Netanya Bombing / Analysis: Leave Hamas alone

A small bright spot, this, imo.

Netanya Bombing / Analysis: Leave Hamas alone
By Aluf Benn



http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/654066.html

...that they (the ones targeted) haven't been responsible for terrorism in Israel. It was IJ that did this and they should be "targeted." I love that Al-Aqsa Martyrs brigade also claimed responsibility, only to be shown they weren't the ones. It just shows what cowards they are...taken responsibility for murder they didn't commit.

on edit: corrected spelling

people. They have every right under international law to 'use whatever means' to fight the occupiers.

Israel has no such right. It is in illegal occupation of others' territory - it's acts of aggression against Palestinians are crimes.

The only solution to this is not more Israeli crimes but a willingness to negotiate in good faith and to abide by international law, of which, up to now there has been very little sign.

I haven't seen many suicide bombers blowing up army depots. Malls are "occupiers!"

The only real solution is to have TWO sides negotiating in good faith...the PA has failed to show that with their lack-luster control of terrorists! Let's see how they respond to this, outside of the obligatory "this was a bad thing" remarks.

negotiate in good faith. They have already accepted the loss to Israeli occupation of nearly 80% of their land under Oslo - something which Israel rejected in favour of keeping all the settlements in the occupied territories (the so-called 95% deal).

Your demand that the PA 'control the terrorists' is a call for a Palestinian civil war, which is an indication of your biaised position and the Isreali government's policy of spreading chaos that they can use to solidity their occupation of the West Bank.

You may try to paint the two sides as equally malevolent(in fact you don't - you try to paint the victims as malevolent, the usual position of an aggressor) but the plain fact under law is as I stated in my original reply.

How do you propose peace should be achieved without, at the very least, recognising the crimes that Israel has committed, and is presently committing?

They have failed to negotiate in good faith by not reigning in terrorists and allowing criminals back into Gaza. You also fail to realize that the occupied territories were not known as Palestine. They were taken from Egypt and Jordan, which never created a Palestinian homeland...but that is another thread.

So to ask that the PA control their rogue element is to call for a "civil war" is nothing but apologetic! That is no different than saying that Israel should allow the Khane to carry out their terrorist activities. So, your comment indicates that you only see that one side should make concessions.

"You may try to paint the two sides as equally malevolent(in fact you don't - you try to paint the victims as malevolent, the usual position of an aggressor) but the plain fact under law is as I stated in my original reply." You don't paint the terrorists as malevolent either. Does this mean you support what they did? BTW, terrorists and Palestinians are NOT interchangeable.

How do you propose peace? Maybe Israel should just ethnically cleanse Palestine and save the PA the trouble?

occupied territory.

It is not a question of 'concessions' it is a question of abiding by international law.

When is Israel going to do that? That is the only relevant question here.

That means nothing to you either?

talks were what led to the murder of Yitzhak Rabin, I seem to recall. It is Israel which has thwarted every negotiation, which you would know if you chose to follow events as they actually happen rather than through a prism of Zionist propaganda.

...the UNILATERAL withdrawal of Gaza! It was the PA (or actually, the terrorist groups the refuse to reign in) that is leading to further complications!

on edit: bold issues

it was presented as a fait accompli and was in fact accompanied by the construction of the separation wall in the West Bank and the contined isolation of East Jerusalem by new settlements and developments.

And, apart from the Israeli monitored border point at Rafah, the whole of Gaza is surrounded and guarded by the IDF. There is no link, as Israel had previously agreed, between Gaza and the West Bank.

Bush has broken his own Roadmap for Peace in allowing this and in his disgraceful complicity in refusing the right of return and the removal of the settlements.

Israel still needs to obey international law - not manipulate the circumstances on the ground for its own purposes.

Israel withdrew...not good enough...a ploy.

The borders were opened, with Egyptians and promptly shut down. Then when reopened, they let terrorists back in. Er...I mean, 'militants.' There was never an agreement to link the West Bank and Gaza until the FINAL negotiations. There were to be some consessions...all Israeli, of course.

Fuck Bush! He doesn't care about Israel any more than you do! He wouldn't care if it was wiped off the map! It would serve his purpose of more attacks on the ME! It would only matter if Jerusalem fell to the Muslims (that would piss off his fundie base).

As for "Israel still needs to obey international law...," I see that time and time again, but it only seems to apply to Israel. If you compare the violations of other countries you are accused of "not sticking to the topic" or trying to "apologize" for the occupation.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

there is no seperate city of east jerusalem. it is one city. just like nyc or chicago. there is no east chicago or west chicago.

jerusalem was orignally supposed to be an international city under UN auspices. the UN failed in their job to protect the city when jordan attacked in 1947 and allowe jordan to occupy the old city. under israeli control it has been an fairly open city, one where anyone of any religion can visit the holy sites.

it was never meant to be part of a palestian state and therefore is not illegally occupied.

israel should pull out of the west bank and keep jerusalem.

on this topic, and also the works of some of Arafat's aides? They give a completely different picture of events.

Meanwhile, take a few moments and read about the horrible people of Israel:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/652764.html

Your demand that the PA 'control the terrorists' is a call for a Palestinian civil war,

so they have no responsability to control their terrorists?....strange type of state your proposing...a state where terrorists are free to attack their neighbor at will, and I'm just guessing here, but you'll probably be against any defensive measures israel would take.

hey....how about gaza today?....israel leaves...and the palestenians..those terrorists that the PA shouldnt touch get to shoot at israeli civilians...and your solution and excuse is?....

did i forget about the hizballa up north?...you know those occupiers and terrorizers of southern lebanon?....who continue to attack israel...and the excuse is?.......

include what you call 'terrorists' (i.e. organised resistance groups) into the mainstream of Palestinian life.

You want them to fight Hamas and the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade - in other words you want a civil war.

Hizbollah have absolutely nothing to do with Palestine except that people like you lump them together. Though I am interested to know how Hizbollah is 'occupying' its own land - Hizbollah came into existence to rid southern Lebanon of the Israeli occupation, which they did, much to Israeli anguish.

You are free and easy with the word 'terrorist' but the only terrorists are those who break law - the IDF, the Israeli government and its leading politicians. Every combatant on the Palestinian side has the full weight of international law behind their actions

where does that come from?...do you think the lebanese agree with you...or does might make right....

i personally dont care what the PA does with IJ, etc....but whatever they do if they cant control them....it would seem to be a receipe for the develpment of a failed state.

but please more fascinating is your description of hizballa occupying "its own land"...and not lebanese soil....

who make up Hezbollah? They are the Lebanese people for heaven's sake!

Please try and adopt a bit of perspective. Palestine is occupied by a foreign power. Israel has consistently attacked Palestinian security forces while, at the same time, demanding that they 'deal' (i.e. fight) the 'terrorists' (i.e. armed resistance groups).

It is not the Palestinian authority's responsibility to 'control' armed groups - it is Israel's responsibility to obey international law and end the occupation. The armed groups would then swiftly disappear. After all the French resistance did not outlast the occupation if fought against.

your quote: Hizbollah have absolutely nothing to do with Palestine except that people like you lump them together. Though I am interested to know how Hizbollah is 'occupying' its own land

so the lebanese govt has decided to "give" S.Lebanon to the Hizballa group?...you know the armed thugs that run S. Lebanon, where the Lebanese army doesnt go?....

so why are they attacking israel again?.....i seem to recall israel pulled back to the intl border, sanctioned by the UN

____________________________
It is like another country down there - a bad country. It is a terrorist-ruled security-state within a state. The Lebanese Armed Forces are not allowed to enter Hezbollah's territory. Most Christians and Sunni Muslims never dare set foot inside.

http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1113591827.shtml
______________________________

... is precisely the same situation in which the British found themselves in India--expecting their control of the local police to enable control of anti-colonial factions. The expectation that the PA will cooperate with the IDF to further the desired aims of the IDF is an eventually hopeless one.

Beyond that, the IDF, over nearly forty years, has intentionally made the PA as ineffectual as possible to prevent it from resisting the IDF. It's hardly common sense to now expect the PA to assume responsibilities for which its capacity to act on has been greatly diminished.

Sharon has made a magician's pass. He wants the West--and particularly, the US--to look at his left hand and see his faux release of the Gaza as a genuine gesture toward peace, all the while his right hand is subtly encouraging settlers in the West Bank to ignore international calls to withdraw, and has been using a variety of methods, including zoning and redevelopment, to remove Palestinians from Jerusalem, and the building of the wall continues to annex Palestinian land. The West Bank is valuable to him (for water and for political reasons), while the Gaza is not. It's foolish to think that there are no Palestinians who have figured out what he's doing--no matter how conciliatory Abbas may be.

As for bombing army depots, consider this. Which would a desperate person consider more effective--being killed hundreds of yards from the entrance to those depots by army snipers, or having the opportunity to inflict damage which might convince the state of Israel that its current course of action is not worth the price?

M'self, I think it's a pretty poor set of choices all around. But, neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians, generally, have any contemporary history or temperament inclining them toward creative non-violence. So, Israel sends F-16s and Apache helicopters (provided by the United States) to fire missiles into civilian neighborhoods and bulldozers (purchased from Caterpillar with US development funds) to evict the remainder, and the more radical Palestinians send their only asset, suicide bombers, to do the same to Israeli civilians (let us not ignore that, in this latest intifada, the greatest losses of life, on both sides, have been civilians, and the ratio of Palestinian lives lost to Israel lives is very lopsided--that's due to the overwhelming superiority of Israeli arms which were provided by the US).

Your insistence that the Palestinians have to deal in good faith ignores the rather large elephant in the sitting room--that the United States and its role in this affair is a larger factor than that of either Israel or Palestine. The United States has had in its power the ability to end this matter many decades ago, and did not.

Cheers.

As for bombing army depots, consider this. Which would a desperate person consider more effective--being killed hundreds of yards from the entrance to those depots by army snipers

soldiers are everywhere...at bus stops, on bases that are next to main streets, at kiosks...if the goal was to kill just soldiers or at least target them...(as much as i deplore the idea) it wouldnt be hard.

the suicide bombers are actively looking to kill civilians, thats where their pointed...that is terrorism pure and simple.

... didn't you?

If Israelis kill civilians, the Palestinians will, too, because there's no effective mechanism, on either side, to solve the problem non-violently. That's why I say that the US has had the ability to do just that, and has not.

Who's the elephant in the front room?

Cheers.

Yes, the Palestinians are an occupied people, and it's sad that even saying they're occupied is hotly disputed in some less wholesome circles, but what I disagree with is the claim that they have every right under international law to 'use whatever means' to fight the occupiers. If yr talking about legal means, I've got no dispute with that, but if yr talking about anything at all, up to and including attacks on civilians, then yr claim is wrong, as attacks on civilians aren't a right even for those taking up the fight for an occupied people. Attacks on civilians are war-crimes...

Violet...

Is there then some moral imperative to rearm them for round n+1, or are they entitled to resume terrorism?

let them bring back their refugees.

why is israel afforded something palestinians are not -- and why do my tax dollars have to help fund the inequality.

btw israel has certainly not been above using terrorist tactics to get what they want -- so you get no sympathy from me re: palestinian terrorism.

But if the Isrealis wipe out the Palestinians...will you want sympathy them? I am betting you will!

arm them -- give them the same sophisticated weapons -- let them create an army from all the palestinians willing to serve.

that means bring the refugees home too.

i don't think anybody will be wiping out anybody then -- and i think you'll see some very different responses from the negotiating teams.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and why is it up ''arab neighbors'' to support palestine?

and why is it up to the u.s. to support israel?

if we support israel with money for arms then we should support palestine the same.

and support them while with holding money for israel until there is armed parity.

"and why is it up ''arab neighbors'' to support palestine?
" Because that is why many of them say that they support the destruction of Israel or why hotels were bombed in Jordan (let, me guess...you think, Israel did that too, like 9-11).

"and why is it up to the u.s. to support israel? It is not. I never said it was.

"if we support israel with money for arms then we should support palestine the same." We do! So do the Russians, the Syrians, and a few others (under the table, of course).

"and support them while with holding money for israel until there is armed parity." Yes, lets do that. And while we do, the other nations I named (and didn't name) are do the same for the Palestinians. But, that is not what is happening. They aren't getting the arms, just the bullshit rhetoric. Why? Because they 'supporters' don't love Palestinians as much as they hate Israel.

''...oh wait...their Arab brothers haven't done shit for them except talk big shit for them (and that is only the destruction of Israel).''

you introduced the subject -- i'm saying that this is between israel and palestine.
that the other arab states can think whatever they want.

and of course israel has done soo much for the palestinians since it's arrival.

I say the Arab brothers do nothing for them and you...well, I don't know what point you are attempting, very poorly, trying to make.

Israel has done what for the Palestinians? What have the Palestinians (Arafat, et al, done for them?

so why you are talking about them -- i don't know.

i'm talking about palestinians.

and arafat may not be perfect -- but his legacy seems to be fine with the palestinians.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...many of the current groups and prior leaders have said they want to see "Israel pushed into the sea." Meaning, they want all the Jews there, DEAD. Will you sit by and watch it happen again?!

in the 80's and the only people who talk about 'pushing Israel into the sea' are Zionist propagandists desperate to justify their continuing criminality.

Also I find it extremely offensive that, because I defend the Palestinian cause, you think that I would watch a new holocaust without doing anything to prevent it.

Please clarify your remarks or apologise.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It was not until 1996 that "Palestinians drop vow to destroy Israel" and, therefore you were correct. Of course that article says, "Despite the historic importance of the vote, Israel still faces threat of attack from Muslim rebel groups -- such as Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and Hamas -- which oppose the PLO position and deny Israel's right to exist."

As for being wrong about "Israel is breaking the law by occupying Palestinian land," well, you got it half way right.

There is no apology forthcoming. I said, in post #32: "you need to read more...many of the current groups and prior leaders have said they want to see "Israel pushed into the sea." Meaning, they want all the Jews there, DEAD. Will you sit by and watch it happen again?!" You did not respond with a personal statement, other than "Also I find it extremely offensive that, because I defend the Palestinian cause, you think that I would watch a new holocaust without doing anything to prevent it." That is not a response, that is a diversion, especially when you say, "...and the only people who talk about 'pushing Israel into the sea' are Zionist propagandists desperate to justify their continuing criminality." Your statement is not even close to reality. You made the assumption that because you are pro-Palestinian that I think you'd support another Holocaust, to which I responded "I do not think because you defend the Palestinian cause that you would watch a new holocaust... Yet, here you are again asking for an apology for something I never accused you of, but asked you and you did not answer!

To clarify my opinion, there can only be a two-state solution. A one-state solution will wipe out Israel. It has become very clear they (the PA) doesn't want Jews/Israelis in Gaza or the West Bank...do you really think they will accept Jews in a unified Palestine (because it sure as hell won't be called Israel)?

in the 80's all of the PLO documents still called for the destruction of israel.

you are WRONG. the PLO did not recognize israel in the 80's. it wasnt until 1993 that arafat even mentioned it, and until several years later that the PLO made it offical

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/recogn.html

and in PA run schools Israel is still not on maps (even new ones) or new textbooks. instead they have Palestine from the jordan to the sea. the PA MUST change this.

or 67? or 73?.....

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

so 67 was an attempt to "get their lands back"....which meant the elimination of israel.

that sure does explain your view point..which makes if clear that you do agree with hamas which defines the occupation to include Tel Aviv, Haifa, etc

that kind of takes you out of the discussion, since your advocating the elimination of israel...or so i understand the "getting their lands back in the 67war."

to go to war, nor was I the one who used the war to illegally extend their occupation. The point at issue is the occupation - the warring parties of '67 have all recognised Israel and want to peacefully coexist with it.

As I have made clear in another post, I support the two-state solution in common with most of the international community - that demands an end to occupation.

This hysteria is not helpful to debate, which is why it is the customary tone of Zionists, who would not survive a fair, unhysterical debate. Instead all sorts of peripheral 'reasons' are used to support the occupation - '67, Ahmedinajad, Hamas, suicide bombers - and absolutely no recognition that if Israel were occcupied by a foreign country Israelis would behave in the same way, and that the single biggest block to peace is Zionist expansion and occupation.

you should check into Egypts closing off of israels southern port....its called an act of war.

the single biggest block to peace is the continual and unabaiting hatred of jews and israelis throughout the arab world.

and no..the waring parties have not shown themselves to be ready to peacefully coexist with israel....is that why no professional organization in Egypt or Jordan will allow contacts with israel? is that why no Egyptian University will invite or allow an israeli professor to lecture?

is that why the Egyptians show the protocols of zion on their TV during ramadan?...nor can a jew have citizenship in egypt.....similar in Jordan...and worse in Syria (but they have yet to recognize israel even on paper)

I wont even mention iran or saudi arabia

those do not characterize states that have accepted jews/israel as part and parcel of the neighborhood or of the world.

which is why, though most israelis have no problem in giving up the settlements....arent willing to......

and a minor detail about having discussions: when saying that "This hysteria is not helpful to debate"...you've shown how little you understand about israelis and jews....that "hysteria as you call it, is part of our identity and the way we interpret the past events....

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Palestinians not having to leave their homes in 1948 - you could easily find this out for yourself before you repeat innaccuracies:

http://www.ipc.gov.ps/alnakba/English/test-e.html

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

you know that land mass that is totally contolled by the PA....where they have access to Egypt, where they're shooting missles at israel

is that what your talking about?

in numbers and sophistication.

let israel neotiate with an armed power equal to their own.

gaza does not define palestine.

48 war, 67 war 73 war....arab states had larger more advanced armies.....and they attacked and lost

so what are you proposing?...that the palestenians get armed...attack israel, lose 50,000 people and then what?

if the PA cant even govern Gaza, it really wouldnt be too bright to let them attempt to govern the more complex west bank. It wouldnt be fair to the palestenains to let them live in anarchy and chaos.....with constant shooting at israel and the subsequent retailiation.....

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

That's got nothing to do with the fact that attacks on civilians are war-crimes and in no way at all considered under international law to be legitimate. Inability to compete militarily with Israel is an excuse used by the people who organise suicide-bombings. From Human Rights Watch:

Imbalance of Means

Another justification offered by Palestinian armed groups for attacks against civilians is that the groups lack the weaponry and training available to the Israelis, and thus have no other means of fighting for the Palestinian cause. In an interview with the Washington Post, Hamas spokesman `Abd al-`Aziz al-Rantisi said:

We don't have F-16s, Apache helicopters and missiles.... They are attacking us with weapons against which we can't defend ourselves. And now we have a weapon they can't defend themselves against.... We believe this weapon creates a kind of balance, because this weapon is like an F-16.144

Many Palestinians interviewed by Human Rights Watch said attacks on civilians were their only weapon with which to respond to repeated IDF use of tanks, attack helicopters, missiles, and warplanes.

Many conflicts, whether internal or international, take place between parties with radically differing means at their disposal. This is true of almost all wars that could potentially qualify under Additional Protocol I, article 4(1) as wars of national liberation, where one party frequently has vastly more sophisticated technical and military means than the other. Yet Protocol I reaffirms that all the basic rules of international humanitarian law still apply in those circumstances. Indeed, such a practice would be an exception that would virtually swallow the rules of international humanitarian law, since most wars are between forces of unequal means. The prohibition against intentional attacks against civilians is absolute. It cannot be justified by reference to a disparity of power between opposing forces.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/isrl-pa/ISRAELPA1002-04.htm#P623_134856

Violet...

be no 'suicide-bombers' in malls, or elsewhere, if Israel obeyed international law. While it chooses not to, and while it chooses to extend its occupation, then it has no right to claim that any attack carried out with the aim of ending the occupation is illegal. The Palestinians do indeed have the right to fight the occupation in the ways available to them. If they had tanks, artillery and fighter jets no doubt they would use them, but they haven't.

It would be like claiming French resistance attacks against German civilians during the war would be illegal - obviously they were not.

You say..."The point is that there would be no 'suicide-bombers' in malls, or elsewhere, if Israel obeyed international law." That is fucking bullshit, if I ever heard it! I guess there would have been no bombed "fish-n-chips" places has England released Northern Ireland.

bombings in the mainland UK if there was no occupation of Northern Ireland (from the IRA's point of view, that is).

It is incredible that you think Palestinians would just continue to attack Israel if Israel wasn't occupying their land.

Do you think the Palestinians are psychopaths?

Hiz'ballah!

If you can.

"It is incredible that you think Palestinians would just continue to attack Israel if Israel wasn't occupying their land."

It (withdrawal) hasn't stopped Hiz'ballah, now has it?

See, the real problem is that Hamas, et al, do not want just the West Bank and Gaza (which they have and still launch attacks), they want ALL of Israel! They do not want two nations, they want ONE...Palestine.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and your post:111
Surely it is better to forget the historical crimes of both sides and concentrate on the present crimes and how to end them?

__________________________________

what is Hizballa?.....wheres the Lebanese army? Police....who gave them the right to control and terrorize the lives of the residents of S.Lebanon?

who gives them the right to attack a country and cause international incidents....why do ou defend occupiers of lebanese soil?

Round and round we go ever avoiding the fact of Israeli occupation be it of Palestine or Lebanon (that never happened it seems).

Hezbollah also would probably not exist were it not for Israel's illegal war, invasion and occupation of Lebanon in the 80's, yet having caused the conditions that gave rise to Hezbollah you now use them as justification for your occupation of Palestine!

your main claim is that " no occupation no violence"...well that was the hizballa claim as well.

israel is no longer in lebanon yet hizballa continues to attack......

there is no reason not to expect the same out of various palestenain groups as well...or do you have evidence that things wiil be different?

if were looking for evidence....i would say gaza is a good place to look at, since israel has since pulled out.....

btw i though you mentioned in an earlier post that we should stick to the present?...what happened to that?

acting in an unprovoked fashion and that Israel is not also engaged, via proxys, with incursions and attacks in southern Lebanon?

Did the Israeli invasion of Lebanon actually happen? - it's hard to tell sometimes, so well forgotten is it.

I await your proof of Israeli innocence in this matter, but not with baited breath - remember this is a world with google.

this is now the year we are in...Israel was once in lebanon...for a variety of reasons....israel is no longer there...Hizballa now rules S.Lebanon and is not part of the Lebanese Govt security services

in fact when israel was in Lebanon, Hizballa had no right to take over parts of lebanon then as well....they are an armed group that has successfully removed the Lebanese Govt from areas of Lebanese soil....i believe that is called occupation

or when arabs do it to other arabs it seems to be "ok"....so i ask why, why is it ok for Hizballa to make lebanese foreign policy, remove the lebanese army and police forces from Lebanese soil....and take over parts of lebanon?

and yes if we google the lebanese blogs we find many lebanese arent too happy with the occupation of S.Lebanon, funny how many in Europe excuse terrorism and occupation in lebanon....

I know that - I believe the Zionist project seeks to spread Israel's borders well into present day Lebanon.

However the question I asked was whether Israel ever attacks southern Lebanon by itself or through proxies. This is reasonably relevant information if one wishes to understand any violence emanating from southern Lebanon, it seems to me.

Or are you willing to forgive Israel everything and its enemies nothing?

israel has no "proxies" in lebanon (who would they be?)....and yes israel attacks targets in lebanon after being attacked by hizballa....which wouldnt happen if the lebanese army patrolled its own border.

but what i find interesting is the way you ignore the lack of lebanese authority over S. Lebanon. Perhaps you can explain how you fully agree to s.lebanons occupation....how do you explain the fact that the lebanese army nor police enter S. lebanon?

Hizbullah has publicly rejected the deployment of the Lebanese army along Lebanon's borders with Israel,

http://licus.org/blog/2005/08/hizbullah-says-flat-no-to-army.html

what happened to a countrys right to secure its own borders?....

perhaps hizballa is an relevant example:

i believe their goal was to get israel out of lebanon...well israel is out of lebanon, yet the attacks continue...

and the reason is.........

is carrying out unprovoked attacks on Israel?

attacking hizballa?..not that i know of...

what were those attacks about?.......

whatever point you are half making.

if you dont see the relevance of 67 than you understand very little of the conflict...

think that all of israel should be palestine so yes the attacks will continue unless something is done to reign them in.

or are you just repeating what you've been told? Perhaps you have a link?

What do you mean by 'terrorists'?

groups like hamas and islamic jhiad have sworn the destruction of israel. Hezbollah is a perfect example of a terror group attacking civilians continually, even after an army presence was withdrawn from Lebanon. (btw lebanon is not "their" country as hezbollah is syrian terror group)


terrorists=groups of paramilitary groups that deliberately attack civilian targets in a way to maximize civilian casualties, ie suicide bombing in a mall, bombs in hotels during a wedding, blowing up civilian buses.

terror organizations are also not covered by the Geneva convention as they are illegitimate armed forces.

did you really need a definition of a terrorist?

me which country is the illegal occupier again?

...so Israel deserves terrorism?

the palestenians...since the romans kicked the jews out a couple thousand years ago....or doesnt that count because.....(help me on this one i though prior ownership takes precedent in intl law...)

native north Americans? Or Anglo-Saxons in England? How about the Celts - shouldn't they have the right to colonise Europe? Mongol hordes have rights too, you know!

Be serious - if this is the basis of your claim to 'right' then I am not surprised at the frequent recourse to hysteria adopted by Zionists.

where do you draw the line?...how about the kurds?....

find solutions for the future. You cannot make this claim to land and expect to be taken seriously - the court records from two thousand years ago haven't been found yet.

And, in any case, recent archeology suggests that ancient Israel wasn't a homogenous, coherent state based on the imagined borders of greater Israel. Rather it was a shrinking and expanding entity with areas of strong settlement scattered about in different places at different times, going with the ebb and flow of its fortunes - just like every other state entity, primitive or otherwise, in history.

Also the Israelis originally occupied the land after fleeing Egypt, according to the texts, so the aboriginals have more claim than Israel according to your argument.

Without religion getting involved.

You've got the Israeli's kicking out the Jebusites to take Jerusalem, the numerous wars against the Canaanites, Moabs and Philistines. You even have the story about the taking of their original territories after the Sinai trek. The lands of Canaan/Palestine were far from homogeneous in their makeup and involved extensive inter-mixing between the various groups (hint: no one group owned an area exclusively).

But even so, if the archaeologists are to be believed, Canaanites and the Israeli trips of old are the same people who diverged culturally. Hebrew is a Canaanite language. Ties and relationships between Canaanite religion and early Israeli religion have been shown archaeologically.

Also, while the Romans kicked out a fair number of Jews following the uprising, they did not depopulate the land. Many Jews remained. What happened to those who remained? They were the same people who were there when the Byzantines lost the territories to the Arab armies. The Arabs themselves for many years only occupied the leadership positions - much like the Normans in England following 1066 where the other classes remained pretty much untouched. In fact, the conversion to Islam from Judaism and Christianity (the Byzantines and late-period Roman period did see conversion) did not happen overnight - this occured over hundreds of years.

The current Palestinians are for the most part genetically closer to Jews than any other group and closer to even some Jews. And in turn the Palestinians are closest to the Jews than they are to Egyptians, Arabs, Syrians and other neighboring lands. This suggests a relationship not only cultural, but also one to the land.

L-

if one wants to claim that the palestenians have exclusive rights to the land mass, then i simply sugget they are simply the latest society to be living there and in fact are actually the "late comers....If we do have a "year" when a people who once lived there lose their rights then all israel has to do is keep them out until that magic year and "presto" they lose their rights.

the reality is a bit harsher.....two people who claim by virture of culture and history rights to the same land...over that land multiple wars have been fought and eventually it will be divided and the two warring societies will settle down and be neighbors.

as it stands today, unlike for the last 2,000 years, the jews have the military might and because of this have survived presently in israel....the palestenians, are presently the weaker society....the sooner they make peace the better it will be...but throwing pseudo facts of who has "more rights" whos the invader, whos the colonialist...well that just diverts any serious discussion in to emotion laden world of code words and nonsense

hamas, islamic jhiad, al asqa murders brigade are terrorist organizations that delibrity attack and blow up civilians which is illegal under the geneva conventions.

those groups themselves are illegal under the Geneva convention since they are terror organizations.

the geneva conventions allow resistance against an occupying force, which means the military, not civilians.

hamas and islamic jhiad have sworn to destroy israel.

i have a question for you

why is hezbollah continuing to attack israel and israeli citizens if the IDF has left lebanon?



what if israel pullled out of all of the west bank and the terror attacks continued what then? what would israel be allowed to do?

there was no terrorism?



Only because they predated the Geneva Conventions.

haven't understood that the occupation is illegal. An occupied people are, by definition, living in a lawless state - laws imposed on them are also against the Geneva Convention.

It is thus a very grey area but I doubt that any court would claim that resisting an occupier was illegal, since that is also enshrined in international law.

The laws of war do not excuse combatants - regardless of whether they are "occupied peoples" - from following them. The gray area is whether non-state actors have the right to be combatants or not - and in the latter case, any attack they make on a soldier is murder, plain and simple.

I suggest a rereading of GC4.

an army?????

I'm sorry but this defense of terrorism is really despicable.

your remark about 'defense of terrorism'?

I don't see how you could have come to that conclusion from my remarks, except that it is customary for Israel's defenders to accuse their opponents of such things, in order to obscure the perfectly valid points that are to be made in defence of Palestinian rights.

I for one think Colorado Blue is roughly correct in his/her characterisation of your post as a defence of terrorism.

You do not have "perfectly valid points" - no body in the world has endorsed the right of the Palestinians to engage in attacks on civilian targets - in fact, the UN has vigorously condemned such attacks in the sharpest terms, in every relevant forum (including the General Assembly and Security Council). In this matter the world body lines up with Human Rights Watch, Amnesty and Israeli organisations, as well as the ICRC - all the basis of international law.

I think you should think carefully about the Israeli victims of terrorism before you defend their murder, if for no other reason than you do the Palestinians themselves a great disservice by defending them with morally reprehensible arguments. Try reading the HRW report 'Erased in a moment' and see if the next pigua is justified in light of it.

you choose to call terrorism, but Israel's illegal occupation. Personally I don't support any violence - I want peace - but I suppose you are unable to separate such things, or rather, you want to deliberately confuse such things in order to continue the occupation.

As I have repeatedly said - end the occupation and the violence will also end.

What sort of 'progressives' are you people that are happy to see a people ethnically cleansed and occupied?

1. I never said you "supported" terrorism, I said you were defending it. Some people (occasionally me included) defend collateral damage and civilian casualties from Israeli actions, but that doesn't mean I support the death of civilians per se.

2. "I" do not "choose" to call terrorism "terrorism" - that is just what it is. Intentional targeting of civilians by blowing a bus to pieces, or a shopping mall, orphaning children and maiming and killing is terrorism. Of this there can be no argument. Zero.¹

3. The idea that I personally support the occupation is about as ridiculous a thing as I can imagine being levelled at me. Just search the forums for my previous posts, or ask long-time regular or moderator.

4. I can't speak for "you people", but I can speak for myself and say that I am a vocal opponent of ethnic cleansing, and support Palestinian self-determination and their right to resist the occupation using lawful means (for example, attacks on IDF troops in the territories and also possibly reactive defence against armed settlers). I don't happen to think such attacks are very useful, but the Palestinians are free to choose tactics, and I wouldn't presume to give them advice.


----

1. Just as there can be no argument that several Israeli actions have been terrorism. For example, Sharon's murderous attacks in Qibya, the raid of Meir Har-Zion, the bombing of American/Western installations in Egypt etc.

some of my animus. I don't wish to offend but I was pretty upset at the distortions I was suffering from nearly every quarter.

However I disagree on the points you make about 'terror'. If you think saying I 'defend' terror is better than that I 'support' terror then I just don't understand the distinction. It seems to me you are trying to get your jab in while pretending you aren't. Let me be clear: I think what you call 'terrorism' only exists because of Israeli occupation. That is the principle cause of conflict and all violence flows from it. So I'm not 'supporting' or 'defending terrorism' I am pointing out that if one country occupies another, people will resist in any way they can so bombs and missiles are only to be expected. Is that support or defence of terrorism, or more of a reasonable deduction from historical evidence?

I am fairly appalled that you actually do defend 'collateral' destruction meted out to Palestinian civilians. Yet you accuse me of 'defending terror'. Well, really. Logs and motes, etc.

that you are defending the Palestinian's "right" to attack civilian Israeli targets - terrorism by any measure.

as stating it, since I believe it to be true. I also believe that if my country was occupied, as it nearly was in WWII, I would have been a proud 'terrorist' myself doing whatever damage I could to my occupiers. No doubt the Germans would have called me a criminal and an terrorist, but I wouldn't credit that as any basis in law. Would you?

I certainly don't think that in those circumstances I would waste time consulting the bodies responsible for the international law that is being disregarded by my occupiers, and that is not being enforced by the 'international community'.

if you went around looking to kill children and other civilians and if you did, you would be labled a terrorist in 2005....it would be that simple.

but as its been mentioned, you actually understand little of they dynamics of the conflict: suicide bombers harden israelis who would like to be more pro palestenian and suicide bombers destroy from within the palestenian society, given that their production requires a deatlh cult.

hence those who "understand" and/or promote such and ideology (be it the ISM or others) are simply prolonging the conflict and adding to the violence.....

my posts just get deleted anyway.

Because Israel is correct in claiming that. They are a grave violation of humanitarian international law. There is no justification whatsoever for attacks on civilians. Yes, Israel has violated international law, but that doesn't give groups like IJ and Hamas the right to declare open season on Israeli civilians. They're civilians, and as such are not combatants, and have just as much right to not be targetted as any other civilians in times of conflict...

Here's another bit from the HRW report on suicide-bombings:

Retaliation and Reprisals

Palestinian groups responsible for suicide bombing attacks against civilians have commonly claimed that such attacks are legitimate because they are carried out in retaliation for real or perceived Israeli violations of international humanitarian law. For example, Hamas leader Ismail Abu Shanab told Human Rights Watch:

It's not targeting civilians. It is saying that if you attack mine I'll attack yours. If we say yes, we'll stop-can the world guarantee Israel will stop? The rules of the game were set by the other side. If you follow all our martyrdom operations, you will find that they all came after their massacres. We would accept the rules if Israel would use them. If you ask us to comply, that is not difficult. Islamic teachings support the Geneva Conventions. They are accepted. When it comes to the other party, if they don't abide, we cannot be obliged to them, except insofar as we can achieve something."132

Islamic Jihad and Fatah leaders have made similar statements. But this argument is both incorrect and, insofar as others are encouraged to act according to this view, damaging.

The idea that suicide attacks against Israeli civilians are legitimate retaliation for Israeli attacks has had great resonance with Palestinian public opinion. Public opinion polls indicate that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians, including many who are opposed to attacks against civilians, also oppose PA arrests of members of the perpetrator groups.133 One Palestinian academic told Human Rights Watch: "None of us want to do these things. It is imposed on us. We know about the Geneva Conventions, the need to distinguish, but what we see on the ground is something different."134

Under international humanitarian law, a failure by one party to a conflict to respect the laws of war does not relieve the other of its obligation to respect those laws. That obligation is absolute, not premised on reciprocity.

The Geneva Conventions specifically prohibit reprisals against civilians, private property of civilians in occupied territory, or enemy foreigners on friendly territory.135 Additional Protocol I is similarly unambiguous on reprisals: "Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited."136 Although the relevant provision of Protocol I has not yet reached the status of customary law, it expresses the prevailing trend in IHL to prohibit reprisal attacks against civilians-and thereby pre-empt the vicious spirals of reprisal and counter-reprisal that frequently follow.137

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/isrl-pa/ISRAELPA1002-04.htm#P623_134856

Violet...

Attacks on civilians ARE war crimes, and should not be condoned.

Now everyone, listen VERY carefully to this next part:
Altough I do not condone these attacks on civilians, I understand them.

Did you hear me advocating attacks on civilians? Did you hear me say it was acceptable??? If you did, please put me on ignore right now, because communication between us is simply not possible.

Let me further say that this is why this situation is such a tragedy.


Edited to add yet further emphasis to the "do not condone" part, and to add the tragedy statement. And I also want to make sure people understand this was not a statement aimed so much at anything Violet_Crumble had specifically said, but was a more general statement.

No, according to Henkin (Cases and Materials on International law) and Britton (International Law for Seagoing Officers) they have to abide by International Humanitarian Law.

that Israel ignores?

check out the UN resolutions, the UN charter and various other parts of international law.

Israel stands condemned of egregious law violation by the UN, dating back to the late '60s.

There is no dispute about the illegality of Isreal's actions.

That Israel violates international law? It's a fact that Israel violates international law. End of story...

Violet...

if "israel doesnt abide by the law, then neither do the palestenians."

well if the palestenains dont abide by the law..why should israel?

and not vice versa. If you invade and occupy your neighbour's home and kick out most of his family you don't have a right to complain that they are breaking the law when they try and evict you.

You are simply ignoring the actual circumstances on the ground, which, obviously, is necessary if you wish to carry on supporting the occupation and still feel good about yourself, I suppose.

i believe you made it clear that you believe all the lands belong to palestinians....i.e that for justice to prevale israel has to be eliminated (your explained in an earlier post that the reason for the 67war was to get back the occupied lands)...

sooooo self defense then comes to play....since the object is to eliminate me and my family i do have the right to self defense and dont have to do a replay of past jewish experiences in foreign countries

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Julianer, none of the arguments I've seen you use are in any way logical. This discussion isn't about supporting the occupation. I don't, but the Palestinian people's right to self-determination doesn't give anyone the right to target and murder Israeli civilians....

Here's something from the same HRW report about the attempt to justify attacks on Israeli civilians because the Palesitnian people are occupied by Israel:

Wars Against Alien Occupation or in Exercise of the Right of Self-Determination

Palestinian groups and spokespersons have claimed that the practice of targeting civilians is somehow exempt from condemnation as a war crime or crime against humanity because of the exceptional character of their struggle for "national liberation." A typical example is a statement by Hassan Salameh, a Hamas member from Gaza now imprisoned for life for his role in the 1996 suicide bombings: "I am not a murderer.... Even if civilians are killed, it's not because we like it or are bloodthirsty. It is a fact of life in a people's struggle against a foreign occupier. A suicide bombing is the highest level of jihad and highlights the depth of our faith."128

However, article 1(4) of Additional Protocol I, which was expressly intended to cover wars of national liberation, states that the Protocol and all its principles and provisions cover "armed conflicts in which people are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination...."129 As mentioned, the PLO, as the recognized representative of the Palestinian people, participated in the negotiation of Additional Protocol I from 1974 to 1977. Israel has not ratified Protocol I, and this particular provision is not considered customary international law. However, given the wide extent of the ratification of Protocol I, article 1(4) represents a significant trend in establishing that the fundamental rules of international humanitarian law apply even in wars of national liberation.130

The language of Protocol I expressly prohibits attacks against civilians, as discussed above. Article 51(2) of Additional Protocol I states unambiguously that "he civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence, the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population, are prohibited."131

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/isrl-pa/ISRAELPA1002-04.htm#P623_134856

One other thing to think about here. Apart from the very clear legal stance that attacks on civilians are not legal, think about the damage suicide-bombings cause. The families of victims killed in attacks suffer, those who are wounded also suffer, as do the families of the actual bomber. And when Israel retaliates militarily, just the way that those who plan the attacks know Israel will, another equally horrible round of suffering happens because of Palestinian civilians who are wounded or killed then...

Violet...

Henkin's book says "whatever lawful means" and Covey Oliver's syllabus says "whatever reasonable, lawful means." Ashley Roach pretty much picked up on Covey Oliver's syllabus.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

there won't be a need for Israel targeting terrorists.

Why not deal with the problem of Zionism - surely that would end the trouble? Why not call for a 'crackdown' on the Israeli extremists who are expanding the occupation as we speak?

Why not deal with the terrorists? Why not call for a crackdown on suicide bombers?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

First: terrorism - homicide bombings against civilians or other forms of attack - is NOT an acceptable means of solving problems. In fact, it's just about guaranteed to empower the hardliners. It creates hatred. It creates fear, resentment and it guarantees more violence. It will inevitably, I don't care who is being attacked, result in retaliation that will cost more lives. Not to mention that it's just plain WRONG.

Second: if the goal is the creation of a Palestinian state and reconciliation with Israel, then terrorism is the exact opposite of the right way to go about accomplishing this. Politically it demonstrates extreme irresponsibility. The only way people can reconcile and live in peace with each other is if they stop whacking innocent civilians. Also, again - it doesn't matter who the parties are - terror attacks are just guaranteed to create hatred. This is not helpful to diplomacy and the evolution of peaceful solutions to problems.

Third: terror attacks on Jewish civilians predate the occupation by decades, they predate the creation of Israel. Occupation? Lame excuse.

Fourth: labelling all proIsraelis as people who don't want the Palestinians to have a state is more like libel than label. You're just dead wrong on this score. But I'll give you a clue: every time one of those bombs goes off it makes the probability smaller.

Fifth: I believe most of us and that includes a majority in Israel, are reconciled to returning most of the West Bank. HOWEVER, see number 4 above. Terror bombings make the security arguments stronger. If the neighbors can't be trusted not to blow up shopping malls, why empower them? In fact it appears to be suicidal to empower them. Terror bombings, in fact both intifadas, are responsible for a great deal of sentiment AGAINST the creation of a Palestinian state, in fact I think the violence is the primary argument against relaxing security measures. So it's not only wrong, it's counterproductive.

Sixth: When Jordan was in control of the West Bank, where was the movement for Palestinian statehood? Was Jordan an illegal occupier? What about Egypt's control of Gaza?

Finally, since when is violence OF ANY KIND, preferable to negotiation? Why is hatred preferable to reconciliation? The idea that violence is the only means available to solve problems is enough to cause the most optimistic person to despair.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

''if the PA cant even govern Gaza, it really wouldnt be too bright to let them attempt to govern the more complex west bank. It wouldnt be fair to the palestenains to let them live in anarchy and chaos.....with constant shooting at israel and the subsequent retailiation.....''

with attitudes like that -- i guess the palestinians can go as far back as they want.
you practically describe them as savages.

i just described gaza today and a logical conclusion of governing a more complex environment...it was you who did the interpretation

but then you explain to me.....hows the governing of gaza coming along?

it's fine with me.

it's about their self determination.

and uh -- your description was incredibly editorialized by you -- and then denied by you.

its about creating a society that will live in peace with israel..otherwise we'll have to keep on killing them and making their lives miserable.....

It is about creating an Israeli society that is willing to live with its neighbours without dominating them.

That is the only way to peace.

and gaza..the first initial attempt.....how are they doing over there?..inbetween shooting missles at israeli citizens..its that the society your proposing for the palestenians?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

the pogroms and massacres carried out against the Jews in Europe. You cannot justify Israeli oppression against Palestine on these grounds - not if you are being intellectually honest, anyway.

to be intellectually honest...there is a relationship and a strong one (from the jewish/israeli cultural point of view-and please dont even try to deny our culture)

the progroms, anti-semetism, etc all got started by the local govts and then influenced the citiizens-who then killed the jews. etc

shall we take a peak at the iranian press, the saudi arabia newspapers, Palestenian media? Egyptian universities?.....there is no difference between todays arab medias protrayal of the jews/israelis and much of what was in europe.

dont bother trying to deny it...its too easy to find it: eyes of zahra, protocols of zion, etc

and that then leads us to the question: what do the palestenains want? all of israel or an agreement?.....which ones do you listen to? Islamic jihad? al aska? I sure dont know, nor do i know who will be in control of the pseudo "strongman type of govt" next year.

or we can watch their actions...hizballa up north still attacks israel while occupying lebanese land, the PA in Gaza either cant control or doesnt want to while missles are shot across the border. Borders dont seem to mean much....and just for arguments sake.....

lets just say israel pulls back to 67,etc...and the attacks continue....then what?...what will be your suggestion? (humor me)

the Palestinians and the holocaust but you present no evidence.

If Israel obeyed international law and withdrew to the '67 borders and Palestinian attacks continued then Israel would have the backing of international law and could ask the UN for action.

However, I doubt very much that attacks would continue. The French resistance didn't outlast the German occupation, and the people who want to destroy Israel would find much less support than they do now because of the injustice of the occupation.

This is the problem of confusing the Palestinian cause, or support for it, and anti-semitism. It prevents you seeing the justice of the Palestinian cause and it acts as a justification for the occupation.

but they were responsible for pogroms commited in Palestine

How is this helpful?

You could have mentioned the terrorism of Irgun or the St David Hotel, as well.

Surely it is better to forget the historical crimes of both sides and concentrate on the present crimes and how to end them?

eyl could have mentioned a guy who carried out pogroms (rounding up of villagers, breaking both their arms and legs and leaving them in a ditch) in the late 80's against Palestinians, who recently ran for public office in Israel.^*

----

* Technically, he ran for Mayor of a WB settlement.

to julianer's post...how?

BTW, who are you talking about?

d'oh. It's one of those nights when the words 'to' and 'about' just blur together....


Violet...

Suggested things you could have mentioned in your post, I added another.

Guy in question is Yehuda Meir. Can direct you to sources on him if you like.

I'll keep referring to him as a blood-soaked terrorist murderer, which he is.

Especially if:

1. He keeps awarding prizes to his terrorist friends.

2. His old rivals in Likud keep signing pro-settler petitions with a terrorist throat-slitter of civilians (that guy also a friend of Sharon).

And extra especially if:

3. Nobody thinks there is anything strange about (1) and (2).

from the hardline Likud, who engineered the Gaza withdrawal, has linked up with Labor and has now formed a new party with the goal of establishing a Palestinian state and ending the conflict, gets such a review?

No wonder we can't make any progress.

1. Likud is not "hardline" in the context of the Israeli domestic scene. Now ichud leumi & NRP & manhigut yehudit - those guys are "hardline" (probably why even a senior Kadima figure warns that they are "endangering the State ". I will concede that since Likud is getting more and more under the control of the loons in the central committee (predicted several times by myself and others in this forum) it is far more likely to get more extreme now than not.

2. The Gaza withdrawal was no contribution to the two-state solution, as frankly stated by Sharon himself (he calls it a "mortal blow" to the Palestinians). As the foremost Israeli commentators put it, Sharon traded Gaza for the West Bank, or "the rook for the queen". Quite rational - the GOI was getting harshly criticised even within the army for holding onto Gaza.

3. Sharon has not "linked up with Labor" - Peres and Ramon are not the whole of Labor. He's been in a coalition with them, but then he's also been in a coalition with the fascistic moledet. I don't see the relevance.

4. Kadima's "goal of establishing a Palestinian state" cannot be taken seriously , since it is given in the context of implementing the Roadmap, which Sharon has previously laughed at in cabinet discussion, whilst rejecting virtually every tenet contained within it. Quite an interesting history on this if you want it.

5. As for "ending the conflict", I'll quote Haim Oron, who says that Sharon's deceptive behaviour and settlement polices clearly demonstrate that he "intends to continue the conflict in the West Bank". That's quite a representative citation (the context of that quote is even more interesting than I can do justice in so short a response).

6. As any serious analyst of the situation knows, the truest test of Sharon's intentions regarding the West Bank are the evacuations of the illegal outposts at the barest minimum (see the recent Ha'aretz editorial on this for the background, Nov 26). Now, the IDF actually lies to the Knesset about this issue, and it is known that the highest echelons of the Israeli government have long been breaking Israeli law on this. If that changes, maybe we'll be getting somewhere, but that is highly unlikely. Hell, even the Israeli press casually jokes about the fact that Sharon's promises on the outposts are like the "proverbial 'check in the mail'", with shameful removals solely for propaganda purposes ("photogenic evacuations", Ma'ariv), designed to influence those in the West who don't know better.

you're holding Sharon responsible for what his rivals do?

blame sharon for anything anybody does in israel...blame israel for anything that does or doesnt happen with the palestenains....

strange "twilight zone were living in"

I was highlighting the absurdity of the fact that Sharon and his rivals agree that a certain type of terror is laudable. That's just a fact, as you can discover if you take the time to check what I was referring to.

Then you're disagreeing with Sharon himself, and the two foremost Israeli political analysts. I barely even drew a conclusion from what I accurately quoted and summarised. If you don't think disengagement was a "rook for a queen", take it up with Nahum Barnea.

As for your "two reasons", I agree with them. Doesn't change what I wrote in the slightest - i.e. that the resources and lives used to hold onto Gaza were tactically wasted in terms of Israeli expansion. Those divisions are better spent occupying the West Bank (if you think that's a good thing of course).

the "divisions" used in gaza are not in the westbank...theres been a drop in the manpower needs of the IDF...reserviest no longer go to the westbank nor gaza....

again...the settlement activity never ceased during gaza nor during its pullout....nothing changed except israel leaving gaza with a tremendous amout of implications toward israeli society and the palestenain society.

israel govt showed whos in charge in israel and its not the religious right....for the PA..well were not sure whos in charge in gaza...

__________________________
and if you think the The Gaza withdrawal was no contribution to the two-state solution, you have no understanding of the israeli public...

which on a footnote I find fascinating: with the whole intl community screaming for israel to leave gaza and "let the palestenains govern themselves"...when its done...the declarations are now:...didnt do anything, no contribution.....it was a trick etc.....: whats the problem? gaza is now in palestenain hands, they have access to egypt...this is not a good thing?, israel shouldnt have done it?....somehow the palestenains governing themselves is NOT a contribution to their own self determination?

Sharon RRRRRRRRRRRRRRAWWWWWWWWWWWKSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :beer:

Why was this post deleted?

As far as I was aware, posters are allowed to criticise public figures and post factual information.

I don't recall the exact text, but I believe this post simply stated that what are blankly called "retalitory raids 50 years ago" in this article were, in fact, often terrorist atrocities. That's just a fact, long documented in the public record in Israel and elsewhere. The fact that such terrorist atrocities were carried out by Ariel Sharon is also well known - the man admits as much (again in the public record). If I had compared them to Nazi atrocities I wouldn't be going overboard either, since that would be quoting the Jewish press at the time.

I would have addressed this in a PM, but I do not know who deletes stuff these days. Feel free to contact me by that route.

n/t.