it's a repost of a post from another thread i did:
=======
here's another (http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/408359.html) one
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasite/images/iht_daily/D240304/boy_belt240304_ap.jpg
a pic of a 14 year old removing his explosive belt at a checkpoint
CHECKPOINTS SAVE LIVES - of palestinian children.


Sappers used a remote-controlled robot to pass the boy scissors so that he could cut the explosive belt off his body and then safely detonated it in a controlled explosion.
...
A Tanzim cell from the Balata refugee camp in Nablus took responsibility for sending the boy.

The boy said he received NIS 100 ($20 USD) to carry out a suicide attack.
...
The family of the boy, Hussam Abdo, said he was mentally slow. "He doesn't know anything," his brother, Hosni, said.
...
"He told us he didn't want to die. He didn't want to blow up,"


so the palestinian heroes are sending a 14 year old boy, who is apparently retarded, for 20 bucks, to his death...

http://members.rogers.com/9o9/p2.jpg
========================

i'm just wondering, how should the people who are responsible for sending this boy to his death be dealt with?

I can not give any respect to those that recruit others to die for a cause that they themselves take all precautions to avoid dying for but I do not like actions that have no consideration for the bystanders that will also be killed along with the target.

Call the people who recruit kids into suicide bombings as War Criminals, and treat them as such. Action should be taken which includes actively do anything in the UN's power to condemn this particular type of 'resistance', condemn them in the media, confiscate money, arrest, indict, jail them. In the same time not deligitimizing the Palestinian struggle, just this form of it.This is essentially what needs to happen, but it is worth noting that such has not happened because of some rather odd reasons.

• Apparently, to do so would "legitimize" the Palestinian struggle in a manner unsuitable to Israel or the United States
• The United States of America, through its government, finances, and, in the end, its role on the United Nations Security Council, has been the primary obstacle to this process.
• In terms of child soldiers, the Palestinian extremism comes in third on the list, at best. Uganda and DRC come to mind, while Liberia and Sierra Leone try to cope with the aftereffects. Pol Pot used child soldiers; "the world" got around to dealing with him ... eventually.

Personal notes on the above points:

I'm of the opinion that if you're determined to have a war, you should abide by the rules that humanity has set forth in various agreements. This is a simple doctrinal point, as I choose Hillel and a host of others over the classic post-Christian; "Do not do unto others as you would not have done unto yourself."

The Rule seems rather close to what humanity wants, anyway. ("Do what thou wilt, but not in my backyard.")

The Christian/post-Christian version, "Do unto others ...," works well enough for this occasion as well, but I choose the other as it applies better generally.

As an American, in wake of the 1990s militia hype, I'm very aware that there are those within this country who teach their children rather odd, militant ideas that occasionally cause trouble (e.g. "Ruby Ridge"). We don't have to put up with militant, indoctrinated children very often in the US, but we're always shocked and aghast when we see it. However, I have no reason to pretend that, in a similar perception of oppression, Americans would not send their young children to war, as well.

The child soldiers issue is one that is unnecessarily complicated. It seems rather simple: children shouldn't be soldiers. "The world" even agrees on this. But, still . . . we seem to have a problem with the idea.

So in the end, if "Joe" and I cannot come to some resolution on an issue sharply dividing us, and we absolutely must fight, both of us for the most part in society would prefer that the fight remain between us. We both would hope to not be taking it out on one another's children.

If, after that first fight, in a moment of calm, I decide that the only way to prevent another fight is to start another fight and steal his house, I can expect him to be angry. And when he sees my kid swimming in his pool? Yeah, he's gonna be pissed. But hey, he tried to take his house back, so what I'm going to do is build a missile and blow him up as he comes out of church. And just to be sure I'm going to blow up the church and the parking lot at the same time. Did I hurt other people? Not my problem; after all, I have a right to defend myself from Joe.

Wait 'til Joe's wife finds out that we turned her garden into a sandbox for the cats.

I'll just wait for the next big holiday, and when she's at dinner with her folks and sisters and nieces and nephews, I'll blow the place up with a rocket. Dead children? Pieces of old folks strewn on the lawn? Not my problem. I have a right to defend myself from Joe's wife.

Of course, this all could have been resolved ages ago if my best rich friend/patron wasn't on the police force and using his authority to prevent them from making me get out of Joe's house. After all, from my backyard, my friend/patron can climb the fence and steal Old Mrs. Jones' apples.

It's a war. It's a dumb war, but a war nonetheless. And treating it like a legitimate conflict would be a start toward resolving the issue to such a point as general human progress can be had.

your analogy of Joe is flawed

and you calling this a "child soldier" phoenomena is wrong too.
they're not just training kids as soldiers... that's immoral in itself. they are strapping a bomb on a 14 year old... last week they did it to a 10-year-old.
that's not a child-soldier phoenomenon.
not even Pol-Pot did that.

now, you don't like the way UN is structured.. in a sense, you're saying that if UN chooses to do option A, then it would be US dictating to the palestinians what they should and shouldn't do.

1 - they would be asking them to comply to human laws of war.. i see nothing wrong with that
2 - but the UN is not the US. it has over a 100 nations.

france should do this independently of UN. so should spain, UK, brazil, india, etc. etc. etc.

yes, it would be dictating to the 'palestinians' what they can and cannot do
but it would only be fair, because they're dictating to Israel how to defend itself from such atrocities

a continuation of the original story
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1080108195675


The quick thinking of paratroopers at the Hawara checkpoint near Nablus prevented Husam Abdu, 14, who was wearing a belt of explosives, from blowing himself up on Wednesday.
...
"The soldiers' quick action not only saved their lives but those of 200 Palestinian men, women, and children who were at the roadblock."
...
"I wouldn't be surprised if the terrorists attempt to dispatch a pregnant woman wearing explosives next," [a commander] said.
...
The boy became shy, asking troops, "Do I have to take my clothes off here?"
...
Abdu, who lives in Nablus, told interrogators he was jeered at by his friends who made fun of him, and decided to take advantage of the offer.

"Blowing myself up is the only chance I've got to have sex with 72 virgins in the Garden of Eden," Abdu said his handlers had told him.
[[[ you think that this is funny? they seriously believe this! adults, and children! ]]]

[his mother told him] "You never are like this," she said "What happened?"

"I just want you to be happy with me," he responded.


this is the state of the death-cult in the territories.
something should be done to stop this! let them have their struggle, but not like this!

Have the UN and all of its voting members provide securty on Isreal's borders and see how they like getting blown up.

It's tragic. Absolutely tragic. The use of any child in such a way in any conflict is vile. To abuse the innocence that only children have in this world is indescribable. The use of children for any political or military gain should always be deplored. I keep thinking of the desperation that would drive someone to commit such an act against this child but no amount of desperation or feeling of hopelessness should allow a child to be exploited in such a manner. This boy was only doing as he was told by others. I just hope that the Isreali recriminations against he and his family will be non-existent. The terrified look on his face on the news this morning only made me think that someone should hug him. Poor kid.

they won't do anything to him or his family
but i assure you they will try to kill whoever sent him
and i know the kid's parents (and many other palestinian parents) will secretly thank the IDF for that

LOOK AT THE ISRAELI KIDS, TRAINING FOR THE NEXT KILL !!

http://www.koshertaxscam.com/gungirls.jpg


http://www.koshertaxscam.com/info.html

note to moderator: PLEASE DONT TAKE THE IMAGE AWAY SINCE YOU ALLOW THE JEW, OTHE, TO POST HIS OWN IMAGES. THANK YOU.

your analogy of Joe is flawedHow so?and you calling this a "child soldier" phoenomena is wrong too.I think you're splitting hairs.now, you don't like the way UN is structured.. in a sense, you're saying that if UN chooses to do option A, then it would be US dictating to the palestinians what they should and shouldn't do.Perhaps if you think of it this way:Of the 248 vetoes recorded by the five Security Council members since the inception of the United Nations, the United States has cast 73 - the vast majority of them related to the Middle East. Here is a list of the US vetoes that number 38. In addition there have been 25 US abstentions on UN Security Council resolutions that are condemning Israel . . . .

. . . . Until the Nixon administration, the United States had never employed its veto power at the UN Security Council. The first U. S veto was cast on March 17, 1970, over Southern Rhodesia. The second veto came two years later when Washington sought to protect Israel from a resolution condemning Israel for one of its attacks on its neighbors. Since then, the United has cast its veto a total of 38 times to shield Israel from Council draft resolutions that condemned, deplored, denounced, affirmed, endorsed, called upon and urged Israel to obey the world body. (Middle East Information Center (http://middleeastinfo.org/article63.html)) The same list presented at MEIC turns up all over (http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/special-edition/terrorism50/unresolu.htm), and comes apparently from the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs and other sources.1 - they would be asking them to comply to human laws of war.. i see nothing wrong with thatWell and fine. On this we don't disagree in principle.2 - but the UN is not the US. it has over a 100 nations.See above citation regarding vetoes.yes, it would be dictating to the 'palestinians' what they can and cannot do
but it would only be fair, because they're dictating to Israel how to defend itself from such atrocities Why do you continue to ignore the fact of Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian territory?

A note for Crazy151Drinker:

Do you really think the Israelis would appreciate that? Remember that the UN doesn't share Israel's sentiments regarding Palestinian territories. All the Baby Blues would accomplish is disrupting the Israeli war effort, leaving those occupying the occupied territory hanging.

UN condemnations....
since the 1967 war, there have been very unproportional number of resolutions re: Israel
you even see it today.

before, it was the old Soviet and Arab blocs
now it's just the Arab bloc and the nations that are afraid of terrorism who back them.
when countries like Syria are on the security council, they are in a nice position to bring in nice resolutions... but what on earth is Syria doing in the security council?

how many non-soviet and non-arab nations introduced these vetoed resolutions since the 1970's? i haven't checked, but my guess is not much

even so, the UN has been particularly unfair to Israel and its plight.
recently there was a resolution put forth by israel in the General Assembly to condemn the victimizing of Israeli children
a pretty trivial resolution.. .right? that shouldn't be too much to ask.
guess what... it was met with so much resistance, it didn't even get to a vote.

when the UN fixes its shit then the vetoes you speak about will have weight. but now, they don't say anything.

i wonder who are the other 2 who voted for option B... and where are their explanations?

I think people tend to forget that the UN is nothing more than a tool for countries to screw each other.

when the UN fixes its shit then the vetoes you speak about will have weight. but now, they don't say anything.How predictably convenient.

:rolleyes:

hey, the UN is far, far from perfect.... i've demonstrated it in many threads, including this one

in its current form it is a disaster. selectively appealing to its authority is flawed logic, imo

Well you should be happy that the US has vetoed yet again another resolution against Israel. Credibility is not America's forte obviously.

'forte'... your favourite new word.. lol

Tiasa - this one's for you and your FPS adventures:

extremely graphic content (http://www.gravett.org/tm/archives/015597.html)

this is what suicide bombings do to people

talk about overkill, eh?

world, please don't tie up our hands to fight this evil... we're trying to be cooperative here, but it's getting increasingly difficult to do so with your condemnations of the victim rather than the attacker!

this one's for you and your FPS adventuresIndeed.this is what suicide bombings do to people

talk about overkill, eh?What I don't get is why Israel would choose to wallow in the slop. The Palestinian war effort has its problems to be sure. But the Palestinians are not the one who have cloven the Israeli hoof. That's the Israelis own doing, their own choice.world, please don't tie up our hands to fight this evil... we're trying to be cooperative here, but it's getting increasingly difficult to do so with your condemnations of the victim rather than the attacker!End the illegal occupation.

("Our"? Are Jews around the world fair game now, or do you need to update your profile?)

getting back to the child-bomb story (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1080188586900) (a development)


"If I find out who sent him on this mission, I will not hesitate to fire two bullets at his head," said Abdu's uncle, Abu Muhammad. "I don't even mind spending the rest of my life in prison. Those who did this are criminals."
...
His mother, however, said she would not have opposed the decision to send her son on the suicide mission had he been over 18.
!??
...
"If he was over 18, that would have been possible, and I might even encourage him to do it. But it's impossible for a child his age to do it."
Abdu, you're too young to kill yourself and other people.. just like smoking, you have to wait until you're 18!
now that's what i call "good parenting"

End the illegal occupation
of what?

"Our"? Are Jews around the world fair game now, or do you need to update your profile?
they've always been.
would you like a list of attacks on international Jewish targets to promote the "palestinian cause"?

of what? http://www.jatonyc.org/UNresolutions.html

Abdu, you're too young to kill yourself and other people.. just like smoking, you have to wait until you're 18!
now that's what i call "good parenting"This is one of the hangups that comes with the "homicide bomber" thing.

Your note makes no sense. In the United States, I watched kids as young as 16 go and pledge themselves to the Army. Why couldn't they go then? Well, they were too young to kill and die. They had to wait until they were 18. Of course, at that time, nobody expected to ever actually have to go to war. The Army was something you did to make money for college.

But it's a coin flip. I was raised by the kind of capitalists, for instance, whose solution to any problem was to sell out. By the logic of their instructions, one should never complain about who is in charge, but simply seek the best profits the situation allows. So they're the extreme other end of the equation: if someone comes and takes your home, kills your children, and wrecks your life, you should simply be happy and thank them for the privilege.

Somewhere in between is an unhappy but generally-accepted medium.

If Israel chooses to withdraw from the world community, I will cease to hold the world community as a standard. Of course, if Israel chooses to withdraw from the world community, I would expect the world to either play Pilate or say, "Okay," and shut it down.

In the meantime, anti-Semitism does not extend to include a failure to award one religion in one nation supremacist privilege over another people.

This is one of the hangups that comes with the "homicide bomber" thing.
oh, so it's a "hangup" with that "thing"? i thought it was a crime against humanity... :confused:

The Army was something you did to make money for college.
and that's an important difference. i think the majority of the people in the US army today, don't want to be in Iraq. not that they think their government is wrong, but because they never thought they'd actually have to go to war.

if someone comes and takes your home, kills your children, and wrecks your life,
if the palestinians stopped blowing Israelis up no body would die
it's like people have no brain.
funny how you equate 'logic-oriented' people, from the west, to fanatical arabs who encourage their children to do this (http://www.gravett.org/tm/archives/015597.html) (graphic)

"wild animals" comes to my mind

http://www.jatonyc.org/UNresolutions.html
as i said before, this is selectively appealing to UN's authority
these resolutions are worded in such a way that any lawyer can shoot holes through them.

how about i appeal to Donald Rumsfeld's authority
http://www.smolanim.com/size.html (scroll all the way to the end)

"My feelings about the so-called occupied territories are that there was a war, Israel urged neighboring countries not to get involved in it once it started. They all jumped in and they lost a lot of real estate to Israel, because Israel prevailed in the conflict." Donald Rumsfeld, US Secretary of Defense
...
Since then, Rumsfeld said, Israel repeatedly has offered to pull back but "at no point has it been agreed upon by the other side."

Rumsfeld declined to call on Israel to abandon Jewish settlements. He referred to the West Bank as "so-called occupied territory," signaling he does not share the Bush administration's view of Israel's presence on the land.


another (http://www.afsi.org/PRESSREL/rumsfeld1.htm) source

The parallel statement to that would be that Judea and Samaria were actually "occupied" by Jordan from 1948-1967 after Jordan took that land from Israel in the 1948 war. When Israel regained it in 1967, the land was then in the hands of its rightful owner.

of course, there's another issue that's complicating the so-called "return", if there ever is to be one. Israel won't give land and create a huge terrorist entity, right next door to its population centers, to the terrorists making the decisions in th PA now, especially with Hamas not being dismantled.

but anyway,
how about you answer the question
end illegal occupation of what?

as i said before, this is selectively appealing to UN's authority
these resolutions are worded in such a way that any lawyer can shoot holes through them.

Really? Care to explain to me the vagueness of this? The UN’s authority is the only authority Oth, Israel is a signatory to the UN and thus should have to follow her rules.

Affirming once more that the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 1/ is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,

1. Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

2. Strongly deplores the failure of Israel to abide by Security Council resolutions 237 (1967) of 14 June 1967, 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968 and 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971 and the consensus statement by the President of the Security Council on 11 November 1976 2/ and General Assembly resolutions 2253 (ES-V) and 2254 (ES-V) of 4 and 14 July 1967, 32/5 of 28 October 1977 and 33/113 of 18 December 1978;

3. Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories;


http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/ba123cded3ea84a5852560e50077c2dc!OpenDocument

??? What holes are there to be seen? Do expand...

end illegal occupation of what?

Well we could start here:

http://mondediplo.com/maps/IMG/artoff2069.jpg

oh, so it's a "hangup" with that "thing"? i thought it was a crime against humanity... Stop being so damned stupid; the problems with the term "homicide bomber" are fairly well-known.and that's an important difference. i think the majority of the people in the US army today, don't want to be in Iraq. not that they think their government is wrong, but because they never thought they'd actually have to go to war. I tend to think it's an important aspect. I'm just dwelling on the fact that I could have committed myself to service at 16, but not served until I was 18. The difference is only a technicality.

A 14 year-old? I have problems with that. I've spoken harshly of the practice in Africa. I will continue to speak harshly of it in general. However, that LURD committed what appear to be war crimes does not change the fact that Liberian President Taylor was indicted as a war criminal, had brought misery to Liberia, and was more than simply a menace to the people of his own nation, as well as his neighbors. LURD intentionally shelled civilians, and when asked about it the leadership stated that they considered those targets fair because it was the obligation of the Liberian people to expel Taylor. The logic doesn't work out at all. In the end, the world does need to consider charging the LURD leadership and the field commanders responsible for those offenses with war crimes.

And the same is true of the Palestinians. In the end, those who are responsible--those who are left among those responsible--should be brought to justice. Of course, as we know, the one thing Israel is too stingy to afford is justice. Sharon has been indicted in Belgium, but nobody seems to take that seriously.

Look: for as long as I've known of Israeli politics, two discussions have dominated the American scene--

• How evil are the Palestinians!
• How "unfortunate" are the "necessary" actions of Israel!

In other words, while people have been willing to examine the Palestinian militants in an isolated sphere ("They're all terrorists!") we have never really examined Israeli crimes in a similarly isolated light. The Israeli-advocate response is consistently to argue that two wrongs make a right.

And now that the world debate is a loud enough chatter to have measurable implications for the Israeli political position, the Israeli advocates are still afraid to discuss Israeli atrocities without bracketing that issue between a couple Palestinian atrocities in order to mask the Israeli wrong beneath the idea that two wrongs make a right.

Nobody else's "wrong" justifies your wrong actions.

Now, to defer to the cowardly appeals to emotion intended to distract attention from Israeli wrongdoing, I will note that yes, this does apply to the Palestinians as well! Okay? Don't be so fucking paranoid that you need to be reminded of how horrible the Palestinians are every five seconds in order to feel comfortable in your politics.

But the Palestinians, in this conflict, are the initial deprived. Israel seems to wish nothing more than for the world to forget that fact. Israel is the encroaching state. Israel is and has been in this conflict the state. The Palestinians are the opposition.

Look at international protests against WTO, WB/IMF, and other organizations. Tell you what: let's give the protesters body armor, gas masks, and guns with wooden and rubber bullets. Let's give them all the gear the police have and then put them in the streets. And then we'll see how confident the police are in their right to suspend liberty.

Analogously, if y'all are going to have a war, I'd rather see the Palestinians armed with tanks, jets, helicopters, rockets, missiles ... the works. Short of that? I look at 9/11 and I know a fully-fuelled 757 is a poor man's F-16. An idiot with dynamite strapped to his chest is a poor man's rocket strike launched from a combat helicopter. It's ridiculous. It's brutal. It's uncalled-for. But what's new? It's a war.if the palestinians stopped blowing Israelis up no body would dieYes. If everyone just let the thieves steal from them, then, "Nobody would get hurt."it's like people have no brain.I admit it would be the preferable condition; then I would be obliged to consider you merely crippled, and not actually sinister. As it is, it's a toss-up.funny how you equate 'logic-oriented' people, from the west, to fanatical arabs who encourage their children to do this (graphic)Yet another appeal to emotion in lieu of an argument."wild animals" comes to my mind That's absolutely disgusting. Why don't you build yourself a time machine and take a trip to Berlin, 1938 or so? You'd get along well with the authority there.

Just to be clear--do you really think your racism is reflective of Jews around the world?how about i appeal to Donald Rumsfeld's authorityI live in a country stolen by descendants of Europeans through genocide on the merit of the presumption that God intended them to own the land. I grew up in a society that taught the benevolence of giving Israel to the Jews, and actually tried to avoid discussion of who was there before. (It's in our nature.) Donald Rumsfeld's opinion doesn't surprise me in the least.of course, there's another issue that's complicating the so-called "return", if there ever is to be one. Israel won't give land and create a huge terrorist entity, right next door to its population centers, to the terrorists making the decisions in th PA now, especially with Hamas not being dismantled.I know, I know, I'm familiar with the argument: We won't stop oppressing until you stop complaining about being oppressed.

It's just as stupid an argument now as it always has been.but anyway,
how about you answer the question
end illegal occupation of what ?I did. Just because you want to make this on the one hand about all Jews everywhere while, on the other, dismissing those Jews who disagree with you, doesn't mean you actually have a point. We can start with Palestinian territory in the West Bank. Don't like my interpretation? Let's get it from the United Nations:The Wall being built by Israel in the name of security penetrates deep into Palestinian territory and has resulted in the creation of a zone between the Green Line (the de facto border between Israel and Palestine) and the Wall inside the OPT . . . . Both the construction of the Wall and the operation of the permit system for the "Closed Zone" between the Wall and the Green Line have . . . . violated norms of human rights law and international humanitarian law.

The permit system . . . is administered in an arbitrary and humiliating manner . . . . The permit system has also drastically interfered with education, health care and family life. This system, which restricts Palestinian freedom of movement to the whim of the Occupying Power, creates anger, anxiety and humiliation among the population. In the result, it is likely to create insecurity for Israel rather than security . . . .

. . . . The Wall might have been justified as a legitimate security measure to prevent would-be suicide bombers from entering Israel had it followed the course of the Green Line. The manner in which it has been built ... cannot, however, be justified on security grounds. The building of the Wall in such a way that it separates farmers from their land, isolates villages from employment, schools and health care, brings settlers within the de facto borders of Israel and confirms the unlawful annexation of East Jerusalem, suggests that the main purpose of the Wall is annexation, albeit by a de facto means, of additional land for the State of Israel.

The Wall violates the prohibition on the acquisition of territory by forcible means, and seriously undermines the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people by reducing the size of a future Palestinian State. Moreover, it violates important norms of international humanitarian law prohibiting the annexation of occupied territory, the establishment of settlements, the confiscation of private land and the forcible transfer of people. Human rights norms are likewise violated, particularly those affirming freedom of movement, the right to family life, and the right to education and health care.The above is from the summary of the February 27, 2004 report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights. The 13-page PDF can be downloaded from this link (http://www.miftah.org/Doc/Reports/2004/JohnDugardFebruary272004.pdf). John Dugard's report concludes:This addendum to the report of 8 September 2003 (E/CN.4/2004/6), and the report itself, identify serious violations of the international law prohibiting the acquisition of territory by force, of international human rights law and of international humanitarian law. The correct response on the part of States to such violations of international law is explicit non-recognition of the acquisition of territory by forcible means occasioned by the Wall and the condemnation of the violation of human rights and international humanitarian law that follow from this. It is recommended that the Commission call upon States to take such action. It is also recommended that the Commission establish a firmer presence of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in the region. This should be done by expanding the mandate of the Office in the region to include monitoring of human rights violations in addition to technical assistance.There is also an interesting three-sided issue, though I defer in this case to Spokesman Eckhard:

• George Fletcher's "Annan's Careless Language" (NY Times, March 21, 2002) and UN Spokesman for the Secretary General Frederic Eckhard's response, "A Delicate Word in the Mideast." http://www.soci.niu.edu/~phildept/Kapitan/IPC40.html
• Nasser Al-Kidwa's "Israel's Illegal Occupation." http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/2411.htm

Therein lies an interesting discussion in itself.

Let me make myself clear for the record: Israel has a perfect right to withdraw from the world community and act according to its fancy. However, as long as Israel chooses to be a member of the world community, they have certain responsibilities, and blaming the failures of others so exclusively for one's own failures, as Israel does, is inadequate.

End the illegal occupation of Palestinian lands. That will give the world better leverage against Palestinian hostility.

Treat people like human beings--for once. That will pretty much end any question about Israel's role or motives in the continuing atrocity that is this dispute.

so far, only 56% believe that what the arab terrorists tried to do was/is wrong.

my initial thought was it was PM registering different nicknames and voting multiple times... but something tells me that's not the case.

.........................
nico:
i'm just wondering, were there any UN condemnations / resolutions when the Arabs attacked Israel in 1948? what about the time leading to the 1967 war?

the UN has no validity

if it's fine that half of the nations in it (the same half that's anti Israel) keeps none of the UN requirements to be there, then it's fine when Israel doesn't fully comply
although it does comply

Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity
oh, there's a distinction between Arab and Palestinian?
is the land Arab? what does that mean?
'legal validity' ... it may not be there but it could be created... at the end of the negotiations.

Strongly deplores the failure of Israel to abide by Security Council resolutions 237 (1967) of 14 June 1967, 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968 and 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971 and the consensus statement by the President of the Security Council on 11 November 1976 2/ and General Assembly resolutions 2253 (ES-V) and 2254 (ES-V) of 4 and 14 July 1967, 32/5 of 28 October 1977 and 33/113 of 18 December 1978;
no mentioning of any condemnations of the invasions

i gotta admit nico, those are good links

i think Israel should withdraw from the UN.
Israel must examine whether it is worthwhile to be a member of and to contribute financially to the various international organizations that consistently work against her interests.

same goes for the US

imagine what would've happened if the US left? the funding would stop. the power would diminish. etc. etc.

UN is an impotent corrupt organization and a false idol. it is consistently working against democracies, and for dictators. it fails to 'stand up to the challange' when the occasion arises. (e.g. Rwanda)

what kind of moral or legal authority does it have for me to appeal to it?
there are serious discussions among US intellectuals about withdrawing from the UN unless it completely restructures itself.

that would be a good idea.

Well, folks ... there we have the answer.

If you don't like the rules, withdraw from the world community. Of course, we already knew that.

The only real difference would be that Israel would finally be admitting that neither peace nor justice have their place in that nation.

Of course, we already knew that.

tiasa, to read your responses alone is exhausting... now i have to respond to you too? :-s

the "world community" is very divided. some of those in the "world community" are commiting much worse atrocities. their actions are not taken into account. Israel would not be withdrawing from "world community".. only the corrupt bureaucracy called UN

to be responding to all your points would be a waste of my time (i see you're trying to tire me out here.. it's working)... i've covered most of it before anyway.

just a few things to say:

Nobody else's "wrong" justifies your wrong actions.
and why is that?
someone else's "wrong" is the source of the action
but that's too philosophical. i'm talking about saving lives here, you're talking about phylosophical hypothetical situations
just the continuation of your earlier diatribe
this is the "couch talk" of yours i was talking about earlier

Israel is the encroaching state. Israel is and has been in this conflict the state. The Palestinians are the opposition.
that's what it looks like in the caleidoscope Yasser Arafat's gave you
in reality, it is the Middle Eastern nations as the "state", and Israel as the "opposition"

if y'all are going to have a war, I'd rather see the Palestinians armed with tanks, jets, helicopters, rockets, missiles ... the works
it's been done before. 3 times. when Israel was much weaker. even before Israel enjoyed US diplomatic and weapon support.
it failed.
that was before the 'palestinians' were considered as a unique people

a poor man's F-16
i heard that before, and i don't buy it.
during WWII there was some sporadic Jewish resistance to the far worse atrocities committed against them. there was no suicide bombing then. there was no suicide bombing in Rwanda. there's no suicide bombings in Tibet.

and another thing - i refuse to accept the notion that Strong, by definition is the Wrong, and Weak, by definition is Right.

funny how you equate 'logic-oriented' people, from the west, to fanatical arabs who encourage their children to do this (graphic)
---------------------------------
Yet another appeal to emotion in lieu of an argument
the argument is that we (as in 'free societies') think pragmatically and logically. they (as in despotic deeply religious islamist societies) think a little differently (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=34042).

I grew up in a society that taught the benevolence of giving Israel to the Jews, and actually tried to avoid discussion of who was there before. (It's in our nature.)
are you kidding me?
i suspect you've upgraded yourself to "coco puffs" (i'm sure you would know what that means)
it is precisely because of this discussion that successive US administrations since the 1967 war were pro Israel.
How the hell can you say that discussion is stifled (sp) in a free society as the US ???
please lay down the pipe man. for your kid's sake

End the illegal occupation of Palestinian lands. That will give the world better leverage against Palestinian hostility.
1- there are no such things as "palestinian", "palestinian land", and "occupied palestinian land". well, there is that land which is occupied by people who recently renamed themselves to "palestinians"... i'm not sure who is occupying who though, or if the word even applies
2- as far as getting leverage, it never got Israel anywhere. you see, the Arabs' ultimate goal is not one that can be negotiated about. there is only one way to make them shuttup... and we both know that it ain't "giving 'back' 'west bank' and gaza"

anyway... i don't know if i can go through another one of your very long posts. you seem to like it, i have other things to do

otheadp, for people like myself who are reluctant to blind our virgin eyes could you please provide a description of what you are seeing? i would look... i feel one ought too... but i haven't examined this gore before and i am about to go to bed and stuff.

i see things slightly differently than the BBC, mate ;)
if you have any questions about "the conflict", go here (http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/myths/mftoc.html)

torsos severed at the waist pronged on a metal railing? what was the average size of the body pieces?

give it a PASSION gore rating between 1-10 if you want.

now i have to respond to you too? Nobody says you have to respond. Of course, I'm wondering why you call these posts of yours "responses."the "world community" is very divided.True.some of those in the "world community" are commiting much worse atrocities. And?their actions are not taken into accountOne thing Israel can do, then, is lead the way in compelling the UN to make an account of those actions. Of course, as you're aware, the world is a very busy place, and it doesn't help to have countries like the US dicking around the UN, regardless of whether or not it's on Israel's behalf. So what happens is that the UN sets priorities. Some nations have had two, three wars in the same time this has been going on. (The US, for instance, has had four ... and I'm sure I'm forgetting something there.) So ... yeah, this ongoing conflict demands a peculiar amount the world's attention.Israel would not be withdrawing from "world community".. only the corrupt bureaucracy called UNIs there a government on the face of the earth that wouldn't be calling the kettle black in calling the UN corrupt?

If the UN is corrupt, it is because the people who come to it bear that corruption. The success of the UN depends on good faith, an idea absent from Israeli relations with the world; however, as an American, this seems a considerably smaller point than the agitation it can raise--good faith is absent from my own nation's government in nearly all things.to be responding to all your points would be a waste of my timeIf you say so.i've covered most of it before anyway.And that makes it true? That makes it correct? That somehow makes it not a steaming heap of pig manure?and why is that?
someone else's "wrong" is the source of the actionSo one who feels wronged is not responsible for the consequences of his actions in response to that perceived wrong?i'm talking about saving lives hereNo, you're not. You're talking about trading lives. I know it's hard for you to understand, but Palestinians are human beings, too.that's what it looks like in the caleidoscope Yasser Arafat's gave you And how would he have done that?in reality, it is the Middle Eastern nations as the "state", and Israel as the "opposition":rolleyes:

See, if displacing people wasn't problematic enough on its own, doing it when surrounded on three sides by people who might resent the intrusion and leaving yourself no place to go except into the sea just ... complicates the matter nearly ineffably.during WWII there was some sporadic Jewish resistance to the far worse atrocities committed against them. there was no suicide bombing then. there was no suicide bombing in Rwanda. there's no suicide bombings in Tibet.First off, Tibet is Tibet is Tibet. Tibet is one place where reality is actually different than the rest of the world. Has a lot to do with setting, but Tibet may well be the strangest place on Earth.

And I think there's something different between sporadic resistance and a continued situation over the course of decades.and another thing - i refuse to accept the notion that Strong, by definition is the Wrong, and Weak, by definition is Right.Fair enough. But what do you think that has to do with anything?the argument is that we (as in 'free societies') think pragmatically and logically. they (as in despotic deeply religious islamist societies) think a little differently .I'm going to let David Gilmour speak for me:

Us, and them
And after all we're only ordinary men
Me, and you
God only knows it's not what we would choose to do
Forward he cried from the rear
and the front rank died
And the General sat, and the lines on the map
moved from side to side
Black and blue
And who knows which is which and who is who
Up and down
And in the end it's only round and round and round
Haven't you heard it's a battle of words
the poster bearer cried
Listen son, said the man with the gun
There's room for you inside.


it is precisely because of this discussion that successive US administrations since the 1967 war were pro Israel. Silly me. I forgot. In the United States, they always teach students the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

:rolleyes: How the hell can you say that discussion is stifled (sp) in a free society as the US ??? Even into high school, discussion of the situation in the classroom was given such a shabby treatment that it may well be that part of why the world chatterbox is muttering so loudly about Israel is that they realize there's a generation coming afoot in the United States, at least, that is gaining political influence in accordance with its advancing age, and is in one way or another deeply shocked at some point by the amount of bullshit it was asked to digest. So it could be that Palestinians are gaining respect because that generation that was taught so irresponsibly, while it pretends to be shocked at very little in the world, will at least admit from time to time to being aghast at the sheer magnitude of the misinformation. Like the WMD fiasco in Iraq; what Bush and Company are hoping against is that the numbness will wear off and people will realize the magnitude--in my youth, to suggest that our government was capable of such a snow job (full-blown deception not even required),was capable of such a major loss of face, was nearly blasphemous. Only "Commies" thought like that. And yet, here we are. It's actually good to have a couple of shocks to the paradigm before having the misinformation epiphany about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Add to that the idea that my youth was among the last to go through our high school years without the internet. In this modern day, with how many TV channels and the world at your fingertips on the web, news has a different impact. Fresher, the shocking is more shocking, but in the massive overdose of information many people have moved from shocked to being in shock. It's not FPS games that make me not really wince at the graphic footage. It's not movies or heavy metal that caused me to look at the burning towers and shrug and say, "Was gonna happen eventually."

Think about it: My father, literally psychologically scarred watching Kruschev bang his shoe and herald the destruction of the United States of America. Its only the last ten years that his reaction to that moment finally spent itself. And it kicked and gasped until the end. Of course, when I pause to think about the idea of "our first TV set," or the neighbors coming over to watch when they got their first color set ... I'm used to watching people threaten each other over the airwaves. Games? Movies? Nothing compares to what life shows you, as your pictures of what's left of Yassin made so clear. But it's the evening news (3 networks and PBS), then CNN, and now the internet that leave my generation so goddamned dispassionate about these things. We're sick and tired of trying to have a moral stand about something that's wrong through and through. Picking sides doesn't matter. We knew that picking "their" side (any "enemy") didn't make sense, but time and knowledge showed clearly the artifice and emptiness of "our" side.

So here's another "Us and Them" for you: We want you all to stop this ridiculous shit going on. No more. "We," as in people not Israel or Palestine, want "you all," as in Israelis and Palestinians and, as you have it, Jews around the world, to stop this ridiculous shit going on in the Middle East.

But you're not. Not until one or all of you are dead.there are no such things as "palestinian", "palestinian land", and "occupied palestinian land". well, there is that land which is occupied by people who recently renamed themselves to "palestinians"... i'm not sure who is occupying who though, or if the word even appliesSo complain to the United Nations. If Israel doesn't want to respect the world, then the world shouldn't be expected to respect Israel. In the meantime, that's a really stupid hair to split at this point. You're willing to talk about an "us" and a "them," but in addition to humanity, you wish to deny any word referring to "them"?

Your argument is based entirely on racism and personal attacks. Just think: in fifty or a hundred years, we can celebrate the opening of the Palestinian "Holocaust" museum.as far as getting leverage, it never got Israel anywhere. you see, the Arabs' ultimate goal is not one that can be negotiated about. there is only one way to make them shuttup... and we both know that it ain't "giving 'back' 'west bank' and gaza"You're right.

:rolleyes:

Just another few links, and I include one of them to keep you from whining that I'm not stating Israel's case for you.

• Aleinikov, Boris I. "Arabs are not entitled for '1967 borders' by International Law." Netanhayu.org, June 30, 2002. See http://www.netanyahu.org/ararenotenfo.html
• Jerusalem Post. "EU: We won't accept security fence land grab." Associated Press, March 26, 2004. See http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1080282552313
• Electronic Intifada. "EU won't recognize any change to pre-1967 borders." March 26, 2004. See http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article2544.shtml

(The last page contains a link to the EU Presidency Conclusions in PDF format.)anyway... i don't know if i can go through another one of your very long posts. you seem to like it, i have other things to do Whatever works.

To revisit a point of yours for a moment:

• I link available at the EI story about the EU (see above) led me to an article that merits a moment's comment. You asked about the stifling of information in a free society. I discussed in this post some things about education and news media. However, one thing that strikes me is that sources sympathetic to the Israeli cause never touch on certain questions. Other sources do. That these questions happen to strike a chord with my own sentiments is significant. Whether or not I agree with one's conclusions, it's nice to see people entertaining the questions:. . . . the new documentary Peace, Propaganda, and the Promised Land, from the Media Education Foundation, goes beyond charging the U.S. news media (particularly television news) of being biased in favor of the Israeli government. A series of filters is identified, describing how and why certain orthodoxies appear in the news media, and how these filters shape news coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Anyone who has read more than a handful of U.S. news reports on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict knows what these orthodoxies are. No historical context regarding the illegality of Israel's colonizing settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is provided. Israel retaliates, while Palestinians provoke. Yasser Arafat inexplicably turned down Ehud Barak's unprecedented generous offer and incited the current intifada out of spite towards Israel. The United States is an impartial peace broker. Relative quiet exists when it's only Palestinians who are dying. What is missing from the coverage is what it means for Palestinians to endure checkpoints and curfews, as well as Israeli voices of dissent, and the billions of dollars the U.S. gives to Israel each year. But why are these conventions so pervasive in the media? (Electronic Intifada (http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article2545.shtml))I might end up seeing the film and disagreeing with it entirely, but they have my curiosity because they choose to address the questions at all.

And yes, it is significant to me that the pro-Israeli party line on this issue is to ridicule the questions. From the same article:Robert Fisk, the Middle East correspondent for The Independent, says, "I was very close to the pizzeria [suicide] bombing in Jerusalem in August of last year [2002], and I got there faster than the police did. And I saw an Israeli baby without a head, a woman with a chair leg sticking out of her chest. I my reporting, for example, I'm pretty brutal about suicide bombers. I call them wicked ... but I also make a point of saying, 'Why?'" Is Mr. Fisk really being unreasonable in asking, "Why"?

there are 2100 words in your last response
this includes finding links, formatting, wording... don't you ever do anything else besides hanging out in here?

that's enough of debating for me for one day....

don't you ever do anything else besides hanging out in here?It's true I generally don't have much of a life these days, but this is cheaper, less expensive, and more challenging than walking up to the bar and listen to the same crap from a bunch of professional drunks. Actually, to be honest, the professional drunks are more pleasant than you.that's enough of debating for me for one dayWhat, you call that "debating"?

Okay, okay. Whatever.

tiassa I will make this post semi-brief but please try to understand what I m trying to say. A mouse will have to bite the elephant a million times to kille it, but the elephant has to only move slightly to kill it. And not all elephants(big nations that exert clout & some power) behave the same. As I previously tried to explain biting the elephants leg pisses him off in the case of Russia it is definetely going to kill that mouse(the chechen population with islamic belief). No matter how much you say its' wrong and inhuman there its a bit too little too late. People who are terrorized tend to behave scared and scared people tend to behave like a flock and want threats that scare them (terror) gone quickly. By creating debate thats accomplishing nothing(and it does exactly that only stalls untill the next attack) the populous gets aggitated and ignores any reasonable debate (and they should because it isn't reinforced by any conceliatory action and they see that and ignore it more and more until its completely gone no matter how loud it screams its ignored) this is what begins to happen in the world toward the islamic world. This is the general trend and it will only persist.

The only way to go against this trend is if all those whiners in the islamic world shut up and do something to stop the terror here and there and everywhere because in the end, it wont be the terrorists who pay the price but all of the islamic world. If u want to war do it openly, declare war fight and peace. If you want to terrorise expect to be terrorised in return on a much larger scale. Because in this world fire is always fought with fire no matter how much you try to avoid it. If you think banning the Hijab is bad wait till banning the practice of Islam kicks in in some parts of the world.

The only way to go against this trend is if all those whiners in the islamic world shut up and do something to stop the terror here and there and everywhere because in the end, it wont be the terrorists who pay the price but all of the islamic world.I'm sorry, but I'm just not a fan of the idea that the only way to stop a cycle of injustice and violence is to surrender to injustice.

I'm really getting sick of all these folks who would suggest that the world would best be given over to bandits and bloodthirsty irrationality.

Peace only comes, then, when everyone surrenders to the aggressors?

I think it's a crock.

How should the UN deal with Hamas?
Whats the deal anyway since the UN is not respected?
How should they deal with Sharon?

btw tiassa, i appreciate your posts even though i don't participate much....
so don't get drunk this evening ;)


Shimon Peres condemned Sharon’s actions.


I knew Sharon’s nick name was the BUTCHER, šssshiver, I heard and read that terrible name in the medias many years ago, was ït justified? I knew he commanded punitive expeditions, ….now, after this horror, I think he is a dangerous man, and awful details seen on TV (children view those crimes too, and Israel is supposed to be an example!), I think he fully deserves his nick. He is a butcher and a terrorist. He blew the only part the old man could feel, his brains,67 a good age. Gun powder. Hush little baby, you deserve your spanking.Ousted!!!!
Another Nazi is manipulating the Israeli crowd. I see Sharon as worse then a terrorist organization.. He acted illegally, using underhand manipulation, I cant wait for the day he will pass through a trial, and be condemned for his crimes. Relating to Bernadotte with Mein Kampf as a favourite?
Targeting Sheik Yassin was asking for trouble, I am convinced Sharon knows it. IS he familiar with the cards he is holding in his hands? He is overestimating US power.
Other radical organizations exist in all the Arabic countries, ----in all countries.) the Arabic population in Palestinia has decreased of over 75% since 1919...... used to be 97.5 Arabs living there, and now, well, 20% only are left.....

-Show us your papers? Do you have documents proving the land is yours? Translation
-Saïd, no we don’t have papers write… Lam afham…no need papers.
-Yes, you do now: we are taking care of this land so you have to go, we have signed we rent the concessions, look, official document, you have to go…. Translation
-Sign here to attest you leaving!
-Saïd, no write!
-Ask one of your clerics to sign. Now go! Yallah! You ousted.

I'm sorry, but I'm just not a fan of the idea that the only way to stop a cycle of injustice and violence is to surrender to injustice.
you keep ignoring the fact that taking a higher moral ground never beat anyone.
especially not a savage barbaric enemy.
Eluminate, you have the right idea.

tiasa, the last word of your sentence should not be "injustice". it should be "aggression". you do fight fire with fire. as the enemy changes, you have to change if you want to survive. you keep philosophizing from the couch which is not practical.

Us, and them
when i was posting my previous post it came to me the "us and them" mentality may be perhaps wrong... but i decided to go with it anyway... because that's the way it is.
if it's not the West against Terrorist Islamism mentality, then at least it's Israel (david) against the Middle East (goliath) with its terrorist islamist mentality.

it's us and them - pure and simple
i've read other poems, and John Lennon is cool with his songs about brotherly love and all that, but when my countrymen are burying their childrens' bodyparts, i put John Lennon's tape on the shelf for a while.

the "us and them" mentality is prevalent more on the arab and 'palestinian' side. why do you not hold them to the same account?

you've been ignoring the bigger, more important issues, and concentrating on the "wrongs" of the methods of Israel's retaliation.

you think "giving back 'west bank' and gaza" would solve everything, right?
it was tried before
there were negotiations
there was an agreement (Oslo)
there was camp david (2000)
there is more donation money going to the PA per capita than anywhere else in the world (i can't find the link currently)

Israel has tried and tried and tried.
imo, the 'palestinians' belong in Jordan. that was their designated country, and it should be now. the current refugees were caused because of Arab agression, and thus should be taken care of by the Arabs.
but regardless, i've always thought that if a solution could be negotiated, with parts of Israel (and those damned territories) could be given up for a peace (not a 10-year truce) then we should go down that path.

but there's no body to talk to!
the PA regime is corrupt, has no authority on the streets or over its own people!
not only it has no power, but it doesn't really want to negotiate.
oh it says so to NYT but actions speak louder than words! and their actions (especially that of Arafat) definitely speak louder than words.

they have obligations - under the Road Map, under Oslo, and they aren't, and haven't been fulfilling them.

Israel wants to talk. we want to end this whole thing, but there's no partner. there's no faith. previous agreements have been violated. no faith exists on the Israeli side.

Arafat says 'peace' to the CNN, but in the schools, 'palestine' includes Tel Aviv and Herzliya.

There is no alternative
Israel has no choice but to fight fire with fire.
we can't negotiate (despite our will), so we have to defend ourselves.
and we cannot defend ourselves by going to Gaza and demonstrate infront of a Hamas office.

Sharon’s nick name was the BUTCHER
hey, in the arab media they call him 'vampire' and other creative names. but they're pretty creative (http://stream.realimpact.net/rihurl.ram?file=realimpact/memri/al-manartv_alshattat_ramadan_excerpt.rm) in general (http://www.memri.org/video/index.html), those Arab media people
in Israel his old nickname was the Bulldozer, for his swift victory over the Arabs in the 1973 war

LOOK AT THE ISRAELI KIDS, TRAINING FOR THE NEXT KILL !!

http://www.koshertaxscam.com/gungirls.jpg


http://www.koshertaxscam.com/info.html

note to moderator: PLEASE DONT TAKE THE IMAGE AWAY SINCE YOU ALLOW THE JEW, OTHE, TO POST HIS OWN IMAGES. THANK YOU.


Thanks for that website, it hold some of the most obviously photoshopped pictures that I've ever seen. Why do you need to make up pictures for your cause? If your proof is so rock solid and your cause so just, wouldn't showing people real things be good enough?

Edit: And who taught those kids the hate to throw rocks at tanks? Who taught the kids to blow themselves up at checkpoints and on busses? Who? Their parents, their local _friendly_ Hamas recruiter, their twisted interpretation of Islam as a violent religion. Sick.

I think my post was completely ignored... It wasn't a debatable post it was more of a trend view that I see and people like you begin to ignore.
Notice my emphasis on people & herd mentality when they get scared they want things dealt with no matter how as long as they get dealt with.
But you keep reciting that mantra over and over again. The mantra doesn't sway anyone just makes people ignore you more.

well sure, tiasa is ignoring human nature, and the herd's call to deal with the problem of children being sniped or blown up in pizzerias

was your post directed at me?

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8C7BCBC3-CA2C-4F33-B27D-80AF0AF830E2.

Palestinian leaders have accused Israel of fabricating a story about a 14-year-old Palestinian boy who planned to blow himself up.

Similar story

A few weeks ago, another boy from Nablus,*Muhammad Kuraan, made headlines when the Israeli army presented him to the media as a*child who had been dispatched to blow himself up at an Israeli roadblock.

However, when the boy returned home, he reportedly told his family and relatives "Jews told me to do this or else they would kill me."
*
Aljazeera.net asked the Israeli army spokesman in Tel Aviv to explain why Abdu would accept*100 shekels to get blown up and what good the money could possibly do?

The army was also asked to explain why it had TV cameras ready at the roadblock more than two hours before the event.

Despite*two hours of waiting, the army failed to provide an answer.

Al-Jazeera is hardly the most reliable source of information, so I certainly dont' take this at face value, but the Israeli government isn't any more credible.
In any case, if its true that the camera crews were set up two hours in advance, thats pretty damning evidence.

are you kidding me?????
foreign journalists are circling checkpoints like vultures looking for a scoop!

man, this should go into the Arab Propaganda (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=34042) pile.
"we're not responsible. it's the Jews!!!"

The assertion made in the article is that the army had cameras set up, and refused to respond when asked why.
If it was routine, it seems likely they would have just said that.
You may well be right, and for all i know this whole article is bullshit, but I don't think the likelyhood of Israel creating a publicity stunt in this way is any less than the likelyhood that people actually tryed to force a kid to blow himself up.

Aljazeera.net asked the Israeli army spokesman in Tel Aviv
do al-jazeera reporters even have access to Tel Aviv?

why would an Israeli Army spokesman answer any questions coming from a reporter from an enemy nation?

i don't even think any questions were asked

man this is bullshit
obviously, nothing is outside the realm of the "possible"
it's up to your own judgement (or prejudgement) on what do you think happened

EluminateI think my post was completely ignored... If you say so.

:rolleyes: It wasn't a debatable post it was more of a trend view that I see and people like you begin to ignore. Right. Whatever you say.

:rolleyes:

So ... you didn't write, "The only way to go against this trend is if all those whiners in the islamic world shut up and do something to stop the terror here and there and everywhere because in the end, it wont be the terrorists who pay the price but all of the islamic world"?

Or did you just intend that people shouldn't debate the point, and just nod and say, "Yes, Eluminate. You're so right. You're so smart!"

If you don't want a point like that debated, keep it off the table.Notice my emphasis on people & herd mentality when they get scared they want things dealt with no matter how as long as they get dealt with.Fine, let's take a look again. (Gee, you don't think maybe I thought about that when I responded to it last time? I mean, when you lament that you think your post was completely ignored, my first response is to say, "Well, of course you do, since you didn't read my post.")

People who are terrorized tend to behave scared and scared people tend to behave like a flock and want threats that scare them (terror) gone quickly. By creating debate thats accomplishing nothing(and it does exactly that only stalls untill the next attack) the populous gets aggitated and ignores any reasonable debate (and they should because it isn't reinforced by any conceliatory action and they see that and ignore it more and more until its completely gone no matter how loud it screams its ignored) this is what begins to happen in the world toward the islamic world. • "People who are terrorized tend to behave scared and scared people tend to behave like a flock and want threats that scare them (terror) gone quickly."

Let's look at that on both sides: remember the "mushroom cloud" rhetoric of the American War on Terror? If the Palestinians had a nuke, do you think they would eliminate the threat that scares them (e.g. Israel) as quickly as possible? That could be a very bad situation, but hell, we already call them terrorists; look at Otheadp's arguments--Palestinians aren't human beings. Well? What do we expect of them, then? But on the Israeli side, what I can't figure out is why Israel, incapable of simply making the threat go away, seeks at every turn to exacerbate it.

So part of what I'm getting from that portion of your argument is that I'm glad the Palestinians aren't one flock en masse--if they were, the fight would be over one way or another already. And another part of what I'm getting from that portion of your argument comes when I look at the Israeli irrationality in pursuit of victory.

The frightened Israeli flock is not doing anything to make the threats that scare them go away. In fact, the Israelis, much like their American patrons, seem to specialize in the art of inventing threats where they weren't before.
This is the general trend and it will only persist.Only because the flock is stupid, irrational, and frightened.
The only way to go against this trend is if all those whiners in the islamic world shut up and do something to stop the terror here and there and everywhere because in the end, it wont be the terrorists who pay the price but all of the islamic world. I picked this portion to respond to initially because it is where I encounter the crux of the problem I have with what I perceive in your argument.If u want to war do it openly, declare war fight and peace.I generally agree.If you want to terrorise expect to be terrorised in return on a much larger scaleI generally agree.Because in this world fire is always fought with fire no matter how much you try to avoid it. Doesn't mean that's the smart or efficient thing to do. Doesn't mean it's right.

Part of the problem is that this starts with the displacement of people in a historically-disputed region. Israel is the intruder in this fight; Israel is the occupier; Israel, claiming its rights of defense, extends that right to crimes against humanity.

Palestinian terrorists? They're pretty much terrorists. And that's a good enough excuse to fight back, but it's not a good enough excuse to blame Israeli atrocities on other people.

To many of us who exist in the real world, the idea of fighting over religion and statehood seems absurd. In the US we're annoyed at Christian-derived ballots. The idea of segregated nations according to poor excuses for people to not get along absolutely sucks. But you have a national power--e.g. Israel--breaking all manner of international law and expecting the world to suck it off. I just don't see how the solution is for the Palestinians to shut up and let a corrupt, racist government continue to steal from them.

I feel I covered your post quite concisely the first time around. And as to that, I suppose some of my irritation should be directed elsewhere. So, if you'll excuse me for a moment . . . .

(A note for some people who have complained about the length of my posts: What?)

At any rate ... there's just something fundamentally different about the way we frame the situation. The Israeli side continues to insist on being an exception to the world community's standards. Regardless of how you or anyone else feels about the Palestinians, the Israeli insistence on classifying their excesses as orthopraxic self-defense doesn't sell. Regardless of how you or anyone else views the history, the world community in which Israel currently participates (and from which some have proposed Israel should withdraw) sees the history in such a context that Israeli insistence on their continued occupation and, these days, especially its methods somewhat hamstrings the response to Israel's pleas and battle cries.
If you think banning the Hijab is bad wait till banning the practice of Islam kicks in in some parts of the world.It should be close to spectacular. At least. That's for sure.

But you said it yourself: . . . they want things dealt with no matter how as long as they get dealt with.

That seems to be the issue.

The Israeli rhetoric worked solidly into the 1980s, and sold reasonably enough in the 90s, but in this mass-information age, it's a harder and harder sell.

In a way, there was a time for me, personally, when the transition from ignorant parroting of pro-Israeli politics to my current disgust with the Israeli unwillingness for peace manifested a simple curiosity, a questioning of the framing of the debate.

Now here's a big problem - When people go through that critical phase, one of the most striking new realizations is the persistent emptiness of Israeli rhetoric. This is a hugely potent influence in declining sympathies. Understand, we know about the Palestinians. This is long-established. We grew up on it. But Israel won't tolerate scrutiny or even casual examination in this issue. And that's very suggestive of their insecurity in the propriety of the ideology exploited. Everybody knows that Israel's excesses are wrong, but Israel won't admit it. This behavior is common among tyrants reviled by the West. It doesn't hang well on the Israeli body politic. It makes Israel look ghoulish, devious, dishonest.

Every once in a while, I'll look at someone's argument and say, "And?" It's a well-recognized euphemism for, "This is significant ... how?"

Such an argument might have served Israel well as recently as 2003. But they chose a different route. Both can lead to the same place, it's just that one takes the long road through the swamp, and that is apparently Israel's choice.

None of it changes the facts of Israel's excesses.But you keep reciting that mantra over and over again. The mantra doesn't sway anyone just makes people ignore you more. Oh. I ... see.

The UN started this mess in the first place by giving away Palestinian land to form Israel. It was ill concieved and illegal in the first place. They should now step up to the plate and;

1 - Grant the Palesinians statehood.

2 - Order Israel 100% back behind 1967 borders.

3 - Pay Palestine several billion in reparations for taking their land and offer world assistance at forming a thriving homeland.

4 - Make clear that if attacks on Israel continues,

a - All aid will be stopped.

b - They will be declared a subversive government and removed not only from power but from the living on earth.

5 - Israel should be made understand that what the UN giveth the UN can take away.

5 - Israel should be made understand that what the UN giveth the UN can take away.

Good show...

What some Zionists seem to forget is that it was international law, and her instruments which made Israel into a reality. If the UN did not exist, Israel would not exist. Don't bite the hand that gave birth to you, the only legitimacy Israel has is in the UN. If Israel were to withdraw from the UN all resolutions would be null, as will the one that created Israel. Making the Levant...defacto into Palestine. Don't play games that you know nothing about is my credo.

Otheadpyou keep ignoring the fact that taking a higher moral ground never beat anyone.
especially not a savage barbaric enemy.Hardly.

I'm just aware that there's a difference between claiming a higher moral ground and demonstrating it.the last word of your sentence should not be "injustice". it should be "aggression". you do fight fire with fire. as the enemy changes, you have to change if you want to survive. Perhaps Israel should conduct itself in a manner as not to inspire enemies.when i was posting my previous post it came to me the "us and them" mentality may be perhaps wrong... but i decided to go with it anyway... because that's the way it is. You demonstrate the problem so aptly.it's us and them - pure and simple
i've read other poems, and John Lennon is cool with his songs about brotherly love and all that, but when my countrymen are burying their childrens' bodyparts, i put John Lennon's tape on the shelf for a while.Those choices are yours alone.the "us and them" mentality is prevalent more on the arab and 'palestinian' side. why do you not hold them to the same account? I do.

However, I am aware that you might not think so, given that I won't lower myself to your standard of racist zeal. But please understand, I'm not sorry in the least about that.you've been ignoring the bigger, more important issues, and concentrating on the "wrongs" of the methods of Israel's retaliation.You've been ignoring reality in favor of hatred.

Given the sheer bigotry of your standard, I consider that standard quite irrelevant. You're simply not intellectually or morally qualified to make such an assessment. You've made it clear what you think the bigger, more important issues are, and I'm simply not going to declare Palestinians subhuman.you think "giving back 'west bank' and gaza" would solve everything, right?
it was tried before
there were negotiations
there was an agreement (Oslo)
there was camp david (2000)
there is more donation money going to the PA per capita than anywhere else in the world (i can't find the link currently)Yes, and life isn't a movie. Let's look at your next point, because I can smack these two birds down with one shot.Israel has tried and tried and tried.Israel has been dragged kicking and screaming into any attempt at "peace."

You conduct yourselves disingenuously, and seek conflict. You have tried and tried and tried, but you've also lied and lied and lied, and that's a big portion of your contribution to the problem. Maybe if you tried honestly a couple times, you wouldn't have to go through the repetitive pantomime for minimal PR value. The world isn't buying your lip service right now.but regardless, i've always thought that if a solution could be negotiated, with parts of Israel (and those damned territories) could be given up for a peace (not a 10-year truce) then we should go down that path. But in the meantime you advocate an ideology that runs screaming from a solution. The only solution the you seem to be happy with is some form of Final Solution.but there's no body to talk to!
the PA regime is corrupt, has no authority on the streets or over its own people!
not only it has no power, but it doesn't really want to negotiate.
oh it says so to NYT but actions speak louder than words! and their actions (especially that of Arafat) definitely speak louder than words.How would you know? The Israeli government keeps attacking them.Israel wants to talk.Or so they tell the New York Times. But their actions definitely speak louder than words.there's no faith. previous agreements have been violated. no faith exists on the Israeli side.You left out a word. There is no good faith on your side.There is no alternative
Israel has no choice but to fight fire with fire. Keep repeating it all you want. It has less and less effect. While the idea of fighting fire with fire, in and of itself, has certain merits under extreme circumstances, you don't fight a forest fire in the Cascades by burning everything down between Denver and the Pacific. And if you started the fire in the Cascades in the first place, the people of American West might have a few things to say about it.we can't negotiate (despite our will) I'm starting to think that has something to do with your own deficient faculties. You claim the "will," but your history of conducting yourselves disingenuously seriously undermines any perception of a decent will in good faith.so we have to defend ourselves.Stop setting fires arbitrarily, and there will be fewer fires to fight with excessive fire.and we cannot defend ourselves by going to Gaza and demonstrate infront of a Hamas office.And why not? Oh, that's right ... 'tis better to blow up the offices instead. Then you can complain that there's no office to go protest in front of.

tiassa i read your post but it seems you are playing favorites as well just like me ...
granted i am a bit biased but please try to get the jest of what i m saying.

Palestinians are doing everything in their power to defeat the Israelies...
Wouldn't it be natural for the Israelie to do all in their power to defeat the Palestinians?

This is not about rules or UN resolutions. This is about Natural law think of Darwin here it applies no matter how much you wish it didnt. Now substitute kill for the word defeat and notice the reality of todays world. And no matter how much you think we live in a world where rules apply to nations that is simply not true. Sovergnty still exists in this world and this precludes from any international court or organization ruling it the way they want. Unless they enforce those rules and that could only be done with force because thats the only way Sovergnty is lifted. All nations are sovergn until they are defeate and occupied or annexed at which point they cease to exist or exist as puppet states. When it gets down to pure survival of one nation & its people over another there is only one victor not two. And if you fight by any means necessary expect the other side to do so as well its only fair.

Solutions dont come from speeches or words or resolutions. Solutions come from actions.

There is no good faith on your side either tiassa. Why should one follow rules and the other discard them when they cease to suit their needs and act with terror to force a political gain.

And "any" attempt at peace also considers giving israel a choice to move into the sea and cease to exist. I doubt any country in the world would self liquidate just because someone thinks its an attempt at peace. Barak offered 91% of all territories and the Palestinians refused. Who won the war here? Isn't it "to the victor go the spoils" not to the looser.

The Israeli side continues to insist on being an exception to the world community's standards.
there is an exception in Israeli retaliation, because there is an exception in the fact that there's no other nation which faces the same threat and attacks as Israel. had any nation been in Israel's position, they would have reacted in not any less force than Israel is reacting. don't be talking about "leaving the world community".

the US has been attacked in a manner fractional in magnitude, in comparison to Israel, yet the response has been much more severe than anything Israel has done up to now.
you wait until there's a bus going off in NY every single week... once that starts happening, it wouldn't surprise me if the US army carpet bombs Mecca
any country actually
well, not any country (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12632)... but we'll wait and see. another coupla "militant operations" like that and i suspect a little change of heart

You conduct yourselves disingenuously, and seek conflict. You have tried and tried and tried, but you've also lied and lied and lied, and that's a big portion of your contribution to the problem. Maybe if you tried honestly a couple times, you wouldn't have to go through the repetitive pantomime for minimal PR value. The world isn't buying your lip service right now.
since you've provided no examples about how Israel "lied lied and lied" I'll asume you couldn't find any... since you put so much time and effort into researching and linking in your posts
no surprise really.
i'm just curious, are you calling Peres, Rabin and Barak liers?
do tell me how they tried to deceive the world, the arabs, and the Israeli Left (the hardest patron to deal with)

i doubt you even know who they are judging from your previous response

http://www.smolanim.com/cartoons/arafatschances.jpg

i'll give you an example of a lie though. just a misley tiny small one

Yasser received the Nobel Prize for renouncing terrorism
He talked about the 'born-again non-terrorist' thing many times, in many interviews to western papers, including very recent ones.
he has said many times that he has no connection to any shooting or bombing attacks
but what about this (http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/409307.html)? or this (http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2002/Seizing%20of%20the%20Palestinian%20weapons%20ship% 20Karine%20A%20-)?


But in the meantime you advocate an ideology that runs screaming from a solution. The only solution the you seem to be happy with is some form of Final Solution.
i'm (and the Israeli government) advocating peace through negotiations.
you're inventing things up and accusing me of them

You're simply not intellectually or morally qualified to make such an assessment.
but you are

You've made it clear what you think the bigger, more important issues are,
but so have you

and I'm simply not going to declare Palestinians subhuman.
oh lord can you be any more righteous?
what the hell is 'subhuman' anyway?

i think what you're experiencing is what nico calls "a cognitive surrender" because your points are less and less .... points. more like personal attacks really

come on man
the debate has turned into "i'm right, you're wrong" "you're morally and intellectually incapable"


let's stick to the real issues. ignoring them is sort of like ignoring the fact you have work tomorrow and smoking another one anyway... i'm just talking in general, not about you

since you've provided no examples about how Israel "lied lied and lied" I'll asume you couldn't find any...Your own posts do well enough.oh lord can you be any more righteous?
what the hell is 'subhuman' anyway?Hey, you're the one who said Palestinians aren't human beings. i think what you're experiencing is what nico calls "a cognitive surrender" because your points are less and less .... points. more like personal attacks reallyYou're not giving me much to go on. You insist on a reality that is separate from what the rest of the world acknowledges. Of course, for someone like you who argues largely based on personal attacks, and since you've provided no examples, I'll just assume you're putting up your usual crap.

I mean, really ... what is there to your argument aside from racism?

You're not giving me much to go on.
you didn't address Arafat's multiple lies,
you didn't address Peres, Rabin, Barak, and Begin's sincere peace attempts,

what is it if it's not cognitive surrender? (nico, sorry for borrowing your expression)

otheadp

There is no alternative
Israel has no choice but to fight fire with fire.
we can't negotiate (despite our will), so we have to defend ourselves.
and we cannot defend ourselves by going to Gaza and demonstrate infront of a Hamas office.

Sharon’s nick name was the BUTCHER
hey, in the arab media they call him 'vampire' and other creative names. but they're pretty creative (http://stream.realimpact.net/rihurl.ram?file=realimpact/memri/al-manartv_alshattat_ramadan_excerpt.rm) in general (http://www.memri.org/video/index.html), those Arab media people
in Israel his old nickname was the Bulldozer, for his swift victory over the Arabs in the 1973 war

Hamas has no choice but fight with fire,

I don't know about Sharon's nickname in Arabic medias,
the BUTCHER was his nick in Europe.

manipulation of information, http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/04/65295.html

seems obvious to me who wins at the game of indoctrination.

I'll admit that this is quite the impressive debate here but I think some people base their arguements on some flawed principles:
1. Palestinians will stop attacking Israel if Israel stops attacking them
Let's be serious now, kids. Palestinians are being the cannon fodder for the Arab world. The Arab world won't stop attacking just because Israel does. In fact I'm quite convinced they won't stop attacking until Israel is gone, evidenced by their lack of support for the Palestinians aside from words and weapons.
2. Israel is entitled to attack Palestinians (whoever they may be) when Israelis are attacked
If you want to claim moral high ground, you can't just shoot ANYONE. You have to shoot who is causing the trouble.
3. This conflict is about land
Not anymore. It's Arabs vs. Jews round heaven-knows-what-number. Arabs probably wouldn't be happy if the Jews got the state of Kansas. It just so happens they have an "excuse" to attack them now, ya know being neighbors and all.
4. Both sides are strictly adhering to their religions
Last time I checked, Judiasm had something about "Loving thy neighbor" in the Commandments, and one of the 5 Pillars of Islam is NOT "Eradicate those people that you hate".

Just a little food for thought. :bugeye:

Otheadp

You cannot continue to justify Israel's crimes by blaming other people.

Why are you afraid of looking at Israel honestly?you didn't address Peres, Rabin, Barak, and Begin's sincere peace attempts,Demonstrate the sincerity, and demonstrate the insincere Islamic rejection.

In other words, give me something to go on other than your unsubstantiated opinion, which as we all know is nothing more than a nest of seething racism.

Demonstrate the sincerity, and demonstrate the insincere Islamic rejection.

why should i? you're good at research, you show me. i already know.
i will give you 2 examples, however.. Begin was sincere (and so was Sadat). that's why we have peace with Egypt
Rabin was sincere too. it got him killed by a Israeli right-winger
the rest you're going to have to find for yourself. i'm not going to recite you the history

as for Islamist rejection... actions speak loud. it's been 57 years and still no peace.

the 'palestinians' never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity

whatever man.. i see you're giving up, which is evident in your sub-tiassa-standard replies
even sub-nico-standard replies

it's over. go home.

i see you're giving up,This from you who refuses to back your assertions?i see you're giving up, which is evident in your sub-tiassa-standard repliesDon't attempt to hold me to a quality standard that you are incapable of either meeting or merely appreciating.

Either make your argument or admit that you've got nothing beyond your racism.

I say the U.N should shut down Hamas financialy. That they won't have the money to amke bombs that can be straped to 14 year olds to go blow up innocent people.

Either make your argument or admit that you've got nothing beyond your racism.
i've got nothing beyond my racism. have a nice day

they won't have the money to amke bombs that can be straped to 14 year olds to go blow up innocent people.
what about 20 year olds?

The Palastinians will never EVER have Isreal. You know why? Becuase Isreal has nukes :) Some day, somebody is going to push Isreal a little bit too far and then we wont have a Palastinian issue.......

if the world keeps pushing and pushing and pushing, extreme right wingers will take over the government.
you think Sharon is extreme? he's a lamb. Effi Eytam, or Moshe Feiglin... or someone like Ovadia Yossef
maybe someone from the Kach movement?

if they come to power, say 'goodbye' to the palestinian issue or peaceful middle east.

hopefully it doesn't go that far
negotiations can solve everything. time for the arabs to step up to the plate. we're still waiting

the further israel goes to the right, the more terrorists they have to deal with. israel is only creating more problems for itself by oppressing more and more

I'd recommend the way it's classically done. A war on two fronts.

The "home front", which basically consists of improving security and defense, and confiscating that vodka from that damn guard so he actually wakes up and WATCHES. :D

The "battlefield", where you search-and-destroy terrorists and their dens. This is where it can get politically tangly and where there is much negative attention, so it is advised for the attempting country to get some sort of excuse for doing this that actually makes sense. Oh, and it helps to have some degree of military clout, too.

the further israel goes to the right, the more terrorists they have to deal with. israel is only creating more problems for itself by oppressing more and more

actually, if you examine the past, the more aggressive Israel is, the less terrorism it faces. only when it relaxes its defenses or political resolve, the terrorists increase their shit.

* Israel signed the Oslo accords, a year later the phoenomenon of suicide bombings was born
* Israel offered the 'palestinians' the best settlement they were ever offered, a few months later the 2nd intifada was launched

Why the quotation mark? aren't Palestinians "palestinian"?
Relevant

the quotation marks are because there is no such people as the 'palestinian'
as i'm sure you know, the current place where Israel proper is, is less than 20% of old Palestine

original Palestine consists of now-Jordan, now-Lebanon, now-Syria (parts of it)

before the arabs decided on a strategy of calling themselves 'palestinian' they claimed that "Palestine" is a Jewish invention. i can find you the links if you want.
they said "Palestine is what the Jews invented. it's nothing more than south Syria"

those who call themselves "Palestinian" now, are descendants of immigrants to that portion of formerly-known Palestine where Israel is today.

immigrants from all over the Middle East

Ariel Sharon was born in then-Palestine way before 1948... he too, then, should be called a Palestinian

so quotation marks are most certainly in order

"palestinians" are just arabs who immigrated there when the israelies lifted the land up they laid claims to the land and launched their attacks to carve out land for themselves which was previously deserted and wanted by noone. No such thing as a palestinian exists there are arabs who make a claim that they are them but only because they want to lay claim to the state of palestine which was released by britain ergo israel nowadays.

So before the state of Israel was created by the joint power of the United States and the Soviet, who lived there? :)

Ariel Sharon was born in then-Palestine way before 1948... he too, then, should be called a PalestinianBut he'd rather be a Jew.

Why would Sharon want to be a ... how did you put it, Otheadp ... a "wild animal"?

Of course, maybe you have a point. Sharon is an animal. An animal in a cheap suit.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1080626721250

another teen suicide bomber!
caught, and released
15 year old Tamer Khawireh


"I want to stay here with you, I want to be part of this life," cried the boy, as recounted Tuesday by his eldest brother, Raed.


where's the PA's so-called police force? where are the civil organizations? where is ISM and all the bleeding hearts?
the 'palestinian' media's response, much like the Middle East media's response to 9-11, was to write it off as a Zionist plot / conspiracy

and the western media didn't even bother to report this atrocity
or just barely enough to make themselves look at least marginally balanced

and the BBC, they're up to their usual old shit (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1080626721100) (this link relates to the teen bomber i mentioned earlier)


BBC correspondent Orla Guerin "did not feel it inappropriate to use an attempted suicide attack by a child to point cynically to Israel's attempt to manipulate the media. ... "
...
Sharansky quoted Guerin (the BBC reporter) as describing to viewers how the IDF "paraded the child in front of the international media," then "produced" the child for reporters, "posed" him a second time for the cameras, and then "rushed him back into a jeep." He continued that she reported that the entire event was under "Israeli army control," which meant that "we were not allowed to get his [the child's] version of events."

a "wild animal"
...
you're a racist
...


i'm calling suicide bombers and their handlers as wild animals, and for that i am a racist?

you've reached a new moral low that even your chronic pot use cannot blur out!