Palestinian Statehood ( Part 3 )

Yes, an aggressive, illegal and immoral attack - "the most supreme crime," as stated at Nuremberg.

Yep, and there it is - the UN is complete bs until it recognizes Israel, in which case its entirely correct and valid
Nice to see you think the Nazis were ok in invading their neighbors.

Which definition of self defence includes revenge. Show me. There is certainly no legal definition in the world. Can you, where you live, kill a man's son with impunity because the man killed your child? I hope not.

THANKS YOU FOR ADMITTING YOUR IGNORANCE.

I never said that. But you specifically said retaliation. I have no problem with using force to stop or mitigate a crime - but you described and advocated revenge - not war, but specifically revenge and collective punishment. In fact you even said it was ok to kill people who were entirely innocent in the name of revenge, which you said was a right, but now admit is not. Please dont talk out your ass.

Not at all. Nazis didnt use gas chamber for revenge in war, nor did they necessarily use shooting. Lets find a valid comparison shall we? How about this:

"During World War II, in 1942, the Germans destroyed the village of Lidice, Czechoslovakia (now the Czech Republic) killing 340 inhabitants as collective punishment or reprisal for that year's assassination of Reinhard Heydrich by commandos nearby the village (the village of Ležáky was also destroyed in retribution)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_punishment

Compare this Nazi retaliatiory collective punishment to the collective punishment of the Gazans by Israel:

"As I’ve noted before, 45 percent of Gaza residents are children under the age of 15. This policy of collective punishment is so indefensible that, as Peter Beinart notes, people inclined to support Israeli policy generally deny that this is what the policy is. Instead, they describe the blockade as some kind of narrow effort to prevent arms smuggling. But this simply isn’t what’s going on. The objective is to make life in Gaza miserable, while avoiding something newsworthy like a famine."
http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2010/06/03/197429/collective-punishment-in-gaza/?mobile=nc
Professor Jeff Halper, said: “...the Israeli siege [is] an absolutely illegal siege which has plunged a million and a half Palestinians into wretched conditions: imprisoned in their own homes, exposed to extreme military violence, deprived of the basic necessities of life, stripped of their most fundamental human rights and dignity. The siege violates the most fundamental principle of international law: the inadmissibility of harming civilian populations… I cannot stand idly aside… To do so would violate my commitment to human rights”.
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-...s/trapped-collective-punishment-gaza-20080827
""Israeli authorities continued to impose a blockade on Gaza, amounting to collective punishment of the population and affecting every aspect of life in the Gaza Strip"
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4177710,00.html

As I said, its remarkable how ignorant advocates of Israeli policy mirror the brutality and immorality of the Nazis amongst others.

Causes, as an example, could be Israel is oppressing people so they rebel, where as direct start is a reference to wars they directly begin.

I'm waiting for you to refute my list. I'll keep waiting.

As do I, but this provides absolutely NO basis for collective punishment or for a continued denial of their rights.

No - SOME, have displayed this. Remember, Palestinians only vote for Hamas because of their social policy issues. An increasingly majority, especially since 2009, do not support Hamas' associates who launch random and aggressive strikes. They support Hamas because its spends 90-80% of its funding on social infrastructure programs, like education, health etc - all issues that are particularly important because of Israel's blockade. Do you not see the inevitable blow-back of Israel's actions? By acting so harshly they only incriminate themselves. If Israel truly wanted peace, as I believe the people of the country mostly do (the state is another matter) they must push for a responsible political platform that takes responsibility for Israel can do instead of justifying atrocities like you did in the name of "revenge", which is just as bad Hamas terror strikes, if not worse due to its severity.

 

First, I don't call the Arabs evil, I'm not calling Israel evil, I'm simply saying that if someone hots another don't cry when they hit you back. As far as the Arab's
genocide against Israel, it's well documented;

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/26/world/africa/26iht-iran.html
Wipe Israel 'off the map' Iranian says
By Nazila Fathi
Published: Thursday, October 27, 2005
TEHRAN — Iran's conservative new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said Wednesdaythat Israel must be "wiped off the map" and that attacks by Palestinians would destroy it, the ISNA press agency reported


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/in-...nian-officials-are-wiping-israel-off-the-map/
In Words and on Paper, Palestinian Officials Are Wiping Israel Off the Map
Posted on October 3, 2011 at 11:39am


http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=44676
Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei calls for destruction of Israel, Jews

http://www.factsandlogic.org/hotline_archive/FLAME_hotline_021412.html
Iran Calls for Jewish Genocide: Ayatollah Says Israel Must Be Eliminated, State-Supported Website Outlines Plan for Doing It

Do I have to go back to what Nassar said in 67'???

 

The Palestinians view Israel as the ancient Israelites viewed the Romans. One could argue the Romans had no "right" to occupy the region whereas modern Israel has a said-to-be valid claim based on prior occupation. However, no one says Israel has a claim based on original occupation. Arguments based on a "right" to occupy by either side will never settle anything!

Modern Israel claims a "right" to self-defense as justification for occupation. This, on the surface, is a reasonable claim arising from international law. However, Israeli self-defense objectives run on a track curiously parallel to Zionist objectives. Moreover, time is clearly on the side of Israel and the Zionist movement. One could safely argue an effective strategy for "self-defense" need not run parallel to the Zionist movement.

There is a path to peace in the region. But this path requires Israel to acknowledge there was not (and never will be) a UN mandate to conquer and occupy all of Palestine. In 2011, U.S. President Obama proposed a reasonable point of beginning for serious negotiation. However, this proposal was immediately and rudely rejected by Israel. This display of contempt for the U.S. President did not go unnoticed.

Job says, in part: The Lord giveth and the Lord hath taken away. The same could just as well be said of the UN.

 

So you're basically saying that this was ok:
Eye for an eye

Could you tell me why you think this is ok?

As I said before this is not only twisted and immoral thinking but ENTIRELY illegal.

So now you've gone from an eye for eye to 'looking at my eye lets me poke out your eye.' Sorry but the only genocide that occurred in the Palestine-Israel conflict was the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by early zionists, which even pro-Israel historians do not deny.

 

Prove your assurtion, Meg. Show the documented evedence of the U.S. exporting terror. We really exported when we pulled the Allies butts out of the wringer in WW1, didn't we. We again, really exported it when we pulled the Allies butts out of it in WW2. Once more we really exported it when we kept the Communist from over running South Korea, right? You are Long on mouth Jack, but short on proof.

.[/QUOTE]UN General Assembly Resolution 38/9 condemned Israel's criminal action: "Armed Israeli aggression against the Iraqi nuclear installations and its grave consequences for the established international system concerning the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and international peace and security."
http://daccess-ods.un.org/TMP/6297087.07332611.html.[/QUOTE]


And what does that have to do with Israel's right to retaliate against Iraq's Scud missile attack in 1991??? Come on moutrh, what on earth does that have to do with it??? And if they hadn't I'll guarantee you the U.S. would have. It goes right back to you and the British 1938 "Peace in our Time"" nonsense;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_for_our_time
If Iran wants to play the same game she will wind up the same way.


[/QUOTE]
There is no such thing as the right to retaliate. Self defence does not include revenge.[/QUOTE]


Considering the U.S. and some allies in the gulf war 1991 coalition asked Israel not to respond to Iraq's Scud Missile attack and with Israel not participating in the war, we had the right to acknowlege Israel's right to retaliate at a later date if Israel felt the need to.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/18/newsid_4588000/4588486.stm
"Israel reserves the right to retaliate in the manner and with the scale and method of its own choosing," he said.

Show me where the U.N. said NO!!!


.[/QUOTE]Quoting opinion does not change the facts. Show me the legal documentation, such the Geneva Conventions that show a "right to retaliation". Look, since I know you wont do that I'll just skip ahead to the UN itself condemning Israel's enforcement of "retaliatory" crimes:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8257301.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10306193
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15163640
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_punishment.[/QUOTE]

Better yet, show me where the U.N. said Israel didn't have the right to retaliat!!!

.[/QUOTE]It amazes me how supporters of Israel's crimes invent rights to counter the tidal wave of condemnation issues by actual legal authorities and world opinion..[/QUOTE]

I amazes me how the Arab supporters can claim Israel has really done anything wrong.


.[/QUOTE]haha sure mate. You realize many Nazi atrocities were committed as "collective punishment" ie "retaliation" for people resisting them? Its EXACTLY the same as Israeli oppression of the Palestinians..[/QUOTE]

Rubbish. Israel attacks when she IS attacked, we just asked her not to in 1991.


.[/QUOTE]
Now, as for Israel's aggression, its either caused or directly started 11 conflicts in the region:
the suez war, 1956

Probably more I forgot about..[/QUOTE]

What a crock of you know what!

1956; Egypt's blockade of the Straits of Tiran, An act of war according to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade
A blockade is defined by the Encyclopædia Britannica as "an act of war"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straits_of_Tiran
Access to Jordan's only seaport of Aqaba and to Israel's only Indian Ocean seaport of Eilat is contingent upon passage through the Gulf of Aqaba, giving the Straits of Tiran strategic importance. Egypt's blockade of the Straits to Israeli ships and ships bound for Israel in 1956 and again in 1967


And you need to show me where there is any time limit on a ship either passing through or not!


[/QUOTE]the six day war, 1967[/QUOTE]

Time line on 1967 6 day war..

Dec 14, 1966 Egyptian Marshal Hakim Amer cables Nasser from Pakistan, recommending closing the straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping and dismissing the UNEF force from Gaza.

Jan -March 1967 Over 270 border "incidents" cause rising concern in Israel. March 3 - Landmine injures tractorist in Kibbutz Shamir. March 12, explosion on train tracks near Kibbutz Lahav. March 26, 2 Palestinians killed trying to demolish a water pump near Arad

April 7, 1967 Israelis respond to intensive Syrian shelling of DMZ and and Israeli villages and kibbutzim with IAF raid. An air battle involving about 130 aircraft developed. Israelis down 6 MiG 21 fighters, 2 over the Golan and 4 over Damascus.


May 11, 1967 Israeli PM Eshkol states, "In view of the 14 incidents in the past month alone it is possible that we will have to adopt measures no less drastic than those of April 7." UPI circulated a rumor (May 12) that Israel was trying to topple the Syrian regime. The incidents included shelling, terror attacks and attempted infiltration of a Syrian agent to blow up locations in Jerusalem.


May 14, 1967 First reports of Egyptian troop movements into Sinai.

May 16, 1967 Radio Cairo broadcast stated: "The existence of Israel has continued too long. We welcome the Israeli aggression. We welcome the battle we have long awaited. The peak hour has come. The battle has come in which we shall destroy Israel."

May 18, 1967 Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser orders the United Nations Emergency Force to leave Sinai.

May 23, 1967 Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser closes the straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. Egypt moves six divisions, about 130,000 soldiers, into Sinai. Negotiations with US to reopen the Straits of Tiran fail.

May 27, 1967 Nasser cancels a planned Egyptian attack on Israel (Operation fajr - Dawn), planned for following day, after it became obvious that the Israelis knew about the plan.

May 29, 1967 Speech by Gamal Nasser to Egyptian National Assembly Members - Nasser explicitly threatened to destroy Israel: "...God will surely help and urge us to restore the situation to what it was in 1948....But now that the time has come - and I have already said in the past that we will decide the time and place and not allow them to decide - we must be ready for triumph and not for a recurrence of the 1948 comedies. "

May 30, 1967 Jordan signs a defense pact with Egypt, allows Egyptian command of Jordan Legion.

And you want to say that Israel was the aggresser??? Then, friend, you are blind in one eye and can't see out of the other and the rest of you so called aggression acts against the Arabs is even more on the shoulders of the Arab states than the 6 day war was.

 

Other than yourself who said anything about collective punishment???? When someone hits me, I hit them back. I don't bother to ask any questions, I don't sit there and cry, I don't try to PSYCHOANALYZE their reason for doing it, they are hit back and I continue hitting until they are down and out. If the next time they get a wild hair and hit me again, I will do the same thing. I will not negotiate, I will not invite them to sit down and have a cup of coffee (in your case, tea) I will continue thumping them until they can no longer continue.

I can show what happened and then ask them to prove it wrong. In your case it's a wast of time because you will NOT look at the evedence of history, you go about with the attituded that, "I have made up my mind and no amount of evidence is going to change it". I have backed it up, your the one that refuses to look at it.

 

""" Arabs are criminal, most are not. Some Jews are criminal, most are not""

To a point I will agree with you. But it would seem that the arabs have been attacking the Jews for 92 years and the Jews have for the most part been simple responding to the attacks.


"""" One must attempt to detach Holocaust abuse from racist generalizations in order to be politically critical of the faulty individual rather than the innocence of the collective group""

I don't play the "Holocaust" game. But when the Arabs say;

"The existence of Israel has continued too long. We welcome the Israeli aggression. We welcome the battle we have long awaited. The peak hour has come. The battle has come in which we shall destroy Israel."

And Nasser, the leader of Egypt in 1967 claims;

"...God will surely help and urge us to restore the situation to what it was in 1948....But now that the time has come - and I have already said in the past that we will decide the time and place and not allow them to decide - we must be ready for triumph and not for a recurrence of the 1948 comedies. "

He also said;

"I have recently been with the armed forces. All the armed forces are ready for a battle face to face between the Arabs and Israel. Those behind Israel are also welcome."

On top of everything else in his May 29, 1967 speach he claimed that Egypt won the 56' war;

"Then came the events of 1956 - the Suez battle. We all know what happened in 1956. When we rose to demand our rights, Britain, France and Israel opposed us, and we were faced with the tripartite aggression. We resisted, however, and proclaimed that we would fight to the last drop of our blood. God gave us success and God's victory was great.""

Nassar then went on to proclaim ;

""Preparations have already been made. We are now ready to confront Israel.""

And of course Nassar claimed that the USSR was the Arabs good buddy;

""After my statements yesterday I met the War Minister Shams Badran and learned from him what took place in Moscow. I wish to tell you today that the Soviet Union is a friendly Power and stands by us as a friend""

And their long lasting friendship;

".. and I have been dealing with the USSR since 1955"

And that the USSR was backing them with force;

""When I met Shams Badran yesterday he handed me a message from the Soviet Premier Kosygin saying that the USSR supported us in this battle and would not allow any Power to intervene until matters were restored to what they were in 1956.""


So, I'm sorry that you can't except history for the way it happened.

 

Jud, I have no vested interest in "Palestine" or Israel. But the leadership of the Arabs has been like a 3 ring Circus.

 

Top, I hate to tell you this, but really, Israel could have keep the west bank after the 48' war if it had really pushed the idea. There was no international law at the time to stop it. But, since Aug. 1949 there has been that law and Egypt and the Arab league have not only commited acts of war on Israel, they claim they will wipe her off the map and take the land. Now, if it's wrong for Israel to that now, why isn't it wrong for the Arabs???

Hey, contempt for this President is something that he has earned from the majority of Americans.

 

No, a preemptive strike against an existential threat. If you want to call it a supreme crime that's your perogative, I call it common sense. But of course Sadam with a nuke wouldn't be a problem in your world.

No, I said UNGAs are useless. I mean all of them. And it seems you are an advocate of Goodwin. Perhaps you can explain how you came to this idiotic and totally erroneous conclusion?

Self Defence is protecting oneself. Now lets say that an attacker kills your wife while you are standing there. In self defence you take out your Desert Eagle and proceed to shoot the guy, before he shoots you, but you shoot him in both ankles, both kneecaps, both elbows, both wrists. I'd say that's self defence with a tad of revenge. don't think there is a court on the planet that would convict you.

I see you have trouble comprehending what you read.

I didn't say it was ok to kill innocent people ever. Either you are mixing up who your talking to or your imagination is filling in way too many gaps.

Please improve your reading comprehension.

So, you claim that Nazi reprisals where they killed hundreds if not thousands of innocent civilians and razed towns is equivalent in its brutality and immorality as an Israeli blockade. Absolute hyperbolic nonsense.

Blockades are legitimate acts of war. I beleive that the Israelis followed the "rules" publishing the list of contraband and allowing the list of non contriband to trickle in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade

So Israel's mere existence is an causus belli for the arab nations surrounding them? No arab country started or caused any of the hostilities. You continue to demonstrate a primary school grasp of history and human nature.

Oh dear, point by point? I suggest you review the region's history in context of the consequences of one;s actions and stated intentions.

Yes, there is a basis for continued denial of their rights and blockades and embargos. Unfortunately its a basis that BOTH Israel and the palestinians have crafted during this generational conflict.

First, Hamas does not spend 80 to 90% on social programs. It employs around 30,000 people of which 20,000 people are security and military. About $405 of its $765 Million goes directly to salaries.

roughly 20% of the budget will come from taxes and the balance from major donors like Iran and Syria.

http://www.worldnewstribune.com/201...p-hamas-budget-gets-a-boost-from-arab-donors/

Second, Hamas is not supported by the majority of palestinians. Some findings from the most recent PSR poll

- Satisfaction with the performance of President Abbas rises from 52% to 60% in three months.
- If new presidential elections are to be held today, Abbas would receive 55% and Haniyeh 37%.
- -If new legislative elections are to be held today, Hamas would receive 29%, Fateh 43%, all other electoral lists 11%, and 17% remain undecided

http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2011/p42efull.html

If you want to debate you should at least be in command of the facts. Seems much of your prespective on Hamas is wrong.

 

I am saying that if someone attacks someone else, don't cry if the party of the second part attacks the party of the first part back.

.[/QUOTE]Could you tell me why you think this is ok?.[/QUOTE]

Hit me and find out.

.[/QUOTE]As I said before this is not only twisted and immoral thinking but ENTIRELY illegal./QUOTE]

What is twisted, posting what happened or what the Arabs said and did to Israel??? Come on, Meg, which is it???


QUOTE]So now you've gone from an eye for eye to 'looking at my eye lets me poke out your eye.' Sorry but the only genocide that occurred in the Palestine-Israel conflict was the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by early zionists, which even pro-Israel historians do not deny.[/QUOTE]

Rubbish. To start with, the majority of old "Palestine" is now Jordan;

http://images.search.yahoo.com/imag...b=13mhpt520&sigi=12lhmd6hs&.crumb=OOwz0AdWBUE

so your dear beloved "Palestinians" already have a homeland and have has since the British carved trans-Jordan out of "Palestine". Those that decided to either help the Arab League attack the new nation of Israel in 1948 or leave don't have any complaints. It has been the Arabs that have been the ones trying to commit ethnic cleansing since 1948 as I have already shown, your blindness is your problem

 

No, you've been trying to sell this pap but you haven't come within a country mile of convincing anybody except dyed-in-the-wool, common-or-garden neoZionist bloodsuckers.

The Zionist ethnic cleansing program- unfortunately for Zionist bloodsuckers- is indelibly evidenced in the speeches and writings of the pre-Israel leadership, notably ben Gurion and Jabotinsky. There is no shred of doubt, even in any casual historian's mind, that Zionism- as applied to events in Palestine- was, is and always will be a foul doctrine of ethnic cleansing.

 

The same claim can also be made by the hated Semites, with main difference being that Israel is the only one being actively being engaged in territorial conquests.

 

When I lived in Israel, I knew a lady who, back in the day, had been a member of Begin's Irgun. SHe had actually made the call to the King David Hotel 45 minutes before the bomb went off that warned the British to evacuate the building. They, of course, ignored her. Ooops. I once asked her her views about "the Palestinian problem". She said, quite succinctly, "They fought a war against us and tried to drive us into the sea. They lost. No problem"

Palestinians need to get over the fact that they had a piece of territory much larger than the one they would settle for today given to them by the partitioning of Palestine by the UN. They chose to thumb their noses at that solution and tried to take all of Palestine for themselves. They fought a war. They lost. Get over it.

 

While blaming Palestinians for all the evils in the world, you seem to make it sound as if it is endlessly honorable to bomb civilian structures as long as British civilians are inside of them.

 

as I said, the brits were warned a full 45 minutes before the bomb went off. The Irgun had no desire to take british lives, only to destroy british property. reading comprehension is not your strong suit, is it?

 

How is the claim of a warning supposed to make a terrorist attack less criminal?

If Irgun did not honor the murder of innocent civilians, then it would have never murdered them and it would have never justified or defended its criminal deeds which it continues to do to this day.

As for your heavy reliance on ad hominems, that's so Israel!

 

And once again we have a REAL Arab loving person that feels Muslums can do no wrong;

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/Islamic_Terrorism_Timeline_2003_January-March_15.Islam
2003 January - March 15
Islamic Terrorism Timeline

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/Islamic_Terrorism_Timeline_2003_March_16-March_31.Islam
2003 March 16-31
Islamic Terrorism Timeline

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/Islamic_Terrorism_Timeline_2003_April.Islam
2003 April
Islamic Terrorism Timeline

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/Islamic_Terrorism_Timeline_2003_May.Islam
2003 May
Islamic Terrorism Timeline

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/Islamic_Terrorism_Timeline_2003_June.Islam
2003 June
Islamic Terrorism Timeline

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/Islamic_Terrorism_Timeline_2003_July-August.Islam
2003 July - August
Islamic Terrorism Timeline

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/Islamic_Terrorism_Timeline_2003_September-November.Islam
2003 September - November
Islamic Terrorism Timeline

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/Islamic_Terrorism_Timeline_2003_December.Islam
2003 December
Islamic Terrorism Timeline

That's just one year moon, just one year. And you wonder why a person might be a little skeptical of "loving" Arabs intent??

 

Faulty argument. Two wrongs don't make one right.

 

Was the King David Hotel being used as a headquarters by the British?? That deserves a simple yes or no.

 

They were warned. they chose to ignore the warning. the blood is on their hands.

 

Two wrongs?????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Care for me to start at the begaining???

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/Islamic_Terrorism_Timeline_Introduction.Islam
How Many Muslims Are Terrorists?


http://www.prophetofdoom.net/Islamic_Terrorism_Timeline_1000-Year_Crusade.Islam
Islam's 1,000-Year Crusade
Islamic Terrorism Timeline

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/Islamic_Terrorism_Timeline_1960-1969.Islam
1960 to 1969
Islamic Terrorism Timeline

Shall I continue???

 

Terrorism is endlessly honorable when the victims are British?

 

Claims of warnings do not justify terrorism, and your act of condemning the victims is sick enough to endlessly horrify Holocaust survivors. You owe them a huge apology.

 

Yes, two wrongs, but maybe three wrongs when your argument is included. That's still not one right.