israelis had to do it, and there was far less loss of innocent life ". Aside from that being a sorry justification for using human shields, I'd like to see some numbers that show that to be the case.

Quote:

If there is no Palestinian leadership or government, then who is Israel supposed to turn the land over to?

I said they have no state, not that they have no leadership or government. As to that, they appear to have two at the moment -- one in Gaza and one in the West Bank. That's why I asked "which".

Quote:

So what justification is there to demand that Israel not deal with that? What rationale can be used to show Israel that it has ANYTHING to gain and not everything to lose by accommodating the Palestinian demands?

That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about Israel accusing Hamas of doing something of which she is guilty of herself. As long as Israel classifies herself as a first world democracy and maintains the massive power that she has, we will continue to expect her to behave in accordance with international law.

Quote:

Why is everything demanded of Israel but nothing demanded of the Palestinians?

Everything isn't demanded of Israel. If anything, it's just the opposite. But do you not see a difference in power and abilities between a functioning, wealthy, armed to the teeth (nuclear power in fact), first world democracy and a fledgling, divided, poverty-stricken, unarmed and occupied people? How do you come to the conclusion that the two should be held to the same standard? Worse, how do you figure that the Palestinians should be held to an even higher standard?

2 Replies

@FreeDuck,

FreeDuck, You do know that Israel is not "a first world democracy" don't you? Israel and democracy is an oxymoron, because they are an apartheid state which discriminates against Palestinians.

Israel apologists would try to have us believe all Palestinians are terrorists, and they deserve to be killed if they so dare live amongst Hamas in any of Israel's occupied territories. After all, they are "sheltering" terrorists within their fenced in, barbed wired, ghettos.

0 Replies

@FreeDuck,

I don't require anybody to be held to a higher standard than anybody else, though yes, for those who have much, much will be required.

But you don't have to be armed to the teeth, rich, a nuclear power, or a democracy to choose not to murder other people. You don't have to be affluent or well educated or smart or privileged or in a position of power to choose to allow other people the right to live in peace and without any kind of harrassment let alone constant terrorist threat intended to drive an entire people out of the area.

If the Palestinian leadership had chosen to accept Israel and to allow it to exist in peace and had instead focused their efforts and resources on raising the standard of living of the Palestinian people, there is no reason to think that Israel would not have accommodated that and in fact assisted with it. Even now, though it does not accommodate terrorist activity, Israel puts its people at higher risk doing as much as it reasonably can to mitigate and avoid civilian suffering and deaths among the Palestinians. Prosperous Palestinians as neighbors and trading partners would be far preferable to Israel than people that they must contain or attack to prevent loss of Israeli life.

You claim 'eye witness' accounts as your evidence. The links I provided also provided 'eye witness' accounts of the results of sending Palestinians in to deal with Palestinians rather than Israeli soldiers doing that and inevitably triggering more violence. And they stopped the practice when the practice was deemed unacceptable. The Palestinians have not stopped despite promise after promise to do so.

Also I have not been talking about random acts of violence or misconduct, but the basic principles and policy established by the leadership of each side.

Emmanuel presumed to state that Israel could expect no help with Iran from the USA unless it evacuated the West Bank. Why stop there? Why not tell the Palestinians that they can expect no help with Israel from the USA unless they send the rockets and rocket launchers back to Syria and Iran, remove the offending language re Israel from the charters and manifestos, and agree to do what they can to stop all terrorist activity directed at Israel?

(Disclaimer: when I say "Palestinians" in a military/terrorist context, I am speaking only of those Palestinians who order, initiate, commit, and/or condone terrorist activity.)

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

But you don't have to be armed to the teeth, rich, a nuclear power, or a democracy to choose not to murder other people. You don't have to be affluent or well educated or smart or privileged or in a position of power to choose to allow other people the right to live in peace and without any kind of harrassment let alone constant terrorist threat intended to drive an entire people out of the area.

Are you talking about Israel?

Quote:

If the Palestinian leadership had chosen to accept Israel and to allow it to exist in peace and had instead focused their efforts and resources on raising the standard of living of the Palestinian people, there is no reason to think that Israel would not have accommodated that and in fact assisted with it.

We've been over this before. There is every reason to believe that Israel is not and may never have been interested in a Palestinian state west of the Jordan river.

Quote:

Even now, though it does not accommodate terrorist activity, Israel puts its people at higher risk doing as much as it reasonably can to mitigate and avoid civilian suffering and deaths among the Palestinians.

How so? You've said this often but not as of yet backed it up.

Quote:

Prosperous Palestinians as neighbors and trading partners would be far preferable to Israel than people that they must contain or attack to prevent loss of Israeli life.

I agree.

Quote:

You claim 'eye witness' accounts as your evidence. The links I provided also provided 'eye witness' accounts of the results of sending Palestinians in to deal with Palestinians rather than Israeli soldiers doing that and inevitably triggering more violence. And they stopped the practice when the practice was deemed unacceptable. The Palestinians have not stopped despite promise after promise to do so.

You provided one link to my knowledge which was an op-ed piece, not an eyewitness account of any incident. It was a lovely little bit of white wash but otherwise unconvincing. And I thought you said that the Palestinians never ordered the practice stopped? How could they have promised to stop it, then?

Quote:

Also I have not been talking about random acts of violence or misconduct, but the basic principles and policy established by the leadership of each side.

Same here. It was IDF policy. Hopefully it no longer is. Though there are reports (which I linked to) that suggest otherwise.

Quote:

Emmanuel presumed to state that Israel could expect no help with Iran from the USA unless it evacuated the West Bank.

And Bibi presumed to tell us that Israel would not do anything about the Palestinians unless we helped them with Iran.

Quote:

Why stop there? Why not tell the Palestinians that they can expect no help with Israel from the USA unless they send the rockets and rocket launchers back to Syria and Iran, remove the offending language re Israel from the charters and manifestos, and agree to do what they can to stop all terrorist activity directed at Israel?

Have we not already done that? Do we not refuse even to meet with Hamas leaders for that very reason? We recognize Abbas and Fatah for those very reasons, it's just a pity that he doesn't actually have the power.

Quote:

(Disclaimer: when I say "Palestinians" in a military/terrorist context, I am speaking only of those Palestinians who order, initiate, commit, and/or condone terrorist activity.)

That's great. If only we could restrict the dying to only those people.

1 Reply

@FreeDuck,

Fate decreed that I spend some years in a business in which eye witness accounts were a large part. I know from experience that eye witness accounts by those with a vested interest in a situation are frequently less reliable than those with no vested interest in a situation. Are you suggesting that your 'eye witnesses' were not interested in creating a specific image in the mind of the hearers/readers?

When the pro-Palestinian advocates become as interested in the loss of innocent Israeli life as much as they are intrested in the loss of innocent Palestinian life, we might possibly be able to work together on a solution to the problem. Until then, Israel will just have to do the best that it can to defend itself.

The Palestinians have absolutely nothing to fear from the Israelis if they choose to not kill Israelis. The Israelis were getting along just fine with the Palestinians until the Arabs decided to drive out the Jews in the 1940's. And even after that, the Israelis left Gaza, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, and the Sinai Peninsula strictly alone until the Palestinians, aided and abetted by Egypt, Jordan, Syria, et al, decided to take Israel away from the Jews. Subsequently, each time Israel has returned any conquered land back to the Palestinians, it has been used by the Palestinians to launch terrorist attacks against the Israelis.

Those facts are always ignored, distorted, and/or left out of the scenario by the Palestinian sympathizers however.

I will rejoice when nobody is trying to kill anybody. Until then, I will continue to believe that the side attempting to do maiming and murder deserves less sympathy than the side that is the intended target of maiming and murder and does what it deems that it must to protect itself.

2 Replies

All the Arabs have to do to be given back what was stolen by Israel from what the UN gave the Arabs, is grant Israel's right to exist in the territory the UN gave Israel, and simultaneously stop trying to steal more than what the UN gave the Arabs!

As long as the moderate Palestinian Arabs persisted in failing to stop those among them mass murdering Israelis, they had no one but themselves to blame for the full consequences of Israel exterminating those among them mass murdering Israelis, AND also murdering many moderates in the same neighborhoods.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxie wrote:

Quote:

Fate decreed that I spend some years in a business in which eye witness accounts were a large part. I know from experience that eye witness accounts by those with a vested interest in a situation are frequently less reliable than those with no vested interest in a situation.

You just can't see the irony of your own post.

0 Replies

Israel Puts Iran Issue Ahead of Palestinians

By Howard Schneider and Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, April 22, 2009

JERUSALEM -- The new Israeli government will not move ahead on the core issues of peace talks with the Palestinians until it sees progress in U.S. efforts to stop Iran's suspected pursuit of a nuclear weapon and limit Tehran's rising influence in the region, according to top government officials familiar with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's developing policy on the issue.

"It's a crucial condition if we want to move forward," said Deputy Foreign Minister Daniel Ayalon, a member of the Israeli parliament and former ambassador to the United States. "If we want to have a real political process with the Palestinians, then you can't have the Iranians undermining and sabotaging."

. . .

U.S. officials are wary of linking the two issues and, if anything, would like to do the reverse of what Israel has proposed, by using progress in the Israeli-Palestinian talks to curb Iranian influence, which is wielded in the region through anti-Israeli organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas.

. . .

While Israeli officials have long expressed concern about Iran, Netanyahu views the threat from Tehran as so acute that he is shaping Israel's policy toward the Palestinians around that issue -- a shift in approach that effectively puts Palestinian statehood after resolution of a complicated regional and international issue.

Netanyahu has compared Iran's regional ambitions to Germany's in 1938 and has assembled a government that shares his view. Netanyahu's national security adviser, Uzi Arad, has publicly urged the United States to take stronger action against the Islamic state and has equated diplomatic engagement with Iran to "appeasement."

. . .

---------------------------------------

Right wing Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu looks to exploit the Zionists' persecution complex to renege on Israeli obligations towards the Palestinian peoples whom the Zionists have been oppressing since shortly after the end of the First World War almost a century ago.

It flies against all chronology and logic to put the stopping of Iran's suspected pursuit of a nuclear weapon ahead of the resolution of Israel's conflict with the Palestinian peoples. Iran's antagonism towards Israel is expressly a reaction to the cause: Israel's oppression of the Palestinian people. The end of Israel's oppression of the Palestinian peoples would lead to the end, by and large, of Iran's belligerent attitude towards Israel, and would eliminate Israel's oppression as a pretext for further hostilities.

The underlying motive of Netanyahu's ass-backwards prioritizing of issues is, of course, to create a pretext by which to stall negotiations with the Palestinians, and all the while further encroach on Palestinian land--as he had promised during his Israeli elections campaign to expand settelments in the West Bank--to realize Eretz Yisrael Ha-Shlema.

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

That's a nice way to put the US in the middle of their problems. Obama should just ignore their conditions, because Iran is a separate issue from the Palestinians in Israel.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Infra's pasted article includes:

"Right wing Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu looks to exploit the Zionists' persecution complex to renege on Israeli obligations towards the Palestinian peoples whom the Zionists have been oppressing since shortly after the end of the First World War almost a century ago."

Recognizing garbage when I see it, I went into the actual article and found that it does not include this passage. Obviously, Infra distorted the article by adding his own paragraph. How slimy can one get?

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Advocate, What's the matter with you? The post under the line are personal opinions. Top of the line is the article.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Fate decreed that I spend some years in a business in which eye witness accounts were a large part. I know from experience that eye witness accounts by those with a vested interest in a situation are frequently less reliable than those with no vested interest in a situation. Are you suggesting that your 'eye witnesses' were not interested in creating a specific image in the mind of the hearers/readers?

The accounts were from Palestinians who were present. I suppose you could say they have a vested interest, but then so would the soldiers who claim something different. Which eyewitnesses in Gaza would you perceive not to have a vested interest?

Quote:

When the pro-Palestinian advocates become as interested in the loss of innocent Israeli life as much as they are intrested in the loss of innocent Palestinian life, we might possibly be able to work together on a solution to the problem. Until then, Israel will just have to do the best that it can to defend itself.

There is no equivalence here. The loss of Palestinian lives is and has been several multiples greater than the loss of Israeli life. While the loss of any innocent life is regrettable how could anyone possibly feel equally outraged at 4 deaths as they are at 1200? How does this make sense to you?

Quote:

The Palestinians have absolutely nothing to fear from the Israelis if they choose to not kill Israelis.

Like the family drinking tea in their courtyard who was blown to bits by a drone? Nothing to fear.

Quote:

I will rejoice when nobody is trying to kill anybody. Until then, I will continue to believe that the side attempting to do maiming and murder deserves less sympathy than the side that is the intended target of maiming and murder and does what it deems that it must to protect itself.

As if you were looking at both "sides" objectively. There are Palestinians and Israelis who recognize what needs to be done. Neither, unfortunately, have leaders willing to do it. The level of responsibility for this conflict is proportional to the level of power. And in this case it cannot be any clearer.

2 Replies

ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know