Tel Aviv attack condemned (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18847036-401,00.html)
A PALESTINIAN suicide attack that killed at least nine people in Tel Aviv overnight provoked outrage in Israel, where the new parliament was being sworn in, as well as from observers around the world.
HAMAS the Mid Easts only democratically elected government was immediately set upon by Israel for that reason to be destabilized . Israel began the provocation with an Economic blockade and seizure of Palestinian assets followed with diplomatic isolation . When this failed Israel pressured America through the Israel lobby to join in , which America did and also to put influence on the EU to enjoin this attack on HAMAS . The result has been a rapid implosion of the Palestinian society however HAMAS has not backed down and support has been lukewarm from the EU and US with Global support sympathizing with the Palestinians .

This has forced Palestinians to react in actions of self defence such as suicide bombings .The fact is now a Palestinian soldier has detonated himself in Tel Aviv taking with him 9 Israeli squatter oppressors . I believe this is to convenient , months go by without a suicide bomber , yet here this one gets through . I say Israel intelligence knew this event was going to happen and let him go through , this way is another Israeli attempt bribe sympathy from the World , fact is it wont .

Months? According to this list (http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-%20Obstacle%20to%20Peace/Palestinian%20terror%20since%202000/Suicide%20and%20Other%20Bombing%20Attacks%20in%20I srael%20Since), the last was at the end of March.

Yet more collective punishment (http://justworldnews.org/archives/000535.html) - just like Israel's reprisals.

No, Hamas was set upon because they are a terror organization, not because it was democratically elected.

Suicide bombing is never self-defense. I'm shocked that you would blame Israel, like the bomber himself shares none of the responsibility?

Nonetheless, if Hamas are willing to negotiate, even indirectly, then destabilising it doesn't really seem in Israel's best interests. They seem more likely than any other party, in terms of popular support and organisational ability, to be able to get things on track if they choose...

spidergoat:

No, Hamas was set upon because they are a terror organization, not because it was democratically elected.

Wrong. Hamas was set upon because it refuses to lay down its weapons and accept Israeli domination, and the bulldozing of their homes and crops.

"Boo hoo hoo, Hamas won't lay down their weapons so that our bulldozers can storm through."


Suicide bombing is never self-defense.

False. Suicide bombing is a fantastic way at forcing an invading force off your territory. The Algerians proved this against the French, the Lebanese proved this against the Americans, and the Palestinians themselves have forced Israeli retreats because of suicide bombing and acts of 'terror' (aka. insurgency).


I'm shocked that you would blame Israel, like the bomber himself shares none of the responsibility?

"I'm shocked that you would blame the Nazis, like the bomber himself shares none of the responsibility?"

Here's a simple mathematical formula... Invader does not equal victim.

HAMAS the Mid Easts only democratically elected government was immediately set upon by Israel for that reason to be destabilized . Israel began the provocation with an Economic blockade and seizure of Palestinian assets followed with diplomatic isolation . When this failed Israel pressured America through the Israel lobby to join in , which America did and also to put influence on the EU to enjoin this attack on HAMAS . The result has been a rapid implosion of the Palestinian society however HAMAS has not backed down and support has been lukewarm from the EU and US with Global support sympathizing with the Palestinians .

This has forced Palestinians to react in actions of self defence such as suicide bombings .The fact is now a Palestinian soldier has detonated himself in Tel Aviv taking with him 9 Israeli squatter oppressors . I believe this is to convenient , months go by without a suicide bomber , yet here this one gets through . I say Israel intelligence knew this event was going to happen and let him go through , this way is another Israeli attempt bribe sympathy from the World , fact is it wont .


so what is it the Palestinians want then? not sure i ever knew foe certain.

so what is it the Palestinians want then? not sure i ever knew foe certain.
The idea that suicide attacks are 'convenient' for Israel is just the flip side of the extremist argument that 'Palestinians throw themselves in front of tanks to attrack sympathy'. Neither argument is useful except in identifying extremists.

Zephyr:

The idea that suicide attacks are 'convenient' for Israel is just the flip side of the extremist argument that 'Palestinians throw themselves in front of tanks to attrack sympathy'. Neither argument is useful except in identifying extremists.

I disagree. Suicide attacks are highly convenient for the right-wing theocratic extremists who control Israeli policy. It merely gives them 'justification' to bulldoze homes and crops, and then annex the land for 'military purposes'.

While suicide attacks are not beneficial for the average soldier or civilian, they sure as hell are useful as political leverage for the Israeli govt., and an excuse for land annexation.

When you think about, it's laughable. What motivates Palestinian insurgents? A desire for a national homeland, and the cessation of all Israeli land annexations. And how do the Israelis respond? With more land annexations. :bugeye: Oh my, yes, the Israelis do sure want peace... :rolleyes:

While suicide attacks are not beneficial for the average soldier or civilian, they sure as hell are useful as political leverage for the Israeli govt., and an excuse for land annexation.
Yes, in the same way that shelling of Palestinians generates sympathy for Hamas. But just as Palestinians aren't likely to run into helicopter fire, I doubt soldiers would deliberately let a suicide bomber through.

With more land annexations.
I think the phrase may be 'military occupation' - AFAIK the last 'land annexations' were in 1967. You could argue that including parts of Palestine inside the barrier are warning signs, but Israel hasn't tried to annex any of that officially.

HAMAS the Mid Easts only democratically elected government was immediately set upon by Israel for that reason to be destabilized .

Only democratic government? Israel doesn't count? I think rather that Israel's objection stems from Hamas' objective of destroying them and, in some cases, drinking their blood (see thread "Hamas' drinking problem").

Israel began the provocation with an Economic blockade and seizure of Palestinian assets followed with diplomatic isolation .

Well, lots of other countries are isolating Hamas diplomatically and financially - hell, I heard even Canada of all places decided to stop sending them money! Should we assume that none of them have a good reason to do so? When the Canadians tune you out, you know you've gone too far.

When this failed Israel pressured America through the Israel lobby to join in , which America did and also to put influence on the EU to enjoin this attack on HAMAS . The result has been a rapid implosion of the Palestinian society however HAMAS has not backed down and support has been lukewarm from the EU and US with Global support sympathizing with the Palestinians .

Can you prove any of this? Oh, I don't doubt the Israelis used diplomacy - I just wonder if you can find the links that prove it. And how exactly has Palestinian life "imploded"

This has forced Palestinians to react in actions of self defence such as suicide bombings .

Self-defence? How does an idiot blowing people up help matters?

Should Palestinians now blow up Canadians too? Why not just blow up everyone that refuses to pay the jizya any more?

The fact is now a Palestinian soldier has detonated himself in Tel Aviv taking with him 9 Israeli squatter oppressors .

Oh - you mean 'innocent civilians'. Any pregnant women with this latest round? "Get that oppressor in the womb!"

I believe this is to convenient , months go by without a suicide bomber , yet here this one gets through . I say Israel intelligence knew this event was going to happen and let him go through , this way is another Israeli attempt bribe sympathy from the World , fact is it wont .

So first it's an action of self-defense, then it's an Israeli plot.

Geoff

I disagree. Suicide attacks are highly convenient for the right-wing theocratic extremists who control Israeli policy. It merely gives them 'justification' to bulldoze homes and crops, and then annex the land for 'military purposes'.

While suicide attacks are not beneficial for the average soldier or civilian, they sure as hell are useful as political leverage for the Israeli govt., and an excuse for land annexation.

When you think about, it's laughable. What motivates Palestinian insurgents? A desire for a national homeland, and the cessation of all Israeli land annexations. And how do the Israelis respond? With more land annexations. :bugeye: Oh my, yes, the Israelis do sure want peace... :rolleyes:

But the new government was elected specifically on a land-for-peace platform. How could they possibly permanently annex land now?

I'd argue too that many years of terrorism has not produced the result intended. The Israelis are simply not going to leave. Would they stop shelling rocket positions if the rockets stopped coming? By definition: yes.

Geoff

Geoff:

But the new government was elected specifically on a land-for-peace platform. How could they possibly permanently annex land now?

Quite easily. They merely need to use the same bogus justifications in the past. That land annexation is 'essential' for peace.


I'd argue too that many years of terrorism has not produced the result intended. The Israelis are simply not going to leave.

That's not necessarily the aim of the insurgents. All they want is a removal of Israeli presence from the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank. So far, they aren't doing too bad...


Would they stop shelling rocket positions if the rockets stopped coming? By definition: yes.

They would then bulldoze more homes, and annex more land, without opposition. Your childish argument is identical to claiming that if the rape victim had just have remained still, she wouldn't have gotten a black eye.

But they haven't used those justifications - they've agreed to withdraw further. That isn't annexation.

Nor would they bulldoze more of anything. "Home bulldozing" is the Israeli response to suicide bombing. No bombers, no bulldozers.

Your argument, by contrast is akin to telling a woman to just "lie back and take it" in the supposition that she'd only be hurt worse if she struggled.

Geoff

If we are going from 1967 then i would have to say that Israel made the first move in anger. However this feud has been going on since the british mandate so it would be interesting to find out who fired the first shot in anger so to speak. Of course the colonial powers may have had something to do with it also.

We must remember that Jewish/Islamic violence and anger to each other is a new phenomina in relative terms (ie only started really about 100 years ago) and has not been going on for 100's of years like some people would like us to believe

If we are going from 1967 then i would have to say that Israel made the first move in anger. However this feud has been going on since the british mandate so it would be interesting to find out who fired the first shot in anger so to speak. Of course the colonial powers may have had something to do with it also.

We must remember that Jewish/Islamic violence and anger to each other is a new phenomina in relative terms (ie only started really about 100 years ago) and has not been going on for 100's of years like some people would like us to believe

But we are not going from 1967, and Israel's move then was precipitated by the massing of armies on her frontiers for an invasion which was admitted by numerous Arab leaders.

As for how soon the violence started; oppression of religious minorities in the region under sharia is a form of violence. I'm not in the slightest surprised they didn't accept it.

Geoff

Geoff:

But they haven't used those justifications - they've agreed to withdraw further. That isn't annexation.

I'll believe this when I see them do so. Talk is cheap in Palestine-Israel diplomacy.


Nor would they bulldoze more of anything. "Home bulldozing" is the Israeli response to suicide bombing. No bombers, no bulldozers.

Complete and utter nonsense. Suicide bombing is an EXCUSE Israel uses to rationalise land annexations.
Their 'we're doing it because of terrorists' excuse might have more credibility if they didn't...

1. Annex the land immediately afterwards and...

2. Build civilian settlements on this annexed land.

3. Build the Apartheid Wall on the Green line, instead of within occupied territory.

This is akin to a murderer claiming self-defense, as his victim attacked him first. But later we discover the accused robbed the victim beforehand.



Your argument, by contrast is akin to telling a woman to just "lie back and take it" in the supposition that she'd only be hurt worse if she struggled.

Nonsense. Your expectation that Palestine cease its resistance, and lie down for an ass reaming, is analogous to your above example. You can't negotiate a fair peace if you don't have leverage, and you don't apply pressure.

Perhaps during the Revolutionary Wars, America should have laid down it weapons and stop their attacks against the invader, so that they could negotiate a 'peace deal'. :rolleyes:

But we are not going from 1967, and Israel's move then was precipitated by the massing of armies on her frontiers for an invasion which was admitted by numerous Arab leaders.

As for how soon the violence started; oppression of religious minorities in the region under sharia is a form of violence. I'm not in the slightest surprised they didn't accept it.

Geoff
So when are going from then Geoff.

And didn't the Egyptians have a large part of their army fighting in the Yemen Civil War at the time of 1967. So i seriously doubt they were looking to attack israel, not even those Arab leaders are that Stupid, or actually perhaps they are coming to think about it!!!

Violence to religious miniroities is not accepted Geoff, and as stated before the Jew/Muslim violence towards each other is a relatively new phenomina and has not been going on for 100's of years on this wide a scale.

Perhaps during the Revolutionary Wars, America should have laid down it weapons and stop their attacks against the invader, so that they could negotiate a 'peace deal'. :rolleyes:
But Americans forgot the ever effective tactic of sending bombers to London to blow up civilians.

(Admittedly, one Guy did try to blow things up but I don't think Fawkes had anything to do with America... ;))

Well being that Isreal gained the land after various Arab countries attempted to invade Isreal.....

Maybe the Palastinians should blame them?

Zephyr:

But Americans forgot the ever effective tactic of sending bombers to London to blow up civilians.

Don't try and paint the Americans as benevolent angels during the Revolutionary Wars. Both sides committed horrendous atrocities. If sending bombers to London had have been a viable and effective tactic against the invaders, they I'm sure that they would have done so in an instant. After all, they did it against the Native Indians and the Mexicans.
However, the difference is that London wasn't exactly very accessable. A century+ on, America DID send bombers to Germany to intentionally wipe out civilians, and create a climate of fear
Perhaps my analogy isn't perfect, but it highlights the absurdity of denouncing Hamas because it refuses to accept 'peace' on the invader's terms.
Peace is NOT always the best option. If peace means having your land stolen, your civilization destroyed, and living in slavery, then I would contend that it is better to fight. What do you Americans say? "Give me liberty, or give me death!"

crazy:

Well being that Isreal gained the land after various Arab countries attempted to invade Isreal.....

Israel has never been invaded. You can't invade your own territory. It amounts to the absurd statement that France invaded Britain during the 100 years war, when they counter-attacked and retook French territory.

Well being that Isreal gained the land after various Arab countries attempted to invade Isreal.....

Maybe the Palastinians should blame them?
In 1967 Israel attack first and took control of the Gazza Strip, West bank, Golan and Siani Dessert, under the pre-text of an imminent Egyptian attack

In 1967 Israel attack first and took control of the Gazza Strip, West bank, Golan and Siani Dessert, under the pre-text of an imminent Egyptian attack

That's not the way history records it son....
13 Arab nations banded together and attacked Israel, attempting to wipe them from the map.....and when they were defeated in what was nothing short of intervention from God.....Israel kept some of the land which comprised thier original boarders as is the right of any victor in war.
They have since given some of it back, in an attempt to "buy" peace.....
A mistake that won't probably be made again....

You must be thinking of something else. There certainly weren't 13 nations involved in the 1967 war. Israel did strike first, and I think the land was kept more for security reasons than as 'spoils of war'. Israel is very narrow between the West Bank and Gaza strip and at the time, a joint operation between Jordan (who controlled W.B) and Egypt (Gaza) could have cut the country in half very rapidly, leaving it at an immense strategic disadvantage.

Since Egypt and Jordan are currently the only Arab countries who have peace treaties with Israel, the situation has altered somewhat. But in 1967 none of Israel's neighbours recognised her right to exist, so military activity on the border could well be seen as a possible threat to Israel.

My apologies.
It was after the 48' handover that all the Arab nations together attacked Israel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War

Unsuccessful as they were, Israel would not have been wise to look the other way as they massed at her borders in 1967.
It was with Egypt, Syria, Jorden and Iraq they fought in 1967.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

My apologies.
It was after the 48' handover that all the Arab nations together attacked Israel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War

Unsuccessful as they were, Israel would not have been wise to look the other way as they massed at her borders in 1967.
It was with Egypt, Syria, Jorden and Iraq they fought in 1967.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War
I think iraq probably had about 100 men and 10 tanks involved, i think iraq had more involvement in the 1973 war, but again rather limited as they did not have any tank transporters

Well as already stated Egypt did have a large proportiion of its army based in yemen at the time so they would have been stupid to attack israel.

It is rather puzzling though how if they were preparing to attack they got smashed so badly when israel attacked first , but then again the Arabs of the last 100 years have not been the best of military planners.

but then again the Arabs of the last 100 years have not been the best of military planners

That's part of the problem. However, there are other complicating factors. For instance, during the 1948 war, while Iraq was 'technically' involved, it did very little fighting. It was hesitant to go all out because it would harm relationship with the West, especially the U.S.
Also, the Arab armies which were involved acted separately. They were not a cohesive force. This spelled disaster, as the Arab forces in total were roughly equal to the Jewish forces in total. Try asking the European combatants of the final Crusade against the Turks what happens when you have a conglomeration of forces from varying countries who can't co-operate. I'll give you a hint... Chaos and defeat.

In 1967 Israel attack first and took control of the Gazza Strip, West bank, Golan and Siani Dessert, under the pre-text of an imminent Egyptian attack

Pre-text?
-Lets see, you have recorded conversations between Jordans King and Nassar about the best and fastest way to tel-aviv.
- The egyptians kicking out the UN force in the SINI and entering it with numerouse armoured and infantry divisions.
- Egyptians blockading Israels southern ports (an act of war by itself)
- Jordanians beginning to shell the Israeli part of jerusalem, and brinnging their armoured collumns whithin a mile of the border.
- Iraqi armoured brigades half-way through jordan to augment the syrians.

Yeah... pretext...

Pre-text?
-Lets see, you have recorded conversations between Jordans King and Nassar about the best and fastest way to tel-aviv.
- The egyptians kicking out the UN force in the SINI and entering it with numerouse armoured and infantry divisions.
- Egyptians blockading Israels southern ports (an act of war by itself)
- Jordanians beginning to shell the Israeli part of jerusalem, and brinnging their armoured collumns whithin a mile of the border.
- Iraqi armoured brigades half-way through jordan to augment the syrians.

Yeah... pretext...
You did not read the last part of my post then.

the Arabs did not intend to attack isreal how could they with A large proportion of the Egyptian Army in Yemen.

perhaps the Egyptians were scared of a re-run of the 1956 fiasco and did a bit of stupid sabre ratling.

you know these Arabs are full of egos but not much else. israel needed the excuse and the Arabs handed it to them on a plate

You did not read the last part of my post then.

the Arabs did not intend to attack isreal how could they with A large proportion of the Egyptian Army in Yemen.

perhaps the Egyptians were scared of a re-run of the 1956 fiasco and did a bit of stupid sabre ratling.

you know these Arabs are full of egos but not much else. israel needed the excuse and the Arabs handed it to them on a plate

First of all, there are written documents of the variouse war plans of the arab nations in that coalition. Nassar may have been pushed to the war against his will, but the egyptian military command wanted it, and so did the syrians. The one person not wanting to join the war was King hussain, but Nassar threatened him into submission.

Second: eventhough on hindsight the war was a spectacular success for Israel, Israeli planners did not want it. There were 2 options to prevent Israels defeat:

1: demand an international armada to cut through the egyptian blockade.
2: Pre-emptive war.

At first, most of the Israeli cabinet favored option number 1, since the thought at the time was that the root problem was the blockade.
later, though, the cabinet came to the conclusion that arab actions came as a result of the slackening of Israels deterrance power. Meaning arab nations were not as affraid to initiate hostilities against it. The conclusion was that even if an armada would break the blockade, it will even worsen and weaken Israels deterrance power since it would look week and in need of international assistance to survive. The only course of action deemed appropriate, if risky, was to initiate a war and regain Israels deterrant status.

If you actually thought that Israel wanted this war, then howcome its chief of staff had a mental breakdown 3 days before the war, and the prime-minister actually had to stop a speech to the nation due to similar reasons?
Howcome IDF started digging mass graves for tens of thousands if it expected an easy war?

No one wanted it, even if it turned out eventually to be a tactical success.

I actually said israel needed the war not wanted it

I actually said israel needed the war not wanted it
I agree with you about that one. For the first time, Israelis found themselves on defensible borders:

The suez canal in the west, Jordan river in the east, and the Golan mountains in the north.

Ironically, that cursed war started all the problems in the region lasting till this day.

I agree with you about that one. For the first time, Israelis found themselves on defensible borders:

The suez canal in the west, Jordan river in the east, and the Golan mountains in the north.

Ironically, that cursed war started all the problems in the region lasting till this day.
agreed, not all but most of the problems indeed.

I have stated this before but propbably in a different thread, then surely israel should honour resolution 242, or the one of the only things which makes sense coming out of the house of saud and that is the land for peace offering

I have stated this before but propbably in a different thread, then surely israel should honour resolution 242, or the one of the only things which makes sense coming out of the house of saud and that is the land for peace offering

There are many ways to interpet 242. Do you evacuate all the settlements? Do you first demand a peace agreement from the palestinians + recognition?

Since evacuating Ariel (biggest settlement block) would mean displacing 70,000 residence, do you give the palestinians other lands inside 1967 proper as reparations? does 242 include the "right of return" of palestinians into pre-1967 Israel? Its not as simple as some people see it, or things would have been solved a long time ago.

Geoff:

I'll believe this when I see them do so. Talk is cheap in Palestine-Israel diplomacy.

Fair enough but you have to admit they are at least agreeing to do so. Compare that to a platform which doesn't renounce violence.

Complete and utter nonsense. Suicide bombing is an EXCUSE Israel uses to rationalise land annexations.

Would the Golan, the Sinai and the West Bank been taken except at the threat of violence from their Arab neighbours? You can't fault them for having an intelligence system that works, something no other nation in the region has ever been able to do.

2. Build civilian settlements on this annexed land.

And? They just pulled thousands of people out of Gaza. There's no reason to think that the settlements are any more inviolate.

This is akin to a murderer claiming self-defense, as his victim attacked him first. But later we discover the accused robbed the victim beforehand.

But these analogies are flawed. The conflict is rooted much, much deeper than settlements, back to the Arab call to war in 1947-1948 (and in my opinion deeper than that). For a half year vitriol and proclamations of war and genocide streamed out of Middle Eastern capitals, with nation after nation signing on to fight a war against the hated Jews; a war with distinctly religious overtones, not to mention the Nazi connections of Grand Mufti Husseini. They promised war, cited that there was no turning back, massed troops and started attacks...and they got a war. I sympathize with the plight of present-day Palestinians, but not with the motives of their war on the Israelis.

Nonsense. Your expectation that Palestine cease its resistance, and lie down for an ass reaming, is analogous to your above example. You can't negotiate a fair peace if you don't have leverage, and you don't apply pressure.

But it's not about 'applying pressure', it's about becoming shaheeds by killing Jewish people. It's religious at least as much, if not more, as political. And the point above stands: having won the territory in a defense war against still-hostile neighbours, isn't Israel being more than fair by handing so much of it back? I still don't see Axis nations - well, Germany, basically - complaining about the division of their territory at the end of WWII.

As my homies so eloquently say: "ain't start no shit, won't BE no shit." (Word up.)

And how exactly are rocket attacks inhibiting the Israelis from doing anything? Anything at all? They don't garner support for Palestinian terrorism - except from deranged lunatics like Foley - and their inhibitory value on Israeli actions in the West Bank is...nil. Nothing. Nada. Zip. The rockets are not stopping the bulldozers, which you seem to imply. They have not brought Israel to its knees, either financially or diplomatically. Palestinians are far, far worse off than they were before the attacks. The only people who don't seem to know this are the Palestinian public themselves - and given Hamas' and the PLO's reputation for 'up-front, no-holds-barred honesty', this is not really surprising.

Perhaps during the Revolutionary Wars, America should have laid down it weapons and stop their attacks against the invader, so that they could negotiate a 'peace deal'. :rolleyes:

Actually, I couldn't agree more. :D Come back to the Empire, lads: it's never too late to come home.

(Besides - it was our territory they were taking, anyway. ;) )

Geoff

So when are going from then Geoff.

1948 at the latest; though the mid 7th century would also be a good place to start.

And didn't the Egyptians have a large part of their army fighting in the Yemen Civil War at the time of 1967. So i seriously doubt they were looking to attack israel, not even those Arab leaders are that Stupid, or actually perhaps they are coming to think about it!!!

If I threaten to get my two friends and beat you up, and I tell you beforehand I'm going to do it, and I'm rolling up my sleeves to hit you, do you have the right to defend yourself immediately or must you wait until my cronies and I are ready?

Violence to religious miniroities is not accepted Geoff, and as stated before the Jew/Muslim violence towards each other is a relatively new phenomina and has not been going on for 100's of years on this wide a scale.

But religious oppression of minorities in the ME has been going on for over a thousand years. That's my impression of the source of the conflict.

Geoff

Peace is NOT always the best option. If peace means having your land stolen, your civilization destroyed, and living in slavery, then I would contend that it is better to fight. What do you Americans say? "Give me liberty, or give me death!"

And this is precisely why the Israelis are fighting.

Let's be honest about this: the land settlement issue is over. Palestinians have about as much chance of getting Israel back as Germany has of getting Prussia back. Should those nations have their territorial rights back? Maybe. But at the same time, should aggression go unpunished? The unfortunate thing is that the Palestinians were not completely (although, let's be honest again, largely) involved in the 1948 war, and yet they have borne the brunt of the punishment since. The exclusion of them from pan-Arabist territory was yet another horror - and all the worst since the knife ended up in their back from other Arabs.

Israel has never been invaded. You can't invade your own territory. It amounts to the absurd statement that France invaded Britain during the 100 years war, when they counter-attacked and retook French territory.

Well, actually the territory being fought over in the Hundred Years War was indeed English territory - Gascony, Brittany, Pouitou (I seem to recall) and Caen were feudal lands of the English crown, not the French crown. Philip and Charles used the excuse of Edward II's (and to some degree, Edward III's) failure to do homage for the lands as an excuse to invade them - although I challenge any feudal jurist to find me a clause in the initial establishment of homage to Philip that stated failure of personal face-to-face homage or submission translated into manumission of the bloody fiefs!

So in fact, the English were fighting for English territory, not French territory.

But that's another story.

Geoff

I think iraq probably had about 100 men and 10 tanks involved, i think iraq had more involvement in the 1973 war, but again rather limited as they did not have any tank transporters

I'd be interested to see a source for this, although it wouldn't be an argument against Israel's choice of action. Essentially it represents yet another nation - and a large one at that - entering a state of war against Israel. Whether 10 tanks or 1000 tanks were on the way is irrelevant - look at the time frame for Israeli action. One day after Iraq joins the Arab alliance, Israel acts. Their reasoning for the pre-emption (which is a justified response) is pretty clear.

You don't give bullies vowing to beat you up time to gang up on you - you deal with them quickly and offensively, hitting them one at a time. If they're slow, it's not your fault.

Geoff

Israel initiated military action in the 1948 war , with Hagganah ordering the start of military operations against the palestinians in November 1947 . Before that Jewish terrorists began opeartions against the British military and palestinians in 1936 . It was only after declaration of Israel by the Jews and the immediate opening of Zionist military opeartions against Palestinian areas that the Arab nations mustered their weak forces to intervene .

In 1956 Israel joined Britain and France in the agressive attack on Egypt , this was an Anglo-Franco attempt to get a foothold in the mideast Istrael pay off was to the Sinai .

In 1967 Israel lauched airstrikes on its Arab neighbours to weaken them so as to facillitate the annexation of the West bank with Jerusalem and the Sinai . There was no Arab thraet or threat of invasion is was a cover story for this act of aggression .

This led to the Arab attack of 1973 where the Arab nations attempted to seize back what Israel had taken by aggression .

Thats it in a nutshell Israel is the aggressive force in the region .

I'd be interested to see a source for this, although it wouldn't be an argument against Israel's choice of action. Essentially it represents yet another nation - and a large one at that - entering a state of war against Israel. Whether 10 tanks or 1000 tanks were on the way is irrelevant - look at the time frame for Israeli action. One day after Iraq joins the Arab alliance, Israel acts. Their reasoning for the pre-emption (which is a justified response) is pretty clear.

You don't give bullies vowing to beat you up time to gang up on you - you deal with them quickly and offensively, hitting them one at a time. If they're slow, it's not your fault.

Geoff
I dont know the figures exactly geoff, but the iraqi force was insignificant through men committed and logistics.

i will give it a blast and ahve a look on the interweb

Coupla interesting links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews_Against_the_Occupation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabs_for_Israel

Those are the wiki pages but they have links to the main sites of the organisations if you're interested.

I have stated this before but propbably in a different thread, then surely israel should honour resolution 242
Oh, but they have. The wording was deliberately chosen so as to be open to some interpretation to get consent from the Russians, but the author of the resolution (it was the British ambassador to the UN, Lord Caradon) has specified that the "territories occupied" (which I assume is what you're talking about) in question was never meant to be all inclusive, and since Israel has withdrawn from some 90-odd percent of the territories it conquered in subsequent peace agreements, I'd say the resolution of this particular resolution (pun intended) falls out in favour of Israel. In fact, the aforemention Lord Caradon has specifically said that "it would have been wrong to demand that Israel returned to its position of June 4th, 1967".

Of course, this is all on the speculation that the resolution should be taken as some kind of command to the countries in question - which it frankly isn't. The only thing people ever mention of SR242 is section 1.(i): "Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;" Well, they conveniently leave out (if they even know it, which is also in question) that section 1 is only a statement of what a just and lasting peace should include, not a statement of what Israel should do now, or even in the near future. And since section 1.(ii) specifies the affirmation of every state's right to existence (i.e. including Israel's) and a cessation of hostilities, it's sort of a strange thing to point out (repeatedly) that Isreal should be "in violation" of this resolution since in that case so is everyone else in the Middle East.

Hell, the only thing action the resolution actually decides should be taken is that there should be a Special Representative to promote peace sent to the Middle East. Still, it gets pulled out again and again by people who are clearly unfamiliar with the actual text. Well, Zakariya, you can find it here (http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1967/scres67.htm).

Would the Golan, the Sinai and the West Bank been taken except at the threat of violence from their Arab neighbours?

We'll never know for sure. However, I'm willing to claim that yes, there was a good chance that Israel would have eventually taken the West Bank and the Gaza strip. Hell, they would have taken as much as they could have gotten their hands on. They always coveted a 'Greater Israel' which incorporated this territory. What does the Bible say? 'From the Nile to the Euphrates.'


You can't fault them for having an intelligence system that works,

This has nothing to do with their intelligence system. This has everything to do with their desire to steal land.


something no other nation in the region has ever been able to do.

Patently false, but also irrelevant. I'm not getting into an argument about this.


And? They just pulled thousands of people out of Gaza.

And? Big deal! I say this for several reasons. Sauron gives a good summary here, so I'll just quote his portion of the post:
http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=169502&postcount=8

. 1a. Israel was going to withdraw from Gaza - in reality, Israel is being dishonest about that; they plan to retain control over the ports, the airspace, the access roads, and several other areas/facilities as well as the Philadelphia road, a corridor that bisects Gaza right down the center. That's the kind of "withdrawal" that the Soviets did with Eastern Europe.

b. Israel was going to dismantle settlements in Gaza; 30,000 settlers in a sea of 1.3 million Arabs was militarily and psychologically untenable anyhow

2. Sharon's plan, then, was to trade worthless Gaza, in order to retain six settlements on the West Bank, plus the option to retain others. Which satisfied the orthodox and right-wing parties, since the West Bank constitutes biblical "judaea and samaria". The religious parties were also happy to see that the position of Israel changed WRT: the West Bank: Israel abandoned the previous position that the WB would be returned to the Palestinians one day. The icing on the cake was when Sharon got the USA to bless that arrangement.

3. How did Sharon do that? By selling it to Dubya as "facing realities on the ground" - which basically means that the USA rewarded and legitimized Israeli efforts to "create facts"; i.e., rapidly building and expanding pushing settlements. Having been rewarded for illegal activities, the Israelis are quick to learn the lesson.

4. Now, after having failed to get the backing of Likud on this plan, and after cancelling a vote on it because he was sure to lose, what do we see? It appears that Sharon was forced to let the far-right religious parties re-draft the Gaza agreement, in order to get it passed in parliament. The changes?

* The Israeli settlements are NOT going to be dismantled after all.
* Nor are future settlements going to be halted.
* On the contrary, existing settlements are going to stay.
* And Israel is going to expand and build more settlements.

Exactly *how* does a country conduct a withdrawal while simultaneously expanding settlement activities? And exactly *why* should the Arabs accept this arrangement, or trust Israel? Don't fool yourself: Israel still controls Gaza, just like white South Africa controlled the bantustans inside its territory.



There's no reason to think that the settlements are any more inviolate.

Wrong. There's very good reasons to think that the settlements in the West Bank are permanent, given that Israel...

a. Continues to establish settlements in the West Bank.
b. Continues to move its citizens to the settlements in the West Bank.
c. Has a large population of Israeli residents in the area, unlike the Gaza strip.
d. Makes it clear that it wishes to annex the area.


But these analogies are flawed.

Nope, not really.


The conflict is rooted much, much deeper than settlements,

Once again, I disagree. The settlements are merely the result of colonialisation and occupation of what was believed to be a 'barbarian's' land.


back to the Arab call to war in 1947-1948 (and in my opinion deeper than that).

Why are you shocked that the Arabs responded to a hostile, Jewish, Zionist, militant, colonialist, Western-backed state being set up on their doorstep? Even better, why are you so shocked that they were frightened of Israel, given that Israel had already had a nasty habit of land theft from Arabs?

The Jews acted, and the Arabs responded. Not the other way around.


For a half year vitriol and proclamations of war
and genocide streamed out of Middle Eastern capitals,

1. Exaggeration.

2. It's not genocide to want to drive out the invader via violent means. As I've repeated in the past, was it genocide when the Polish wished to drive out the German invaders?


with nation after nation signing on to fight a war against the hated Jews;

No. They wanted to fight invaders (Zionists), who just happened to be Jews.


a war with distinctly religious overtones,

Such as the Zionist's belief in Greater Israel? Yeah, I guess.


not to mention the Nazi connections of Grand Mufti Husseini.

Conjecture. And ironically, some Zionists actually collaborated with Hitler to secure settlements in Palestine.


They promised war,

Much like the French + Scottish promised a war with England when French territory was invaded and occupied.


cited that there was no turning back, massed troops and started attacks...and they got a war. I sympathize with the plight of present-day Palestinians, but not with the motives of their war on the Israelis.

That is where we disagree. I never sympathize with invaders, which is exactly what the Israelis were.


But it's not about 'applying pressure', it's about becoming shaheeds by killing Jewish people.

No. That's just an 'added bonus' for some of the 'suicide bombers'. It comforts them a little bit. But to say that religion is the driving motive is absurd. Suicide terrorism is observed in many places over the world being committed by different religious and secular factions. However, the one common factor that all of these terrorists have is that they are fighting for what they believe is their rightful, national homeland, and to drive out the invader.


It's religious at least as much, if not more, as political.

Which is why there are secular terrorist groups? FATAH was secular, and a number of Palestinian terrorist groups are actually Marxist.


And the point above stands: having won the territory in a defense war against still-hostile neighbours,
isn't Israel being more than fair by handing so much of it back?

No.

1. The Geneva Conventions specifically prohibit keeping the spoils of war.

2. Despite your claims, the land was gained through aggression. It was the Israelis who originally invaded the area and expropriated the land off the original inhabitants. Numerous indigenous inhabitants banded together to drive them out.

You claim that Israel fought a 'defensive war' is highly deceiving. Merely because someone fights a defensive war, does not automatically make them the victim. Germany fought a defensive war against the Allies during WWII... are you going to claim that the Allies were the aggressors? :rolleyes:


I still don't see Axis nations - well, Germany, basically - complaining about the division of their territory at the end of WWII.

1. For a start, it wasn't THEIR territory. Try boning up on this material before spouting this nonsense.

2. Germany DID complain about the loss of its territory, both after WWI and WWII.


As my homies so eloquently say: "ain't start no shit, won't BE no shit." (Word up.)

You assume that the Arabs started the shit. This is where I disagree. The Israelis acted, the Arabs reacted.


And how exactly are rocket attacks inhibiting the Israelis from doing anything? Anything at all? They don't garner support for Palestinian terrorism - except from deranged lunatics like Foley - and their inhibitory value on Israeli actions in the West Bank is...nil. Nothing. Nada. Zip.

Merely because you say this does not make it so. Terrorism is an effective military strategy, which has been employed time and time again by the occupied against invaders, with great success.


The rockets are not stopping the bulldozers, which you seem to imply.

Some military strategies take decades to be truly effective. However, there have been many times when Palestine has managed to force concessions from Israel via terrorism. And ironically, as you acknowledged about, they Israelis pulled out of the Gaza Strip. For 'security reasons'.


They have not brought Israel to its knees,

Which is why they evacuated the Gaza Strip (well, the settlements, anyway) for security reasons? If the Palestinians acted as docile goyim, then perhaps the settlers would have been willing to live in a sea of Arabs. However, knowing how dangerous such a prospect is, they have been forced to flee.
either financially or diplomatically.


Palestinians are far, far worse off than they were before the attacks.

1. That's conjecture. There is no way for you to accurately measure such a thing, and we really will never know what the state of the Palestinians would be like if they didn't resist.

2. Nevertheless, your point is a red herring. You imply that the fault rests with the Palestinians for resisting, when the blame actually lies with the occupier. Once again, your claim is identical to a rapist telling a woman that if only she had remained still, she wouldn't have gotten that black eye.


The only people who don't seem to know this are the Palestinian public themselves - and given Hamas' and the PLO's reputation for 'up-front, no-holds-barred honesty', this is not really surprising.

Or perhaps the Palestinians have actually seen that Hamas activities are beneficial for the future Palestinian state?

I cant believe you people actually argue day after day about whos killing who in the name of a piece of dryed up sand. Its fucking crap land that these people want because of barbaric hebrew superstition. The problem is the fuckin the book.. the 'Holy Babble". Neither deserve the right to anything. They all are barbaric murderers. And they think that their interpretation is the right one... and they worship the creator of all this slaughtering. Like it really exsists.

Mind boggling.

They all are barbaric murderers. And they think that their interpretation is the right one... and they worship the creator of all this slaughtering.
Yeah right, coz those descriptions cannot be used for numerous other cultures and peoples, at one time or another, from all over the world. http://www.fadzter.com/smilies/rolleyes.gif You don't think that description applies to your own socioethnic group? Are you a white Christian American male, for instance?

Mind boggling.
Yes indeed, your fanaticism, racism, sociopathology and lack of education in world affairs and history truly is.

Hell, the only thing action the resolution actually decides should be taken is that there should be a Special Representative to promote peace sent to the Middle East. Still, it gets pulled out again and again by people who are clearly unfamiliar with the actual text. Well, Zakariya, you can find it here (http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1967/scres67.htm).
If thats the case i wonder whether it would have been acceptable that Saddam pulled out of 90% of Kuwait in 1991!!!????!!!?

and dont give me any of that shit that Saddam would ahve invaded Saudi

Ok then Funky man what about the Saudi plan of land for peace why dont the Israelis want that. And why is it that they all refuse to have UN monitors in the west bank.

In my opinion this is not completely israels fault or the arabs fault. it is obviously both of there fault coupled with the fact that the West (US and Europe) get involved and stir shit up, which then provoke the old soviets to stir shit up, etc.. etc... Add in to this arab ego, stupidity and betrayal, along with israeli arrogance and you ahve a great mix

Please funsktar, israel are not angels

Fair enough but you have to admit they are at least agreeing to do so. Compare that to a platform which doesn't renounce violence.

And? They just pulled thousands of people out of Gaza. There's no reason to think that the settlements are any more inviolate.



Geoff
Come on Geoff a man of you uindoubted intellect, you know that gazza thing was just a beautifull con trick by the master SHaron

Hell, the only thing action the resolution actually decides should be taken is that there should be a Special Representative to promote peace sent to the Middle East. Still, it gets pulled out again and again by people who are clearly unfamiliar with the actual text. Well, Zakariya, you can find it here (http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1967/scres67.htm).
Oh so we are including the Siani as the 90% of the land.

Come on funkstar the resolution also says to have free acess to ports, do the palestinains have this???

And whats happened to parts 2 b and c, they are not being fulfiled either.

Plalestine is being blockade econimcally, militarily and politically, by air sea and land.

If thats the case

It is the case. You can verify it by reading the resolution text.

i wonder whether it would have been acceptable that Saddam pulled out of 90% of Kuwait in 1991!!!????!!!?

Of course not. Saddam attacked and invaded Kuwait, amd warfare as a means of acquiring territory is unacceptable. But, of course, that's not what Israel did at all.

The resolution concerning the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait (SR660) is totally unambiguous on the matter:

"The Security Council [...] demands that Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally all its forces to the positions in which they were located on 1 August 1990;"

Clearly, this is very different from SR242 which sets down certain things that should be included in a lasting peace.

If, in fact, you think that Israel can't be allowed to keep a strategically better position after having defended themselves from invaders, then you're giving the invaders a carte blanche to try to destroy Israel as many times as they want, without repercussions. Clearly, that is unreasonable.

and dont give me any of that shit that Saddam would ahve invaded Saudi

Que? I'm not following...

Ok then Funky man what about the Saudi plan of land for peace why dont the Israelis want that. And why is it that they all refuse to have UN monitors in the west bank.

Which plan are you talking about? Also, there are plenty of UN personel in the West Bank.

In my opinion this is not completely israels fault or the arabs fault. it is obviously both of there fault coupled with the fact that the West (US and Europe) get involved and stir shit up, which then provoke the old soviets to stir shit up, etc.. etc... Add in to this arab ego, stupidity and betrayal, along with israeli arrogance and you ahve a great mix

Please funsktar, israel are not angels
I'm not suggesting they are. I'm merely pointing out that the horse you are flogging (that Israel somehow violates SR242) is not going to get up.

It is the case. You can verify it by reading the resolution text.

Of course not. Saddam attacked and invaded Kuwait, amd warfare as a means of acquiring territory is unacceptable. But, of course, that's not what Israel did at all.

.
what do you mean they did not invade. What, egypt just said, here you go israel have the Saini dessert and gazza. along with Syria and jordan going yeah please have the Golan and West bank.

they attacked via a pre-emptive strike in 1967, on the pretext that the bumbling arabs were massing there armies

[QUOTE=funkstar]

Clearly, this is very different from SR242 which sets down certain things that should be included in a lasting peace.
QUOTE]
I cant see anything in 242 that Israel has honured!!!

apart from giving the Siani back to Egypt

I think Egypt to had cause for concern about its borders, with the 1956 suez fiasco dont you.

i will get on to the Saudi plan in aminute

Oh so we are including the Siani as the 90% of the land.

Of course. It says "territories occupied in the recent conflict", i.e. the Six Day War.

Come on funkstar the resolution also says to have free acess to ports, do the palestinains have this???

Actually, the resolutions says nothing of the sort. It says "Affirms further the necessity a) For guarenteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;" - a very different thing. Ports are not international waters, and the Palestinians have no intrinsic right to ports.

And whats happened to parts 2 b and c, they are not being fulfiled either.

True. For instance: Israel was attacked in 1973, meaning that 2.c wasn't implemented at that time. Of course, it hasn't been implemented since then, either. A pity. If we were to demilitarize the West Bank, Gaza, Syria and southern Lebanon, this would fulfill it, though ;)

Plalestine is being blockade econimcally, militarily and politically, by air sea and land.
This may be so, but pulling out SR242 is not going to do anything about that. Hell, the only mention of the Palestinians in SR242 is 2.b, which merely affirms that the refugee problem should be settled justly. They were not a state then (and are not a state now) hence the parts about states did not and does not apply to them.

I'm sorry if you've been misinformed about what the resolution states, but it is not a very strong card to play.

what do you mean they did not invade. What, egypt just said, here you go israel have the Saini dessert and gazza. along with Syria and jordan going yeah please have the Golan and West bank.

The Israeli attacks on Egyptian airforces etc. is well-documented as a preemptive strike against an attacking force. This is not the same thing as the invasion of Kuwait, a subtlety captured e.g. in the very different resolutions adopted. There can be no doubt of the motives of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon - they were massing an attack.

Hell, even the preemption part is disputable as Egypt closed down the Tirana straits which is an act of war.

they attacked via a pre-emptive strike in 1967, on the pretext that the bumbling arabs were massing there armies
The amassing of the armies is well documented. The intent to attack is well documented. What about the expulsion of the UN peace keeping force from Sinai? Etc. etc.

This is the Saudi plan

Saudi Crown prince Abdullah floated an Arab peace plan that was discussed and modified at am Arab League summit conference in Beirut in March of 2002. The plan calls for Israeli withdrawal from all territories occupied since 1967 and return of the Palestine refugees to Israel in return for recognition of Israel and normal relations

Clearly, this is very different from SR242 which sets down certain things that should be included in a lasting peace.

I cant see anything in 242 that Israel has honured!!!
That's because you're still locked in the thinking that 242 sets out demands to be met by Israel. It doesn't. It's a generally worded resolution of what peace should entail and what needs to be ensured on so on.

In short: "There should be peace. Here are a few things peace should include. Here are some other things that should be done as well. We'll send a guy to help."

Again, contrast it with SR660 which states "Pull out of Kuwait. Now!"

This is the Saudi plan

Saudi Crown prince Abdullah floated an Arab peace plan that was discussed and modified at am Arab League summit conference in Beirut in March of 2002. The plan calls for Israeli withdrawal from all territories occupied since 1967 and return of the Palestine refugees to Israel in return for recognition of Israel and normal relations
I'm sure you're smart enough (seriously) to think up a plethora of reasons why this plan is totally unacceptable to Israel.

The amassing of the armies is well documented. The intent to attack is well documented. What about the expulsion of the UN peace keeping force from Sinai? Etc. etc.
Really well then explain this :

Facts of the 1967 Israeli-Arab war: (http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-Doc-Jews/Doc-Jews-Israel-Torture&Terror&War&Racism&EthnicCleansing/IsraelStarted1967War.htm)

Menachem Begin, while prime minister in 1982, said the 1967 war was one of "choice," that "we decided to attack him [Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser]."

Ezer Weizman, father of the Israeli air force and later defense minister, said in 1972 that there was "no threat of destruction" from the Arabs.

General Mattityahu Peled, a former member of the general staff who later became a dove, said in 1972: "To claim that the Egyptian forces concentrated on our borders were capable of threatening Israel's existence not only insults the intelligence of anyone capable of analyzing this kind of situation, but is an insult to Zahal [the Israeli army]."

And Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin said in 1968: "I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it."

David Ben-Gurion said he "doubt[ed] very much whether Nasser wanted to go to war."4 Moreover, the combined intelligence services of the United States had concluded just before the war that Israel faced no imminent threat and that if attacked could quickly defeat any Arab state or combination of Arab states.

Israeli cabinet member Mordecai Bentov revealed in 1972 that Israel's "entire story" about the danger of extermination" was "invented out of whole cloth and exaggerated after the fact to justify the annexation of new Arab territories.
And show me these documents .

Really well then explain this :

And show me these documents .
Go away, and read your own books, sunshine. "Six Days of War" would be a starting point.

Oh, and "The Birdman"? Classy.

I'm sure you're smart enough (seriously) to think up a plethora of reasons why this plan is totally unacceptable to Israel.
What dont Israel want peace then!!!

tell me why it is unacceptable

The Israeli attacks on Egyptian airforces etc. is well-documented as a preemptive strike against an attacking force. This is not the same thing as the invasion of Kuwait, a subtlety captured e.g. in the very different resolutions adopted. There can be no doubt of the motives of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon - they were massing an attack.

Hell, even the preemption part is disputable as Egypt closed down the Tirana straits which is an act of war.

The amassing of the armies is well documented. The intent to attack is well documented. What about the expulsion of the UN peace keeping force from Sinai? Etc. etc.
How could Egypt attack israel when they had 60-70000 men of their 150,000 army at the time in yemen, that is nearly half their army.

israel knew this so why did they perceive to take it seriously, Jordan also had some of its forces in the Yemen.

The UN peace force was in the Sinai as requested by egypt after the 1956 Aggression, they asked the UN to leave their territory which they did.

So how about Israel stopping/withholding the tax duties to palestine, is that not theft??!!!??? and econmic embargo.

What dont Israel want peace then!!!

tell me why it is unacceptable
Well, for starters there's no way that Israel is ever going to accept 5 million palestinian "refugees". That's simply not going to happen.

How could Egypt attack israel when they had 60-70000 men of their 150,000 army at the time in yemen, that is nearly half their army.

Well, Egyptian forces were not the only troops involved in the war. But, true, Nasser might not have wanted to attack Israel at the time of the war.

Then again, this makes it the perfect moment for Israel to preempt the attack - there's no reason for them to wait while the Egyptians drum up their full fighting force.

israel knew this so why did they perceive to take it seriously, Jordan also had some of its forces in the Yemen.

Again, true, but the decision to attack Israel was already taken. That they were too stupid to mask it properly isn't Israel's fault. They did far better in 73 but that still wasn't enough.

The UN peace force was in the Sinai as requested by egypt after the 1956 Aggression, they asked the UN to leave their territory which they did.

Which is sort of a clue of things to come, right? In any case, the force was there as a guarentee for the safety of Israel, not Egypt, if I remember correctly.

So how about Israel stopping/withholding the tax duties to palestine, is that not theft??!!!??? and econmic embargo.
Do you seriously expect Israel to hand over large sums of money to a terrorist organisation like Hamas?

Well, Egyptian forces were not the only troops involved in the war. But, true, Nasser might not have wanted to attack Israel at the time of the war.

Which is sort of a clue of things to come, right? In any case, the force was there as a guarentee for the safety of Israel, not Egypt, if I remember correctly.

Do you seriously expect Israel to hand over large sums of money to a terrorist organisation like Hamas?


The UN Peace keepers were their to protect Egypt form israeli attack, remmeber that isarel attacked in 1956.

It is giving what is rightfully the palestinains to their democratically elected governement.

You must also rememeber that Israel back Hamas in the 80's as it was born of the muslim brotherhood of Egypt as a counter to Fatah

funkstar:

Do you seriously expect Israel to hand over large sums of money to a terrorist organisation like Hamas?

1. Hamas isn't a terrorist organization, it's a governmental body, with numerous wings.

2. The taxes collected from Palestinians in occupied territory rightfully belong to the PA, the representative of the Palestinian people. This is an undisputable fact. Taxes from the Palestinians belong to their government, not the Israelis. Merely because the Israelis do not like the current representatives of the Palestinian people, does not mean that they can withhold what rightfully belongs to them.

We'll never know for sure. However, I'm willing to claim that yes, there was a good chance that Israel would have eventually taken the West Bank and the Gaza strip. Hell, they would have taken as much as they could have gotten their hands on. They always coveted a 'Greater Israel' which incorporated this territory. What does the Bible say? 'From the Nile to the Euphrates.'
The more extreme religious elements did. Just as the more extreme elements on the other side covet the idea of 'no Israel'. Hopefully both sides will realise that dreams != reality, hmm?

Why are you shocked that the Arabs responded to a hostile, Jewish, Zionist, militant, colonialist, Western-backed state being set up on their doorstep? Even better, why are you so shocked that they were frightened of Israel, given that Israel had already had a nasty habit of land theft from Arabs?
Israel was created in '48, so the state of Israel itself had no history at the time of invasion. So I assume you're talking about the immigrants who would make up the population of Israel. Precisely when prior to '48 did these immigrants steal land?

Despite your claims, the land was gained through aggression. It was the Israelis who originally invaded the area and expropriated the land off the original inhabitants. Numerous indigenous inhabitants banded together to drive them out.
I'd be wary of confusing invasion with immigration. You live in Australia and aren't of pure aboriginal descent, right? Does that make you an invader or an immigrant?

funkstar:

1. Hamas isn't a terrorist organization, it's a governmental body, with numerous wings.

Of course Hamas is a terrorist organisation. The EU and USA and many others recognize them as so. As do I, qua their considerable record of terror in Israel.

That they (wrongly) were eligible for office in the PA and secured a majority of the popular vote does not make them lose their status as a terrorist organisation. Only the abandonement of terror as political (and in their case religious) means can do so. They have made no such progress, and are therefore still terrorists.

2. The taxes collected from Palestinians in occupied territory rightfully belong to the PA, the representative of the Palestinian people. This is an undisputable fact. Taxes from the Palestinians belong to their government, not the Israelis. Merely because the Israelis do not like the current representatives of the Palestinian people, does not mean that they can withhold what rightfully belongs to them.
Choosing Hamas as their representative is sadly going to lead to harsher times for the Palestinians: Israel cannot possibly turn those monies over to Hamas, unless they can be guarenteed not to be spent on terrorist activities. Which they at present cannot.

Yes, this may be considered unfair to the population, but the fault lies with the PA (under Fatah). If the PA had honoured their obligations under the Oslo accords (which is where their mandate springs from) Hamas would never have been eligible in the first place (seeing as it should have been dismantled), and Israel wouldn't have had to withhold the PA's funds.

All in my humble opinion, of course.

Yes, this may be considered unfair to the population, but the fault lies with the PA (under Fatah). If the PA had honoured their obligations under the Oslo accords (which is where their mandate springs from) Hamas would never have been eligible in the first place (seeing as it should have been dismantled), and Israel wouldn't have had to withhold the PA's funds.

All in my humble opinion, of course.
How do you propose they dismantle Hamas, when the whole point of the OSLO accords was cos Israel could not deal with Hamas themselves, and theyfore wanted to shift the responsibility onto the PLO.

Incidnetally weren't the Israelis meant to stop building settlements????

Of course Hamas is a terrorist organisation.


Adding 'of course' to the start of your statement does not lend you any more credibility.


The EU and USA and many others recognize them as so.

This statement amounts to an 'appeal to authority' logic fallacy. Merely because the US and the EU believe it is so, does not make it so. Try again.


As do I, qua their considerable record of terror in Israel.

Attacking an invader is not terrorism. And what is this 'considerable' record of terror? Do you have statistics which demonstrate and prove that Hamas has been responsible for a 'considerable' record of terrorist incidents?


That they (wrongly) were eligible for office in the PA and secured a majority of the popular vote does not make them lose their status as a terrorist organisation.

Nor does it change the fact that they are the elected representative of the Palestinian people, and that your personal opinion on the matter bears no weight whatsoever.


Only the abandonement of terror as political (and in their case religious) means can do so.

By which you mean that they lay down their arms, and accept an ass reaming? Let me guess, do you think that a woman should lay still and 'peaceful', so that she doesn't receive a black eye from her rapist?


They have made no such progress, and are therefore still terrorists.

Fighting against an invader is not terrorism.


Choosing Hamas as their representative is sadly going to lead to harsher times for the Palestinians:

Conjecture. Life was already hard for the Palestinians, and may have been harder still if not for the resistance shown by Palestinian guerillas.


Israel cannot possibly turn those monies over to Hamas,
unless they can be guarenteed not to be spent on terrorist activities. Which they at present cannot.

Hamas 'activities' are fucking irrelevant, as I've pointed out time and time again. The tax money RIGHTFULLY belongs to the representatives of the Palestinian people. Merely because Israel disagrees with the Palestinian people's choice of government, does not mean that they can with-hold what rightfully belongs to Hamas.


Yes, this may be considered unfair to the population, but the fault lies with the PA (under Fatah).

Fatah is forcing Israel not to give Hamas the money? This is news to me!


If the PA had honoured their obligations under the Oslo accords (which is where their mandate springs from) Hamas would never have been eligible in the first place (seeing as it should have been dismantled), and Israel wouldn't have had to withhold the PA's funds.

1. Hamas WAS eligible. You seem to be unable to grasp the concept that there is more than one wing to Hamas. You're so hung up on the military wing, you fail to realize that Hamas also provides education, social services, and healthcare to the Palestinian people. While the military wing may not be eligible due to their so-called 'terrorist' activities (a claim which I find debatable), you still can't deny the political wing of Hamas the right to run in an election. It's not a violation of the Oslo accods.

2. I love how you mention the Oslo accords. You are aware that once a signatory breaks the terms of a treaty or agreement, it's binding power is nullified and void? Israel has violated the Oslo accords time and time again.

You can't demand that another party obey the terms of a contract, while you yourself continually violate them. You can't have your cake, and eat it to.

For you to criticize the PLO for not upholding the terms of the Oslo accord, while conveniently ignoring Israel's continuous abuses, is the peak of pot-kettle black syndrome.

hey people how do you work the posts so you can interject in between parts of somebnody elses is post.

i have not mastered this yet, pls advise

And time a again Hamas and Fata, have violated these same accords.

Yeah right, coz those descriptions cannot be used for numerous other cultures and peoples, at one time or another, from all over the world. http://www.fadzter.com/smilies/rolleyes.gif You don't think that description applies to your own socioethnic group? Are you a white Christian American male, for instance?.
So.. you read my post and call me a Christian ? LMAO - Now who is the ignorant one ? Der.


Yes indeed, your fanaticism, racism, sociopathology and lack of education in world affairs and history truly is.

Education in world affairs ? LMAO - dude please stop your killing me.

Im racist cause I says biblegod is not real?? :bugeye:
People slaughter each other every day in this world in his name and you call me ignorant ?? You sir are whats wrong in this world, you sir are the ignorant one.

And? Big deal! I say this for several reasons. Sauron gives a good summary here, so I'll just quote his portion of the post:
http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=169502&postcount=8

I agree with his idea (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=170206&postcount=38):

"So Israel should dismantle the settlements, recognize a WB state, and make peace with the remaining 98% of the Palestinians. That would leave far less support for Hamas - and it's a win for Israel. Fewer enemies, fewer fronts to fight on, less room for Hamas to hide. It would also give 98% of the Palestinians a vested interest in seeing the new WB state continue. Suddenly, Hamas doesn't look so attractive anymore, because they're ruining the party for BOTH the Israelis and the WB Palestinians. It's a triangulation strategy - give both players a stake in the game, and suddenly they turn their attention to the third party trying to wreck the tea party."


...that creating a Palestinian state is best for both sides (maybe not the extremists, but who cares about them...)

Only suggestion I'd add is if Israel can swap some land inside '67 borders for land just outside, avoiding shifting some of the nearer settlers wouldn't be a bad thing. (If those negotiating the Palestinian side want anything inside pre '67 Israel badly enough). Any Palestinians/Israelis living on swapped territory should be given duel citizenship so they have full rights under their new state, but if they really don't like it they can switch.

We'll never know for sure. However, I'm willing to claim that yes, there was a good chance that Israel would have eventually taken the West Bank and the Gaza strip. Hell, they would have taken as much as they could have gotten their hands on. They always coveted a 'Greater Israel' which incorporated this territory. What does the Bible say? 'From the Nile to the Euphrates.'

Well, you're entitled to your speculation, and that's what it remains.

This has nothing to do with their intelligence system. This has everything to do with their desire to steal land.

It has everything to do with their intelligence system - which is far better than any other mideastern government has ever been able to do. They were about to be attacked. They pre-empted.

And? Big deal! I say this for several reasons. Sauron gives a good summary here, so I'll just quote his portion of the post:
http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=169502&postcount=8

To wit: big deal! The Israelis retain partial control over facilities. How does this help your "lebenstraum" argument about the "Nile to the Euphrates"? Moreover, control of the facilities is exactly what I would want if I was concerned about arms moving through there, and they probably will be.

Wrong. There's very good reasons to think that the settlements in the West Bank are permanent, given that Israel...

And? The settlers in the Gaza didn't pack up until they were forced to. Did they go out quietly? Hell, no. Ultimately the decision comes from above. You're assigning intent to activities that may not be at all relevant.

And what then did they propose at Oslo? To withdraw.

Nope, not really.

Yes, really. I'm sensing a lot of hostility in your posts, there. You seem to feel the need to respond to everything.

Once again, I disagree. The settlements are merely the result of colonialisation and occupation of what was believed to be a 'barbarian's' land.

Well, I disagree with that, and history supports my view. Riots and marches and oppression as far back as 1920 indicates that the locals were trying to impose sharia and dhimmitude. Understandably - and unfortunately for Arabs in the region - the Jewish immigrants had had enough of that elsewhere.

Why are you shocked that the Arabs responded to a hostile, Jewish, Zionist, militant, colonialist, Western-backed state being set up on their doorstep? Even better, why are you so shocked that they were frightened of Israel, given that Israel had already had a nasty habit of land theft from Arabs?

What exactly is the latter point grounded in? Are you referring to the OT? If so, you're grasping at other people's straws.

And Israel was neither hostile nor militant until Arabs started trying to make them into second-class citizens! How can you call them hostile and militant when all they did was move there? Did they organize marches to "oppress and humiliate" local Arabs? Of course not. They were attacked and they responded with an armed militia - Haganah. Or perhaps you thought they should have sat back and taken it, dhimmitude-style?

I also note that local Arabs strangely didn't seem to have any problem whatever with a little Western backing of their own - namely, Adolf Hitler. In fact, the Grand Mufti and he were pretty chummy. They even planned their own Holocaust over there. So they seem a bit selective in being leery about Westerners. Recognition by the US? "Evil Westerners." Co-operation with Adolf to murder all the Jews in the ME? "Hey, let's not turn down a free lunch."

The Jews acted, and the Arabs responded. Not the other way around.

Regrets, this is simply not true.

1. Exaggeration.

Wrong.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/1948_War.html

You can complain that it's a Jewish site all you want. Foley certainly does. But you have to address the citations if you want to prove your point.

2. It's not genocide to want to drive out the invader via violent means. As I've repeated in the past, was it genocide when the Polish wished to drive out the German invaders?

I forget: did the Polish organize anti-German riots against Germans on Polish soil, burn their homes, kill their families, rape their women and try to force them to pay a humiliating, punitive tax?

Conjecture. And ironically, some Zionists actually collaborated with Hitler to secure settlements in Palestine.

Amazing. You take well-known facts and dismiss them as "conjecture". Ok, prove how this is conjecture. And illustrate where "Zionists" co-operated with Hitler. Is your position now that the evil Jews were secretly in a pact with Hitler?

Much like the French + Scottish promised a war with England when French territory was invaded and occupied.

Not at all the same thing and you know it. The one case refers to two separate nations separated by long geography. The other refers to several closely linked countries speaking a common language and having common religio-political aims.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/1948_War.html

And as to your claim it wasn't religious:

"Two days later, the holy men of Al-Azhar University in Cairo called on the Muslim world to proclaim a jihad (holy war) against the Jews."

That is where we disagree. I never sympathize with invaders, which is exactly what the Israelis were.

We disagree throughout, actually. ;) The second sentence is speculation: they were immigrants who fought back.

No. That's just an 'added bonus' for some of the 'suicide bombers'. It comforts them a little bit. But to say that religion is the driving motive is absurd.

And when they claim that they want to drink Jewish blood because it is the best blood, when other islamic nations pay them blood money for being a shaheed, when their families encourage them to become shaheeds and express delight that they have done so - this is all just a little extra?

Which is why there are secular terrorist groups? FATAH was secular, and a number of Palestinian terrorist groups are actually Marxist.

I forget: are Fatah still in power over there? No? Odd.

NO ONE in Palestine is too overtly secular; less so more than now, of course.

No.

1. The Geneva Conventions specifically prohibit keeping the spoils of war.

2. Despite your claims, the land was gained through aggression. It was the Israelis who originally invaded the area and expropriated the land off the original inhabitants. Numerous indigenous inhabitants banded together to drive them out.

Banded together to try and turn them into slaves, you mean. Actually since the Arab governments never recognized partition the entire affair was technically a civil war anyway, in which the revolutionary arms of the oppressed Jewish masses rose up against repeated threats on their peaceful nature by elements of a bourgeoi-fascist political-religious movement and forced the invader to a standstill by reactive force.

And since when has the bloody Geneva Conventions been enforced? North Vietnam took over South Vietnam. I didn't see a lot of hand-wringing about it at the UN.

You claim that Israel fought a 'defensive war' is highly deceiving. Merely because someone fights a defensive war, does not automatically make them the victim. Germany fought a defensive war against the Allies during WWII...

Er, and an OFFENSIVE war prior. They also weren't attacked first.

1. For a start, it wasn't THEIR territory. Try boning up on this material before spouting this nonsense.

2. Germany DID complain about the loss of its territory, both after WWI and WWII.

Can you see or not that 1. above conflicts directly with 2.? You know, I'm trying to be civil here, but what I'm seeing is that for the sake of being insulting you're actually willing to contradict yourself. And immediately, too. So: do me a favour and actually think about what you're writing before you blabber BS onto the page and I have to correct you.

You also missed the entire point of the "land bitching" argument: neither I nor anyone else of any consequence gives a flying fuck what Germany did or did not bitch about after having fought an aggressive war against the world and had a little cook-out with six million people. As the Palestinians - regrettably - were the aggressors initially it's a little pat now to complain because they didn't win. If they had won, there wouldn't be any Jewish people left there to complain.

You assume that the Arabs started the shit. This is where I disagree. The Israelis acted, the Arabs reacted.

And you're wrong. I assume nothing, and I take offense at the implication. Arabs started the riots, attacks, village burnings and oppression as early as the 1920's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riots_in_Palestine_of_1920
"During their annual spring festival Nebi Musa (Prophet Moses), Muslims march from Jerusalem on the road to Jericho to where they believe Moses is buried. In the years predating 1920, these processions were marked by intimidation of Christian communities on their way."

"The Arab attacks of March 1920 in Galilee (see the fall of Tel Hai and Joseph Trumpeldor) and the activities of the Arab terrorist group Black Hand (Palestine) caused deep concerns among Zionist leaders, who made numerous requests to the Mandate administration to address the Yishuv's security. Their fears were ruled out by the Chief Administrative Officer General Louis Bols, Governor Ronald Storrs and General Edmund Allenby, particularly at their meeting with the president of the World Zionist Organization Dr. Chaim Weizmann, who warned them: "pogrom is in the air"."

Merely because you say this does not make it so. Terrorism is an effective military strategy, which has been employed time and time again by the occupied against invaders, with great success.

No, because I prove it makes it so - I advise you use some introspection and apply this perspective to your own views rather than wildly insulting me because you don't like me or my view.

In this case, you appear to be validating terrorism. So you validate terrorism by Palestinians on one hand, but deplore it when used by Haganah in response to societal oppression of Jews under dhimmitude - a fact you cannot deny either. Your disapproval seems selective.

Some military strategies take decades to be truly effective. However, there have been many times when Palestine has managed to force concessions from Israel via terrorism. And ironically, as you acknowledged about, they Israelis pulled out of the Gaza Strip. For 'security reasons'.

Decades - they've had them. Israel still seems to be there. Maybe they need centuries?

I wonder if you can prove that Israel's withdrawal stems from terrorism and not international pressure?

Which is why they evacuated the Gaza Strip (well, the settlements, anyway) for security reasons? If the Palestinians acted as docile goyim, then perhaps the settlers would have been willing to live in a sea of Arabs.

And perhaps their salaries would be 37% higher, their unemployment hugely lower, and their living conditions that much better. But, heck, why let common sense and mutual forgiveness stand in the way of a good - no, several now - jihad? Let's not be silly, after all. The evil Jews have to be destroyed.

1. That's conjecture. There is no way for you to accurately measure such a thing, and we really will never know what the state of the Palestinians would be like if they didn't resist.

That's incorrect. Why don't you try a Google on "before the intifadah" and let your eyes traverse the stats?

Child abuse - Israeli and Palestinian - goes up: http://www.ipsnews.net/africa/interna.asp?idnews=26039


http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=\ForeignBureaus\archiv e\200411\FOR20041124b.html

World Bank Blames Israel for Palestinian Economic Woes
[don't let the title fool ya - ;) Geoff]

By Julie Stahl
CNSNews.com Jerusalem Bureau Chief
November 24, 2004

Jerusalem (CNSNews.com) - The World Bank blames Israeli closures of the West Bank and Gaza Strip for the depressed state of the Palestinian economy. But an Israeli economic expert said on Wednesday that the World Bank is not dealing with the real problems.

The World Bank issued a report issued on Tuesday - the third in a series of reports on the impact of the socio-economic crisis in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

It says after four years of intifadah violence, the Palestinian economy "continues to be mired in deep recession," compared to the pre-intifadah period.

The Palestinians' standard of living has declined dramatically, with some 47 percent of Palestinians living below the poverty line, the report says.

In 2003, Palestinian unemployment was 25 percent, compared to 10 percent before September 2000; and among young people, the jobless rate in 2003 was 37 percent compared to 14 percent before the intifadah.

2. Nevertheless, your point is a red herring. You imply that the fault rests with the Palestinians for resisting, when the blame actually lies with the occupier. Once again, your claim is identical to a rapist telling a woman that if only she had remained still, she wouldn't have gotten that black eye.

Nonsense. Your claim is almost exactly that a woman living in a violent man's home deserves what she gets and instead of resisting should simply accept the situation.

Or perhaps the Palestinians have actually seen that Hamas activities are beneficial for the future Palestinian state?

Well, if they don't care to rely on money from the rest of the world, yes.

Or, put another way: if they are not obligated to peace, we are not obligated for support.

Geoff

Attacking an invader is not terrorism. And what is this 'considerable' record of terror?

This is amazing. In the post in which you responded to me, you endorsed terrorism - said it had been effective. And now you deny that it's terrorism. Make up your mind.

Nor does it change the fact that they are the elected representative of the Palestinian people, and that your personal opinion on the matter bears no weight whatsoever.

Nor does it that you think they deserve to be treated as a legitimate government. If you're going to start that nonsense, you shouldn't even be posting here.

By which you mean that they lay down their arms, and accept an ass reaming? Let me guess, do you think that a woman should lay still and 'peaceful', so that she doesn't receive a black eye from her rapist?

False analogy, as indicated above.

Fighting against an invader is not terrorism.

But your opinion that Israel is an invader is mere speculation, and carries no weight whatsoever. The Israelis were merely fighting in defense of their lives.

Conjecture. Life was already hard for the Palestinians, and may have been harder still if not for the resistance shown by Palestinian guerillas.

Again, google "before the intifadah".

Hamas 'activities' are fucking irrelevant, as I've pointed out time and time again. The tax money RIGHTFULLY belongs to the representatives of the Palestinian people. Merely because Israel disagrees with the Palestinian people's choice of government, does not mean that they can with-hold what rightfully belongs to Hamas.

Opinion! Your failure to recognize that Hamas is a hostile entity, and that Israel is thus not obliged to help them, carries no weight whatever. Why should Israel help their admitted enemies?

For you to criticize the PLO for not upholding the terms of the Oslo accord, while conveniently ignoring Israel's continuous abuses, is the peak of pot-kettle black syndrome.

And your convenient avoidance is...what?

Geoff

Hello Geoff

I hope all is good with you

I dont know where it was in your last very comprehensive postings but please dont go on about that Gazza Pull-out pantomine show. We all know that was for world PR purposes and demographics. Please dont insult our intellegence by saying anything different.

Oh and thank you to who ever told me how to reply to multiple sections of a post (sorry i cant recall as it must have been answered in another post), additionally how do i reply post from several eople at once.

Also Geoff how do you expect hamas to recognise Israel when they dont even recognise the state of palestine (with East Jerusalem as its capital), but please tell me if they do, cos i never came accross it.

Thank you people.

Attacking an invader is not terrorism. And what is this 'considerable' record of terror? Do you have statistics which demonstrate and prove that Hamas has been responsible for a 'considerable' record of terrorist incidents?

Google "hamas terror". I'm sure you'll find it enlightening.

Nor does it change the fact that they are the elected representative of the Palestinian people, and that your personal opinion on the matter bears no weight whatsoever.

This is a discussion forum. Voicing my personal opinion is what this is about.

Now, it also doesn't matter that Hamas are the elected representatives of the Palestinians. I'm not disputing that they are so.

By which you mean that they lay down their arms, and accept an ass reaming? Let me guess, do you think that a woman should lay still and 'peaceful', so that she doesn't receive a black eye from her rapist?

Cute. Last I checked, rape victims don't carry explosive belts.

Fighting against an invader is not terrorism.

No. But deliberately targeting and blowing up civilians is. Or are you one of those crazies that think that there are no Israeli civilians?

Conjecture. Life was already hard for the Palestinians, and may have been harder still if not for the resistance shown by Palestinian guerillas.

Irrelevant, and highly unlikely. It's perfectly obvious that the intifadeh has made life harder for the Palestinians.

My point is that not having money will make it harder still. Why would you disagree?

Hamas 'activities' are fucking irrelevant, as I've pointed out time and time again. The tax money RIGHTFULLY belongs to the representatives of the Palestinian people. Merely because Israel disagrees with the Palestinian people's choice of government, does not mean that they can with-hold what rightfully belongs to Hamas.

Again, it doesn't matter that it rightfully belongs to them (it doesn't, btw, it belongs to the PA). Hell, I even agree, largely. But there's simply no way Israel can give Hamas money, at present.

Fatah is forcing Israel not to give Hamas the money? This is news to me!

Well, if Fatah had honoured their part of the Oslo accords, Hamas wouldn't be in power, would they? And then Israel wouldn't have to keep money from the Palestinians.

1. Hamas WAS eligible. You seem to be unable to grasp the concept that there is more than one wing to Hamas. You're so hung up on the military wing, you fail to realize that Hamas also provides education, social services, and healthcare to the Palestinian people.

Doesn't matter. I don't care how many soup kitchens they run, or children they take care of.

While the military wing may not be eligible due to their so-called 'terrorist' activities (a claim which I find debatable), you still can't deny the political wing of Hamas the right to run in an election. It's not a violation of the Oslo accods.

Well, I dispute that Hamas has seperate wings. And therefore shouldn't have been eligible for office.

2. I love how you mention the Oslo accords. You are aware that once a signatory breaks the terms of a treaty or agreement, it's binding power is nullified and void? Israel has violated the Oslo accords time and time again.

Oh, good. Then the PA can be dismantled and certainly has no right to taxes.

Somehow, it's not quite as simple as that, don't you think?

You can't demand that another party obey the terms of a contract, while you yourself continually violate them. You can't have your cake, and eat it to.

For you to criticize the PLO for not upholding the terms of the Oslo accord, while conveniently ignoring Israel's continuous abuses, is the peak of pot-kettle black syndrome.
Funny, I would say likewise, and that the PA has fulfilled nearly none of their obligations.

So, clearly, that argument is not going to fly with me.

You also missed the entire point of the "land bitching" argument: neither I nor anyone else of any consequence gives a flying fuck what Germany did or did not bitch about after having fought an aggressive war against the world and had a little cook-out with six million people. As the Palestinians - regrettably - were the aggressors initially it's a little pat now to complain because they didn't win. If they had won, there wouldn't be any Jewish people left there to complain.

This is a very good point. It seems to escape many people that an interpretation of the illegality of acquiring land through war to include having to return land gained when attacked is a de facto carte blanche of aggresive warfare. The arabs could try as many times as they want to destroy Israel, because it will have no territorial repurcussions. Of course, this is exactly what the "law" is supposed to prevent.

"1. Hamas isn't a terrorist organization, it's a governmental body, with numerous wings."

So the basic fact that they take responsiblity and activly encourage attacks that traget civilians means what?

terrorist

adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity"; "terrorist state" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities

Main Entry: ter·ror
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French terreur, from Latin terror, from terrEre to frighten; akin to Greek trein to be afraid, flee, tremein to tremble -- more at TREMBLE
1 : a state of intense fear
2 a : one that inspires fear : SCOURGE b : a frightening aspect <the terrors of invasion> c : a cause of anxiety : WORRY d : an appalling person or thing; especially : BRAT
3 : REIGN OF TERROR
4 : violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary terror>
synonym see FEAR
- ter·ror·less /-l&s/ adjective

Looks like HAMAS is a terrorist orginization.

The NAZIS committed many terrorist acts before they gained control of Germany and the fact that they became the governing party didnt change the fact that they were terrorists.

So the basic fact that they take responsiblity and activly encourage attacks that traget civilians means what?
Fire with Fire ! The Israelis initiated this conflict , the Israelis attacked the Palestinians simply as that , if the Israelis complain to bad as far as I am concerned Israel set the standard but providing the example end of story .
terrorist

adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity"; "terrorist state" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities
You have just accurately described the state of Israel with its instrument of terror the IDF .
Looks like HAMAS is a terrorist orginization.
What would you do if America was over run and occupied ?
Would you collaborate or resist ?
And if you resisted would that make you a terrorist or a resistance fighter ?
The NAZIS committed many terrorist acts before they gained control of Germany and the fact that they became the governing party didnt change the fact that they were terrorists.
The Nazis had riots and brawls , the Zionists in Palestine under Hagannah commited acts of severe terrorism such as bombing and lynching then they came to power .

You want to know what we would do to take and keep our "promised land"
Just look at history, we warred with and killed the natives, moved them from the land and built our paradise.
Some for greed and some for God, but thats all been forgotten now.
Here, take a peek; from "The Song for America"...by Kansas
--------------------------
Virgin land of forest green, dark and stormy plains, here all life abounds
Sunlit valley, mountain fields, unseen in the rain, here all life abounds
No man rules this land, no human hand has soiled this paradise
Waiting patiently, so much to see, so rich in Earth's delights

Painted desert, sequined sky, stars that fill the night, here all life abounds
Rivers flowing to the sea, sunshine pure and bright, here all life abounds
No man rules this land, no human hand has soiled this paradise
Waiting patiently, so much to see, so rich in Earth's delights

So the maiden lies in waiting, for the sails to reach the shore
Land of beauty and abundance, innocent, you opened wide your door
Wanderers found the waiting treasure, full of gifts beyond their measure
Milk and honey for our pleasure.....

Across the sea there came a multitude, sailing ships upon the wave
Filled with visions of Utopia, and the freedom that they crave
Ravage, plunder, see no wonder, rape and kill and tear asunder
Chop the forest, plow it under.....

Highways scar the mountainsides, buildings to the sky, people all around
Houses stand in endless rows, sea to shining sea, people all around
So we rule this land, and here we stand upon our paradise,
Dreaming of a place, our weary race is ready to arise.
----------------------
The offical state "motto" for the state of Kansas from 1861 is;
Ad Astera Per Aspera...which means;
To the stars through difficulties

The land of Hebron was once to a people a "promised" land, they killed the inhabitants, took the land and built their paradise promised to them by God.
Then all that was forgotten, the people were destroyed and scatered.
Now masques stand where there temples once stood, weeds grow scarcely on desolate desert sands...
But she shall rise again.
Israel is the new "promised land", the inhabitants will be moved, and the desert will bloom like a rose.
The new government of the world will set upon her.

The Israelis initiated this conflict , the Israelis attacked the Palestinians simply as that , if the Israelis complain to bad as far as I am concerned Israel set the standard but providing the example end of story .

But this is demonstrably wrong. The Israelis formed Haganah to respond to Palestinian aggression. The escalation of the conflict to the armies of other nations was not their decision.

You have just accurately described the state of Israel with its instrument of terror the IDF .

Not in the slightest. The IDF does not indiscriminately target civilians - wonder of wonders, I think even YOU have stipulated to that. Terrorist organizations do, and many claim that all Israelis are targets, civilian or no, since they all serve in the army at some point. (By contrast, what then should Israelis make of Palestinian support for terrorism?)

What would you do if America was over run and occupied ?
Would you collaborate or resist ?
And if you resisted would that make you a terrorist or a resistance fighter ?

If a people moved to my land, I hope I would not take to the streets in public spectacles of religious oppression and impose an arbitrary oppressive tax on them, then begin rioting and destroying their villages.

The Nazis had riots and brawls , the Zionists in Palestine under Hagannah commited acts of severe terrorism such as bombing and lynching then they came to power .

After many, many years of aggression by Arabs and Palestinians. Ask Israelis how many of them were murdered before they formed Haganah.

Geoff

But this is demonstrably wrong. The Israelis formed Haganah to respond to Palestinian aggression. The escalation of the conflict to the armies of other nations was not their decision.
According to this Israeli site Haganah (http://www.zionism-israel.com/Haganah.htm) was created by Zionist activists in January 1920 , the riots you speak of happened in April of 1920 and the British Palin Commission of Inquiry (http://www.p4pd.org/settlements/glossary.html) attributed the riots to Palestinian “disappointment at the non-fulfillment of the promise of independence” and “fear of economic and political subjection” . Haganah became an illegal underground military organization in march 1921 . Vladimir Jabotinsky its founder was arrested by the British and sentenced to 15 years in prison in 1920.The British military controlled the Holy land then and the Plaestinians wanted independence from Britain . The grinding realization of the Zionist movement became clear with the ever increasing annual immigration flow of European Jews . These were the catalysts for Palestinian frustration .
Not in the slightest. The IDF does not indiscriminately target civilians - wonder of wonders, I think even YOU have stipulated to that. Terrorist organizations do, and many claim that all Israelis are targets, civilian or no, since they all serve in the army at some point.
There are literally hundred of credible sources about IDF indiscriminate policies , however I will start with 2 .
Human Right Watch (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2001/02/21/isrlpa271.htm)
"Israeli forces are causing civilian deaths by firing indiscriminately into Hebron's Palestinian neighborhoods," said Joe Stork, Washington Director of the Middle East and North Africa Division of Human Rights Watch. "The Israeli military is obligated to protect Palestinian civilians from heavy fire, and should take the necessary steps to halt this pattern of indiscriminate and excessive fire."
Israeli soldiers tell of indiscriminate killings by army and a culture of impunity (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1563255,00.html)
"During the first intifada, there were printed rules of engagement. In the second there are none and what rules exist are kept secret. This leaves a wide scope for interpretation for officers and soldiers," she said.
(By contrast, what then should Israelis make of Palestinian support for terrorism?)
The Israelis have to realise they are the casue of it , plain and simple and a lot of Israelis are doing just that .
If a people moved to my land, I hope I would not take to the streets in public spectacles of religious oppression and impose an arbitrary oppressive tax on them, then begin rioting and destroying their villages.
Thats what the Zionists did and they made no secret of what they going to do either . The Palestinians saw what was happening and witnessed each year as the numbers of European Jews climbed . For you to claim that Jews were not provocative Geoff is completely unrealistic .

Now I will elaborate on that question :
What would you do if the Hindus decided that Britain because of a promise from Queen Victoria that they were British subjects decided that they were going to take their place at their promised land in Britain . And 500,000 Indian Hindu immigrants began moving to Britain each year protected by America . And it was fully announced by the Hindus that this was their sole aim of taking Britain as theirs and were going make Britain a Hindu national home .

Would you resort to armed attacks to prevent this ?
After many, many years of aggression by Arabs and Palestinians. Ask Isra