Taking the f*cking piss!

[Aladdin]

I'm sorry for yet another thread on this issue, the subject has been debated many times before and will be debated again, but the continuing outrage makes my blood fucking boil!! :mad: :mad:


Not only does Israel go ahead with the next phase of their Nazi Apartheid Wall (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3155074.stm),

making "life" :rolleyes: in occupied Palestine an even more humiliating and harrowing struggle (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=449062),

but now the Israeli government, far from removing the illegal tumour-like settlements, approves the construction of 550 new illegal homes in Palestinian land! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3158036.stm)

What will it take for fuck’s sake!, what will it take for the international community to put a stop to this disgraceful, shameful, revolting destruction of a people! How many UN resolutions, how many US "threats" to stop military and financial aid, how much international condemnation are we going to produce before this monstrosity is stopped once and for all!

How on earth can anyone expect the Palestinians to settle for any sort of peace when they are being told their country will forever look like this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_israel_palestinians/maps/img/jewish_settlements_300.gif

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_israel_palestinians/maps/img/gaza_settlements.gif

If there was ever a case for regime change, if there was ever a case for direct intervention to end the suffering of a people, if there was ever an argument for removing a brutal despot from power, this is it!

If we have one vestige left of humanity and decency left in us we must make this repulsively evil man and his government remove their infernal settlements and Nazi/Apartheid Wall once and for all. And end this historical atrocity that degrades and disgraces us all. :mad:

[Balddog]

Are you for an invasion of Israel?

[Clandestine]

If we were the magnanimous nation Bush claims, defending the rights and liberties of the downtrodden against prolonged oppression then certainly at the very least we should be imposing no fly zones over Israel, considering economic sanctions or a full naval embargo and supporting more moderate elements within Israeli society to overturn this Likhud regime and its fascist behaviour.

You may wish to call it self defence, but it is merely a contrivance for a permanent land grab which has always been the intractible agenda of Sharon and his hardline cronies.

An outright invasion would go too far, but enough pressure can be brought to bear without adding yet more attacks from our forces into this already bloody cauldron of hate.

The first and best step would be to cut off all US funding to Israel and cease all weapons transfers.

[Aladdin]

Originally posted by Balddog
Are you for an invasion of Israel?

No. Full military intervention is always the very last resort, and one that I would very rarely approve of for in most cases they cause more death than good. In emergency cases (such as Rwanda last decade when 1,000,000 people were killed in the space of 2 weeks) then yes, the full works.

But what I would support is a total and complete boycott and isolation of Israel at every level possible until the government agrees to its obligation, dismantles every last illegal settlement, removes the Wall and every last roadblock and withdraws fully and permanently from Palestine. That is the key to the very conflict. The rest (return for refugees, the division of Jerusalem, statehood) can be negotiated for the best possible agreement for both parties.

And until the Israeli government fulfils this, everything short of a full intervention should be done. A full financial, diplomatic and cultural boycott. Economic sanctions. Withdrawal of all military aid. International isolation a la South Africa during Apartheid. And if it comes to it, like Clan said, no-fly zones imposed by fighter patrols, internal destabilisation of the current government and support of opposition groups. And for all I care, a reward of $25,000,000 to anyone who removes Sharon from power if he still refuses.

But then I don't believe for a second it would come to that. It wouldn't even come to imposing no-fly patrols. Cut off the financial and military aid, internationally isolate Israel and impose economic sanctions and Sharon would comply within weeks. He would have little option, unless he's prepared to see the country starve. And at the end of the day what is being asked is not even unreasonable. It's simply what's right.

[Balddog]

Originally posted by Aladdin
And until the Israeli government fulfils this, everything short of a full intervention should be done.

So the entire responsibility of peace is on the shoulders of Israel? The Palestinians shouldnt have to do anything to contribute?

[Heydrich]

>>>If we have one vestige left of humanity and decency left in us we must make this repulsively evil man and his government remove their infernal settlements and Nazi/Apartheid Wall once and for all. And end this historical atrocity that degrades and disgraces us all.

Why are you associating apartheid with National Socialism? South Africa fought AGAINST the Axis Powers and for the Allies, on the side of the UK and America. Did you notice? Jesus, sigh. . . .

>>>The first and best step would be to cut off all US funding to Israel and cease all weapons transfers.

Anti-Semitiwitz! Herr Clandestine wants to shove the Jews in ovens!! :p

>>>What will it take for fuck’s sake!, what will it take for the international community to put a stop to this disgraceful, shameful, revolting destruction of a people!

Where did you come up with the ridiculous notion that such standards apply to the Chosen(TM)? :lol:

[Clandestine]

Of course most of what I wrote won't happen, the suggestion is what could be done, always presupposing we ever have an administration with the political will to do so.

Given the hardline agenda setting of US Middle East Policy (regardless of adminstration) by AIPAC, it's highly unlikely any viable measures ever would be taken.

[Aladdin]

Like I said, there are many things to negotiate. From the status of Jerusalem to the right of return for refugees to mutal recognition of the right to exist and statehood. I don't expect the Palestinians not to make any concessions.

But you cannot expect anyone to negotiate an agreement with you while you have him pinned to the ground, with your boot over their head and kicking him in the balls at regular intervals. You have to stop kicking him and let him get up so you can both sit down on a table and negotiate a deal.

[Clandestine]

Anti-Semitiwitz! Herr Clandestine wants to shove the Jews in ovens!!

If you believe that you are truly deranged.

[Balddog]

Originally posted by Aladdin

But you cannot expect anyone to negotiate an agreement with you while you have him pinned to the ground, with your boot over their head and kicking him in the balls at regular intervals. You have to stop kicking him and let him get up so you can both sit down on a table and negotiate a deal.

and the bombs need to stop going off amongst israeli civilians too.

I had a discussion with a friend yesterday, hes quite a pro palestinian and was saying the usual things, along with how he can understand why the palestinians resort to suicide bombs and the like...What I want to know is why people cant understand why the israelis resort to their unpleasant tactics...Israelis are people too, they react badly when they see their children being killed, just as the palestinians do.

When the palestinians commit a horrific crime, people can understand why they did it..When israel commits a horrific crime, they are just evil people intent on domination..

Both sides need to sort this mess out, it cant be left to israel to sort out..If that happens then they will simply withdraw from communications and feel persecuted...If that happens......

I agree that sanctions or serious threats of sanctions should be imposed, but on both of them, not just the Israelis.

[morrocan roll]

recently an israeli general said that israel must be seen as a mad dog thats best left undisturbed. he went on to say that they had 260 nuclear warheads ...some targeted on rome!
he said the world had to know that if israel went down they were capable and willing to make sure they take the rest of us with them ...
in the guardian within the last three weeks.

[Balddog]

Originally posted by morrocan roll
recently an israeli general said that israel must be seen as a mad dog thats best left undisturbed. he went on to say that they had 260 nuclear warheads ...some targeted on rome!
he said the world had to know that if israel went down they were capable and willing to make sure they take the rest of us with them ...
in the guardian within the last three weeks.

An Israeli general eh?

Why would they target rome?

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by Balddog
An Israeli general eh?

Why would they target rome? you never heard of nuclear blackmail. ask the general. the attitude is if we go down we're taking you all with us ...makes sense to me.

[Balddog]

Originally posted by morrocan roll
you never heard of nuclear blackmail. ask the general. the attitude is if we go down we're taking you all with us ...makes sense to me.

Give me a name and/or link and i will ask the general :)

If they wanted to use nuclear blackmail, there are better targets than rome.

It doesnt make sense to me.


EDIT - found it..

http://books.guardian.co.uk/extracts/story/0,6761,1046646,00.html

The general didnt say it, a professor at the hebrew university posed a hypothetical.

We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome.

[Aladdin]

Some Palestinians bomb innocent Israelis as the IDF bombs Israeli Palestinians.

Some Israelis want the whole of the land for themselves as some Palestinians demand the eradication of Israel.

Etc etc.

The bombs and the atrocities must stop. And so on. But there is something everyone must understand. These are not two equal groups arguing over a piece or land. This is a case of one overwhelming, immensely powerful country asphyxiating a starving, isolated, oppressed and hopeless people within an inch of their very existence. That is completely unacceptable and absolutely out of any negotiation or bargaining. The oppression must stop and the land illegally occupied vacated fully and permanently before any negotiation can take place.

Let me put it this way. If you had a running dispute with your next-door neighbour about the garden fence or an overgrown tree, would you find it acceptable if your neighbour kidnapped your sister, tortured her and kept her in his cellar as a bargaining chip while negotiating a settlement? Of course you wouldn't.

[Balddog]

They arent equal groups in terms of military force but they are equal in the moral standards they should uphold.

The oppression and occupation must stop on the Israelis side and the bombs must stop on the Palestinian side.

I might find it acceptable if i was doing exactly the same thing to my neighbour.

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by Balddog
Give me a name and/or link and i will ask the general :)

If they wanted to use nuclear blackmail, there are better targets than rome.

It doesnt make sense to me.


EDIT - found it..

http://books.guardian.co.uk/extracts/story/0,6761,1046646,00.html

The general didnt say it, a professor at the hebrew university posed a hypothetical. bloody hell baldog that was fast! takes me friggin ages to find the right links. out of curiosity ...
how did you find it that quick?

[morrocan roll]

and here it is ...i didn't get it quite right but close......................................... We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother." I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.

[Aladdin]

Balddog,

But the key to all of this is that the Israelis have never indicated that they would remove the settlements if all hostilities were ended. On the contrary. Even when the Roadmap to Nowhere was in full swing and both sides were talking about achieving piece, Sharon was telling the Americans and everyone else he had no intention whatsoever of dismantling the existing settlements so everyone could piss off with such suggestions.

That is the key to it. The Israelis don't want to give it back. They are demanding that in exchange for their military withdrawal and perhaps one day :rolleyes: recognition of a Palestinian sovereign Estate, the Palestinians stop all resistance. But that's all they pretend to concede. They actually want the Palestinians to settle for 'peace' with the broken, ever-shrinking land that remains today.

So what concessions would the Israelis actually be making???

The Palestinian Authority has made it clear that they would recognise the right of Israel to exist if the move was reciprocal. Even radical groups like Hamas are actually pragmatic and have signalled that they would drop all their talk of driving Israel to the sea if Palestine is given the right to exist. But if Israel is not even prepared to do what is right and lawful and remove the illegal settlements from land that isn't theirs, is anyone really surprised that the Palestinians don't want to make peace? Would you? Would anybody?

Perhaps if Israel were to promise what they haven't promised once in its life, to remove the illegal settlements as part of a peace process, you would see the Palestinians willing to make peace. But why should they as things stand? What is it in for them?

[Balddog]

Originally posted by morrocan roll
and here it is ...i didn't get it quite right but close.........................................

Yes, but thankfully its merely a statement of possible fact by a professor rather than a statement of fact by a general of the israeli army. The professor is entitled to his opinion but lets not take it as official Israeli policy.

[Balddog]

Originally posted by Aladdin
Balddog,

But the key to all of this is that the Israelis have never indicated that they would remove the settlements if all hostilities were ended.

Well then, thats what the threat of or active sanctions are for. Israel gets their aid and support withdrawn unless they agree and make a start on withdrawing to the 47 borders and dismantling the settlements...

and Palestine gets their aid and support withdrawn unless they stop the suicide bombers.

but then, i dont know why we are even considering any of this..There will never be peace while sharon and arafat are around..Both of them need to be removed from their respective nations..None of this stepping down but controlling the country from backstage..Total removal.

[Clandestine]

I think you meant to say '67 borders. ;)

[Balddog]

Originally posted by Clandestine
I think you meant to say '67 borders. ;)

No, i actually meant '49 :)

[Clandestine]

That would be peace through absolute historic retrogression. Even more untenable then the present state of affairs.

[Toadborg]

Originally posted by Balddog



When the palestinians commit a horrific crime, people can understand why they did it..When israel commits a horrific crime, they are just evil people intent on domination..



The problem is that 'Israeli' crimes are commited by a govt elected and accountable to the citizens of Israel.

Palestinian crimes are commited by unaccountable terrorists, many with links to foreign nations. The govt of palestine does not have the monopoly of power necessary to prevent these organisations from acting.

So who should make the first move?

[Balddog]

Originally posted by Clandestine
That would be peace through absolute historic retrogression. Even more untenable then the present state of affairs.

How is that different to wanting to go back to pre '67 borders?

Incidentally, they are exactly the same...The 1949 armistice line defined the borders right up until the 6 day war...

Basically I would want to see the borders returned to these.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_israel_palestinians/maps/img/1949_armistice_line_300.gif

Besides, what we think has no bearing on what actually happens.

[Balddog]

Originally posted by Toadborg
The problem is that 'Israeli' crimes are commited by a govt elected and accountable to the citizens of Israel.

Palestinian crimes are commited by unaccountable terrorists, many with links to foreign nations. The govt of palestine does not have the monopoly of power necessary to prevent these organisations from acting.

So who should make the first move?

Regardless, both are actions precipitated by the crimes of the other. I can understand why the palestinians resort to suicide bombs but i can also understand why israel resorts to its distasteful tactics.

Who should make the first move? Presumably the ones who are getting beaten in this 'war'..2500 Palestinians to 800 Israelis was the last count I saw..with no gains made by the Palestinians and no sign, despite increased media attention and discussion, that anything will actually be done about their situation.

Palestine needs to change tactics, and soon.

[Toadborg]

But what you say is fundamentally flawed

How is it possible for 'the palestinians' to stop the suicide bombings when the majority have no say over those that do it?

When we talk of N.Ireland we do talk about 'the catholics' we talk about the IRA because they are the ones who commit the crimes.

Why should the Palestinian people be punished for the failure to act of an extremist minority?

[Balddog]

and thus the palestinian authority is totally absolved of all responsibility...

Im sorry but i do not believe that the palestinian people and their government could not put a stop to the terrorist attacks if they wanted to. Bear in mind that they would only be stopping once both sides had agreed to this and presumably the palestinians would have motivation to try and stop the bombers..

We know that the terrorists are a tiny minority so why would it be so hard for the vast, vast majority of decent palestinians to stop these few?

[Toadborg]

C'mon, you know that is not true.....

Do you blame the Catholic population of N.Ireland for the failure of the IRA to hand in its guns?

Surely the vast majority of N.Ireland catholics could force them to do so?

[Balddog]

No, its a totally different situation. First and foremost, the catholics werent being slaughtered as the palestinians are..You cant compare the two, the palestinians are far worse off than the catholics have been for years, possibly ever.

Secondly, you are missing the point im trying to make..Currently the palestinian people have no motivation to stop the terrorists..As has been said, Israel isnt going to make the concessions they want so whats the point in trying to stop the bombers...

If Israel were doing what the palestinian people wanted, and the bombers kept bombing and endangering everything, i have no doubt that the palestinian people would put an end to them.

[Toadborg]

And my point is that you suggested aid and support for the Palestinian people be dependant on stopping suicide bombings and I do not believe that the Palestinian people can prevent these bombings.......

[Aladdin]

You have to look at who is causing the most suffering; and in this case there is a clear winner- by a million miles.

The Israelis suffer regular bombings and shootings (perhaps at the rate of 1.5 per month?) that kills 2-300 of their citizens per year. I wouldn't dream to suggest that this is of little relevance, but the fact is other than this the Israelis enjoy every commodity and right that we think human rights deserve:


They have their own Sovereign Country
They have freedom of movement both within their country and to go abroad
They have a right to basic utilities
They have a right to own a home and not have it demolished with total impunity
They don't live under constant military occupation by a foreign power
They don't suffer daily humiliations in the form of constant checks, roadblocks and harassment by an occupying foreign army
They don't run the risk of being arrested 'preventively' and thrown into a jail without charge for months on end
They don’t have a fungus-like infection of “foreign” territories spread across their nation


None of which is currently enjoyed by the Palestinians.

Make no mistake, the suffering of the Palestinians is a million times worse then the Israelis have ever experienced since the formation of Israel. I think it should be very clear who should make the first move towards peace.

[Balddog]

Originally posted by Toadborg
And my point is that you suggested aid and support for the Palestinian people be dependant on stopping suicide bombings and I do not believe that the Palestinian people can prevent these bombings.......

Well then I believe you have far too little faith in the Palestinian people.

If they knew that Israel was being held to its concessions and if they knew that failure to stop the bombers would lead to aid being stopped then I believe they would stop the bombers..

Neither of us can say for sure so its a bit of a pointless argument...but im gonna stick to believing that the entire population of palestine would be able to stop a few hundred or even few thousand terrorists...They would find it impossible to operate amongst a hostile populace..This has been proven throughout history, guerilla forces need the co-operation of their host population or they fail.

[Balddog]

Originally posted by Aladdin

Make no mistake, the suffering of the Palestinians is a million times worse then the Israelis have ever experienced since the formation of Israel. I think it should be very clear who should make the first move towards peace.


Well based on those facts, i would say the palestinians..They are the ones suffering so terribly while the Israelis are sunning it up in their resorts...What reason do the Israelis have to make the first move? The palestinians are the ones dying by the truckload.

PS, i read something interesting about the death numbers today, ill dig it out when i get back from class.

[Aladdin]

Er... because the Israeli government is breaking just about every single law, regulation and guideline the human race has about the sanctity of life and human rights? Because it's a monstrosity?

Should have we all surrendered to big bad Hitler when he was blitzing Britain or told the Jewish race to all leave the known world for a desert island or alternatively form an orderly queue outside the nearest death camp?

Palestinian terrorists are not bombing restaurants for a laugh. The bombings are a direct response to this historical atrocity, and their only means of defence. I'm sure if they were allowed to have an army they'd like to fight the IDF 'fair and square'. But that's not the case. What else would you expect them to do, when the situation has gone on for 4 decades and the world can't be arsed to do anything about it?

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by Balddog
Yes, but thankfully its merely a statement of possible fact by a professor rather than a statement of fact by a general of the israeli army. The professor is entitled to his opinion but lets not take it as official Israeli policy. it may well not be official but i'll bet it was officialy sanctioned as being a good time to remind the rest of the world ...

[Clandestine]

Having just come across this on Jane's security pages, it appears Sharon is about to further trash the roadmap to the point of no return...

http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/fr/fr030917_1_n.shtml

Get ready for the fireworks en masse folks! :eek:

[Balddog]

Originally posted by Aladdin
Er... because the Israeli government is breaking just about every single law, regulation and guideline the human race has about the sanctity of life and human rights? Because it's a monstrosity?

and thats a good enough reason for the israelis to change is it? Thats reason enough for us to believe the israelis should change their ways..No offence but thats slightly naive..Why do we imprison criminals? Surely they should change their ways because they are naughty...People who do things wrong either dont care or dont acknowledge they are doing wrong and thus have no reason to change.

Im sorry, who suggested the palestinians surrender? I certainly didnt...They shouldnt surrender, they should keep on 'fighting' until they get their state and israel gets out of the settlements. However, there are other options than suicide bombs..Its obvious what a marvellous effect that particular tactic is having.

The world cant be arsed to do anything because people cannot bring themselves to side with suicide bombers..It really is that simple...If the Palestinians swapped their bombs with cameras, then they would have their state in the very near future.

Palestine needs America on her side and the only way for that to happen is for all suicide bombs on civilian targets to stop...Obviously theres a hell of a lot of ignorance out there but you cant always fight it, sometimes youve got to use it to your advantage. Mention Palestinian to most people in the US and the first thing that comes to mind is suicide bombers..Thats wrong but its what so many think and thats why nothing is being done.

Keep bombing = war of attrition, life in hell continues for palestinians.
Stop bombing = Israelis have to stop their tactics or be shown to be butchers to the world...Plain for all to see.

[Clandestine]

Balddog, one need only look then at the last ceasefire, to which the militant groups agreed only to have Sharon and co use the lull to do what? Wow, surprise surprise, lets go assassinate and rocket bomb some more targets.

And soon to come we have this bright idea (link above) from the Sharon camp.

Looks like they've taken their cues right out of the Warsaw Ghetto Clearance Handbook this time!

[Balddog]

and as i keep saying, im not expecting israel to go through with this for fun...Threats and sanctions have to come from the US and UN..

PS, if this situation continues, i fear your nazi references might actually become true rather than being emotive rubbish.

[Aladdin]

There have been periods in the last 15 years when terrorist attacks have been non existent... and they have done bugger all for the Palestinians during the times.

It is shocking and horrible that it's the way it is, but the fact is that there is most progress and peace talks in the weeks following a particularly bloody period, when the international community feel compelled to apply some pressure.

Whenever things have been calm the progress has been nil, because the Israeli government is quite happy with the status quo and why give away all the land they've nicked out of goodwill?

I really wish that if Palestinians laid down their weapons and the Israelis carried out their usual 'routine' the world would be prompted to spring into action (funnily enough this is more or less what Michael Moore suggests in Stupid White Men, which I'm in the middle of reading). And if it was any other country in the world, I'm certain that it would have been stopped decades ago.

But we all know that Israel is the ultimate protégée of the US, and as such, untouchable. Of the resolutions that the US allows to be passed at the UN (it has vetoed countless ones) not a single one has been implemented. Israel has a formidable, fully equipped army courtesy of Uncle Sam, and even if some countries dared to defy the wrath of the US and put a task force together (and without UN authorisation, which other than Britain and America people tend to adhere to, that would be almost impossible) they would have to launch a full war to counter the strength of the IDF. And that nobody wants.

And of course, if you expect the US to ever raise a finger against Israel, you might as well expect O. Bin Laden to be the next New York Mayor.

In short, if the Palestinians laid down their weapons, equipped themselves with cameras and documented their own plight to the world, Israel would be allow to massacre every last man woman and child (if it chose to do so of course) without the international community willing or daring to do a damn thing about it.

[BournemouthPete]

You call for sanctions against Israel when you're exactly the sort of idiot who moans about the sanctions we imposed on Iraq. Which is it to be?

[Balddog]

Originally posted by Aladdin
There have been periods in the last 15 years when terrorist attacks have been non existent... and they have done bugger all for the Palestinians during the times..

The issue and situation over there has never been at this level before..Never has there been so much discussion, never so much media attention...At least not in my lifetime. Israel/Palestine is the issue in the world today.

In short, if the Palestinians laid down their weapons, equipped themselves with cameras and documented their own plight to the world, Israel would be allow to massacre every last man woman and child (if it chose to do so of course) without the international community willing or daring to do a damn thing about it.

Im confused..Are you saying that the suicide bombings are what keeps Israel from doing these things? Ive always thought of myself as terribly cynical about human nature but DAMN, you are a whole different type of pessimist :) ...America doesnt stand against Israel now because the people still support Israel over the Palestinians..If the palestinians stop bombing and dont do anything but document anything the israelis should do, then the american public will side with them over the israelis...Should the israelis do anything bad of course.

[Clandestine]

No Balddog, the US doesnt stand against Israel because the AIPAC is one of the most powerful lobbies in Amercia and fully represents the hardline expansionistic agenda that ultimately wants no peace.

More moderate Jewish lobbies in the States have nowhere near the constituency nor muscle to force the necessary policy changes needed to address the status quo and overturn it.

BP> Sanctions against Iraq, their intent, and their results cannot be compared to that which has been suggested toward Israel.

In the case of Iraq, Saddam had viable and indigenous opposition ready to rise up and overthrow his regime given the proper international support. Instead, our leaders countered any proposals to end sanctions in order to focus solely upon shutting down Saddam (freezing of all assets, support for revolution, etc.) because the principle challengers to his regime were the Shia's with their desire for a religious state (and that is anathema to the our transparent corporate interests in the region).

The only people that the Iraqi sanctions hurt were the very people who might have overthrown him.

In the case of Israel, we have every bit a government intent on attacking its neighbours, which indeed DOES have stockpiles of illegal WMDs, and which is in breach of far more numerous UN resolution than was Saddam's regime.

So the question can equally be turned right back on you...

Iraqi invasion justified on the basis of oft repeated arguments over breach of UN resolutions, what then of the Israeli government?

Can't have it both ways! ;)

[Balddog]

Originally posted by Clandestine
No Balddog, the US doesnt stand against Israel because the AIPAC is one of the most powerful lobbies in Amercia and fully represents the hardline expansionistic agenda that ultimately wants no peace.

Do they support Israel because..

a) the jewish lobby is so strong
b) the rest of the country doesnt support the palestinians and therefore isnt willing to speak out against israel.

The jewish lobby is irrelevent if the majority of US voters turn against Israel.

[Aladdin]

Originally posted by BournemouthPete
You call for sanctions against Israel when you're exactly the sort of idiot who moans about the sanctions we imposed on Iraq. Which is it to be?

The difference is, idiot, that the sanctions on an already very poor and war-savaged Iraq cost the lives of 500,000 people.

Sanctions against Israel would not have such effect, but even if they were to be it would not come to that because Sharon is no Saddam.

Clear now?

Originally posted by Balddog
Im confused..Are you saying that the suicide bombings are what keeps Israel from doing these things? Ive always thought of myself as terribly cynical about human nature but DAMN, you are a whole different type of pessimist ...America doesnt stand against Israel now because the people still support Israel over the Palestinians..If the palestinians stop bombing and dont do anything but document anything the israelis should do, then the american public will side with them over the israelis...Should the israelis do anything bad of course. No what I was trying to say is that passive resistance and hope for international intervention would be futile in this case.
So as far as the Palestinians are concerned they're being screwed over in the same way whether they lay still or fight back... so naturally they choose to fight back.

I'm afraid I don't share your optimism. I find it extremely difficult for US public opinion in the Middle East to change. Not while most of the media is biased to such extent and controlled by a handful of individuals.

Suffice to say that even today, and despite denials from Bush himself as well as from everyone else in the world, 70% of Americans actually believe Saddam was behind 9/11 :rolleyes: . Perceptions are very hard to change.

[Balddog]

Well we will have to agree to disagree..I dont believe for an instant that if Israel did what its doing now while Palestine carried out no attacks, that the west would sit by and do nothing.

Interesting you should mention saddam and 9/11..Your numbers are actually wrong...Just a few months ago, 75% of americans believed saddam was connected, now its down to 60%.

Thats quite a big change....Perceptions are very hard to change?

[Clandestine]

BD, I was speaking of the actual driving force behind the status quo policy in the US, not the mass of tacit approval or disapproval from the voting public.

Most of the voting public wouldnt and don't actively petition Washington for any change on anything, let alone the Middle East crisis. Those who push through agendas are precisely the powerful lobbies like AIPAC.

This is evidenced by little or no real action taken against Israeli policies regardless of which of the two major parties take the White House.

As for your optimism of what the West would do if Palestinians put up no resistance whatsoever, I think you are conveniently forgetting that the creation of the (secular) state of Israel in 1948 was precipitated by hardcore zionist militants who attacked and drove some 750,000 arab inhabitants of the land out of their homes and Britain eventually gave up and left them to do as wished, handing it to the UN and washing their hands of it.

http://www.al-bushra.org/temp/crus.html

Excerpt:


There was no way that a Jewish state could be established there if Britain and America’s other promises and principles were to be upheld. The promises and the principles went out the window in the Crusading zeal to control the Middle East and the Holy Land. Britain’s Mandate over Palestine provided the necessary cover for the mass importation of Jews and their acquisition of land and arms. Knowing that the Jews meant to dispossess and control them, the Palestinians revolted at times, but were suppressed by British soldiers and Zionist irregulars. In the 1930s, there was a mass immigration of Jews and many attacks against non-Jews by Jewish terrorists. The British, having some conscience, decided in 1939 that they had done enough to establish the “Jewish national home” and started to curb Jewish immigration. Enraged, the Zionists proceeded to attack and kill British soldiers and officials so that the Brits turned the problem over to the United Nations. At the opening of the London Conference on January 27, 1947, a statement was read by Jamal El-Husseini, vice-chairman of the Arab Higher Committee:

"During the last 25 years, however, Palestine had been denied the right to self-government, in violation of those rights and pledges as well as the covenant of the League of Nations. An autocratic administration was set up with the primary aim of assisting the Jews in their invasion of Palestine. The Balfour Declaration on which this policy was based was a vague and one-sided encouragement made by Great Britain to alien Jews in the absence and complete ignorance of the Arab owners of the country.

Since 1918 the Jewish elements in Palestine had increased by enforced migration from 7 per cent to 33 per cent of the entire population...

During this period Jewish political claims had inflated from a modest spiritual home to the establishment of a Jewish state which they sought to enforce by the present campaign of terrorism. This had driven the Arabs to the point of exasperation, for they beheld that all the apprehensions they had expressed 25 years ago were being rapidly fulfilled.

Certain quarters had proposed that justice might be done if the country were partitioned between Arabs and Jews. The Arabs believed that such a proposal was an easy pretext for evading the difficulties of a problem that had been created by a gross injustice. The creation of an alien Jewish state in Palestine would mean a running sore that would undoubtedly become a permanent source of trouble in the Middle East, and would mean the destruction of Arab continuity and territorial sovereignty."

As quoted in The Palestine Diary by Robert John and Sami Hadawi (New World Press, NY, 1970)
Under pressure from the US, the UN, in 1948, decided to partition Palestine and create the new Jewish state of Israel. Jews, who still owned only 7% of Palestine, were given 55%, but the Zionists wanted more land and less Palestinians. Having lived under Turkish and then Western occupation, the Arabs had no significant military forces. The Zionists, on the other hand, had been preparing for war for decades and were well equipped and trained. Outnumbering all Arab soldiers by three to one, they began a war of conquest. They proceeded to terrorize the Palestinian population, forcing 750,000 of them from their homes and enlarging their state beyond the UN Mandate. They ended up with 78% of Palestine. So we see that Britain and the United States carried out their pledge to the Jews, and completely failed to honor their pledge to protect the rights of "Christians and all other non-Jewish communities in Palestine.”


It's a monstrous injustice already. If Palestinians cease to defend themselves then you can bet that the West would merely look on as it did from the start.

[Balddog]

Active petitioning doesnt matter...If the majority wants change in israel, they will get it...Any US administration will pander to the wants of its voting public..The israeli lobby isnt that powerful.


We also thought it was acceptable to firebomb cities back then as well...Please dont try and make out we would do the same things today.

It's a monstrous injustice already. If Palestinians cease to defend themselves then you can bet that the West would merely look on as it did from the start.

I cannot disagree strongly enough :)

Besides, could it be any worse than the current situation? Youve already explained that theres no chance of any change happening in regard to whitehouse policy..Just what do you suggest? Other than Israel changing their ways out of the kindness of their heart.

[Clandestine]

You can choose to understimate the power and influence of AIPAC, but as the article above (long read) mentions, entire books have been written about the ability of AIPAC to destroy the political careers of any who opposed their view of manfiest destiny in the Middle East.

Indeed I have conceded to a cynical view of future prospects and am unlikely to change to that view so long as my government refuses to act as a truly impartial broker of the process.

[Balddog]

I have to admit I didnt read that article...Firstly because my eyes have trouble with such huge, barely punctuated blocks of text. Secondly because of its title.

The Ninth Crusade

Why Arabs hate Israel and America, why Americans support ethnic cleansing in Palestine, and how to end the American-Israeli conflict with the Arab world
A message for all who care for the truth..

Im sure it has good points but i cant physically read them :/

You are talking about the power of the AIPAC in the past or the present..In times when people dont support palestine over israel..The entire point im making is that peoples views will change and they will support palestine over israel.

[Clandestine]

Yes the text is annoyingly small and unformatted. The points raised though do have considerable historical and contextual relevance. Like any editorial though, it has it emotive elements.

As for public opinion, well that's an issue which has been covered in many topical threads on many issues and much of it comes right back to the programmed perception of affairs spun by the corporate media (which certainly in the US counts for the continued foremost influence for the majority. Until or unless media moguls who are either directly or indirectly associated to the powerful zionist lobby are divested of their overarching control over broadcast and print media, there is unlikely to be any sufficently broad forum for changing public perception.

As things stand, even criticising Israeli government policy is immediately branded as anti-Semite. No intelligent debate can exist in such an environment.

[Balddog]

and once again, you are thinking in the current situation..Once there are no more suicide bombings for the media to show, once all they have is the Israeli actions, things will change. Yes a hell of a lot of the media is terribly biased but they cant make up bombings and they cant keep the israeli actions silent, should there be any..

Ill ask you again, what to you suggest should be done? Its obvious to anyone that the suicide bombings are accomplishing nothing more than killing palestinians, directly and indirectly..

[Clandestine]

Actually their are Israeli attacks on Palestinians on practically a daily basis and the media does indeed keep it largely silent. Its all a matter of news management whereby we're granted random snippets concerning IDF attrocities (always carefully worded as "clashes") compared to immediate and vitriolic reportage of every Palestinian response (spelled out in terms such as "carefully planned Palestinian attack" or "extremist violence").

It all goes to painting a slanted mental image in the minds of the viewing public that Israeli attrocities are not planned or provoked but rather accidental whereas Palestinian retaliation is concerted and intentional. Fact is, the violence of both sides is intentional.

Once again, under these circumstances why should the Palestinians believe that a cessation of violence will galvanise the West into stoppong Israeli violence against them.

Or perhaps you'd like to go live in Gaza and watch as your family is slaughtered to satisfy Sharon's grasp for more land and control and set the example?

35 years of relentless suffering has taught them that acting like lambs will lead them to the slaughter all the quicker with not so much as a peep from the West until its too late to matter.


What would I do? If I had the power to do so, just what i suggested earlier, no fly zones, full naval embargo, cessation of all arms and financial aid to Israel unless they immediately ceased the occupation and the settlements and returned to the negotiating table.

[Balddog]

Your one sidedness and bias disgusts me.

You refuse to see my point, continuing to apply the situation today without taking into account what im suggesting...

and again its suggested i go to live out there...wtf :crazyeyes

I want peace out there, I can see the argument from both sides and I see that both sides need to be seen to be doing something...

anyway, enough. :)

[Clandestine]

My one sidedness comes from a personal sense of obligation to present a couterbalance to the far more widespread one sidedness of the media, which has (as you yourself put it) the vast majority believing that its all the Palestinian's fault. Some revision of history here, some media silence there and the picture has become woefully onesided.

Responding to the "wtf :crazyeyes" I merely intended to suggest that in order to gain a more comprehensive picture of the situation you, me or anyone would have to go live as they do, under the conditions imposed upon them by the continued occupation. I doubt any of us would at that point believe that passive resistance would achieve anything but our own deaths out of sight of Western eyes.

I realise you wish to speak about future hope, but Im sorry, there is no hope unless we focus on the current situation and expose the truth of what the media is failing to present.

peace ;)

[Balddog]

Originally posted by Clandestine
[B] I doubt any of us would at that point believe that passive resistance would achieve anything but our own deaths out of sight of Western eyes.


Funny, because it was a palestinian friend who got me hooked on the idea. Swapping bombs for video cameras, he certainly believes it will achieve more than his death.

[Clandestine]

And where is your Palestinian friend? In the UK or in Gaza?

[Balddog]

Originally posted by Clandestine
And where is your Palestinian friend? In the UK or in Gaza?

He is now in the UK, having been here for a little over 4 months.

[Clandestine]

Well i'd welcome his attempts if he thinks he could solve the crisis in such a way. But if Sharon invades as the article from Jane's I posted above suggests, you can kiss any receptivity to passive resistance goodbye forever.

[Balddog]

I dont believe that will happen....

We will see in the next 3 weeks or so though :)

[Clandestine]

Indeed. *hold's breath*

[Bandito]

you can kiss any receptivity to passive resistance goodbye forever.

Pucker Up!

Blast Kills 18 In Israel (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031004/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians_913&cid=540)

[Dear Wendy]

I have to say that keeping out of these threads. Reading them only, gives a better perspective than arguing with half of the forum.
Displays what's wrong in this whole to situation in the first place.

[Balddog]

Originally posted by Jacqueline the Ripper
I have to say that keeping out of these threads. Reading them only, gives a better perspective than arguing with half of the forum.
Displays what's wrong in this whole to situation in the first place.

Ill be staying out of them in the future...its impossible to get through to some people.

[Dear Wendy]

I noticed that. And while I am not the most moderate of people in this case, it has made me realise that the conflict can't be solved by seeking justice, but rather a solution.

Just occured to me that I was discussing the whole conflict when drunk last night :eek2:

[Bandito]

How about some enlightenment by an expert in Mid East Politics:

From the link below:

In truth, all these plans lead in the wrong direction, rendering resolution farther off than before. Real progress requires a different and more honest way of looking at the conflict as a whole. Let us begin by recalling certain basic points:


Although a neutral term like "Arab-Israeli conflict" makes it sound as if both sides were equally to blame for this decades-long war, and must therefore be brought to compromise by splitting the differences between them, this is, as Norman Podhoretz has rightly insisted, "a deceptive label." A more accurate term is the "Arab war against Israel."


Israeli control of the West Bank and Gaza cannot be the core of the problem. The Arab war against Israel predated Israel's taking those territories in 1967; in fact, it was under way even before Israel formally came into existence as a state.


Rather, the root cause of the conflict remains today what it has always been: the Arab rejection of any sovereign Jewish presence between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.


The conflict continues into its sixth decade because Arabs expect they can defeat and then destroy the state of Israel.


Israel cannot end this conflict unilaterally, by actions of its own. It can only take steps that will make it more rather than less likely that the Arabs will give up on those expectations.
At the heart of the problem, in other words, stands Arab rejection. However cunningly conceived, plans that attempt to outflank, leap over, or otherwise finesse this stubborn fact are doomed to failure. Instead of ignoring it, would-be peacemakers would do better to start by recognizing that the conflict will diminish only when the Arabs finally surrender their dream of obliterating the Jewish state, and then to concentrate on finding ways to get the Arabs to undergo what I call a "change of heart." How might that be achieved?


Does Israel Need A Plan by Daniel Pipes (http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1015)

[Clandestine]

Nice revisionistic apologetic for a systematic causation that goes back well before the creation of the secular state itself...

The complete text of

The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict

Published by
Jews for Justice in the Middle East


As the periodic bloodshed continues in the Middle East, the search for an equitable solution must come to grips with the root cause of the conflict. The conventional wisdom is that, even if both sides are at fault, the Palestinians are irrational "terrorists" who have no point of view worth listening to. Our position, however, is that the Palestinians have a real grievance: their homeland for over a thousand years was taken, without their consent and mostly by force, during the creation of the state of Israel. And all subsequent crimes - on both sides - inevitably follow from this original injustice.

This paper outlines the history of Palestine to show how this process occurred and what a moral solution to the region's problems should consist of. If you care about the people of the Middle East, Jewish and Arab, you owe it to yourself to read this account of the other side of the historical record.



Introduction

The standard Zionist position is that they showed up in Palestine in the late 19th century to reclaim their ancestral homeland. Jews bought land and started building up the Jewish community there. They were met with increasingly violent opposition from the Palestinian Arabs, presumably stemming from the Arabs' inherent anti-Semitism. The Zionists were then forced to defend themselves and, in one form or another, this same situation continues up to today.

The problem with this explanation is that it is simply not true, as the documentary evidence in this booklet will show. What really happened was that the Zionist movement, from the beginning, looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the indigenous Arab population so that Israel could be a wholly Jewish state, or as much as was possible. Land bought by the Jewish National Fund was held in the name of the Jewish people and could never be sold or even leased back to Arabs (a situation which continues to the present).

The Arab community, as it became increasingly aware of the Zionists' intentions, strenuously opposed further Jewish immigration and land buying because it posed a real and imminent danger to the very existence of Arab society in Palestine. Because of this opposition, the entire Zionist project never could have been realized without the military backing of the British. The vast majority of the population of Palestine, by the way, had been Arabic since the seventh century A.D. (Over 1200 years)

In short, Zionism was based on a faulty, colonialist world view that the rights of the indigenous inhabitants didn't matter. The Arabs' opposition to Zionism wasn't based on anti-Semitism but rather on a totally reasonable fear of the dispossession of their people.

One further point: being Jewish ourselves, the position we present here is critical of Zionism but is in no way anti-Semitic. We do not believe that the Jews acted worse than any other group might have acted in their situation. The Zionists (who were a distinct minority of the Jewish people until after WWII) had an understandable desire to establish a place where Jews could be masters of their own fate, given the bleak history of Jewish oppression. Especially as the danger to European Jewry crystalized in the late 1930's and after, the actions of the Zionists were propelled by real desperation.

But so were the actions of the Arabs. The mythic "land without people for a people without land" was already home to 700,000 Palestinians in 1919. This is the root of the problem, as we shall see.



Excerpt:

Was Arab opposition to the arrival of Zionists based on inherent anti-Semitism or a real sense of danger to their community?

"The aim of the [Jewish National] Fund was `to redeem the land of Palestine as the inalienable possession of the Jewish people.'...As early as 1891, Zionist leader Ahad Ha'am wrote that the Arabs "understood very well what we were doing and what we were aiming at'...[Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, stated] `We shall try to spirit the penniless [Arab] population across the border by procuring employment for it in transit countries, while denying it employment in our own country... Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly'...At various locations in northern Palestine Arab farmers refused to move from land the Fund purchased from absentee owners, and the Turkish authorities, at the Fund's request, evicted them...The indigenous Jews of Palestine also reacted negatively to Zionism. They did not see the need for a Jewish state in Palestine and did not want to exacerbate relations with the Arabs." John Quigley, "Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice."

Inherent anti-Semitism? - continued

"Before the 20th century, most Jews in Palestine belonged to old Yishuv, or community, that had settled more for religious than for political reasons. There was little if any conflict between them and the Arab population. Tensions began after the first Zionist settlers arrived in the 1880's...when [they] purchased land from absentee Arab owners, leading to dispossession of the peasants who had cultivated it." Don Peretz, "The Arab-Israeli Dispute."

Inherent anti-Semitism? - continued

"[During the Middle Ages,] North Africa and the Arab Middle East became places of refuge and a haven for the persecuted Jews of Spain and elsewhere...In the Holy Land...they lived together in [relative] harmony, a harmony only disrupted when the Zionists began to claim that Palestine was the 'rightful' possession of the 'Jewish people' to the exclusion of its Moslem and Christian inhabitants." Sami Hadawi, "Bitter Harvest."

Jews attitude towards Arabs when reaching Palestine.

"Serfs they (the Jews) were in the lands of the Diaspora, and suddenly they find themselves in freedom [in Palestine]; and this change has awakened in them an inclination to despotism. They treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, deprive them of their rights, offend them without cause, and even boast of these deeds; and nobody among us opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination." Zionist writer Ahad Ha'am, quoted in Sami Hadawi, "Bitter Harvest."

Proposals for Arab-Jewish Cooperation

"An article by Yitzhak Epstein, published in Hashiloah in 1907...called for a new Zionist policy towards the Arabs after 30 years of settlement activity...Like Ahad-Ha'am in 1891, Epstein claims that no good land is vacant, so Jewish settlement meant Arab dispossession...Epstein's solution to the problem, so that a new "Jewish question" may be avoided, is the creation of a bi-national, non-exclusive program of settlement and development. Purchasing land should not involve the dispossession of poor sharecroppers. It should mean creating a joint farming community, where the Arabs will enjoy modern technology. Schools, hospitals and libraries should be non-exclusivist and education bilingual...The vision of non-exclusivist, peaceful cooperation to replace the practice of dispossession found few takers. Epstein was maligned and scorned for his faintheartedness." Israeli author, Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, "Original Sins."


The origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict (full text) (http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html)

[Dear Wendy]

:(

[Uncle Joe]

Originally posted by Balddog
If Israel were doing what the palestinian people wanted, and the bombers kept bombing and endangering everything, i have no doubt that the palestinian people would put an end to them. Like agreeing (just agreeing, mind you, not actually doing it yet) to remove the illegal settlements? You don't think that the Israeli government knows just what it needs to do to wreck any chance of a peace deal that will culminate in the demographic demise of the state of Israel in a few generations?

[Uncle Joe]

Originally posted by Balddog
Well based on those facts, i would say the palestinians..They are the ones suffering so terribly while the Israelis are sunning it up in their resorts...What reason do the Israelis have to make the first move? The palestinians are the ones dying by the truckload. Obviously, you're right. Appeasement is the only language the Israeli government understand...

[Aladdin]

In view of today's events, I think we should go through "valid reasons to impose change regime", as spoken by G. Wanker B. and Tony BLiar:


Human right abuses:

Saddam- Yep Sharon- Yep


In breach of countless UN Resolutions

Saddam- Yep Sharon- Yep


Appropriation of/claim to foreign land that doesn't belong to them

Saddam- Yep, but gave up long time ago Sharon- Yep


Possession of undeclared, illegal WMDs

Saddam- er, no Sharon- Yep


A danger to its neighbours and to world peace

Saddam- not for a decade Sharon- Yep


In fact, following today's attack on another sovereign nation there are now much more obvious grounds for regime change in Tel Aviv than they ever were for Baghdad. Add that to the very serious considerations the Israeli government is giving to assassinating Arafat, and methinks there are grounds for immediate action.


Let me clarify that I am revolted by yesterday's suicide bomb attack and I do not condone it in any way- just as I don't condone the regular IDF attacks (such as the unreported one that claimed the lives of the suicide bomber's brother and cousin) that have killed 3 times as many Palestinians. But today's attack on Syria and the talk of Arafat's assassination makes Sharon's government an extremely volatile and dangerous regime, and one that needs taken care of very soon.

[Balddog]

Never picked you for a rabid warmonger aladdin :)

With the exception of WMDs, dont all those apply to Palestine as well? :eek: :eek:

INVASION

PS, what are the illegal/undeclared WMDs that Israel has?

[Aladdin]

Believe me, I would not want to see an invasion of any sorts. I'm just highlighting the supreme hypocrisy of Bush and his supporters. Full armed intervention would only bring more death and misery.

It is a universally accepted fact however that Israel possesses at least 80 nuclear bombs, probably more in the region of 150-200. Remember that one of Israel's top scientists is rotting in jail for daring to blow the whistle.

It is also widely believed that Israel also possesses chemical and biological weapons- but then again, so do the US, Russia and possibly the UK and China too.

The Palestinian don't have such weapons though (and thank God for that!). They can't even fight a tank or take down a helicopter- something even the camel-riding, cave-inhabiting Afghans can.

[Balddog]

Im aware Israel has a shedload of nuclear weapons and possibly chem/bio....but im just wondering why they are illegal? Did the UN pass resolutions against them aquiring these weapons back in the day?

Its not illegal to aquire nuclear weapons unless you sign up to something saying so, or have a worldwide org, of which you are a member, pass a resolution making it illegal...

I honestly dont know if Israel did sign any of the nuclear treaties...Just wondering why they were illegal weapons.

[Clandestine]

By thatreasoning, why were Iraq's WMDs illegal? Iraq was not signed onto any international treaty regarding Bio/Chem weapons, so by your reasoning there was even less justification to attack them in the present day.

Just to point out one glaring inconsistency ;)

[Balddog]

You missed the various UN security council resolutions ordering Iraq to dismantle their WMD programs then Clandestine? Iraq signed up to the UN a very long time ago and is therefore bound by their rules...

[Clandestine]

And so is Israel last time I checked.

Given all the other resolutions vetoed by Washington or otherwise ignored by Israel you know full well that any resolution against Israeli WMDs would be swiftly blocked.

The very fact that there are far more resolutions against Israel also raises questions of inconsistency in the underlying principle of your apparent argument in their favour. Apologies if im wrong on that score.

[Balddog]

Have the UN passed a resolution barring Israel from the production, aquisition or ownership of nuclear weapons? It is actually a genuine question as i said earlier, i wasnt trying to score points.

Going by your second paragraph, it would appear not.

[Clandestine]

And given my second comment, what change to the current state of affairs even if it did?

The hypocrisy would merely be more glaring than it already is, but nothing would be done.

[Balddog]

Originally posted by Clandestine
And given my second comment, what change to the current state of affairs even if it did?

The hypocrisy would merely be more glaring than it already is, but nothing would be done.

I brought up the UN resolutions because Aladdin said that Israels weapons were illegal...I wondered why that was so.

Im not making a point, im just asking for clarification.

[Uncle Joe]

I can see that my own words are failing to impinge on the sublime intellect that is Balddog, but this excerpt of a letter in yesterday's Independent impressed me, so with any hope..?

"...For forty years clandestine [no relation] annexation of disputed land has taken place by the building of "settlements"; their purpose is to impede the handing back of captured and occupied territories in the event of Israel being obliged to comply with UN Resolutions 242 and 338. So far, no willingness to bring this about has been demonstrated by either the UN, the US or the EU; all of which have the means but lack the will to do so.

Unfortunately, as the article - "This obscene wall will end all hope of peace" - Adrian Hamilton (http://www.christusrex.org/www1/icons/ipc-10-2-03.html)* - suggests, the Palestinians are in a no-win situation. It is unrealistic to expect no reaction from them to the intrusive military occupation. They are impotent against the Israeli military and, when they hit at the civilian population, they provide the excuse for further repression by the IDF and a facile vindication of Israel's policy towards them."


* Can't link directly to the Indie as they require a subscription nowadays.

[Clandestine]

The argument is spurious though BD, if illegality depends on being a signatory to the given arms covention, then the UN had no authority to make a resolution against Iraq in the first place and thus even that charade of an excuse for invasion is nullified.

If however the refusal to ratify the various conventions signals a presumption on the part of the given nation state that it places itself above the rule of international law, then Israel is, by default, equally guilty of illegal development of NBC weaponry.

Applying the reasoning you have used to question the issue that is.

[Balddog]

What are you expecting me to say Joe?

You dont believe that a campaign of non violence by the Palestinians will work, I do..There is nothing more to say as it is only opinion on both our parts.

[Balddog]

Originally posted by Clandestine
The argument is spurious though BD, if illegality depends on being a signatory to the given arms covention, then the UN had no authority to make a resolution against Iraq in the first place and thus even that charade of an excuse for invasion is nullified.



This is not what I said :)

[Clandestine]

Well you actually did at the top of the page, but the second part of your contention was not a legitimate alternative to the first if the first was valid.

In the case of the CWC for example, it isnt the UN which oversees nor enforces the CWC, that falls to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in The Hague.

That is not to say that in my estimation all nations should not be held accountable for possession or production of WMDs.

[Balddog]

Israel have signed the CWC so production of chemical weapons by them would be illegal.

Maybe its because its late, maybe im stupid but I dont see what you are trying to say here..

Something cannot be illegal unless there is some kind of rule, ruling or law forbidding you from doing it. You can play around with semantics all you want but you get my point.

[Clandestine]

And there are very clear international rules for Bio, Chem and Nuclear weapons (production, storage, and proliferation) as well as their delivery systems.

Not having signed up to any or all of them does not bestow legality, it merely makes such states rogue nations.

[Uncle Joe]

Originally posted by Balddog
What are you expecting me to say Joe?

You dont believe that a campaign of non violence by the Palestinians will work, I do..There is nothing more to say as it is only opinion on both our parts. Hardly. I agree that non-violent means are the only way to go for the Palestinians. Where I think you're being naive, though, is in believing that the Israeli government will stand for such underhanded methods, when they rely on Hamas atrocities to maintain the status quo for decades to come. A state of quasi-war is what suits the IG best, and they're dab hands at keeping the pot simmering.

[Balddog]

Ah I get you....

So presumably that means that any nation who seeks to develop advanced weaponry is a rogue nation and therefore carrying out illegal activities?

Im a little confused as to where we got the right to impose such rules on all nations but oh well...

[Balddog]

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
Hardly. I agree that non-violent means are the only way to go for the Palestinians. Where I think you're being naive, though, is in believing that the Israeli government will stand for such underhanded methods, when they rely on Hamas atrocities to maintain the status quo for decades to come. A state of quasi-war is what suits the IG best, and they're dab hands at keeping the pot simmering.

Now you are doing exactly what Clandestine was doing and thinking of the Israeli government in their current mindset. What im advocating will make sure that its not in Israels interest to keep a state of quasi war but to make them believe a state of peace is what suits them best.

There were two parts to my suggestion remember, not just the Palestinian part. Each action provides motivation to the other side to keep to their agreed action.

[Clandestine]

Actually no BD, this perspective (as shown in the comprehensive history of the conflict i posted in this thread earlier (did you even read through it?) has been part of the Zionist programme of total acquisition of the land since they first drove the Palestinian inhabitants off their land prior to and during the creation of the State of Israel.

[Balddog]

Listen Clandestine, why can you not simply accept that someone has a differing opinion? I refuse to believe that the Israelis wouldnt rather have peace than the current situation. By Israelis I mean the Israeli population, ive already seen id like to see the end of Sharon and his ilk.

Im just suggesting something I feel would be the best way for peace.. and its a damn sight more feasible than expecting things to be hunky dorey after stopping all aid to Israel and ignoring the Palestinians.

[Uncle Joe]

Originally posted by Balddog
Now you are doing exactly what Clandestine was doing and thinking of the Israeli government in their current mindset. What im advocating will make sure that its not in Israels interest to keep a state of quasi war but to make them believe a state of peace is what suits them best.

There were two parts to my suggestion remember, not just the Palestinian part. Each action provides motivation to the other side to keep to their agreed action. A state of peace will ultimately result in the Israeli arab population getting full rights, including the right to vote, yes? And arabs are breeding faster in Israeli-controlled territories than Jewish citizens, with migration of Jews to Israel dwindling fast. Therefore, I contest, if Israeli politicians wish to retain a Jewish state, which has always been kind of a preoccupation with them, peace is not an option. What they need is some kind of miracle. If Bush ever manages to sort out Iraq, they just might get it.

[Clandestine]

Being a debating thread, I was always under the impression that people were here to debate. But by all means, hold to your opinions.

I merely point out that its unrealistic, certainly as far as an oppressed Palestinian population would consider it.

[Balddog]

Originally posted by Clandestine
Being a debating thread, I was always under the impression that people were here to debate. But by all means, hold to your opinions.

I merely point out that its unrealistic, certainly as far as an oppressed Palestinian population would consider it.

and I point out that its unrealistic to expect Israel to make all the concessions and make the first move toward peace.

I also never suggested that this would happen, just that its an idea of what id like to see happen. Terribly sorry if im willing to be optimistic in the pursuit of peace. Palestine will cease to be if things dont change soon.

[Clandestine]

And if that happens the Israeli government will have demonstrated themselves as evil as those who once sought the annihilation of the Jews.

As for concessions, Israel has yet to make any that are legitimate and not merely used as bargaining chips for even more concessions for the Palestinians. The Camp David accords clearly demonstrated that.

When Israel actually honours its UN obligations then speak to me about onesidedness, thanks.

[Aladdin]

With regard to the "illegal" status, you are right Balddog. Israel has not signed to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and thus technically their nuclear weapons are not illegal.

What they are though, is undeclared. That makes Israel the only nuclear power in the world never to have admitted owning nukes- and subsequently refusing to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to monitor its nuclear facilities or to give some guaranties about its non-use.

Most if not all nuclear nations have made a "not first strike" commitment, meaning on paper at least that they will not use nukes on other nations unless attacked with nukes first. Israel on the other hand has not made such declaration (since it has no nukes, right?) and so appears to imply that it 'reserves the right' to use nukes when it pleases. I'm sure I don't have to explain how this raises tensions, and how it is helping other nations such as Iran and previously Iraq to seek their own nuclear deterrent.

Speaking of Iran, as we all know the war drums of the US Empire are threatening to resound again, all because Iran refuses to submit its installations for IAEA inspections.

Funnily enough, there are several UN resolutions (http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/resolutions/47/55GA1992.html) that demand Israel grant access to the IAEA for inspections of its nuclear installations. So although the weapons might not be illegal, there are outstanding UN resolutions regarding their status. No doubt if such resolutions existed about a country populated by infidel Arabs good old Dubya would be taking care of it fairly swiftly.

[Bandito]

Ok which is it Clandistine? And just who needs to brush up on history?

Quote from your posted article:

Our position, however, is that the Palestinians have a real grievance: their homeland for over a thousand years was taken, without their consent and mostly by force, during the creation of the state of Israel.

My post from the thread Middle East Shambles:

This is just another example of leftist spin. The region has been in turmoil for thousands of years and now it's all GW Bush's fault.

Your reply from the same thread:

As for thousands of years, perhaps the region has been in turmoil, however such a statement begs the actual roots of this particular conflict which dates back to 1948 and the creation of the secular state of Israel. God didnt reestablish israel, the Balfour Declaration did. Best you go brush up on the history of that.

Middle East Shambles (http://vbulletin.thesite.org.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52783&highlight=thousands+of+years)

[Clandestine]

There is no contradictions there Bandito, I suggest you read the paragraphs you cited once again a bit more carefully and youll see that.

[Bandito]

OK.:rolleyes:

[Bandito]

Arafat is Dead... (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35003)

[Paul_2]

For geographical reasons Israel is in the front line fighting the evil Islamofacists, who’s sole aim is to spread the area of control of their evil ideology. Well done Israel keep up the good work.

[Paul_2]

Too those who think that there is a likely hood of peace in the area, I think that you are misguided or just plain simple headed. I predict that Israel will invade Syria within the 12 months.

[Aladdin]

For geographical reasons Israel is in the front line fighting the evil Islamofacists, who’s sole aim is to spread the area of control of their evil ideology. Well done Israel keep up the good work. You could also say that for historical and birthright reasons the inhabitants of Palestine are in the front line of fighting the evil Islamophobic invaders, whose sole aim is to spread the 'promised land' and create an exclusive Jewish Zionist state across the Middle East. Well done Arab World, keep up the good work!

Anything else Paul?

:rolleyes:

[Paul_2]

That land belongs to the Jews IMHO Aladdin, and they should have a bit more too, and I’m not Jewish, in fact I don’t personally know anyone who is.

Read the history of Islam, the Arabs fired up by their terrorist prophet wiped out may peoples in the Middle East, North Africa and beyond, Then they were strong, now they are weak, its payback time.

And the Palestinians are loosing big time.

[Aladdin]

Er, no the land doesn't "belong to the Jews". Check your history books.

Yes, the Palestinians are losing big time. Just as the Jewish race was losing big time during the early 1940s. So what are we going to do about it?