92 replies to this topic

[MichaelW]

ExpandMyMind, on 21 November 2012 - 04:20 PM, said:

Do a forum search of 'human shields' with myself as the author and you'll see all the proof you need.

No thanks. It'd be like going onto the websites of Syrian state television stations for news about the civil war. I think we should search for unbiased and independent sources from people who are in the know, not random people who can't keep control of the connection between their brain and their fingers.

As someone who really isn't enthusiastically supporting either side, I wouldn't go anywhere near using a forum search. There's plenty of independently verified unbiased material out there.

[ExpandMyMind]

MichaelW, on 21 November 2012 - 10:39 PM, said:

No thanks. It'd be like going onto the websites of Syrian state television stations for news about the civil war. I think we should search for unbiased and independent sources from people who are in the know, not random people who can't keep control of the connection between their brain and their fingers.

As someone who really isn't enthusiastically supporting either side, I wouldn't go anywhere near using a forum search. There's plenty of independently verified unbiased material out there.

Indeed there are. The results you would have found in that search would be Human Rights Watch and Amnesty reports and findings. These are to what I was referring.

and then, on 21 November 2012 - 07:45 PM, said:

World English Dictionary hudna (ˈhʊdnə)  — n  Islam a truce or ceasefire for a fixed duration Gershon is an Israeli peace activist and HE stated that Jabari said he would not speak to a Jew.  His words - not mine.

And that's quite a coincidence, it was Gershon that I was thinking of also. He didn't state 'Jews' in what I read (Times article), he specifically mentioned Israelis (including himself). You could be right though.

Edited by ExpandMyMind, 21 November 2012 - 11:18 PM.

[WHO U KIDDIN]

and then, on 21 November 2012 - 09:57 PM, said:

These people are drowning and you are describing the water.  The point is that if Israel unilaterally disarmed and tried to reach a deal then they would be turned out of the land.  That is never going to happen.  The reality is that no matter which sideone supports here, someone is going to have to compromise or the wars continue until no hudnas are possible and it's a fight to the death of one people or another.  THAT is the reality today, regardless what led us to it.

The Oslo accords sought an equitable Two-State solution. It asked them to agree to the original UN partition plan that created Israel and would result in a free Palestine while at the same time guaranteeing Israel's 1967 borders and security. It allowed for a fair settlement to a conflict that has been ongoing since 1948.

Unfortunately the reality today is that the Zionist do not want to compromise on their goal for a Greater Israel, as a result Hamas will not recognize Israel right to exist.

Edited by WHO U KIDDIN, 22 November 2012 - 01:59 AM.

[MichaelW]

WHO U KIDDIN, on 22 November 2012 - 01:13 AM, said:

Unfortunately the reality today is that the Zionist do not want to compromise on their goal for a Greater Israel, as a result Hamas will not recognize Israel right to exist.

I doubt Hamas would recognise Israel as a state even if Zionists weren't running around making this worse.

[Black Red Devil]

WHO U KIDDIN, on 21 November 2012 - 09:25 PM, said:

As I have posted before Israel does not compromise nor does it seek peace, anything that would negate or stall their progress towards a Greater Israel is definitely not in their interests. The Zionist Likud extremists and their Ultra-orthodox partners in power since Rabin's assassination have hijacked the current Israeli political system; they are not interested in any equitable agreement with the Palestinians, be it Hamas or the PLO. Their sole objective has been to destroy the viability of the Two-State solution reached in Oslo under the Clinton administration (which was roughly based on the 1967 borders, with future negotiations on the status of Jerusalem and the right for refugees to return to be settled within Oslo's framework for a comprehensive peace).

The Oslo Accords were intentionally ditched by Israel because of the Zionist goal for a Greater Israel, which would encompass all the lands of the West Bank. If Israel truly wanted peace they could have had it back in 1995. Instead they continued to expand existing illegal settlements on occupied West Bank land and to erect new illegal settlements which displace poor Palestinians farmers and homeowners that have been living there for centuries. These Israeli actions lead to the Second Intifada in 2000 and ever since then the bloodshed has not stopped.

Here's a brief historic perspective from Wiki-pedia on the subject of a Greater Israel:

Joel Greenberg, writing in the New York Times notes; ‘At Israel's founding in 1948, the Labor Zionist leadership, which went on to govern Israel in its first three decades of independence, accepted a pragmatic partition of what had been British Palestine into independent Jewish and Arab states. The opposition Revisionist Zionists, who evolved into today's Likud party, sought Eretz Yisrael Ha-Shlema -- Greater Israel, or literally, the Whole Land of Israel.^[1] The capture of the West Bank and Gaza Strip from Jordan and Egypt during the Six Day War in 1967, led to the growth of the non-parliamentary Movement for Greater Israel and the construction of Israeli settlements.

Spot on.  Now that Likud has joined in a coalition with Lieberman's ultra-nationalist party there is no hope in hell that Israel will be sitting down at the negotiation table any soon and don't hold your breath waiting for the settlers to rack off either.

[acidhead]

WHO U KIDDIN, on 22 November 2012 - 01:13 AM, said:

The Oslo accords sought an equitable Two-State solution. It asked them to agree to the original UN partition plan that created Israel and would result in a free Palestine while at the same time guaranteeing Israel's 1967 borders and security. It allowed for a fair settlement to a conflict that has been ongoing since 1948.

Unfortunately the reality today is that the Zionist do not want to compromise on their goal for a Greater Israel, as a result Hamas will not recognize Israel right to exist.

This post is bang on the target. .. Zionism.... these are the most dangerous religious extremists of them all.  They have the weaponry and they have the big bombs.  They have become what they hated.  They are psychopaths.

[B Jenkins]

and then, on 21 November 2012 - 09:57 PM, said:

These people are drowning and you are describing the water.  The point is that if Israel unilaterally disarmed and tried to reach a deal then they would be turned out of the land.  That is never going to happen.  The reality is that no matter which sideone supports here, someone is going to have to compromise or the wars continue until no hudnas are possible and it's a fight to the death of one people or another.  THAT is the reality today, regardless what led us to it.

Bottom line, Israel has never offered the Palestinians a autonomous state EVER! NEVER EVER!

It sickens me how much Israel controls the lives of the Palestinians. If Israel really wanted the Palestinians to enjoy an autonomous state ... why erect settlements in the occupied territories? If not to deny compromise of Eretz Israel.

You reap what you sow.

[and then]

Ambush Bug, on 22 November 2012 - 01:04 PM, said:

Bottom line, Israel has never offered the Palestinians a autonomous state EVER! NEVER EVER!

It sickens me how much Israel controls the lives of the Palestinians. If Israel really wanted the Palestinians to enjoy an autonomous state ... why erect settlements in the occupied territories? If not to deny compromise of Eretz Israel.

You reap what you sow.

On THIS we agree.

[TheLastLazyGun]

MichaelW, on 20 November 2012 - 10:52 PM, said:

Was there an independent Kosovo before the 90's? Was there an independent Algeria before the 1963? Just because a state didn't exist before doesn't mean a future one is not viable.

But the "Palestinians" weren't looking for their own state before Israel was established.  It's only since Israel was established - on former BRITISH territory - that the "Palestinians" suddenly started demanding their own state.

And the term "Palestinian" is a very recent invention.  When Israel was established in 1948 the word "Palestinian" hadn't even been coined.  Nobody ever used the term "Palestinian".   This name was was created by the Soviet disinformation masters in 1964 when they created the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). The term "Palestinian People" as a description of Arabs in Palestine - Palestine being a geographical area, which also includes Jordan as well as Israel, rather than a politicial entity - appeared for the first time in the preamble of the 1964 PLO Charter, drafted in Moscow.

Edited by TheLastLazyGun, 22 November 2012 - 05:44 PM.

[TheLastLazyGun]

Wearer of Hats, on 21 November 2012 - 05:50 AM, said:

I was under the impression that during the Roman Empire the region we now call Israel and Palestine was callled Palestine and then under the Persians it was still called Palestine.

Give me the evidence that there has ever been a Palestinian state.  Show me a map of it and give me a list of its leaders.  I bet you will find it impossible to do so, considering there has NEVER been a Palestinian state.

Israel certainly wasn't created on a Palestinian state.  It occupies an area which, between 1920 and 1948, was the British Mandate for Palestine.  In turn, the British Mandate for Palestine was carved out of the southern part of Ottoman Syria, which existed for centuries previously.  Jordan also formed out of  the British Mandate for Palestine just like Israel.

Supporters of the "Palestinians" have it in their heads that there was a country called Palestine which suddenly became occupied by Israel in 1948.  This is not true.  Palestine has always been merely a geographical term - used to describe the lands between the Mediterranean and the Jordan river and all adjoining lands.  And Israel, as I've pointed out, is NOT the only state in the area of land known as Palestine.

Edited by TheLastLazyGun, 22 November 2012 - 05:51 PM.

[ExpandMyMind]

TheLastLazyGun, on 22 November 2012 - 05:41 PM, said:

But the "Palestinians" weren't looking for their own state before Israel was established.  It's only since Israel was established - on former BRITISH territory - that the "Palestinians" suddenly started demanding their own state.

And the term "Palestinian" is a very recent invention.  When Israel was established in 1948 the word "Palestinian" hadn't even been coined.  Nobody ever used the term "Palestinian".   This name was was created by the Soviet disinformation masters in 1964 when they created the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). The term "Palestinian People" as a description of Arabs in Palestine - Palestine being a geographical area, which also includes Jordan as well as Israel, rather than a politicial entity - appeared for the first time in the preamble of the 1964 PLO Charter, drafted in Moscow.

Wow. These British you speak of were handing out 'Palestinian' passports as far back as 1920. The word was not 'coined' as you suggest. They were also referred to as such numerous times in British documents since then, long before the examples you have given.

And I'm not sure why you mention that it was British territory. Britain had no more legitimate of a claim over that land than they did over India. The people of a land are the ones who have a right to call it, and themselves, anything they want. This is defined in the Geneva Convention and Declaration of Human Rights. It is called the right to self determination. This is why Northern Ireland has a right to be called such - because its inhabitants wish it so. If the Scottish suddenly decided they wanted to be called Caledonians, and the country Caledonia, then they would have that right. This is more or less the point that Michael was making, very correctly I might add. A people have the right to decide for themselves.

Also, they were demanding their own state as far back as the 20s (some even before then). This is why the Partition Plan was even created. Do you even know what the Partition Plan was?

The desire for their own country was not born with the PLO. This is ludicrous and horribly inaccurate propaganda.

[ExpandMyMind]

TheLastLazyGun, on 22 November 2012 - 05:46 PM, said:

Israel certainly wasn't created on a Palestinian state.

But it was created on Palestinian (the indigenous population) land. A land belongs to the indigenous population.

Edited by ExpandMyMind, 22 November 2012 - 06:21 PM.

[TheLastLazyGun]

ExpandMyMind, on 22 November 2012 - 06:20 PM, said:

But it was created on Palestinian (the indigenous population) land. A land belongs to the indigenous population.

So I assume you are longing for the day when the Americans and Australians abolish their countries and give the territory back to the Native Indians and Aborigines?

Edited by TheLastLazyGun, 22 November 2012 - 06:27 PM.

[ExpandMyMind]

TheLastLazyGun, on 22 November 2012 - 06:07 PM, said:

1. Under occupation by whom?



2. Israel killed one of Hamas's leader after Hamas started firing rockets towards Israel.



3. What I find funny is people like you who say that Hamas was "working towards peace", even though it was Hamas who started the current trouble by firing rockets into Israel.



4. So why did New York Times journalist Steven Erlanger report that "Hamas rocket and weapons caches, including rocket launchers, have been discovered in and under mosques, schools and civilian homes"?

Why did a report published by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center reveal that Hamas used close to 100 mosques to store weapons and as launch-pads to shoot rockets?The report even contains testimony from a variety Palestinian sources, including a Hamas militant Sabhi Majad Atar, who said he was taught how to shoot rockets from inside a mosque.

Why did Human Right Watch call Hamas to "publicly renounce" the rocket attacks against Israeli civilians and hold those responsible to account?  Human Right Watch program director Iain Levine said the attacks by Hamas were "unlawful and unjustifiable, and amount to war crimes", and accused Hamas of putting Palestinians at risk by launching attacks from built-up areas.

Hamas are also rightly criticised for their use of child soldiers whom Hamas indoctrinate and put through military training.  Hamas then send these young children "on missions from which they would not risk their own lives."

Basically Hamas are a bunch of cowards who not only hide behind women and children but even get children to do their fighting for them.




5. Hamas security forces are routinely subjecting Palestinian detainees in Gaza to torture and abuse, according to a report by Human Rights Watch, which says three men have been executed on the basis of "confessions" apparently obtained under coercion.

The report cites serious abuses such as arbitrary arrest, denial of access to lawyers and the use of torture during interrogations.

"After five years of Hamas rule in Gaza, its criminal justice system reeks of injustice, routinely violates detainees' rights, and grants immunity to abusive security services," said Joe Stork of HRW. "Hamas should stop the kinds of abuses that Egyptians, Syrians and others in the region have risked their lives to bring to an end."

The report, Abusive System: Criminal Justice in Gaza, calls for urgent reforms, including a moratorium on the death penalty. It cites the case of Abdel Karim Shrair, who, according to family and lawyers, was tortured under interrogation before being executed by firing squad in May 2011 after "confessing" to collaborating with Israel.

Fourteen Palestinians have been executed since Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip in June 2007. This week, the European Union condemned death sentences handed down last month to two men in Gaza, one for murder and the second for collaboration.

http://www.guardian....-detainees-gaza

1. Their people - the Palestinians - are under occupation by Israel, obviously.

2. I went on to correct my post. Hamas started firing rockets (one an anti-tank missile that took out an Israeli jeep) after Israel shot a boy playing soccer in the head, from a helicopter. After this, Israel killed 2 more Gazan children and even attacked the funeral of one of them. This is when the Gazans retaliated with the rockets and attack on the jeep. After this, Israel took out the Hamas leader, then things went ape-****. The attacks on the children were just senseless. And they were not the first children to be targeted this year by the IDF.

3. As I have explained, Hamas did not instigate this current round of violence.

4. Provide sources for this information you provided.

5. The detainees you mention were held as traitors and collaborators. This is hardly the same as the context which you portrayed your viewpoint (as though they torture any given Palestinian). Not only this, but they are traitors that are collaborating with the country that they are actively at war with. And you do realise that Israel is one of the only countries in the World to actually legalise the torture of political prisoners.

For the record, I do not condone or support the torture of any person on earth.

[TheLastLazyGun]

ExpandMyMind, on 22 November 2012 - 06:19 PM, said:

Wow. These British you speak of were handing out 'Palestinian' passports as far back as 1920. The word was not 'coined' as you suggest.

The word "Palestinian" did exist then, but it was NOT used by anybody to refer to a "Palestinian people."  Those passports were NOT the passports of a Palestinian state but of the British Mandate for Palestine.  The "Palestinian" on the front of the passports did not refer to "Palestinian" people but was part of the phrase "Palestinian Authority".

Quote

And I'm not sure why you mention that it was British territory.

Because it WAS British territory after the British Empire defeated the Ottoman Empire during the Great War.

Quote

Britain had no more legitimate of a claim over that land than they did over India.

Britain was just one of MANY empires which ruled over that area of land.  Until 1920 the area Israel now occupies was part of Ottoman Syria, which itself was part of the Ottoman Empire.  Go back far enough and it was part of the Roman Empire.  I don't know why you single out the British Empire.

Quote

The people of a land are the ones who have a right to call it, and themselves, anything they want. This is defined in the Geneva Convention.

No, it isn't.

Quote

It is called the right to self determination. This is why Northern Ireland has a right to be called such - because its inhabitants wish it so. If the Scottish suddenly decided they wanted to be called Caledonians, and the country Caledonia, then they would have that right. This is more or less the point that Michael was making, very correctly I might add. A people have the right to decide for themselves.

You say you support your right to self-determination.  So why do you think that Israelis shouldn't be given the same rights?

Quote

Also, they were demanding their own state as far back as the 20s (some even before then). This is why the Partition Plan was even created. Do you even know what the Partition Plan was?
The desire for their own country was not born with the PLO. This is ludicrous and horribly inaccurate propaganda.

The Palestinians had such a "desire" for their own state that they rejected the offer for a Palestinian state at least three times.  In 1948 the leaders of the "Palestinians" were more intent on opposing and attacking Israel than accepting the offer of their own state.

Edited by TheLastLazyGun, 22 November 2012 - 06:50 PM.