Everyone knows how illegal that barrier is but Israel keeps ignoring the others. Do Israeli people really think that they are doing what everyone expects from them for peace in the middle east. As a member of a democratic country i expect Israel to take the first steps towards peace and not wait till Palestine does something. As a democratic country, Israel must be an example and make sacrifices for peace. Noone expects palestine to do those sacrifices first.

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=544684&section=news

This is what gets me the barrier itself isn’t necessarily illegal unto itself, what is illegal is building on land which does not belong to Israel. This ruling although not being taken seriously by Israel, and her biatch the US. The ruling only reinforces the correct view that Israel is not acting like a state, but rather as a rogue state, and because Israel does not follow international law by definition she is a rogue state.


The court considers that the construction of the wall and its associate regime creates a 'fait accompli' on the ground that could well become permanent, in which case ... it would be tantamount to de facto annexation," said the court, the U.N.'s top legal body.

Israel’s further illegal annexation of Palestinian land is duly noted, what a web Israel weaves, what a web.

Yeah I'd agree with that. I don't have a problem so much with a country building a wall on its border, but come on, this is riduclous. I also don't understand the Israeli position of continuing to hold the occupied territories.

I mean it would be like the head of a major Israeli party showing up at a Muslim temple on an Islamic holy day or something................

I mean it would be like the head of a major Israeli party showing up at a Muslim temple on an Islamic holy day or something................

the Temple Mount is on Israeli territory, it is the site of both our ancient (Jewish) temples. any person, especially if he is an Israeli citizen, should be allowed to go there.
be it a religious Jew who wants to offer prayers, or a politician who has the right to go anywhere, firstly as a human being, secondly, as a citizen, secondly as a politician who actually enjoys more access than other citizens.

did you know that entry to the Temple Mount is forbidden area to Jews? Israeli or otherwise
if you're Muslim, markhaba
if you're Christian... they'll tolerate you
if you're Israeli or look like a Jew, they'll fucking stab you, riot, throw stones on the Wailing Wall worshippers beneath, start an intifada.....who knows

I also don't understand the Israeli position of continuing to hold the occupied territories.
we've been trying to find the correct formula of getting rid of these damn territories (which are rightfully ours, by the way) for quite a long time. find us a responsible partner, and it can be done in months. in fact, it has already been done. an agreement dealing with ALL issue has already been signed, except the politicians who signed it are not in power so it is meaningless... though it shows that it can be done.

as for the fence,
we have the right to erect a fence to keep people out (not in)
and why would we put it inside the 67 borders? that would mean
1. succumbing to terror
2. making some (already very small) territory inside the Green Line uninhabitable (retreating under attack?)
3. they attacked Israel, and this is what they get. same thing was in Lebanon. why should the IDF set up a buffer zone inside Israel proper? PLO attacked from Lebanon, Lebanon refused to deal with it, they should face the consequences

as for the kangaroo court / festival that is the international criminal court of justice, (what an appropriate name... this court is full of criminals, and its decision is criminal)

what law does Israel violate exactly? there is no law in the world that can dictate to a country... maybe except force like diplomatic sanctions or agreements or threat of "serious consequences"... but no law

this kangaroo court has no jurisdiction, no authority, and no binding powers
this is nothing but a political little charade

btw, one of the "judges" on the panel, an Egyptian, gave an interview to some newspaper, saying that he will vote against the fence... and that was before the hearings even started
some Egyptian justice for you from our friends to the South

ICJ... what a joke

the Temple Mount is on Israeli territory,

Actually the Temple Mount is not on Israeli territory, it is legally on Palestinian land due to the 1967 Green Line in which Israel has violated. No state has officially recognized Israel’s claims on anything past that line, so get a new argument.

it is the site of both our ancient (Jewish) temples. any person, especially if he is an Israeli citizen, should be allowed to go there.

Although I don’t disagree with that statement, I think the whole city of Jerusalem should be under International sovereignty. The problem is that you don’t go to a part of the city which is also a Muslim holy place, and claim it as your own.

be it a religious Jew who wants to offer prayers, or a politician who has the right to go anywhere, firstly as a human being, secondly, as a citizen, secondly as a politician who actually enjoys more access than other citizens.

First statement is true, second statement is true, albeit only within the jurisdiction of his political authority which does not extent to the Temple Mount.

if you're Israeli or look like a Jew, they'll fucking stab you, riot, throw stones on the Wailing Wall worshippers beneath, start an intifada.....who knows

Although I don’t agree with what the Arabs are doing to the “Jews”, although you have to take their emotions into consideration they are just as human as any Jew, and deserve just as many rights. Jews are not exceptional, if that is their custom so be it.

we've been trying to find the correct formula of getting rid of these damn territories (which are rightfully ours, by the way) for quite a long time. find us a responsible partner, and it can be done in months.

Do you actually believe that? What is a right partner? A puppet regime in Ramallah, that says “yes sir”? That is not going to happen, although the Pals. haven’t been the best partners, neither has the Israeli’s. Both sides are making the situation worse, with the Pals and their attacks, and Israel and her illegal expansion into Pal territory. Neither side imo wants peace, because they know if they get it then there is no reason for each others existence.

we have the right to erect a fence to keep people out (not in)
and why would we put it inside the 67 borders?

Because that is the limits of your jurisdiction, who do you think you are? You can build your wall but build where you own your land, the international community has told you, that is not your land and as a result dismantle the now illegal wall.

1. succumbing to terror

How so, you are still making the stupid wall. All you are doing is building it where it should be built.

2. making some (already very small) territory inside the Green Line uninhabitable (retreating under attack?)

I am not even sure what that is trying to say.

3. they attacked Israel, and this is what they get. same thing was in Lebanon. why should the IDF set up a buffer zone inside Israel proper?

Firstly you attacked them in ’67, so stop lying. Secondly the Israeli’s have no right to build on their land. That is not your land, comprende? These are not hard concepts, at least they shouldn’t be.

as for the kangaroo court / festival that is the international criminal court of justice

Let me guess the ICJ is Anti-Semitic too…:rolleyes: The only ones who are being the kanjaroo is Israel by blatantly disregarding international laws.

what law does Israel violate exactly?

Over 100 UNSC resolutions, and now this law. There is a hefty report which details most of the crimes committed.

there is no law in the world that can dictate to a country... maybe except force like diplomatic sanctions or agreements or threat of "serious consequences"... but no law

Israel now is in danger of getting sanctions, it is now able to get some real serious sanctions. Not unlike the 1971 ruling which dictated that South Africa’s control of Namibia was illegal as well. Sadly the puppet US govt will veto that resolution.

this kangaroo court has no jurisdiction, no authority, and no binding powers

They said this is a non-binding decision by the court, merely its opinion.

btw, one of the "judges" on the panel, an Egyptian, gave an interview to some newspaper, saying that he will vote against the fence... and that was before the hearings even started
some Egyptian justice for you from our friends to the South

Ok your racism is evident…

Israel... what a joke

Also it looks likecivilized societies on Earth that understand the concepts of law are asking for the ICJ decision to be taken seriously:

　BRUSSELS, July 9 (Xinhuanet) -- The European Union (EU) Friday urged the United Nations (UN) General Assembly to take actions based on the verdict of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which considered the separation wall Israel is building on the Palestinian territories illegal.
---------------------------------------]
"While recognizing Israel's right to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks, the EU has demanded that Israel stop and reverse the construction of the Barrier inside the occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem," said the statement.
--------------------------------------------]
But held that Israel's building the wall is "in departure of the armistice line of 1949 and is in contradiction to the relevant provisions of international law."
---------------------------------------]
He pointed out that the wall not only results in the "confiscation of Palestinian land" and cause "untold humanitarian and economic hardship", but also "could prejudge future negotiations and hinder a just political solution to the conflict."
---------------------------------------]
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-07/10/content_1588307.htm

But Susan Akram who teaches law at Boston University said the fact that an issue is political doesn't mean that there isn't a need for a legal ruling.
"The ICJ is the world's court. It does have particular authority to interpret legal issues for the bodies of the United Nations. If one believes that the UN has some relevance than one must conclude that the ICJ is relevant," said Akram. "The decisions of the ICJ are more widely cited than any other legal body and the court is generally considered to be a very deliberative body," said Akram.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1089350489148&p=1006688055060

If Israel really wants peace, she should heed to the warnings from more rational members of the international community. The EU is a powerful organization, and I for one wouldn’t want to slap it around all too much. I am also certain that if this ruling was against Pal. Terrorism you would hear the praises of the Zionists about the ICJ, so very hypocritical.

Israel will very likely continue violating human rights and international law until isolated at least as much as South Africa was at the end of apartheid. I don't think that zionists are taking into consideration that their provocations are having a cumulative effect, and that eventually even American opinion will turn on them. Pushed to the ridiculous extreme, Israel will become the ultimate "homocide Bomber", imprisoned within their own grey walls, with a nervous finger on The Button.

Or, reform- "Next Year, in Jerusalem."

Pushed to the ridiculous extreme, Israel will become the ultimate "homocide Bomber",

Oh my god.... hypewaders just used a Fox News Channel buzzword! ;-)


Anyway, Sharon's act was deliberately antagonistic. The whole world cringed when it happened. They were on the verge of peace and he blew the whole thing, BECAUSE he wanted it blown. It was one of the most flagrantly antagonistic political moves in the entire history of Western Civilization. And that's how it will be remembered.

Ariel Sharon taught me that it's possible to be sympathetic to Israelis for having to deal with terrorism and to condemn of Palestinian terrorism, while at the same time condemn of how the Israeli government is behaving. In short, how BOTH sides can be wrong. And what's more, he taught a very great many of my fellow Americans the exact same thing.

Even more ironic: Now that he has what he wanted (political power), he's discovering just what a double-edged sword it can be.

You want a partner in peace? Start in your own house. One thing is for sure -- a lot of Israelis are doing exactly that.

What the entire mideast needs is a wave of amnesia to wash over it, like something out of The Twilight Zone. If only both sides could realize that the ultimate basis for their conflict comes down to ancient superstitious nonsense.

There won't be peace on Earth until humans have exterminated themselves. We'll be fighting each other right up until that happens.

Might makes right.

Otherwise, why all the native pretense(s) that the loudest, presumably most enlightened voices automatically carry the discussion against all lessors?

Eat your young at your own risk.

Stage one...

we've been trying to find the correct formula of getting rid of these damn territories (which are rightfully ours, by the way) for quite a long time. find us a responsible partner, and it can be done in months.

You've been adding settlements and funding settlers for years. You're doing the exact opposite to getting out.

1) so did the 'palestinians'
2) if they're attacking us and don't want to talk, fine. we'll just KEEP being there
and it's not like the "settlers" are agents of the state. they want to live there... they have lived there for decades. and before Trans-Jordan (now Jordan) annexed the "west bank" and kicked all Jews out, some cities like Hebron had a Jewish population for centuries if not millenia

you call it "settlements", i call it natural natural growth and living
and why shouldn't the "settlers" move there?
we have 1 million Arab citizens... why can't the "future 'palestinian' state" have Jewish citizens? they're ('palestinians') advocating and practicing ethnic cleansing

Wha... That argument might actually make sense if those Israelis (in the occupied territories) felt they were living under Palestinian, Syrian or Jordanian authority. They most assuredly do not. They would not be there if they didn't enjoy Israeli governance.

1) so did the 'palestinians'

How so, I need a laugh.

2) if they're attacking us and don't want to talk, fine. we'll just KEEP being there
and it's not like the "settlers" are agents of the state.

But it is the state which gives them the authority to build their illegal settlements…odd that.

they want to live there... they have lived there for decades.

Many do, but many also live there because living there is cheap.

Trans-Jordan (now Jordan) annexed the "west bank" and kicked all Jews out, some cities like Hebron had a Jewish population for centuries if not millennia

They did? Source, substantiation would be nice.

you call it "settlements", i call it natural natural growth and living

You can create new phrases all you want it doesn’t change the fact that those are illegal settlement on land that doesn’t belong to you.

we have 1 million Arab citizens... why can't the "future 'palestinian' state" have Jewish citizens?

Hey I agree with you there, why don’t the settlers become Palestinian? They already live on their land.

they're ('palestinians') advocating and practicing ethnic cleansing

Right…like that tried to make sense.

What is with all this Israel bashing around here? The occupied territories are occupied because Israel seized them after being attacked. The borders of most countries were established in a similiar manner. Furthermore, it was Palestinians, not Israelis, who were dancing in the streets on September 11 celebrating the murder of innocent Americans. Up to that point, I didn't favor one side or the other in this conflict. Since then, Israel can have carte blanche as far as I'm concerned. Finally, if suicide bombers were constantly slipping over the border from Canada or Mexico, we'd be building our own wall.

Anti Zionism and anti semitism aren't the same thing. The criticism of Israel's policies comes from the perception of injustice.

As Noam Chomsky said:
If the goal were security, Israel would have built the fence a few km inside its borders. It could then be a mile high, patrolled on both sides by the IDF, mined with nuclear weapons, utterly impenetrable. Perfect security.

The problem would be that it would not take valuable Palestinian land and resources (including control of water), drive out the population, and lay the basis for still further expansion as Palestinians flee from the dungeons that are left, like the town of Qalqilya. So to interpret as a land grab seems appropriate.

Doubtless a side benefit is to increase a narrow form of "security," while probably in the long run seriously increasing insecurity not only because of the regional impact but because sooner or later it is likely to inspire terrorist acts against Israelis abroad in revenge. But terror and security are not driving concerns, any more than they have a high priority in the planning of "the boss-man called `partner'," as more astute Israeli commentators describe Washington.

Sharon's strategic thinking seems straightforward enough. There are excellent descriptions in recent books by Tanya Reinhart and Baruch Kimmerling. It is also not radically different from that of Rabin and Peres. The goal is to take over the valuable parts of the West Bank (Gaza is mostly a burden), and to leave the population that remains under local administration, to rot and decline.

The basic principle was explained to the Cabinet of the Labor Government 30 years ago by Moshe Dayan, perhaps the most sympathetic to the Palestinians among the Israeli leadership: we should tell the Palestinians in the territories that "You shall continue to live like dogs, and whoever wishes, may leave, and we shall see where this process will lead."

The occupation should be "permanent," he believed, in one or another form, and to the objection that Israel must consider its moral stand, he responded that "Ben-Gurion said that whoever approaches the Zionist problem from a moral aspect is not a Zionist."
http://blog.zmag.org/ttt/archives/000827.html#more

mad anthony wayne, good points. it's just common sense and some reality.
and repo man, quoting Chomsky won't do you any good.

how about this: if the US wanted security from al-Qaeda, then what it could do is to not invade Afghanistan or do covert operations in other countries.. all it had to do, is to make sure US security is 101%
fuck, they could BUILD A WALL around the US. that'll be fine... will solve the illigal aliens problem and the al-Qaeda agents problem
maybe even the cocaine and heroin problem? who knows...

sounds good?
didn't think so

Othheadp, one of the most horrifying things about present US foreign policy is that we seem to be studying the Israelis for how to respond to terrorism. Well, it has certainly worked well for them! There are never any terrorist attacks in Israel!
As the cliche goes, one of the definitions of insanity is to try the same thing in the same way, and expect a different result.

I don't believe that our invasion of Afghanistan has made the US more secure. For that matter, I feel that very little of what has been done since the 9/11 attacks has made us more secure. Our foreign policy continues to be the most effective terroist recruiting tool in the world.

Quoting Noam may not "do me any good", but reading his work certainly has.

What is with all this Israel bashing around here?

No one would be “bashing” Israel if Israel was doing some legal. Israel is in direct violation of international law. No Israel is not special, no Pseudo-Jews aren’t special, no they are governed by the same laws we are. Surely some Israeli’s believe that they are more then human, but back to reality if Israel keeps up this rogue state business she will only encounter more scorn internationally and this wall will very much be counterproductive to any perceived advantage. This wall is a land grab, and only reinforcing Israel’s tenacious grasp on land that doesn’t belong to her. Israel will through natural law will pay for its injustice, it’s only a matter of time.

A little OT, but regarding Othheadp's comments about how to fight terrorism.
http://www.bartcop.com/db040711.gif

Following MAW's logic the USA should still be occupping Japan, the Phillipines, Mexico, Cuba, North Africa, Italy, France, and Germany.

Following MAW's logic the USA should still be occupping Japan, the Phillipines, Mexico, Cuba, North Africa, Italy, France, and Germany

I believe we do have military bases in most of those countries and. frankly, would have been within our rights to annex them. That's what "unconditional surrender" means. It just wasn't worth the trouble. That does not alter the fact that the borders of most countries were established by military conquest. If a bunch of Arab countries get their asses handed to them after a coordinated attack on Israel, they deserve to lose some land.

And saying that we are no safer after destroying the terrorist training camps and Osama's home base is insane. You can debate the Iraq war, but the Afganistan war was a no brainer.

Nope, I have no good reason to believe that invading Afghanistan made another terrorist attack on the states less likely.
The networks aired maps turning from Taliban red to Northern Alliance blue, but here on the ground, as people who prefer to remain anywhere-but like to say, no such thing occurred. Dasht-e Qaleh and Taloqan and Kunduz all "fell," but 99 percent of the conquerors were Taliban troops who shed their beards and turbans and picked up Shah Masood's hip hat for a buck. There were, before September 11, a mere 6000 to 20,000 Northern Alliance soldiers holding the eastern portion of Takhar province and the extremely mountainous Badakhshan and Wakhan corridor, an inland peninsula created as a buffer zone between imperial Russia and British India during the 19th century.

When your taxpayer-funded $75,000 bombs began pounding frontline Taliban positions and the not-so-occasional farming village, the age-old Afghan tradition of ideological flexibility and self-preservation led thousands of Taliban to cross the lines to "defect." "I am so sorry," a Taliban commander cried in the welcoming arms of his Northern Alliance counterpart a day before Kunduz "fell." "We are brothers and should not have fought."

Finally, a rare truth in a land of lies—both men had fought together in the Taliban and before that against the Soviets. The vast majority of "Northern Alliance" fighters now were Taliban a few weeks ago; welcome to the first fashion war of the new millennium.

There are two ways to consider the success of War on Terror, Part One. The first is as an act of retribution against the Taliban for tolerating and supporting Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network (never mind that Al Qaeda is bigger in Pakistan than in Afghanistan or that it is merely one of hundreds of extremist Islamist organizations that trained in Afghanistan). In this view Afghanistan is a source of instability throughout Central Asia and, by extension, for Western oil interests and the West itself. September 11 was merely the latest manifestation of the dangerous extremist phenomenon. Angry Afghans aren't angry at anything America has done, say Rumsfeld and Powell; they're perpetually ornery motherfuckers who have to be kept under lock and key so that the civilized world can get down to the business of the 21st century, which will be one hell of a business if we can ever convince people to stop selling off their mutual funds.

Then there's the liberal, free-market, interventionist approach, which sees the geopolitical collision zone between Central and South Asia as intrinsically doomed by a variety of factors: a strategic location, an absence of natural resources, and far too many guns and mines left over from the '80s. Marshall-Plan the joint, these NGO types say. Build roads, schools, and Virgin Megastores and damn if all of those Uzbeks, Pashtuns, and Tajiks don't simply drop their AKs in favor of Burger King uniforms. And just like that, Americans will be able to shed their fears of 767s cruising through their office towers.

Cooler heads, those who own books by both Rudyard Kipling and Ahmed Rashid, know that Lonely Planet offers the best advice on the best time to visit Afghanistan: "Don't go." But nothing is more certain than this: You can no more control the Afghans than you can help them.

It's a good thing that those snapshots of starving Afghans were taken in refugee camps in Quetta; you have to work hard to find hunger here. That's good too, since Afghans aren't getting any of that much vaunted food aid, unless they pay top afghani for it at the market.

Feed people out of bags covered with your flag and they'll love you, the theory goes. But based on this precept, no one in Afghanistan has any cause to even like you.

Even our military contribution isn't earning the U.S. any IOUs. "We appreciate the bombs you dropped on the Taliban," a veteran Alliance commander named Amin (many Afghans use only one name) told me. "But you bombed airports and roads that we need to run the country. And my men are dying because they have old Russian weapons and you Americans won't fully support us."

What do you want from America?

"Go home and leave us alone."
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0150/rall.php

Well, Repo man, what would you have us do? Just stand there and take it? Let Osama attack the US with impunity? Perhaps we should all hold hands and sing, maybe a candlelite vigil?

No. These stone age SOB's have to learn that when you attack the US you pay a price. If your government harbors those who commit terrorist acts against the US, you pay.

I personally think that it is obvious that destroying Osama's global headquarters certainly did much to disrupt his network and, therefore, prevent terrorist attacks. As a follow up, we attacked Iraq both to remove from power an enemy of America and supporter of global terrorism, and to gather as many of our enemies in one place as possible (those foreign fighters you've no doubt heard about) so that we could kill them.


Mod note: sorry I'm new at this and I kind of fuck up your post and deleted it by accident, but Repo Man gave me a copy of it and I fix it, thank Repo Man

1) so did the 'palestinians'

Yes. However, they are not inserting people into a foreign territory that they occupy.

2) if they're attacking us and don't want to talk, fine. we'll just KEEP being there

When they seek non-violent recourse, eg. go to court, you ignore them.

and it's not like the "settlers" are agents of the state. they want to live there... they have lived there for decades.

No, just funded and protected by the state.


and before Trans-Jordan (now Jordan) annexed the "west bank" and kicked all Jews out, some cities like Hebron had a Jewish population for centuries if not millenia

I agree that this was wrong, I'll must point out that most of the inhabitants of the West Bank have been denied the right of return to their homes in Israel and had their land and property nicked. It is not like you have the moral high ground here.


you call it "settlements", i call it natural natural growth and living

It is hardly a natural growth when it is being encouraged by the government.

and why shouldn't the "settlers" move there?

Where to start...
Apart from violating the geneva convention and a few UN resolutions, it is a massive barrier to peace. Israel is hampering the formation of a palestinian state by colonising it so that they can claim to have a legitimate interest.

It is provoking ethnic conflict. Settlers attack palestinians, palestinians attack settlers, people die, hatred propagates itself.

Pragmatically speaking it is very expensive, dangerous and difficult to defend these settlements. Israel spends absolutely shitloads on subsidies, tax breaks, defence, housing for a group of people that comprise about 3% of Israel's population. This is a massive blight on an otherwise prosperous nation.

we have 1 million Arab citizens... why can't the "future 'palestinian' state" have Jewish citizens? they're ('palestinians') advocating and practicing ethnic cleansing

It can and should, ideally. Pragmatically, however, it is creating a massive difficulty. A great recipe for disaster is an Arab majority and a small Jewish minority. You also seem to forget that Israel as evicted its share of Arabs. Does Qisarya ring a bell? Israel expelled 60K people from Lydda and Ramla, yet you unblushingly say that the jewish settlers shouldn't absent themselves? This is blatant hypocrisy.

i don't understand... is Arab violence some sort of natural law like gravity that people just ignore and/or take for granted?

Yep. Just like Israeli violence.

Otheadp prefers to ignore events like Lillehammer as if they never occurred.
The prolonged attack on USS Liberty was an "accident" and the strafing of lifeboats would have been ok if it had been an Egyptian ship.

dont kick that dog. you'll be bitten.
don't jump off that cliff.. you'll fall
don't go out in the rain without an umbrella...you'll get wet.
don't live there, you'll be stabbed, shot, blown up, mutilated, devoured

so let me ask you again - is Arab violence some sort of natural law that is taken for granted?
are their "sensitivities" any less than our sensitivities?
one Jew just visits the Temple Mount - riots, stabbings, intifada... (to this day, Jews, (Israelis or otherwise) are forbidden to go up there!)
when the IDF left Hebron (before this intifada) guess what the 'palestinians' did to the Jewish shrines inside the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron?
they didn't just "walk" there, they desecrated it, destroyed all the shrines, danced with drool and zeal on their faces... shouted allah akbar.. you konw, the usual thing
should this be taken for granted? should the Israelis just say "well, it's the Arabs... you knew they'd do that. they have sensitivities and all that. sensitive people.."
this idea in itself is racist. i.e., "they're rioting and killing and stabbing because Arabs are 'sensitive'"
doesn't that sound stupid?
as if Jews are not sensitive about Arabs "walking" in Jewish shrines, "offering prayers" in Jewish shrines, desecrating Jewish shrines. being proud of it
were there any riots / stabbings / bombings / mob-lynchings of 'palestinians' by Jews?
i guess we're not sensitive enough

"ridiculous" does not even begin to describe the double standard


Consider the astonishing asymmetry that dominates the debate of Jewish versus Arab rights in the Middle East. The right of Arabs to worship at the Muslim Holy sight in Jerusalem, the Noble Sanctuary, is considered sacred (and perhaps rightly so). Yet an affirmation of the equally valid religious desire of a Jew to pray at the same site which also happens to be important to the Jewish faith is looked down upon as an outdated, almost infantile expression of religious backwardness. An Arab walking on the Temple Mount is religious freedom personified. A Jew walking on the Temple Mount is considered a dangerous provocation.

Nowhere is this asymmetry more profound than in the discourse on Israeli "settlements" in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank of the Jordan River). The word "settlement" itself has acquired negative connotations and when used in the familiar formula "Israeli settlements on Arab land" automatically concedes the superiority of the Arab claim to the West Bank. We do not concede this claim; neither does the State of Israel. Thus, we would like to engage in the Middle Eastern debate by attempting to tackle one of its most contentious and serious aspects - the issue of settlements.
more (http://christianactionforisrael.org/isreport/janfeb04/settlements.html)


It is not like you have the moral high ground here.

How just is the Arab-Palestinian insistence on the right to return to the villages and towns from which they fled or were forced to leave in Israel's War of Independence?
...
The list of Jewish settlements includes Beit Ha'arava, on the shore of the Dead Sea and Atarot and Neve Ya'akov, north of Jerusalem; Kfar Darom, Yad Mordechai and Nitzanim, which were on the route of the invading Egyptian army; the four Etzion settlements south of Jerusalem (the residents of Kibbutz Kfar Etzion were massacred, the survivors of the other settlements were sent to captivity); the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem that surrendered to the besieging forces of the Trans-Jordanian Arab legion; Mishmar Hayarden, which was conquered by Syrian forces.

Some of these settlements were later restored, after Israeli forces reoccupied them.

The fate of these 11 Jewish settlements demonstrates two very simple things. One is what the rules of the game were, and how keen the Arabs were on applying them whenever they could. Wherever an Arab army conquered a Jewish settlement, this settlement ceased to exist.

Second is the magnitude of Jewish victory. The fact that many more Arab villages and neighborhoods were erased than Jewish ones is only proof that the Jews were winning the war, albeit, unlike their Arab counterparts, they did not always stick to the rules the Arabs applied whenever they could.

more (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull%26cid=1085455475373)
[i recommend you read the whole thing... it's one of the best refutations arguments against the Demand of Citizenship (aka "right of return")]


Otheadp prefers to ignore events like Lillehammer as if they never occurred.
The prolonged attack on USS Liberty was an "accident" and the strafing of lifeboats would have been ok if it had been an Egyptian ship
and candy prefers to divert attention from 'palestinian' and Arab atrocities because she has no arguments
sweetie, if you want to discuss the USS Liberty, go here (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32121&page=5&pp=20) and post your comments there. i'd like to know what you have to say about the recently released transcript and the interview with one of the pilots that i posted.

if 'diverting attention' is your strategy it just shows the inferiority of your argument

now, if we get back to the original topic here, which is the Big Bad Wall, here's a little something from an Arab dude (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=11677_Israeli_Arab_Has_Change_of_Heart):

The images from the explosion kept running through Sammi Masrawa’s mind as he lay in his hospital bed — a young female soldier with the back of her head missing, a heavily pregnant woman lying on the sidewalk, legs mangled legs, screaming “my baby, my baby.”

Sunday’s blast at a Tel Aviv bus stop had changed his world view.

The 29-year-old Arab Israeli from Tel Aviv was the head of a local committee calling for coexistence between Israelis and the Palestinians.

Now he wants them kept apart.

“A month ago I went to protest the fence,“ he said, referring to the barrier Israel is building in the West Bank. ”Now I believe it can only strengthen us.” ...

Masrawa thinks there is no choice but to build the barrier.

“These terrorists don’t differentiate between Jews and Arabs, they just want to kill,” he said, glass shards embedded in his leg, as his wife shook her head in disbelief at his political transformation.


like for fuck's sakes people... it's a non-violent way to protect citizens.. what else do you want?

by the way
the "soldier" (http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Memorial/2004/Maayan+Naim.htm) that was killed in yesterday's bombing, is nothing but a 19 year old girl riding on a bus, who happened to wear her uniform

http://members.rogers.com/9o9/maayannaim.jpg

the bus she was riding must've offended the sensitive terrorist... being red and all...

so let me ask you again - is Arab violence some sort of natural law that is taken for granted?

Excuse me Mr. Hypocrite it is always you who exposés this ideal:

“Everything is fair in war”

So really be quiet.

I seemed to have missed this jem:

were there any riots / stabbings / bombings / mob-lynchings of 'palestinians' by Jews?

Oth, you selective little boy you seemed to have missed this shining example of how “Jews” shant be talking about terrorism:

http://www.angelfire.com/al/quwaizani/israel.html

THE IBRAHIMI MOSQUE MASSACRE
- THE IBRAHIMI MOSQUE MASSACRE: 25 February 1994, A Jewish terrorist, from Keryat Arba' settlement massacred 60 worshipers in the Ibrahimi Mosque in al-Khalil (Hebron) and wounded about 200. Later massive demostrations took to the streets of Palestine and the Zionist army responded by life amunitions killing 23 and wounding hundreds more. Reports indicate there were 3 Jewish settler gunners, not only one.

Yes the ignorance of the masses is clearly evident, and Israeli settlers are known to kill Pals as well. So come again oth, who takes what for granted? Yah, I thought so.

Otheadp
It is about patterns of behavior with the "big bad wall" being part of the pattern.
No one is saying that what the terrorists are doing is right. We do not believe that all Pals are terrorists and that mistreating the many because of the actions of the few is wrong.

nico, what a lovely source.
why don't you just ask Arafat for sources. you know, he actually suggested that the Israeli government had planted the bomb that killed that girl above.

the "Ibrahimi Mosque" was that same Cave of the Patriarchs
there were no 60 casualties, but 39
there was no "cover from the army" and no "multiple shooters"
the guy was a "lone ranger".

i'm glad you brought this guy up.
how many of those have you seen? does this 1 freak occurence compare to the Arab 'sensitivities'?

are you seriously comparing one disgusting incident with decades of 'palestinian' terrorism?

yep. a fly is an elephant and an elephant is a fly.

candy,
what is the alternative? we build a wall to keep theterrorists out, and they don't kill us.
killing them or arresting them or jailing them (and then releasing 100s of them for 1 or 2 Jewish hostages) is surely an option, but a non-violent one is better... don't you agree?

we pay for the alternative with blood... you don't. it is easier than easy to judge.

why don't you just ask Arafat for sources.

Well, I didn’t say the source was the best, that was the first source I found. The fact remains that it happened by Israeli terrorists.

how many of those have you seen? does this 1 freak occurence compare to the Arab 'sensitivities'?

Excuse me do you honestly believe that Israeli terrorism only happened once? Are you telling me this is the only time Israeli’s have killed Pals? That was not a freak occurance he was part of an Israel terrorist group, also the racist, and disgusting attitude of many of the “insensitive” Jews in Israel perfectly exemplify the acts of Israeli religious freakos:

Many Jews, especially religious Jews today in Israel and their supporters abroad, continue to adhere to traditional Jewish ethics that other Jews would like to ignore or explain away. For example, Rabbi Yitzhak Ginzburg of Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus/Shechem, after several of his students were remanded on suspicion of murdering a teenage Arab girl: “Jewish blood is not the same as the blood of a goy.” Rabbi Ido Elba: “According to the Torah, we are in a situation of pikuah nefesh (saving a life) in time of war, and in such a situation one may kill any Gentile.” Rabbi Yisrael Ariel writes in 1982 that “Beirut is part of the Land of Israel. [This is a reference to the boundaries of Israel as stated in the Covenant between God and Abraham in Genesis 15: 18–20 and Joshua 1 3–4]…our leaders should have entered Lebanon and Beirut without hesitation, and killed every single one of them. Not a memory should have remained.” It is usually yeshiva students who chant “Death to the Arabs” on CNN. The stealing and corruption by religious leaders that has recently been documented in trials in Israel and abroad continues to raise the question of the relationship between Judaism and ethics.19

are you seriously comparing one disgusting incident with decades of 'palestinian' terrorism?

You assume it is one incident, also why absolve the Israeli army of its state terrorism? There have been much more Pal deaths compared to Israeli. Oth wake up and smell the destroyed citrus trees, Israeli’s are just as bad as Pals. Racist, exceptionalist, and you want all of us to treat you specially because somehow being a pseudo-Jew gives you a badge to more sympathy, well you aren’t going to get it. So act like a normal human being and come down from the clouds of imaginary exceptionalism.

So where is the UN World Court decision blasting Palastine for supporting terrorism? The world court is a joke.

Why should Isreal give up lands that it won in War? (A war in which they were attacked!) So according to the World Court the U.S. should give back California and Texas?? What a bunch of bull. What percentage of modern Nation States have their current borders defined by a recent (withing a 100 years) war? All of Europe for sure. The Entire Middle East. What a bunch of hypocrites. Since the Arab countries want Isreali borders to go back pre-war, maybe they wouldnt mind reseting their borders as well. I guess England or the Ottoman Empire better step up to the plate and retake their countries.

So where is the UN World Court decision blasting Palastine for supporting terrorism? The world court is a joke.

If Palestine were a state and part of the UN then such a resolution would be in due process. Also the UNSC has condemned Pal terrorism as well.

Why should Isreal give up lands that it won in War? (A war in which they were attacked!)

1967? Israel pre-emptively attacked other states, what are you talking about. Secondly Israel is demanded to give back lands that do not belong to her, according to the UNSC 242, and others.

So according to the World Court the U.S. should give back California and Texas??

You know that is a bunch of bull because Mexico gave the US a treaty in which she gave her those former Mexican territories, no such treaty occurred here.

What percentage of modern Nation States have their current borders defined by a recent (withing a 100 years) war?

And with a peace afterwards that solidified those borders, there is no comparison.

What a bunch of hypocrites. Since the Arab countries want Isreali borders to go back pre-war, maybe they wouldnt mind reseting their borders as well.

Which borders are you talking about?

so let me ask you again - is Arab violence some sort of natural law that is taken for granted?

Let me answer again: Yes. Both Israeli and Arab violence are much like natural laws. It's pretty mechanistic, predictable and berift of humanity. The world is utterly unsurprised by either group blowing the shit out of the other.


don't live there, you'll be stabbed, shot, blown up, mutilated, devoured

If "there" is too close to a Jewish settlement packed with fanatical, heavily armed nutters, you're quite right. The Arabs are hardly monopolistic in area of violent zealots. Need I mention IDF torture, shooting of Israeli protestors and stone-throwing youths, use of nerve gas etc.?

The list of Jewish settlements includes Beit Ha'arava, on the shore of the Dead Sea and Atarot and Neve Ya'akov, north of Jerusalem; Kfar Darom, Yad Mordechai and Nitzanim, which were on the route of the invading Egyptian army; the four Etzion settlements south of Jerusalem (the residents of Kibbutz Kfar Etzion were massacred, the survivors of the other settlements were sent to captivity); the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem that surrendered to the besieging forces of the Trans-Jordanian Arab legion; Mishmar Hayarden, which was conquered by Syrian forces.
Why is it that you think I don't condemn the attrocities committed by the egyptian army? They are exactly the same in quality, if not quantity, as the Israeli ones. You aren't the good guys just because your enemy isn't, for that idea only works in children's cartoons. How is it that you(or your source) can bitch about the demolishment of 16 settlements when you have run about 1 million people out of Israel for their ethnicity alone?

Your first link is basically propaganda. I would suggest that the Arabs' problem with Jewish settlements stems not from the fact that they are Jewish, but it is an attempt to usurp their land. It has been encouraged and funded by the Israeli government so that they can claim an interest in the region. Many settlements have been placed on confiscated land and some of the settlers indulge in arson and murder. No doubt its just a few of the settlers, who, unlike the Arabs aren't homogenously psychotic.


[i recommend you read the whole thing... it's one of the best refutations arguments against the Demand of Citizenship (aka "right of return")]
It is a morally vascous rationalisation of the most contemptible sort. It seems to be suggesting that because the Egyptian Army demolished some settlements that Arab Israelis have no right to return to the homes that they were driven from(or not driven from, in the case of the present absentees). Apart from the Arab-Israelis not being responsible for this, two wrongs do not make a right. You do not forfeit your moral culpability through the bad actions of another. Besides, the Israeli ethnic-cleansing was far greater, far more systematic, and perhaps worst of all, was not the result of an army but a legally sanctioned landgrab.

Yet an affirmation of the equally valid religious desire of a Jew to pray at the same site which also happens to be important to the Jewish faith is looked down upon as an outdated, almost infantile expression of religious backwardness.

Who is suggesting this?

"The claim of the Jewish people to the entire land of Israel, including the West Bank, is certainly as strong, and arguably much stronger, than the corresponding Arab claim."

Hardly. The territory is destined to be a palestinian state, predominantly Arab populated and has never been part of Israel.

You know that is a bunch of bull because Mexico gave the US a treaty in which she gave her those former Mexican territories, no such treaty occurred here.

A treaty? You mean a "Hi we just took over your Country and we want all this land." I hardly call that a Treaty. More of a surrender document :D

Since no 'treaty' was signed, then are they technically still at war? (Korea anyone??)

A treaty? You mean a "Hi we just took over your Country and we want all this land." I hardly call that a Treaty. More of a surrender document

Call it what you will but the situation is that Mexico has officially recognized that the US now owns that land, and is no longer in contention.That has not happened in the Middle East.

Since no 'treaty' was signed, then are they technically still at war? (Korea anyone??)

That would be a cease fire…your in the military right Crazy…? You should know that…;)