Total Posts:214|Showing Posts:151-180|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why We Should Support the Palestinians

truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2012 7:58:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/24/2012 6:51:27 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/24/2012 6:37:28 PM, truthseeker613 wrote:
At 11/23/2012 5:51:08 PM, charleslb wrote:

P.S. Today an innocent individual (a human person with a name, Anwar Abdel Hadi Qdeih ) who was merely attempting to reach his farm, the source of his livelihood, was shot and deprived of his life by Israeli forces demonstrating once again that they have precious little respect for the sanctity of human life when it comes in the form of a Palestinian peasant. Such incidents instantiate an Israeli mentality, contemptuous of the humanity of Palestinians, that certainly doesn't augur well for an enduring peace any time soon.

Why didn't you provide a link?

http://www.voanews.com...

"Palestinian medical officials say Anwar Qdeih was shot as he approached the border fence Friday with a group of Palestinians. Several others were wounded in the violence. Reuters news agency quotes a relative of Qdeih as saying he was trying to place a Hamas flag on the fence.



Israel's military says warning shots were fired in the air when about 300 Palestinians approached the border fence in southern Gaza. The military says after the Palestinians refused to move back, troops fired at their legs. "

Firstly, are we to take the version of the Israeli military as gospel? Why, because we uncritically accept our programming to view the Israelis as the "good guys"?! Secondly, for the sake of argument, in your book does the mere act of planting a flag entitle soldiers to take someone's life?!

beats making up biased propaganda like you.

Please read more carefully:
"Reuters news agency quotes a relative of Qdeih as saying he was trying to place a Hamas flag on the fence."

So it's not "the version of the Israeli military" as you said.

This is what the military said:
"Israel's military says warning shots were fired in the air when about 300 Palestinians approached the border fence in southern Gaza. The military says after the Palestinians refused to move back, troops fired at their legs. "

Yes, when 300 people, going into a no go zone, approach a border, ignore warning shots, & snipers shooting at their legs. & they just keep going, somebody is gona get killed.
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2012 8:00:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/24/2012 7:18:36 PM, Mirza wrote:
By the way, Israel is just one of the many hundreds US military bases. Surely you can let go of one, eh?

In that area?

I'm pretty sure Israel is the only one in the area.
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2012 1:43:36 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/24/2012 7:25:23 PM, Mirza wrote:
On a side note: The vast majority of Muslims do NOT wish to annihilate or wage any form of war against Jews...

Hear, hear! I won't rehash, I'll simply paste below some thoughts that I've already composed on the question of the supposed genocidal aspirations of Muslims to exterminate the population of Israel.

It seems that a great many people, who have an ugly, cynical, stereotyped, in some cases downright Islamophobic and racist image of Arabs, fear that if Israel desisted from its domineering, militaristic, terroristic ways that it would promptly be taken over by Koran-waving, blood-frenzied jihadists who would initiate another unspeakable genocide of the Jews. Well, but who are the real potential genocidalists? Israel, after all, possesses an arsenal of illegal nuclear weapons of mass destruction. Yep, not just a single or a handful of mass death-dealing explosives, but a genuine arsenal (estimates range from 60 to 400 bombs & warheads), with which it is apparently militarily and mentally prepared to perpetrate a horrendous holocaust. We're all quite well aware of this of course, so why then do we continue to exclusively focus on the danger of a mass bloodletting directed against Israelis by slaughterous Arabs?!

Well, one obvious reason, of course, is that a few decades ago Jews were the primary target of Herr Hitler's genocidal dreams. As a result, when we think about genocide and Jews we tend to think in terms of them being its objects and not its perpetrators. However, times have changed and Israelis, given their aforementioned atomic arsenal and penchant for militarism, are far more at risk of becoming the villains, rather than the innocent victims, in history's next episode of genocide involving Jews. Our thinking needs to get up to speed, ASAP, with the contemporary situation and recognize the danger and evil potential posed by Israel's nuclear capabilities. Why hasn't it? Quite simply because our self-interest-fostered pro-Israel bias and our xenophobia-powered anti-Arab bigotry, as well as post-9/11 Muslim-bashing, all has us inclined to concentrate our fears and expectations of genocidal violence on Israeli's foes rather than on its leaders.

Rather than continue to uncritically go along with and parrot the conventional wisdom, that Israel is a nice-guy nation that can't afford to take the risk to the survival of its people involved in giving the Palestinians justice, in redressing the political and war crimes committed against them, and in seeking a resolution that includes and enfranchises Palestinians in a nonsectarian society in which citizenship and status are no longer based on people's ethnoreligious identities; rather than allowing Israel's government and military leaders to take refuge behind this stance that Israel needs to play it safe and protect its population from another Shoah through the continued use of its own forms of terror and unjust violence; rather than buying into perpetuating a cycle of violence and killing that makes any lasting peace a blatant impossibility, it's high time that we all attempt to cultivate a more balanced and realistic viewpoint that expects and demands more decency from Israeli politicians and prime ministers, rather than readily and naively accepting their excuses for actions and policies that take innocent lives and generate potentially genocidal hatred and scenarios.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2012 2:25:50 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Ancient history:
The notion of the "Land of Israel", known in Hebrew as Eretz Yisrael (or Eretz Yisroel), has been important and sacred to the Jewish people since Biblical times. According to the Torah, God promised the land to the three Patriarchs of the Jewish people.[32][33] On the basis of scripture, the period of the three Patriarchs has been placed somewhere in the early 2nd millennium BCE,[34] and the first Kingdom of Israel was established around the 11th century BCE. Subsequent Israelite kingdoms and states ruled intermittently over the next four hundred years, and are known from various extra-biblical sources.[35][36][37][38]
The northern Kingdom of Israel, as well as Philistine city-states, fell in 722 BCE, though the southern Kingdom of Judah and several Phoenician city-states continued their existence as the region came under Assyrian rule. With the emergence of Babylonians, Judah was eventually conquered as well.
During its long history, Jerusalem has been destroyed twice, besieged 23 times, attacked 52 times, and captured and recaptured 44 times.[7]
Greek conquest
Jewish resistance
Rome conquest
After the Persian conquest and the installation of a short-lived Jewish Commonwealth in 614 CE, the Byzantine Empire reinstalled its rule in 625 CE, resulting in further decline and destruction
Muslim rule
In 635 CE, the region, including Jerusalem, was conquered by the Arabs and was to remain under Muslim control for the next 1300 years.[43] Control of the region transferred between theUmayyads,[43] Abbasids,[43] and Crusaders throughout the next six centuries,[43] before being conquered by the Mamluk Sultanate, in 1260.[44] In 1516, the region was conquered by the Ottoman Empire, and remained under Turkish rule until the end of the First World War when Britain defeated the Ottoman forces and set up a military administration across the former Ottoman Syria
During its long history, Jerusalem has been destroyed twice, besieged 23 times, attacked 52 times, and captured and recaptured 44 times.[7]
The Jews in exile:
Since the Diaspora, Jews have aspired to return to "Zion" and the "Land of Israel",[47]
There has always been some jewish presence in Israel but for most of this time period the jewish population was extreamly small, & almost non existant.

Modern history:
The first wave of modern Jewish migration to Ottoman-ruled Palestine, known as the First Aliyah, began in 1881, as Jews fled pogroms in Eastern Europe.[56] Although the Zionist movement already existed in practice, Austro-Hungarian journalist Theodor Herzl is credited with founding political Zionism,[57] a movement which sought to establish a Jewish state in the Land of Israel, by elevating the Jewish Question to the international plane.[58] In 1896, Herzl published Der Judenstaat (The State of the Jews), offering his vision of a future Jewish state; the following year he presided over the first World Zionist Congress.[59]
The Second Aliyah (1904"14), began after the Kishinev pogrom; some 40,000 Jews settled in Palestine, although nearly half of them left at a later point in time.[56] Both the first and second waves of migrants were mainly Orthodox Jews,[60] although the Second Aliyah included socialist groups who established the kibbutz movement.[61] During World War I, British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour sent a letter that stated:[62]
His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."[63]
The Jewish Legion, a group primarily of Zionist volunteers, assisted in the British conquest of Palestine in 1917. Arab opposition to British rule and Jewish immigration led to the 1920 Palestine riots and the formation of a Jewish militia known as the Haganah (meaning "The Defense" in Hebrew), from which the Irgun and Lehi, paramilitary groups later split off.[64] In 1922, the League of Nations granted Britain a mandate over Palestine under terms similar to the Balfour Declaration.[65]
The Third (1919"1923) and Fourth Aliyahs (1924"1929) brought an additional 100,000 Jews to Palestine.[56] Finally, the rise of Nazism and the increasing persecution of Jews in the 1930s led to the Fifth Aliyah, with an influx of a quarter of a million Jews. This was a major cause of the Arab revolt of 1936"1939 and led the British to introduce restrictions on Jewish immigration to Palestine with the White Paper of 1939. With countries around the world turning away Jewish refugees fleeing the Holocaust, a clandestine movement known as Aliyah Bet was organized to bring Jews to Palestine.[56] By the end of World War II, the Jewish population of Palestine had increased to at least 33% of the total population.[67]

After World War II, Britain found itself in fierce conflict with the Jewish community, as the Haganah joinedIrgun and Lehi in an armed struggle against British rule.[68] At the same time, hundreds of thousands of Jewish Holocaust survivors and refugees sought a new life far from their destroyed communities in Europe. The Yishuv attempted to bring these refugees to Palestine but many were turned away or rounded up and placed in detention camps in Atlit and Cyprus by the British. In 1947, the British government announced it would withdraw from Mandatory Palestine, stating it was unable to arrive at a solution acceptable to both Arabs and Jews.
On 15 May 1947, the General Assembly of the newly formed United Nations resolved that a committee, United Nations Special Committee on Palestine(UNSCOP), be created "to prepare for consideration at the next regular session of the Assembly a report on the question of Palestine".[69] In the Report of the Committee dated 3 September 1947 to the UN General Assembly,[70] the majority of the Committee in Chapter VI proposed a plan to replace the British Mandate with "an independent Arab State, an independent Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem..., the last to be under an International Trusteeship System".[71] On 29 November 1947, the General Assembly adopted a resolution recommending the adoption and implementation of thePlan of Partition with Economic Union as Resolution 181 (II).[72] The Plan attached to the resolution was essentially that proposed by the majority of the Committee in the Report of 3 September 1947.
The Jewish Agency, which was the recognized representative of the Jewish community, accepted the plan, but the Arab League and Arab Higher Committee of Palestine rejected it.[73] On 1 December 1947, the Arab Higher Committee proclaimed a three-day strike, and Arab bands began attacking Jewish targets.[74] The Jews were initially on the defensive as civil war broke out, but gradually moved onto the offensive.[75] The Palestinian Arab economy collapsed and 250,000 Palestinian-Arabs fled or were expelled.[76]
On 14 May 1948, the day before the expiration of the British Mandate, David Ben-Gurion, the head of the Jewish Agency, declared "the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz-Israel, to be known as the State of Israel".[77][78] The only reference in the text of the Declaration to the borders of the new state is the use of the term, Eretz-Israel.[79][citation needed]
The following day, the armies of four Arab countries"Egypt, Syria, Transjordan and Iraq"entered what had been British Mandate Palestine, launching the 1948 Arab"Israeli War;[80][81] Saudi Arabia sent a military contingent to operate under Egyptian command
The United Nations estimated that more than 700,000 Palestinians were expelled or fled during the conflict from what would become Israel.[84]

This is one of, but not the only, contentions of the israeli-palestinian conflict.
Why did they le
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2012 2:30:04 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
This topic is the subject of much study & debate. Many books have been written on the matter I will provide part of one essay by Efraim Karsh:

When hostilities between Arabs and Jews broke out in 1947, there were 62,500 Arabs in Haifa; by May 1948, all but a few were gone, accounting for fully a tenth of the total Palestinian dispersion
But what exactly happened in Haifa? Was there "an act of expulsion," as the Palestinians? Or is the Israeli contention correct"namely, that the Arabs who fled the city in 1947-48 did so of their own volition, and/or at the behest of their leaders? During the past decade, as it happens, Israeli and Western state archives have declassified millions of records, including invaluable contemporary Arab and Palestinian documents, relating to the 1948 war and the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem. These make it possible to establish the truth about what happened in Haifa"and by extension, elsewhere in Palestine. AS THE British Mandate in Palestine neared its end in 1947-48, the city of Haifa became engulfed in intermittent violence that pitted Arab fighters, recruited locally as well as from neighboring Arab countries, against the Jewish underground organization known as the Hagana. The hostilities would reach their peak on April 21-22, 1948, when the British suddenly decided to evacuate most of the town and each of the two parties moved in quickly to try to fill the vacuum and assert control. But the first thing the documents show is that Arab flight from Haifa began well before the outbreak of these hostilities, and even before the UN"s November 29, 1947 partition resolution. On October 23, over a month earlier, a British intelligence brief was already noting that "leading Arab personalities are acting on the assumption that disturbances are near at hand, and have already evacuated their families to neighboring Arab countries." By November 21, as the General Assembly was getting ready to vote, not just "leading Arab personalities" but "many Arabs of Haifa" were reported to be removing their families. And as the violent Arab reaction to the UN resolution built up, eradicating any hope of its peaceful enforcement, this stream of refugees turned into a flood. Thus it was that, by mid-December 1947, some 15,000-20,000 people, almost a third of the city"s Arab population, had fled, creating severe adversity for those remaining. Economic and commercial activity ground to a halt as the wealthier classes converted their assets to gold or U.S. dollars and transferred them abroad. Merchants and industrialists moved their businesses to Egypt, Syria, or Lebanon, causing both unemployment and shortages in basic necessities. Entire areas were emptied of their residents. These difficulties were exacerbated by deep cleavages within the Arab community itself. The town"s Christian Arabs, erecting clear boundaries between themselves and Muslims, refused to feed the Syrian, Lebanese, and Iraqi recruits arriving to wrest the city from the Jews, asserted their determination not to attack Jewish forces unless attacked first, and established a special guard to protect themselves from Muslim violence. Added to this was a growing lawlessness, including pandemic looting of deserted properties. At the time, the official leadership of Haifa Arabs was a fifteen-member body called the National Committee. Although the Committee strove to curb the mass flight, urging Haifa"s Arabs to stay put and castigating those who fled"occasionally, these warnings were backed by the torching of escapees" belongings"its remonstrations proved of no avail. To be sure, the Committee itself hardly constituted a model of commitment or self-sacrifice. For one thing, scarcely a meeting was attended by all members. For another, affluent though they were, Committee members, while taking care to reimburse themselves for the smallest expense, rarely contributed financially to the national struggle. Transcripts of the Committee"s meetings do not exactly convey a grasp of the severity of the situation: they tend to be taken up instead with trivialities, from the placement of an office partition to the payment to a certain individual of"1.29 in travel expenses.
Even when the Committee did try to deal with the cycle of violence in which the town was embroiled, its efforts were repeatedly undermined by the sheer number of armed groups operating in defiance of its authority, by infighting between its own pragmatists and militants, and by the total lack of coordination, if not outright hostility, between the Committee and its parent body, the Arab Higher Committee (AHC). The latter, the effective government of all the Arabs in Palestine, was headed by the former Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al-Husseini, now resident in Cairo. Giving his own fighters free rein in Haifa, the Mufti turned a deaf ear to the Committee"s requests and recommendations. Not even the dispatch of an emergency delegation to Cairo in late January, warning that, if terrorist activity did not cease, the result would be the eventual disappearance of the entire Haifa community, had any effect. Against this background, the National Committee apparently gave up the hope of stemming further flight. Shortly after the return of the delegation from Cairo, a proposal was passed urging improvements in the condition of Palestinian refugees in the states where they now found themselves, and requesting help in settling them there. This was momentous indeed: the official leadership of the second largest Arab community in Mandate Palestine was not only condoning mass flight but suggesting that Arab refugee status be, however temporarily, institutionalized. As the months passed and Britain"s departure from Palestine neared, such views gained further currency. Even the Mufti, who had warned that "the flight of . . ... families abroad will weaken the morale of our noble, struggling nation," was not averse to the evacuation of the nonfighting populace. In March 1948, the AHC evidently ordered the removal of women and children from Haifa; a special committee was established in Syria and Lebanon to oversee the operation, and preparations began in earnest with the chartering of a ship from an Egyptian company.
BY EARLY April 1948, according to Rashid Hajj Ibrahim, the head of the National Committee, the city"s Arab populace had dwindled to some 35,000-40,000. (Ibrahim himself, a man who had been active in Haifa"s public life for decades, left for Cairo shortly thereafter, never to return.) By the time the final battle for the city was joined a few weeks later, the number had fallen still further, and only about half the town"s original community remained.
Not for long: disheartened by the desertion of their local military leaders, and petrified by wildly exaggerated accounts of a Zionist atrocity at the village of Deir Yassin near Jerusalem, the remnant now took to the road. In the early morning of April 22, as Hagana forces battled their way to the downtown market area, thousands streamed into the port, still held by the British army. Within hours, many of these had fled by trains and buses, while the rest awaited evacuationby sea.
What was left of the local Arab leadership now asked the British military to stop the fighting. When this failed, a delegation requested a meeting with the British commander, Major-General Hugh Stockwell, "with a view to obtaining a truce with the Jews." Having learned from Stockwell the Hagana"s terms for such a truce, the delegates then left to consult with their peers, in particular asking the Syrian consul in Haifa to inform his government and the Arab League.
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2012 2:36:28 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
What was left of the local Arab leadership now asked the British military to stop the fighting. When this failed, a delegation requested a meeting with the British commander, Major-General Hugh Stockwell, "with a view to obtaining a truce with the Jews." Having learned from Stockwell the Hagana"s terms for such a truce, the delegates then left to consult with their peers, in particular asking the Syrian consul in Haifa to inform his government and the Arab League. In no time, the British ambassador in Damascus, P.M. Broadmead, was summoned to a meeting with Shukri al-Quwaitly, the president of Syria. Reminding the president that neither of them was familiar with the real situation on the ground, Broadmead begged al-Quwaitly "to urge moderation and to take no action which would bring this local Haifa issue on to a wider plane." To this, al-Quwaitly responded that he "was very nervous concerning public opinion," yet refrained from any threat of military intervention. Thus, no instructions from Damascus seem to have reached the Haifa truce delegation by four in the afternoon, when it met its Jewish counterpart at city hall.
There, after an impassioned plea for peace and reconciliation by the town"s Jewish mayor, Shabtai Levy, the assembled delegates went through the truce terms point by point, modifying a number of them to meet Arab objections. Then the Arabs requested a 24-hour recess "to give them the opportunity to contact their brothers in the Arab states." Although this was deemed unacceptable, a briefer break was approved and the meeting adjourned at 5:20. When the Arabs returned that evening at 7:15, they had a surprise in store: as Stockwell would later put it in his official report, they stated "that they were not in a position to sign the truce, as they had no control over the Arab military elements in the town and that, in all sincerity, they could not fulfill the terms of the truce, even if they were to sign." They then offered, "as an alternative, that the Arab population wished to evacuate Haifa and that they would be grateful for military assistance." This came as a bombshell. With tears in his eyes, the elderly Levy pleaded with the Arabs, most of whom were his personal acquaintances, to reconsider, saying that they were committing "a cruel crime against their own people." Yaacov Salomon, a prominent Haifa lawyer and the Hagana"s chief liaison officer in the city, followed suit, assuring the Arab delegates that he "had the instructions of the commander of the zone . . ... that if they stayed on they would enjoy equality and peace, and that we, the Jews, were interested in their staying on and the maintenance of harmonious relations." Even the stoic Stockwell was shaken. "You have made a foolish decision," he thundered at the Arabs. "Think it over, as you"ll regret it afterward. You must accept the conditions of the Jews. They are fair enough. Don"t permit life to be destroyed senselessly. After all, it was you who began the fighting, and the Jews have won."
But the Arabs were unmoved. The next morning, they met with Stockwell and his advisers to discuss the practicalities of the evacuation. Of the 30,000-plus Arabs still in Haifa, only a handful, they said, wished to stay. Perhaps the British could provide 80 trucks a day, and in the meantime ensure an orderly supply of foodstuffs in the city and its environs? At this, a senior British officer at the meeting erupted: "If you sign your truce you would automatically get all your food worries over. You are merely starving your own people." "We will not sign," the Arabs retorted. "All is already lost, and it does not matter if everyone is killed so long as we do not sign the document."
Within a matter of days, only about 3,000 of Haifa"s Arab residents remained in the city. WHAT HAD produced the seemingly instantaneous sea change from explicit interest in a truce to its rejection only a few hours later? In an address to the UN Security Council on April 23, Jammal Husseini of the AHC contended that the Arabs in Haifa had been "presented with humiliating conditions and preferred to abandon all their possessions and leave." But this was not so: not only had the Arab leadership in Haifa and elsewhere been apprised of the Hagana"s terms several hours before the meeting on April 22, but, as we have seen, the Arab delegates to the meeting had proceeded to negotiate on the basis of those terms and had succeeded in modifying several key elements. Later writers have spoken of "a Jewish propaganda blitz" aimed at frightening the Arabs into fleeing. Yet the only evidence offered for this "blitz" is a single sentence from a book by the Jewish writer Arthur Koestler, who was not even in Palestine at the time of the battle for Haifa but (in his own words) "pieced together the improbable story of the conquest by the Jews of this key harbor" about a week after his arrival on June 4"that is, nearly two months after the event. As against this isolated second-hand account, there is an overwhelming body of evidence from contemporary Arab, Jewish, British, and American sources to prove that, far from seeking to drive the Arabs out of Haifa, the Jewish authorities went to considerable lengths to convince them to stay. This effort was hardly confined to Levy"s and Salomon"s impassioned pleas at city hall. The Hagana"s truce terms stipulated that Arabs were expected to "carry on their work as equal and free citizens of Haifa." In its Arabic-language broadcasts and communications, the Hagana consistently articulated the same message. On April 22, at the height of the fighting, it distributed a circular noting its ongoing campaign to clear the town of all "criminal foreign bands" so as to allow the restoration of "peace and security and good neighborly relations among all of the town"s inhabitants." The following day, a Hagana broadcast asserted that "the Jews did and do still believe that it is in the real interests of Haifa for its citizens to go on with their work and to ensure that normal conditions are restored to the city." On April 24, a Hagana radio broadcast declared: "Arabs, we do not wish to harm you. Like you, we only want to live in peace. . . . If the Jews and [the] Arabs cooperate, no power in the world will ever attack our country or ignore our rights." Two days later, informing its Arab listeners that "Haifa has returned to normal," the Hagana reported that "between 15,000 and 20,000 Arabs had expressed their willingness to remain in the city," that "Arab employees had been appointed to key posts," and that Arabs had been given "part of the corn, flour, and rice intended for the Jews in Haifa." And on April 27, the Hagana distributed a leaflet urging the fleeing Arab populace to return home: "Peace and order reign supreme across the town and every resident can return to his free life and resume his regular work in peace and security."
That these were not hollow words was evidenced by, inter alia, the special dispensation given to Jewish bakers by the Haifa rabbinate to bake bread during the Passover holiday for distribution among the Arabs, and by the April 23 decision of the joint Jewish-Arab Committee for the Restoration of Life to Normalcy to dispatch two of its members to inform women, children, and the elderly that they could return home. In a May 6 fact-finding report to the Jewish Agency executive (the effective government of Jewish Palestine), Golda Meir told her colleagues that while "we will not go to Acre or Nazareth to return the Arabs [to Haifa] . . . our behavior should be such that if it were to encourage them to return"they would be welcome; we should not mistreat the Arabs so as to deter them from returning."
The sincerity of the Jewish position is attested as well by reports from the U.S. consulate in Haifa. Thus, on April 25, after the fighting was over, Vice Consul Aubrey Lippincott cabled Washington that the "Jews hope poverty will cause laborers [to] return [to] Haifa as
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2012 2:43:45 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
many are already doing despite Arab attempts [to] persuade them [to] keep out." On April 29, according to Lippincott, even Farid Saad of the National Committee was saying that Jewish leaders had "organized a large propaganda campaign to persuade [the] Arabs to return." Similarly, the British district superintendent of police reported on April 26 that "every effort is being made by the Jews to persuade the Arab populace to stay and carry on with their normal lives, to get their shops and businesses open, and to be assured that their lives and interests will be safe." Several more reports in the same vein were sent by British authorities in Palestine to their superiors in London.
MEANWHILE, HOWEVER, as the Jews were attempting to keep the Arabs in Haifa, an ad-hoc body, the Arab Emergency Committee, was doing its best to get them out. Scaremongering was a major weapon in its arsenal. Some Arab residents received written threats that, unless they left town, they would be branded as traitors deserving of death. Others were told they could expect no mercy from the Jews. Sheikh Abd al-Rahman Murad of the National Committee, who had headed the truce negotiating team, proved particularly effective at this latter tactic: on April 23, he warned a large group of escapees from the neighborhood of Wadi Nisnas, who were about to return to their homes, that if they did so they would all be killed, as the Jews spared not even women and children. On the other hand, he continued, the Arab Legion had 200 trucks ready to transfer the Haifa refugees to a safe haven, where they would be given free accommodation, clothes, and food.
The importance of these actions cannot be overstated. The Emergency Committee was not a random collection of self-appointed vigilantes, as some Palestinian apologists would later argue. Rather, it was the successor to the Haifa National Committee and involved two National Committee members: Farid Saad and Sheikh Murad. In other words, the evacuation of the Haifa Arab community was ordered, and executed, by the Arab Higher Committee"s official local representatives. The only question is whether those representatives did what they did on their own, or under specific instructions from above.
As I indicated earlier, the Haifa leaders had been extremely reluctant to accept or reject the Hagana"s truce terms on their own recognizance: hence the initial appeal to their peers, and hence the request for a 24-hour recess to seek the advice of the Arab states. When this was not granted, and the Committee had to make do with the brief respite granted to it, its delegates proceeded to telephone the AHC office in Beirut for instructions. They were then told explicitly not to sign, but rather to evacuate. Astonished, the Haifa delegates protested, but were assured that "it is only a matter of days" before Arab retaliatory action would commence, and "since there will be a lot of casualties following our intended action, . . . you [would] be held responsible for the casualties among the Arab population left in the town."
This entire conversation was secretly recorded by the Hagana, and its substance was passed on to some of the Jewish negotiators at city hall. In retrospect, it helps explain a defiant comment made at the meeting by the Arab delegates after they announced the intended evacuation"namely, that "they had lost [the] first round but . . . there were more to come." From Yaacov Salomon, one of the Jewish negotiators, we also learn of certain other emotions experienced by his Arab interlocutors:
The Arab delegation arrived at the evening meeting under British escort, but when the meeting broke up they asked me to give them a lift and to take them home. I took them in my car. On the way back they told me that they had instructions not to sign the truce and that they could not sign the truce on any terms, as this would mean certain death at the hands of their own people, particularly the Muslim leaders, guided by the Mufti. ... . . While therefore they would remain in town, as they thought that would be best in their own interests, they had to advise the Arabs to leave. In any case, what the Hagana had learned by covert means became public knowledge within days. Already on April 25, the American consulate in Haifa was reporting that the "local Mufti-dominated Arab leaders urge all Arabs [to] leave [the] city and large numbers [are] going." Three days later it pointed a clear finger: "Reportedly Arab Higher Committee ordering all Arabs [to] leave." Writing on the same day to the colonial secretary in London, Sir Alan Cunningham, the British high commissioner for Palestine, was equally forthright: "British authorities in Haifa have formed the impression that total evacuation is being urged on the Haifa Arabs from higher Arab quarters and that the townsfolk themselves are against it." Finally, a British intelligence report summing up the events of the week judged that, had it not been for the incitement and scaremongering of the Haifa Arab leadership, most Arab residents might well have stayed.
WITHOUT A past there can be no future. Today, as the saga of Israel"s birth is being turned upside down, with aggressors portrayed as hapless victims and victims as aggressors, it can be only a matter of time before the Jewish state is presented with the bill for its alleged crimes against the Palestinian refugees. Indeed, this past May, as part of the commemoration of the 52nd anniversary of the 1948 war (in Palestinian parlance, al-Nakba, the catastrophe), Yasir Arafat"s Palestinian Authority attempted to link any final-status settlement with Israel to the return of refugees to their homes in Haifa and Jaffa. Organized tours brought scores of Palestinians to locations in Israel abandoned in 1948, and the Arab-language Jerusalem newspaper al-Quds bemoaned "the uprooting of the Palestinian people in one of the worst crimes of modern history."
But were they uprooted, and if so by whom? In Haifa, one of the largest and most dramatic locales of the Palestinian exodus, not only had half the Arab community fled the city before the final battle was joined, but another 5,000-15,000 apparently left voluntarily during the fighting while the rest, some 15,000-25,000 souls, were ordered or bullied into leaving against their wishes, almost certainly on the instructions of the Arab Higher Committee. The crime was exclusively of Arab making. There was no Jewish grand design to force this departure, nor was there a psychological "blitz." To the contrary, both the Haifa Jewish leadership and the Hagana went to great lengths to convince the Arabs to stay. These efforts, indeed, reflected the wider Jewish attitude in Palestine. All deliberations of the Jewish leadership regarding the transition to statehood were based on the assumption that, in the Jewish state that would arise with the termination of the British Mandate, Palestine"s Arabs would remain as equal citizens.
And just there, no doubt, lay the reason why the Arab leadership preferred the evacuation of Haifa"s Arabs to any truce with the Hagana. For according to the UN partition resolution, Haifa was to be one of the foremost towns of the new Jewish state; hence, any agreement by its Arab community to live under Jewish rule would have amounted to acquiescence in Jewish statehood in a part of Palestine. This, to both the Palestinian leadership and the Arab world at large, was anathema.
Shortly after the fall of Haifa to the Hagana, Abd al-Rahman Azzam, the secretary-general of the Arab League, declared: "The Zionists are seizing the opportunity to establish a Zionist state against the will of the Arabs. The Arab peoples have accepted the challenge and soon they will close their account with them." At the time, the cost of this fiery determination by the Arab peoples to "close their account" with the Zionists included the driving of tens of thousands of their hapless fellow-Arabs from their homes....
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2012 2:47:41 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Israel was admitted as a member of the United Nations by majority vote on 11 May 1949.[85]
These years were marked by an influx of Holocaust survivors and Jews from Arab lands, many of whom faced persecution and expulsion from their original countries.[88]
In the 1950s, Israel was frequently attacked by Palestinian fedayeen, mainly from the Egyptian-occupied Gaza Strip,[93] leading to several Israelicounter-raids.
Since 1964, Arab countries were trying to divert the headwaters of the Jordan river to deprive Israel of water resources,[99] provoking tensions with Syria and Lebanon. Arab nationalists led by Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser refused to recognize Israel, and called for its destruction.[12][100][101] By 1966, Israeli-Arab relations had deteriorated to the point of actual battles taking place between Israeli and Arab forces.[102] Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) guerilla activity,[19][20] including a mine attack that killed three Israeli soldiers,[21]took place around this time. Between 1966 and 1967 Israel"s borders saw repeated Arab terrorist attacks and Syrian military activity.[32] On May 11, UN Secretary General U Thant leveled criticism at Syria for its sponsorship of Palestinian terrorism, denouncing those attacks as "deplorable," "insidious" and "menaces to peace."[33]
In 1967, Egypt expelled UN peacekeepers, stationed in the Sinai Peninsula since 1957, and announced a partial blockade of Israel's access to the Red Sea. The Straits of Tiran was regarded by the Western Powers and Israel as an international waterway[32][57][58] but its legal status was the subject of international controversy.[59] The Arabs believed that they had the right to regulate passage of ships while Israel, with the support of other major world powers, countered that the Arab claims were legally not supportable.[60] In 1967 Israel reiterated declarations made in 1957 that any closure of the Straits would be considered an act of war, or a justification for war.[61][62] On May 22 Nasser declared the Straits closed to Israeli shipping.[32][63] Nasser stated he was open to referring the closure to the International Court of Justice to determine its legality, but this option was rejected by Israel.[64][65] Egyptian propaganda attacked Israel,[66] and on May 27, Nasser stated "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight."[67]
In May 1967 a number of Arab states began to mobilize their forces.[103] Israel saw these actions as a casus belli. On 5 June 1967, Israel launched a pre-emptive strike against Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq. In a Six-Day War, Israeli military miracuosly held their own against their more numerous Arab foes. Israel succeeded in capturing the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, Sinai Peninsula and theGolan Heights.[104] Jerusalem's boundaries were enlarged, incorporating East Jerusalem, and the 1949 Green Line became the administrative boundary between Israel and the occupied territories.
It is a matter of controversy who was responsible. Israel points out that the arabs were obviously preparing to destroy Israel. The statements & actions of the Arabs made it clear that this was happening. & Israels only chance of surviving this multi-national attake, was a pre-emptive defence. As it is, the survival of Israel in the 6-day war has been declared by military experts as miraculous. So much so that it is not taught in west point. & a tremendous wave of religiousness/beliefe temporarily came over the mostly secular state".
(Not mandatory for understanding the conflict:
Following the war, Israel faced much internal resistance from the Arab Palestinians and Egyptian hostilities in the Sinai. Most important among the various Palestinian and Arab groups was the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), established in 1964, which initially committed itself to "armed struggle as the only way to liberate the homeland".[105][106] In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Palestinian groups launched a wave of attacks[107][108] against Israeli and Jewish targets around the world,[109] including a massacre of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Summer Olympicsin Munich. The Israeli government responded with an assassination campaign against the organizers, a bombing and a raid on the PLO headquarters in Lebanon.
On 6 October 1973, as Jews were observing Yom Kippur, the Egyptian and Syrian armies launched a surprise attack against Israeli forces in the Sinai Peninsula and Golan Heights. The war ended on 26 October with Israel successfully repelling Egyptian and Syrian forces but suffering significant losses.[110] An internal inquiry exonerated the government of responsibility for failures before and during the war, but public anger forced Prime Minister Golda Meir to resign.[111]
In July 1976 Israeli commandos carried out a rescue mission which succeeded in rescuing 102 hostages who were being held by Palestinian guerillas at Entebbe International Airport close to Kampala, Uganda.
Following the war, Israel faced much internal resistance from the Arab Palestinians and Egyptian hostilities in the Sinai. Most important among the various Palestinian and Arab groups was the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), established in 1964, which initially committed itself to "armed struggle as the only way to liberate the homeland".[105][106] In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Palestinian groups launched a wave of attacks[107][108] against Israeli and Jewish targets around the world,[109] including a massacre of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Summer Olympicsin Munich. The Israeli government responded with an assassination campaign against the organizers, a bombing and a raid on the PLO headquarters in Lebanon.
On 6 October 1973, as Jews were observing Yom Kippur, the Egyptian and Syrian armies launched a surprise attack against Israeli forces in the Sinai Peninsula and Golan Heights. The war ended on 26 October with Israel successfully repelling Egyptian and Syrian forces but suffering significant losses.[110] An internal inquiry exonerated the government of responsibility for failures before and during the war, but public anger forced Prime Minister Golda Meir to resign.[111]
In July 1976 Israeli commandos carried out a rescue mission which succeeded in rescuing 102 hostages who were being held by Palestinian guerillas at Entebbe International Airport close to Kampala, Uganda".)"

The actual conflict:
The Israeli"Palestinian conflict is the ongoing struggle between Israelis and Palestinians that began in the early 20th century.[2] The conflict is wide-ranging, and the term is also used in reference to the earlier phases of the same conflict, between the Zionist yishuv and the Arab population living in Palestine under Ottoman and then British rule. It forms part of the wider Arab"Israeli conflict. The remaining key issues are: mutual recognition, borders, security, water rights, control of Jerusalem, Israeli settlements,[3] Palestinian freedom of movement[4] and finding a resolution to the refugee question.
In 2007 a majority of both Israelis and Palestinians, according to a number of polls, preferred the two-state solution over any other solution as a means of resolving the conflict.[5]Moreover, a considerable majority of the Jewish public sees the Palestinians' demand for an independent state as just, and thinks Israel can agree to the establishment of such a state.[6] A majority of Palestinians and Israelis view the West Bank and Gaza Strip as an acceptable location of the hypothetical Palestinian state in a two-state solution.[7][unreliable source?] However, there are significant areas of disagreement over the shape of any final agreement and also regarding the level of credibility each side sees in the other in upholding basic commitments.[8]
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2012 2:48:16 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Attempts at peace:
Oslo Accords (1993)

US President Bill Clinton for Arab"Israeli Affairs, has confirmed that while Barak made no formal written offer to Arafat, the US did present concepts for peace which were considered by the Israeli side yet left unanswered by Arafat "the Palestinians" principal failing is that from the beginning of the Camp David summit onward they were unable either to say yes to the American ideas or to present a cogent and specific counterproposal of their own".[12]Consequently, there are different accounts of the proposals considered.[13][14][15]

Camp David sumit:
Arafat rejected[16][19][20][21][22][23] this offer. According to the Palestinian negotiators the offer did not remove many of the elements of the Israeli occupation regarding land, security, settlements, and Jerusalem.[24] President Clinton reportedly requested that Arafat make a counter-offer, but he proposed none. Former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben Ami who kept a diary of the negotiations said in an interview in 2001, when asked whether the Palestinians made a counterproposal: "No. And that is the heart of the matter. Never, in the negotiations between us and the Palestinians, was there a Palestinian counterproposal."[25]

Developments following Camp David
Following the failed summit Palestinian and Israeli negotiators continued to meet in small groups through August and September 2000 to try to bridge the gaps between their respective positions. The United States prepared its own plan to resolve the outstanding issues. Clinton's presentation of the US proposals was delayed by the advent of the Second Intifada at the end of September.[24]
Clinton's plan, eventually presented on 23 December 2000, proposed the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state in the Gaza strip and 94"96 percent of the West Bank plus the equivalent of 1"3 percent of the West Bank in land swaps from pre-1967 Israel. On Jerusalem the plan stated that, "the general principle is that Arab areas are Palestinian and that Jewish areas are Israeli." The holy sites were to be split on the basis that Palestinians would have sovereignty over the Temple Mount/Noble sanctuary, while the Israelis would have sovereignty over the Western Wall. On refugees the plan suggested a number of proposals including financial compensation, the right of return to the Palestinian state, and Israeli acknowledgement of suffering caused to the Palestinians in 1948. Security proposals referred to a "non-militarized" Palestinian state, and an international force for border security. Both sides accepted Clinton's plan[24][26][27] and it became the basis for the negotiations at the Taba Peace summit the following January.[24]
Present status
The peace process has been predicated on a "two-state solution" thus far, but questions have been raised towards both sides' resolve to end the dispute.
The many individual issues 1 by 1:
Jerusalem
The border of Jerusalem is a particularly delicate issue, with each side asserting claims over this city. The three largest Abrahamic religions"Judaism, Christianity, and Islam"include Jerusalem as an important setting for their religious and historical narratives.[62] For Jews it is the holiest place on earth While moslems consider Mecca it"s holiest site. Where Jerusalem ranks in Islam is not clear. It is not found to be mentioned at all in the Koran. According to the Salafi movement, Mecca and Medina are the only holy places.
Israel asserts that the city should not be divided and should remain unified within Israel's political control. As it was prior to 586 BCE, when the Babylonians conquered Jerusalem, razed the Temple, & most of the people were sent into exile in Bablyonia. Palestinians claim at least the parts of the city which were not part of Israel prior to June 1967. As of 2005, there were more than 719,000 people living in Jerusalem; 465,000 were Jews (mostly living in West Jerusalem) and 232,000 were Muslims (mostly living in East Jerusalem).[63]
The Israeli government, including the Knesset and Supreme Court, is centered in the "new city" of West Jerusalem and has been since Israel's founding in 1948. After Israel captured the Jordanian-controlled East Jerusalem in the Six-Day War, it assumed complete administrative control of East Jerusalem. In 1980, Israel issued a new law stating, "Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel."[64]
At the Camp David and Taba Summits in 2000"01, the United States proposed a plan in which the Arab parts of Jerusalem would be given to the proposed Palestinian state while the Jewish parts of Jerusalem were retained by Israel. All archaeological work under the Temple Mount would be jointly controlled by the Israeli and Palestinian governments. Both sides accepted the proposal in principle, but the summits ultimately failed.[65]
Israel has grave concerns regarding the welfare of Jewish holy places under possible Palestinian control. When Jerusalem was under Jordanian control, no Jews were allowed to visit the Western Wall or other Jewish holy places, and the Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives was desecrated.[65] In 2000, a Palestinian mob took over Joseph's Tomb, a shrine considered sacred by both Jews and Muslims, looted and burned the building and turned it into a mosque.[66] There are unauthorized Palestinian excavations for construction on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, which could threaten the stability of the Western Wall.[citation needed] Israel, on the other hand, has seldom blocked access to holy places sacred to other religions.[67] Israeli security agencies routinely monitor and arrest Jewish extremists that plan attacks, resulting in almost no serious incidents for the last 20 years.[68][not in citation given] Moreover, Israel has given almost complete autonomy to the Muslim trust (Waqf) over the Temple Mount.[65] Jews are given limited acces to temple mound even though it"s the holiest site in Jerusalem according to Judaisim (the actual location of the temple). Jews are only permitted to visit temple mount under close supervision of the Waqf, & on the condition that they don"t pray. Closing one"s eyes, swaying, & moving one"s lips are all grounds for immediate removal.
Israel expresses concern over the security of its residents if neighborhoods of Jerusalem are placed under Palestinian control. Jerusalem has been a prime target for attacks by militant groups against civilian targets since 1967. Many Jewish neighborhoods have been fired upon from Arab areas. The proximity of the Arab areas, if these regions were to fall in the boundaries of a Palestinian state, would be so close as to threaten the safety of Jewish residents. Nadav Shragai states this idea in his study for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, "An Israeli security body that was tasked in March 2000 with examining the possibility of transferring three Arab villages just outside of Jerusalem " Abu Dis, Al Azaria, and a-Ram " to Palestinian security control, assessed at the time that: 'Terrorists will be able to exploit the short distances, sometimes involving no more than crossing a street, to cause damage to people or property. A terrorist will be able to stand on the other side of the road, shoot at an Israeli or throw a bomb, and it may be impossible to do anything about it. The road will constitute the border.' If that is the case for neighborhoods outside of Jerusalem's municipal boundaries, how much more so for Arab neighborhoods within those boundaries.[69]
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2012 2:49:42 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Palestinian refugees of the 1948 war
Mahmoud Abbas, the current Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization accepts that it is "illogical to ask Israel to take 5 million, or indeed 1 million. That would mean the end of Israel." [78]
Historian Benny Morris states that most of Palestine's 700,000 "refugees" fled because of the "flail of war" and expected to return home shortly after a successful Arab invasion. He documents how all around Palestine, Arab leaders advised the evacuation of entire communities as happened in Haifa, 1948.[85] Morris considers the displacement the result of a national conflict initiated by the Arabs themselves.[85]
Karsh notes that the Palestinians were themselves the aggressors in the 1948-49 war who attempted to "cleanse" a neighboring ethnic community. Had the United Nations resolution of 29 November 1947, which called for two states in Palestine, not been subverted by force by the Arab world, there would have been no refugee problem in the first place. He reports of large numbers of Palestinian refugees leaving even before the outbreak of the 1948 war because of disillusionment and economic privation. The British High Commissioner for Palestine spoke of the "collapsing Arab morale in Palestine" that he partially attributed to the "increasing tendency of those who should be leading them to leave the country" and the considerable evacuations of the Arab effendi class. Huge numbers of Palestinians were also expelled by their leadership to prevent them from becoming Israeli citizens and in Haifa and Tiberias, tens of thousands of Arabs were forcibly evacuated on the instructions of the Arab Higher Committee.[86]
The Israeli government asserts that the Arab refugee problem is largely caused by the refusal of all Arab governments except Jordan to grant citizenship to Palestinian Arabs who reside within those countries' borders. This has produced much of the poverty and economic problems of the refugees, according to MFA documents.[91]
The Palestinian refugee issue is handled by a separate authority from that handling other refugees, that is, by UNRWA and not the UNHCR. Most of the people recognizing themselves as Palestinian refugees would have otherwise been assimilated into their country of current residency, and would not maintain their refugee state if not for the separate entities.
Concerning the origin of the Palestinian refugees, the official version of the Israeli government is that during the 1948 War the Arab Higher Committee and the Arab states encouraged Palestinians to flee in order to make it easier to rout the Jewish state or that they did so to escape the fights by fear.[91] The Palestinian narrative is that refugees were expelled and dispossessed by Jewish militias and by the Israeli army, following a plan established even before the war.[citation needed] Historians still debate the causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus.
Since none of the 900,000 Jewish refugees who fled anti-Semitic violence in the Arab world was ever compensated or repatriated by their former countries of residence"to no objection on the part of Arab leaders"a precedent has been set whereby it is the responsibility of the nation which accepts the refugees to assimilate them.[92][93][94]
Although Israel accepts the right of the Palestinian Diaspora to return into a new Palestinian state, Israel insists that their return into the current state of Israel would be a great danger for the stability of the Jewish state; an influx of Palestinian refugees would lead to the destruction of the state of Israel.[95][96]
Mahmoud Abbas, the current Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization accepts that it is "illogical to ask Israel to take 5 million, or indeed 1 million. That would mean the end of Israel." [78]

Opponents of the right of return reject it partly based on the following sources:
There is no formal mechanism in international law to demand repatriation of refugees and their descendants in general, or Palestinians specifically. No international legislation, binding UN resolutions or agreements between Israel and the Palestinians require this.[84]
Including:
That the phrase "his own country" in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has been interpreted by Judge Jose Ingles in his report to the UN[85] to apply only to citizens or nationals of the relevant country.
Yaffa Zilbershatz agrees and further argues against those who say that on May 15, 1948 Arabs living in Israel (who would later flee as refugees) must be considered Israeli citizens. She notes that most international treaties do not obligate a state to give citizenship to its inhabitants, and that the state (Israel) can decide to whom citizenship shall be given. She notes that while Article 15 of the UDHR does say "Everyone has the right to a nationality", that right is "ambiguous" and "weakly drafted".[86]
That the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights were adopted solely by the United Nations General Assembly, and are legally non-binding.
That United Nations General Assembly resolutions such as 194 and 3236 are recommendations only and thus non-binding.[87][88][89]
That Resolution 194 resolved that that refugees willing to live in peace with their neighbors should be allowed to return, and that many Palestinians who fled were unwilling to live in peace and were responsible for attacks against Jews. Furthermore, the resolution does not specifically apply to only Arab refugees, but also Jewish refugees.
That United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 does not mention a right of return or any other arrangement as a mandatory solution, and only calls for a "just settlement" to the refugee issue. According to Ruth Lapidoth, this also includes the issue of Jewish refugees from Arab and Muslim nations.[90][91]
That the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees makes no mention of descendants. Moreover, objectors claim that the convention ceases to apply to a person who, inter alia, has acquired a new nationality.[92]
Objectors assert that historical legal precedent supports this contention.
In the Middle East, none of the 900,000 Jewish refugees who fled anti-Semitic violence in the Arab world were ever compensated or repatriated by their former countries of residence. It is argued a precedent has been set whereby it is the responsibility of the nation which accepts the refugees to assimilate them.[93]
No right of return or compensation is available for the estimated 13 million people who moved between the newly created states during the partition of India in 1947.[94] Similarly, the millions of Sudeten Germans expelled from Czechoslovakia after World War II were never compensated.[94]
That the descendants of refugees do not automatically inherit refugee status.[92]
Some opponents argue that if all or a large majority of Palestinian refugees and their descendants were to implement a "right of return", it would make Arabs the majority within Israel and Jews an ethnic minority. They contend that this would "mean eradicating Israel."[95] Israeli novelist Amos Oz is among those who have argued that the enactment of the Palestinian "right of return" would make Arabs the majority in Israel. In Oz's view, such a step would amount to "abolishing the Jewish people's right to self determination." Oz further claims that Palestinian leaders claim a right of return "while cynically ignoring the fate of hundreds of thousands of Israeli Jews who fled and were driven out of their homes in Arab countries, during the same war."[95]
Israeli official sources, foreign press, and officials present at the time, and historians such as Joseph Schechtman have long claim
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2012 2:54:02 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Israeli official sources, foreign press, and officials present at the time, and historians such as Joseph Schechtman have long claimed that the 1948 refugee crisis was instigated by the invading Arab armies, who ordered Palestinian civilians to evacuate the battle zone, in order to allow the Arab armies freedom to operate. Opponents of the right of return, such as Efraim Karsh say that Israel is therefore not obligated to compensate Palestinians or allow them to return.[96] Israel officially denies any responsibility for the Palestinian exodus, stating that their flight was caused by the Arab invasion.[97] According to some sources, including Arab ones, Palestinian flight from Israel was not compelled but was predominantly voluntary, as a result of seven Arab nationsdeclaring war on Israel in 1948. Many Arab leaders encouraged and even ordered Palestinians to evacuate the battle zone in order to make it easier for the Arab armies and fedayeen to demolish the newly found Jewish state and Israel officially denies any responsibility for the Palestinian exodus, stating that their flight was caused by the Arab invasion.[97] Karsh states that most Palestinians chose their status as refugees themselves, and therefore Israel is therefore absolved of responsibility.[96]

A 1952 memorandum submitted to the League of Arab States by the Higher Arab Committee reveals that Arab states officially agreed to take responsibility for these refugees at the height of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. However, only until such time as Israel would be destroyed:
Arab leaders and their ministries in Arab capitals ... declared that they welcomed the immigration of Palestinian Arabs into the Arab countries until they saved Palestine.[98]
Some critics of the Palestinian "right of return" also argue that it is not supported by international precedent, drawing attention to the 758,000-866,000 Jews were expelled, fled or emigrated from the Arab Middle East and North Africa between 1945 and 1956, with property losses of $1 billion.[99] These critics argue that since these refugees were neither compensated nor allowed return"to no objection on the part of Arab leaders or international legal authorities"the international community had accepted this migration of Jews as fait accompli, and thereby set legal precedent in the region against a right of return.[93][94] Former Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett asserted that the migration of refugees between Israel and the Arab World essentially constituted a population exchange. He argued that precedent, such as the exchange of 2.5 million people between Poland and the Soviet Union, as well as the 13 million Hindus and Muslims who crossed theIndia-Pakistan border, showed that international law neither requires nor expects the reversal of population exchanges. He further argued that precedent does not require reversal even of one-directional refugee migrations, such as the expulsion of 900,000 Germans from Czechoslovakia following World War II. In Sharett's view, Israel was singled out as the exception to international law.[94]
Critics of the right of return argue that it is the failure of Arab states to fulfill this promise (with the exception of Jordan) which keeps the Palestinian refugees in their current limbo, not Israeli policy.[31][100] Efraim Karsh asserts that "whatever the strengths and weaknesses of the Palestinians' legal case, their foremost argument for a 'right of return' has always rested on a claim of unprovoked victimhood." In Karsh's view, because Palestinians were not the victims of a "Zionist grand design to dispossess them" but "the aggressors in the 1948-49 war" they are responsible for the refugee problem. Karsh does not deny that some Palestinians were forcibly expelled, but places the blame for the bulk of the exodus on Palestinian and Arab elites and leaders.[96]
Ruth Lapidoth from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs has argued that U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194 does not specify a "right", but rather says refugees "should" be allowed to return. She has also noted that General Assembly resolutions are not binding to member states, and that this particular resolution based its recommendations on two conditions: that refugees wish to return, and that they be willing to "live at peace with their neighbors." She argues that the latter condition is unfulfilled, citing the actions of Palestinian militant groups. She concludes that Palestinian refugees have right to seek a negotiated compensation, but not a "right of return".[84]
Lapidoth's essay also references a statement made by Stig Jagerskiold in 1966, in which he argues that the right of return was intended as an individual and not a collective right:
...[it] is intended to apply to individuals asserting an individual right. There was no intention here to address the claims of masses of people who have been displaced as a by-product of war or by political transfers of territory or population, such as the relocation of ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe during and after the Second World War, the flight of the Palestinians from what became Israel, or the movement of Jews from the Arab countries.[84]
The pro-Israel advocacy group StandWithUs rebuffed the argument that Israel's admission to the UN was conditional upon acceptance of relevant UN Resolutions, including Resolution 194, claiming that "like every other nation admitted to the UN, Israel was admitted on the basis of Article 4 of the Charter". Article 4 of the United Nations Charter states that no state was entitled to make its acceptance of the admission of an applicant dependent on conditions not provided for in Paragraph 1 of Article 4. Furthermore, the UN Resolution that admitted Israel explicitly stated that it was admitted because of its adherence to the principles and obligations of the UN Charter, not specific Resolutions. Even the Arab spokesman opposed to Israel's admission admitted that all member states were admitted solely on the basis of Article 4. He tried to make an exception in the case of Israel, but his claims were rejected.[101] Likewise, Law Professor Ruth Lapidoth wrote that "a careful scrutiny of the text of Israel's application for membership and the discussions that took place in the Ad Hoc Political Committee and in the plenary session of the General Assembly show that no such commitment was made; nor did the General Assembly's Resolution on the admission of Israel impose upon her an obligation to implement that Resolution".[102]
According to Alexander Safian, Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not guarantee a right of return for three reasons:[103]

That the clause: "everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country" was meant to guarantee the right to leave. According to its legislative history, Article 13 was aimed at governments which imprisoned certain subgroups of their own nationals by preventing them from leaving. According to its sponsor, the mention of a "right to return" was included to assure that "the right to leave a country, already sanctioned in the article, would be strengthened by the assurance of the right to return".

The Article guarantees a right to return "to his own country", but the Palestinians who were displaced were never citizens or legal residents of Israel.
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2012 2:59:18 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Other clauses in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights argue against a Palestinian right of return. Article 29 provides that rights can be limited by law solely for securing "due recognition and respect for the rights of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order, and general welfare in a democratic society". Article 30 states that nothing in the declaration may be interpreted as implying for any state, group, or person to engage in activity aimed at the destruction of any rights or freedoms guaranteed. The "rights" and "general welfare" of Israel's Jewish citizens would be endangered if millions of Palestinians who were openly hostile to Israel's existencea became a majority. Article 3 of the declaration further states that "these rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purpose and principles of the United Nations". The Palestinian right of return would result in the loss of Israeli sovereignty and its replacement with an Arab-majority state, and the dismantling of Israeli society in favor of an Arab-Muslim dominated society, resulting in the destruction of a UN member state: a violation of the United Nations Charter.

Safian also argues that the Fourth Geneva Convention does not apply to Palestinian refugees. Article 49 of this convention allows a "belligerent occupant" to temporarily remove a civilian population from occupied territory, but requires that the evacuees "be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question cease". However, this convention was adopted two years after the 1948 Palestinian exodus. All but one of the articles deal with "international conflicts", but the 1948 Arab-Israeli war was largely a civil struggle between Jews and Arabs in the territory of the British Mandate, and thus Israel was not a "belligerent occupant" in an "international conflict". Article 3, the only article that deals with "conflicts not of an international character", makes no mention of a right of return for displaced persons.[104]

According to Stig Jagerskiold, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is "intended to apply to individuals seeking to assert an individual right. There was no intention here to address the claims of masses of people who have been displaced as a by-product of war or by political transfers of territory and population, such as the relocation of ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe during and after the Second World War, the flight of Palestinians from what became Israel, or the movement of Jews from the Arab countries.[105]

Israeli security concerns :

Throughout the conflict, Palestinian violence has been a concern for Israelis. Israel,[97] along with the United States[98] and the European Union, refer to the violence against Israeli civilians and military forces by Palestinian militants as terrorism. The motivations behind Palestinian violence against Israeli civilians are multiplex, and not all violent Palestinian groups agree with each other on specifics, however a common motive is to eliminate the Jewish state and replace it with a Palestinian Arab state.[99] The most prominent Islamist groups, such as Hamas, view the Israeli"Palestinian conflict as a religious jihad.[100]

Suicide bombing is used as a tactic among Palestinian organizations like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade and is supported by as much as 68% of the Palestinian people.[101] In Israel, Palestinian suicide bombers have targeted civilian buses, restaurants, shopping malls, hotels and marketplaces.[102] From 1993"2003, 303 Palestinian suicide bombers attacked Israel.[103]

The Israeli government initiated the construction of a security barrier following scores of suicide bombings and terrorist attacks in July 2003. Israel's coalition government approved the security barrier in the northern part of the green-line between Israel and the West Bank. Since the erection of the fence, terrorist acts have declined by more than 90%.[104]

Since 2001, the threat of Qassam rockets fired from the Palestinian Territories into Israel is also of great concern for Israeli defense officials.[105] In 2006"the year following Israel's disengagement from the Gaza Strip"the Israeli government recorded 1,726 such launches, more than four times the total rockets fired in 2005.[97] As of January 2009, over 8,600 rockets had been launched,[106][107] causing widespread psychological trauma and disruption of daily life.[108] Over 500 rockets and mortars hit Israel in January"September 2010 and over 1,947 rockets hit Israel in January-November 2012.

According to a study conducted by University of Haifa, one in five Israelis have lost a relative or friend in a Palestinian terrorist attack.[109]

There is significant debate within Israel about how to deal with the country's security concerns. Options have included military action (including targeted killings and house demolitions of terrorist operatives), diplomacy, unilateral gestures toward peace, and increased security measures such as checkpoints, roadblocks andsecurity barriers. The legality and the wisdom of all of the above tactics have been called into question by various commentators.[7][unreliable source?]
Since mid-June 2007, Israel's primary means of dealing with security concerns in the West Bank has been to cooperate with and permit United States-sponsored training, equipping, and funding of the Palestinian Authority's security forces, which with Israeli help have largely succeeded in quelling West Bank supporters of Hamas.[110]

Palestinian violence outside of Israel:

Some Palestinians have committed violent acts over the globe on the pretext of a struggle against Israel. Many foreigners, including Americans[111] and Europeans,[112] have been killed and injured by Palestinian militants. At least 53 Americans have been killed and 83 injured by Palestinian violence since the signing of the Oslo Accords.[113]

During the late 1960s, the PLO became increasingly infamous for its use of international terror. In 1969 alone, the PLO was responsible for hijacking 82 planes. El Al Airlines became a regular hijacking target.[114][115] The hijacking of Air France Flight 139 by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine culminated during a hostage-rescue mission, where Israeli special forces successfully rescued the majority of the hostages.

However, one of the most well-known and notorious terrorist acts was the capture and eventual murder of 11 Israeli athletes during the 1972 Olympic Games.[116]
Attacks on diplomatic missions and Israelis abroad
Numerous embassies and Israeli travelers have been attacked by Palestinian militant groups during the Israeli"Palestinian conflict.

26 December 1968: Two Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine militants attacked an El Al plane about to depart, killing one Israeli and injuring two others.[214]

18 February 1969: Three Israeli El Al Boeing 707 crew members, including the pilot, were killed by PFLP attack in Zurich.[215]

10 February 1970: 12 Israeli El Al passengers were killed and wounded by Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine attack at a Munich airport.[214]

4 May 1970: An employee at the Israeli consulate in Paraguay was killed by two armed Palestinians.[216]

8 May 1972: Four Black September members hijacked a Belgian airliner at Lod Airport.[215] During the rescue operation, five Israeli soldiers and one passenger were killed.

17 May 1972: Three members of the Turkish Liberation Army, a militant organization linked to the PLO, kidnapped and executed Israeli consul-general Efraim Elrom in Istanbul.[215]

30 May 1972: The Japanese Red Army killed eight Israelis and 17 United States citizen and injured 80 others at Lod airport on behalf of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.[217]
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2012 3:04:02 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
10 September 1972: An Israeli official at the Israeli Embassy in Brussels was wounded by Fatah militants.[218]

19 September 1972: Ami Shachori, an agriculture counselor at the Israeli embassy in England, was assassinated by Black September militants.[219][220]

1 July 1973: Yosef Alon, air force attach" in the Israeli Embassy in Washington, was shot to death outside his home by Black September.[214][215]

17 December 1973: Five Palestinian terrorists shot at passengers waiting in an El Al Israel Airlines lounge at a Rome airport, killing two civilians. Then they hurled incendiary grenades at a Pan-Am Boeing 707 waiting to take off, killing 29 passengers.[221]

8 September 1974: TWA jet with 88 passengers traveling from Tel Aviv to Athens crashed into the Ionian Sea after a PFLP detonated bomb hidden in the baggage compartment, killing all on board. The dead included 17 Americans and two Israelis.[222]

13 November 1979: Israeli Ambassador to Portugal Ephraim Eldar was wounded by Palestinian militants. A security guard was killed and an embassy chauffeur and local policeman were injured.[218]

10 August 1981: Palestinians threw two bombs at an Israeli embassy in Vienna, wounding a 75-year old woman.[218]

29 August 1981: Palestinians killed two people and wounded 30 attending a Bar Mitzvah in Vienna.[223]

4 June 1982: Israeli ambassador to the United Kingdom Shlomo Argov was wounded in an assassination attempt by Palestinian militants, setting off the 1982 Lebanon War. Argov later died of his injuries in 2003.[218]

23 September 1982: Israeli Charg" d'Affaires in Malta Esther Milo was wounded in an attempted kidnapping by Palestinian militants.[218]

23 December 1982: Palestinian militants detonated a bomb at the Israeli Consulate in Sydney, wounding two Israelis officials.[218]

27 December 1985: Fatah militants attacked El Al counters at Rome and Vienna airports, killing 19 people.[215]

2 April 1986: Palestinian militants detonated a bomb on an Trans World Airlines 727, killing four Americans including a nine-month old infant.

6 September 1986: 22 Turkish Jews were killed by Palestinian terrorists belonging to the Abu Nidal Organization while attending service at the Neve Shalom Synagogue in Istanbul.[224]

26 July 1994: A vehicle packed with 30 pounds of explosives at the Israeli Embassy in London exploded, wounding 20.[218]

28 November 2002: Suicide bombers attacked the Israeli-owned Paradise Hotel in Kenya. 13 civilians, including 3 Israelis, were killed in the attack. At the same time, two surface-to-air missiles were fired at a civilian Boeing 757 airliner owned by Israel-based Arkia Airlines as it took off from Moi International Airport.[225]

Palestinian violence against other Palestinians:

Fighting among rival Palestinian and Arab movements has played a crucial role in shaping Israel's security policy towards Palestinian militants, as well as in the Palestinian leadership's own policies.[citation needed] As early as the 1930s revolts in Palestine, Arab forces fought each other while also skirmishing with Zionist and British forces, and internal conflicts continue to the present day. During the Lebanese Civil War, Palestinian baathists broke from the Palestine Liberation Organization and allied with the Shia Amal Movement, fighting a bloody civil war that killed thousands of Palestinians.[117][118]

In the First Intifada, more than a thousand Palestinians were killed in a campaign initiated by the Palestine Liberation Organization to crack down on suspectedIsraeli security service informers and collaborators. The Palestinian Authority was strongly criticized for its treatment of alleged collaborators, rights groups complaining that those labeled collaborators were denied fair trials. According to a report released by the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group, less than 45 percent of those killed were actually guilty of informing for Israel.[119]

The policies towards suspected collaborators contravene agreements signed by the Palestinian leadership. Article XVI(2) of the Oslo II Agreement states:[120]
"Palestinians who have maintained contact with the Israeli authorities will not be subjected to acts of harassment, violence, retribution, or prosecution."
The provision was designed to prevent Palestinian leaders from imposing retribution on fellow Palestinians who had worked on behalf of Israel during the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.[121]

In the Gaza Strip, Hamas officials have killed and tortured thousands of Fatah members and other Palestinians who oppose their rule. During the Battle of Gaza, more than 150 Palestinians died over a four day period. The violence among Palestinians was described as a civil war by some commentators.[122] By 2007, more than 600 Palestinian people had died during the struggle between Hamas and Fatah.[123]

http://www.nydailynews.com...

International status:

In the past, Israel has demanded control over border crossings between the Palestinian territories and Jordan and Egypt, and the right to set the import and export controls, asserting that Israel and the Palestinian territories are a single economic space.

In the interim agreements reached as part of the Oslo Accords, the Palestinian Authority has received control over cities (Area A) while the surrounding countryside has been placed under Israeli security and Palestinian civil administration (Area B) or complete Israeli control (Area C). Israel has built additional highways to allow Israelis to traverse the area without entering Palestinian cities. The initial areas under Palestinian Authority control are diverse and non-contiguous. The areas have changed over time because of subsequent negotiations, including Oslo II, Wye River and Sharm el-Sheik.

Water resources:

In the Middle East, water resources are of great political concern. Since Israel receives much of its water from two large underground aquifers which continue under the Green Line, the use of this water has been contentious in the Israeli"Palestinian conflict. Critics of this argument say that even though Israel withdraws most water from these areas, it also supplies the West Bank with approximately 40 million cubic metres annually, contributing to 77% of Palestinians' water supply in the West Bank, which is to be shared for a population of about 2.3 million.[124] Israel's consumption of this water has been gradually decreasing.

In the Oslo II Accord treaty, both sides agreed to maintain "existing quantities of utilization from the resources." In so doing, the Palestinian Authority established the legality of Israeli water production in the West Bank. Moreover, Israel obligated itself in this agreement to provide water to supplement Palestinian production, and further agreed to allow additional Palestinian drilling in the Eastern Aquifer.
This agreement also established the right of the Palestinian Authority to explore and drill for natural gas, fuel and petroleum within its territory and territorial waters. It also delineated the major terms of conduct regarding regulations on the parties' facilities.[126]

In 1999, Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said it continued to honor its obligations under the Interim Agreement.[127] The water that Israel receives comes mainly from the Jordan River system, the Sea of Galilee and two underground sources.
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2012 3:07:50 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
The West Bank:

territories which were captured by Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War, having formerly been controlled by Egypt and Jordan.[132] The Israeli government uses the term Disputed Territories, to argue that some territories cannot be called occupied as no nation had clear rights to them and there was no operative diplomatic arrangement when Israel acquired them in June 1967.[133][134] The area is still referred to as Judea and Samaria by some Israeli groups, based on the historical regional names from ancient times.

It has been the position of Israel that the most Arab-populated parts of West Bank (without major Jewish settlements), and the entire Gaza Strip must eventually be part of an independent Palestinian State. However, the precise borders of this state are in question. At Camp David, for example, then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered Yasser Arafat an opportunity to establish an independent Palestinian State composed of 92% of the West Bank, Arab neighborhood of East Jerusalem, and the entire Gaza Strip and dismantling of most settlements. Yasser Arafat rejected the proposal without providing a counter-offer. A subsequent settlement proposed by President Clinton offered Palestinian sovereignty over 94 to 96 percent of the West Bank but was similarly rejected.[136][137][138][139][unreliable source?][18]
Israel says it is justified in not ceding all this land, because of security concerns, and also because the lack of any valid diplomatic agreement at the time means that ownership and boundaries of this land is open for discussion.[77] Palestinians claim any reduction of this claim is a severe deprivation of their rights. In negotiations, they claim that any moves to reduce the boundaries of this land is a hostile move against their key interests. Israel considers this land to be in dispute, and feels the purpose of negotiations is to define what the final borders will be.

Other Palestinian groups, such as Hamas, have in the past insisted that Palestinians must control not only the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem, but also all of Israel proper. For this reason, Hamas has viewed the peace process "as religiously forbidden and politically inconceivable".[100]

Israeli settlements in the West Bank:

Several scholars and commentators disagree with the assessment that settlements are illegal, citing in 2005 recent historical trends to back up their argument.[147][148][149] Those who justify the legality of the settlements use arguments based upon Articles 2 and 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, as well as UN Security Council Resolution 242.[150]

In 2005, Israel's unilateral disengagement plan, a proposal put forward by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, was enacted. All residents of Jewish settlements in the Gaza strip were evacuated, and all residential buildings were demolished.[151]
Various mediators and various proposed agreements have shown some degree of openness to Israel retaining some fraction of the settlements which currently exist in the West Bank; this openness is based on a variety of considerations, such as, the desire to find real compromise between Israeli and Palestinian territorial claims.[152][153]

Israel's position that it needs to retain some West Bank land and settlements as a buffer in case of future aggression,[154] and Israel's position that some settlements are legitimate, as they took shape when there was no operative diplomatic arrangement, and thus they did not violate any agreement.[133][134]
Former US President George W. Bush has stated that he does not expect Israel to return entirely to the 1949 armistice lines because of "new realities on the ground."[155]

One of the main compromise plans put forth by the Clinton Administration would have allowed Israel to keep some settlements in the West Bank, especially those which were in large blocs near the pre-1967 borders of Israel. In return, Palestinians would have received some concessions of land in other parts of the country.[152] As stated previously, Yasser Arafat rejected the Israeli proposal without providing a counter-offer. A subsequent settlement proposed by President Clinton offered Palestinian sovereignty over 94 to 96 percent of the West Bank but was similarly rejected.[136][137][138][139][unreliable source?][18]

Obama has declared that the United States will no longer press Israel to stop West Bank settlement construction as a precondition for continued peace-process negotiations with the Palestinian Authority.[158]
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2012 3:24:33 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
HOPE For Peace: Actions toward stabilizing the conflict

Beginning in 1993 with the Oslo peace process, Israel recognizes "the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people."[166] In return, it was agreed that Palestinians would promote peaceful co-existence, renounce violence and promote recognition of Israel among their own people. Despite Yasser Arafat's official renunciation of terrorism and recognition of Israel, some Palestinian groups continue to practice and advocate violence against civilians and do not recognize Israel as a legitimate political entity.[167][168][

In response to a weakening trend in Palestinian violence and growing economic and security cooperation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, the Israeli military has removed over 120 check points in 2010 and plans on disengaging from major Palestinian population areas. According to the IDF, terrorist activity in the West Bank decreased by 97% compared to violence in 2002.[159]

PA-Israel efforts in the West Bank have "significantly increased investor confidence", and the Palestinian economy grew 6.8% in 2009.[160][161][162][163][164]
Israeli Arabs are allowed to enter West Bank cities on weekends.

The Palestinian Authority has petitioned the Israeli military to allow Jewish tourists to visit West Bank cities as "part of an effort" to improve the Palestinian economy. Israeli general Avi Mizrahi spoke with Palestinian security officers while touring malls and soccer fields in the West Bank. Mizrahi gave permission to allow Israeli tour guides into Bethlehem, a move intended to "contribute to the Palestinian and Israeli economies."[165]

Since 2006, the United States has been training, equipping, and funding the Palestinian Authority's security forces, which have been cooperating with Israel at unprecedented levels in the West Bank to quell supporters of Hamas, the main Palestinian Islamist group that opposes direct negotiations with Israel.[110] The United States government has spent over 500 million building and training the Palestinian National Security Forces and Presidential Guard.[110]

According to a May 2011 poll carried out by the Palestinian Center For Public Opinion that asked Palestinians from the Gaza Strip and the West Bank including East Jerusalem, "which of the following means is the best to end the occupation and lead to the establishing of an independent Palestinian state", 5.0% supported "military operations", 25.0% supported non-violent popular resistance, 32.1% favored negotiations until an agreement could be reached, 23.1% preferred holding an international conference that would impose a solution on all parties, 12.4% supported seeking a solution through the United Nations, and 2.4% otherwise. Approximately three quarters of Palestinians surveyed believed that a military escalation in the Gaza Strip would be in Israel"s interest and 18.9% said it would be in Hamas"s interest. Regarding the resumption of launching Al-Qassam missiles from Gaza into Israel, 42.5% said "strongly oppose", 27.1% "somewhat oppose", 16.0% "somewhat support", 13.8% "strongly support", and 0.2% expressed no opinion.[181]

To be continued, maybe.

In my opinion both sides have made mistakes, both sides have valid points, & a compromise has to be found. But I do think we are getting closer to peace.

As you can see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not as simple as people make it out to be.

One of the reasons for having elected people in charge of making decisions, is because many topics are very complex, & the average person doesn't really have time to go through the topic well enough. So we elect people to do it for us.

In my opinion most of us (myself included), have not really had the opportunity (or desire) to really delve into this conflict properly, & hear/understand both sides fully.

I believe, Unless one has really researched the topic well, with an unbiased open mind. That the right thing approach is to withhold judgment, & support peace, until a satisfactory solution is found.
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 6,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2012 1:59:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/22/2012 12:38:44 AM, jat93 wrote:
At 11/22/2012 12:04:27 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Can someone make the Pro-Israel argument? The maps, history, statistics, and news stories I've seen all sway me to the Palestinian side, but I've heard that the Israel-side has some good arguments. What are the main points?

Here goes nothing.

Hamas is a terrorist organization intent on destroying all of Israel from which Israel must defend itself. The Jewish people have a right to the land because God promised it to them and/or they have a historical connection to the land and/or they were extensively persecuted throughout history so they needed a homeland. The occupation isn't as bad as it seems; there is no real human rights crisis in the occupied territories and Israel actually does much more than it is morally obligated to in order to help them out. Israel has tried to negotiate for peace settlements many times only to be consistently rejected by the Palestinians. Hamas uses human shields. The IDF is one of the most moral armies in the world; they even inform the residents of the places they attack of incoming attacks before they happen so the people can evacuate. The UN, international community, and mainstream media are all unfairly biased against Israel and Jews (the grand anti-Semitic conspiracy), hence the ridiculously disproportionate amount of resolutions the UN has passed condemning Israeli treatment of the Palestinians in the occupied territories...

And are they really occupied territories? Israel won them fair and square in a war they didn't choose to start (Six Day War 1967), and in 2005 Israel even "disengaged" from Gaza, removing the settlements there. How much more do the Palestinians want? We give and we give but all they want is more more more; they'll never be happy until Israel is a non-Jewish state and completely in their control. Violent collective punishment against the Palestinian population is justified because they voted for and support terrorists and Israel must defend its security. No other country is so harshly condemned for merely defending its security... How else are they supposed to respond, how would America respond to a barrage of deadly rockets from Mexico? And speaking of America, look at what they did to the Native Americans - this is how often simply how new countries are formed (violently displacing, expelling, terrorizing the indigenous population) so why is Israel condemned for the violent, terror-induced expulsion of 800,000 Palestinians (at least) in 1948? It's an anti-Semitic hypocrisy I say! Stop hating on the Jews more than anyone else and applying unfair standards to them that no other country is expected to abide by. What do you expect them to do, with the barrage of rockets coming in from enemies who want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth?

(Note: This is the only part of this post which I believe is not blatantly false/contradictory/inconsistent to the best of my knowledge. I think the above two paragraphs are basically propaganda, full of flat out lies and distorted half truths. But still, having spent most of my life in Zionist, pro-Israel schools and synagogues and associating mostly with Zionist friends and family, and also studying the Israeli-Palestine conflict pretty extensively, I can say this is a solid summary of basic pro-Israel points.)

Thanks for taking the time to respond.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2012 4:05:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/25/2012 2:25:50 AM, truthseeker613 wrote:
Ancient history:
The notion of the "Land of Israel", known in Hebrew as Eretz Yisrael (or Eretz Yisroel), has been ...

Well, you could have simply provided the link to, rather than copying & pasting the entire Wikipedia article. Oh well, whatever floats one's dinghy.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2012 5:06:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/24/2012 6:56:59 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I'm not going to really respond to this with a response, but with a question. Not as an argument, because I'm generally ambivalent about the issue right now but as a straight-up question.

Would your call to support the Palestinians extend to groups such as Hamas?

Well, let's see, this country already supports the state of Israel, even though it often behaves like a bloody terrorist (that's "bloody" in the sense of sanguinary, i.e., murderous, not in the British slangy sense), so why would it be so beyond our government's moral pale to work in some constructive fashion with Hamas?! (Btw, see my response in your thread that examines the question "does capitalism breed conformity". I hope that it will provide some at least mildly sociocritically stimulating food for reflection.)
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Greyparrot
Posts: 21,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2012 1:51:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/25/2012 5:06:36 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/24/2012 6:56:59 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I'm not going to really respond to this with a response, but with a question. Not as an argument, because I'm generally ambivalent about the issue right now but as a straight-up question.

Would your call to support the Palestinians extend to groups such as Hamas?

Well, let's see, this country already supports the state of Israel, even though it often behaves like a bloody terrorist (that's "bloody" in the sense of sanguinary, i.e., murderous, not in the British slangy sense), so why would it be so beyond our government's moral pale to work in some constructive fashion with Hamas?! (Btw, see my response in your thread that examines the question "does capitalism breed conformity". I hope that it will provide some at least mildly sociocritically stimulating food for reflection.)

It IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT THE TERRORIST organization known as Israel uses mobile military command posts in the form of passenger busses. Hamas has no choice but to blow up the meatshields.
The extinction of the species is worse than the extinction of the nation, which is worse than the extinction of the tribe, which is worse than the extinction of the family, which is worse than the extinction of the individual. The second he reverses that list of priorities, he becomes a coward, and would be summarily disposed of by any civilized society that values its own survival.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2012 7:25:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/26/2012 12:05:01 PM, MilitaryAtheist wrote:
At 11/21/2012 9:55:28 PM, MouthWash wrote:
*yawn*

Hmm, this is all that you're capable of contributing? Well, with a screen name like MilitaryAtheist I'm not exactly surprised.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2012 7:53:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/26/2012 1:51:36 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/25/2012 5:06:36 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/24/2012 6:56:59 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I'm not going to really respond to this with a response, but with a question. Not as an argument, because I'm generally ambivalent about the issue right now but as a straight-up question.

Would your call to support the Palestinians extend to groups such as Hamas?

Well, let's see, this country already supports the state of Israel, even though it often behaves like a bloody terrorist (that's "bloody" in the sense of sanguinary, i.e., murderous, not in the British slangy sense), so why would it be so beyond our government's moral pale to work in some constructive fashion with Hamas?! (Btw, see my response in your thread that examines the question "does capitalism breed conformity". I hope that it will provide some at least mildly sociocritically stimulating food for reflection.)

It IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT THE TERRORIST organization known as Israel uses mobile military command posts in the form of passenger busses. Hamas has no choice but to blow up the meatshields.

Hmm, and what mock-legitimate excuse, pray tell, does Israel have when it inflicts violence and loss-of-life on genuinely, not rhetorically, innocent Arab civilians? "Well, the rocks that those junior terrorists (aka children) were pelting our armored vehicles with might have penetrated their plating and so our brave lads in the IDF had no choice but to unleash some defensive artillery fire on them"? Or, perhaps, "We have no choice but to bomb their communities, since our righteously hegemonic behavior and policies for some rationally unfathomable reason keep provoking them into firing rockets in the direction of our illegal settlements populated by innocent civilians."?
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Greyparrot
Posts: 21,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2012 9:46:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/26/2012 7:53:09 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/26/2012 1:51:36 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/25/2012 5:06:36 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/24/2012 6:56:59 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I'm not going to really respond to this with a response, but with a question. Not as an argument, because I'm generally ambivalent about the issue right now but as a straight-up question.

Would your call to support the Palestinians extend to groups such as Hamas?

Well, let's see, this country already supports the state of Israel, even though it often behaves like a bloody terrorist (that's "bloody" in the sense of sanguinary, i.e., murderous, not in the British slangy sense), so why would it be so beyond our government's moral pale to work in some constructive fashion with Hamas?! (Btw, see my response in your thread that examines the question "does capitalism breed conformity". I hope that it will provide some at least mildly sociocritically stimulating food for reflection.)

It IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT THE TERRORIST organization known as Israel uses mobile military command posts in the form of passenger busses. Hamas has no choice but to blow up the meatshields.

Hmm, and what mock-legitimate excuse, pray tell, does Israel have when it inflicts violence and loss-of-life on genuinely, not rhetorically, innocent Arab civilians? "Well, the rocks that those junior terrorists (aka children) were pelting our armored vehicles with might have penetrated their plating and so our brave lads in the IDF had no choice but to unleash some defensive artillery fire on them"? Or, perhaps, "We have no choice but to bomb their communities, since our righteously hegemonic behavior and policies for some rationally unfathomable reason keep provoking them into firing rockets in the direction of our illegal settlements populated by innocent civilians."?

Yes the armor plating on Israeli busses is incredibly thick.
The extinction of the species is worse than the extinction of the nation, which is worse than the extinction of the tribe, which is worse than the extinction of the family, which is worse than the extinction of the individual. The second he reverses that list of priorities, he becomes a coward, and would be summarily disposed of by any civilized society that values its own survival.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2012 10:03:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/26/2012 9:46:21 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/26/2012 7:53:09 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/26/2012 1:51:36 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/25/2012 5:06:36 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/24/2012 6:56:59 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I'm not going to really respond to this with a response, but with a question. Not as an argument, because I'm generally ambivalent about the issue right now but as a straight-up question.

Would your call to support the Palestinians extend to groups such as Hamas?

Well, let's see, this country already supports the state of Israel, even though it often behaves like a bloody terrorist (that's "bloody" in the sense of sanguinary, i.e., murderous, not in the British slangy sense), so why would it be so beyond our government's moral pale to work in some constructive fashion with Hamas?! (Btw, see my response in your thread that examines the question "does capitalism breed conformity". I hope that it will provide some at least mildly sociocritically stimulating food for reflection.)

It IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT THE TERRORIST organization known as Israel uses mobile military command posts in the form of passenger busses. Hamas has no choice but to blow up the meatshields.

Hmm, and what mock-legitimate excuse, pray tell, does Israel have when it inflicts violence and loss-of-life on genuinely, not rhetorically, innocent Arab civilians? "Well, the rocks that those junior terrorists (aka children) were pelting our armored vehicles with might have penetrated their plating and so our brave lads in the IDF had no choice but to unleash some defensive artillery fire on them"? Or, perhaps, "We have no choice but to bomb their communities, since our righteously hegemonic behavior and policies for some rationally unfathomable reason keep provoking them into firing rockets in the direction of our illegal settlements populated by innocent civilians."?

Yes the armor plating on Israeli busses is incredibly thick.

Hmm, is this your idea of a snappy comeback? It's hard to tell, since it's not really much in the way of a snappy comeback, yet seems to have been intended as one. Please clarify.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2012 10:17:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/26/2012 9:46:21 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/26/2012 7:53:09 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/26/2012 1:51:36 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/25/2012 5:06:36 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/24/2012 6:56:59 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I'm not going to really respond to this with a response, but with a question. Not as an argument, because I'm generally ambivalent about the issue right now but as a straight-up question.

Would your call to support the Palestinians extend to groups such as Hamas?

Well, let's see, this country already supports the state of Israel, even though it often behaves like a bloody terrorist (that's "bloody" in the sense of sanguinary, i.e., murderous, not in the British slangy sense), so why would it be so beyond our government's moral pale to work in some constructive fashion with Hamas?! (Btw, see my response in your thread that examines the question "does capitalism breed conformity". I hope that it will provide some at least mildly sociocritically stimulating food for reflection.)

It IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT THE TERRORIST organization known as Israel uses mobile military command posts in the form of passenger busses. Hamas has no choice but to blow up the meatshields.

Hmm, and what mock-legitimate excuse, pray tell, does Israel have when it inflicts violence and loss-of-life on genuinely, not rhetorically, innocent Arab civilians? "Well, the rocks that those junior terrorists (aka children) were pelting our armored vehicles with might have penetrated their plating and so our brave lads in the IDF had no choice but to unleash some defensive artillery fire on them"? Or, perhaps, "We have no choice but to bomb their communities, since our righteously hegemonic behavior and policies for some rationally unfathomable reason keep provoking them into firing rockets in the direction of our illegal settlements populated by innocent civilians."?

Yes the armor plating on Israeli busses is incredibly thick.

Or, perhaps Israeli busses are unusually heavily armored, given all of the hostility that Israel's treatment of the Palestinians provokes, and you're being quite serious?
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Greyparrot
Posts: 21,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2012 10:19:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/26/2012 10:17:14 PM, charleslb wrote:


It IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT THE TERRORIST organization known as Israel uses mobile military command posts in the form of passenger busses. Hamas has no choice but to blow up the meatshields.

Hmm, and what mock-legitimate excuse, pray tell, does Israel have when it inflicts violence and loss-of-life on genuinely, not rhetorically, innocent Arab civilians? "Well, the rocks that those junior terrorists (aka children) were pelting our armored vehicles with might have penetrated their plating and so our brave lads in the IDF had no choice but to unleash some defensive artillery fire on them"? Or, perhaps, "We have no choice but to bomb their communities, since our righteously hegemonic behavior and policies for some rationally unfathomable reason keep provoking them into firing rockets in the direction of our illegal settlements populated by innocent civilians."?

Yes the armor plating on Israeli busses is incredibly thick.

Or, perhaps Israeli busses are unusually heavily armored, given all of the hostility that Israel's treatment of the Palestinians provokes, and you're being quite serious?

yes.
The extinction of the species is worse than the extinction of the nation, which is worse than the extinction of the tribe, which is worse than the extinction of the family, which is worse than the extinction of the individual. The second he reverses that list of priorities, he becomes a coward, and would be summarily disposed of by any civilized society that values its own survival.
Greyparrot
Posts: 21,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2012 10:19:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
And 5000 posts yay!
The extinction of the species is worse than the extinction of the nation, which is worse than the extinction of the tribe, which is worse than the extinction of the family, which is worse than the extinction of the individual. The second he reverses that list of priorities, he becomes a coward, and would be summarily disposed of by any civilized society that values its own survival.
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2012 4:05:15 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Here's a full history: http://www.youtube.com...
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.