New Law for Israeli-Palestinian Couples (Guardian)

New Law for Israeli-Palestinian Couples
Thursday July 31, 2003 4:39 PM
By GAVIN RABINOWITZ
Associated Press Writer

JERUSALEM (AP) - Israel's parliament on Thursday passed a new law that would force Palestinians who marry Israelis to live separate lives or move out of Israel despite charges from human rights groups and Israeli Arabs that the law is racist.

The law would prevent Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza Strip who marry Israeli Arabs from obtaining residency permits in Israel.

The vote was 53 in favor, 25 against and one abstention, a spokeswoman for the parliament said.

``We see this law as the implementation of the transfer policy by the state of Israel,'' said Jafar Savah from Mossawa, an advocacy center for Israeli Arabs, referring to a plan by far right groups to transfer Israeli Arabs to other Arab countries.

(snip for (c))

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-2974045,00.html

This flies in the face of any "Israel is a Democracy" argument ever made.

This sounds like Saudi Arabia to me.

you won't be disappointed.

we do have provisions to strip naturalized citizens of their rights and deport them if they are found to have committed serious crimes. As much as I find the Israeli law being proposed distateful because it presumes potential guilt, how do you deter a suicide/homicide bomber with citizenship policies? Do you think deporting the few scraps that are left sufficient deterrence to other bombers? Why would they care after they are dead? And I'm not supporting settlers who commit crimes, either.

You support this bill?

is there anything out of bounds when if it could possibly ever keep someone from hurting an Israeli Jew?

Come on. Your logic, no one should be allowed to fly a plane b/c of the potential that one individual would be carrying a bomb.

I really can't see how ANYONE can support this blatantly racist policy.

She's not the only one. :puke:

and they announce their policy of no Jews allowed, I'm sure you will support that happily, with no comments about racist policies.
:puke: to you, too.

what a ridiculous comment Cassandra

It'll never happen...

n/t

In practice, it will be no state at all. Israel will still have a grip on the area's vital resources, reducing the Palestinian state to a Bantustan.

I don't support the two-state solution. I support the original aim of the PLO -- a democratic, secular, binational state, in which both Arabs and Jews are equal under the law.

There's no great certainty that it's going to happen. And for anyone to make the astounding claim that they KNOW what the policy of a possible future state would be is getting into the realms of nonsense as far as I'm concerned. It'd be much wiser to say what you think might be a policy, and if you were to say that was a possibility of being a future policy, I think you should rethink things. From what I've read the plans for a future Palestinian state is for it to be totally demilitarised and really not much more than a state in name only, where Israel and the US call the shots with Israel controlling the airspace, sea, and the water resources. So, how would a state with such control over it be able to have such a policy? Sneak it in while the US was looking the other way?

Of course if such a policy were to exist I'd be as loud in my opposition to it as I am to any racist policy by any other government. But I think I'll follow yr example tonight and just make noises about how it'd be distasteful but y'know a state's gotta do what a state's gotta do to keep those terrorists and murderers out ;)

Violet...

Is that your argument? :puke:

and silly too!

So how about you opposing Israel's racist policies, such as this one?

:puke:Back at ya!

to the people who marry for the purposes of facilitating terrorism.

Now tell me this racist policy against ALL Palestinians is wrong.

and others up to prison; it's just not much of a deterrence.

Also, if sending folk who facilitate terrorism to prison ain't much of a deterrence, how do you explain Israel holding so many Palestinian prisoners? Maybe when you say 'facilitating terrorism' most people realise that while some folk obsess over suicide-bombings to the exclusion of all else, it ain't the only way of facilitating terrorism...

Violet...

I don't see why any Jew would want to live there if Israel is right next to it.

and they want to live next to the holy sites in the region.

How long after 9/11 were all flights grounded? No incoming aircraft were allowed untill security measures were taken. Where have you been?

Terror attacks that kill Israelis are racist.

1) You're assuming that the purpose of the bill is to "deter" homicide bombers. That is obviously false, since the 20 individuals referenced represent at maximum 0.02% of the people this policy will effect.

2) Even if the purpose was to "deter" that 0.02% from terrorist crimes, the bill would still be racist and should be opposed regardless.

3) "Assuming potential guilt" is not "distateful", it is outrageous and the foundation of totalitarian societies.

it follows that

Some Jews bomb = all Jews deported.

Logic is a bitch.

I would never defent the law, I think it is racist and an obstacle to the peace process, but I think that that has nothing to do with being a democracy. As it was posted, It was voted on like in a democracy.

so was apartied.

This is what happens when folks get scared.

Not good - both sides need peace so as to go back to normal life.

to pass it into law is racist. No mincing of words is required.

I wonder if Republican members of the US Congress
are pulling double-duty in Israel's parliament?
These people sure seem to think and act alike.

...and very sad.

Where Ezra complains that since 1993, "100,000 Palestinians" have obtained permits to live in Israel and this is "getting out of control".

Right.

But 250,000+ M16-toting settlers going in the other direction isn't a problem?

Hello kettle, meet pot.

Ezra told the radio that since 1993 over 100,000 Palestinians have obtained Israeli permits in this manner. ``It has grown out of control,'' he said.

Stein from B'tselem said there have been only 20 cases from these 100,000 people who have been involved in terror.

Twenty cases is enough to be statistically significant. How many deaths of innocent people resulted from those 20 cases? Could be hundreds. If it were 20 cases of smuggling contrabnad or some such crime, I wouldn't think that it would be important enough. But even a few suicide bombers can blow up hundreds of people. This is the reason the bill passed.

Those who support suicide attacks, object to this bill. I can see that there are a number of those.

Deleted dupe

The law that stipulates that it is not retroactive, and must be re-enacted if it is to continue in force for more than one year. Because of the situation that resulted in attacks every week which killed several hundred Israeli citizens, the fact that there are 20 cases of involvement in terror by persons taking advantage of a marriage contract to gain entry, I think that the risks of the increased use of this method of access, which naturally applies largely to the age group that is also the usual age of suicide attackers, are great. Therefore it is a precaution that must be taken, however with the safeguards that it does not become a permanent feature of Israeli law.

Hate being obtuse, but do you support the bill?

:shrug:

I give him credit for answering. I haven't a clue what the hell is liberal about a bill like this, but he did answer.

Or was that another of our fellow Democrats?

read the Bible, for instance?

It is completely and utterly irrelevant.

yes "he" did.

Security is not "liberal" , but a law that regards the life of citizens as paramount in importance. That's why I call it a human rights bill, and an anti-terror bill.

You, in the US, have your anti-terror bills, mostly to guard against plane hijacking. Israel's major airline pioneered in air security. There are few domestic flights in Israel, but the terror threat is surrounding and ever present. By the way, 9,000 additional work permits were granted to Palestinians, that is permits to enter Israel for work, this week.

and issuing 9,000 more
permits for Palestinians to work in Israel,
about half of them from the Gaza Strip.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=322407&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y



Liberal laws can now be implemented to allow Israelis to survive (not) with the severity of the economic crisis, it becomes harder with each passing week.

:puke:

the idea of "human rights" has been twisted into some ugly pretzel logic.

From: Transfer: A Moral Discourse (Part 1 of 3)

The inspiration to write this article came from a thorough reading and re-reading of an absolutely fascinating essay penned by Ruth Gavison, and published in the summer 5763/2003 issue of the magazine Azure. Gavison holds the Chaim Cohen chair in human rights at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, and is a senior fellow at the Israel Democracy Institute. The essay is entitled: "The Jews Right to Statehood: A Defense". Gavison presents her arguments - framed mainly within the discourse of human rights, explaining that it is crucial to base the "justification of a Jewish state on arguments that appeal to people who do not share the beliefs of those Jews to whom the Jewish right to a state and to the land of Israel is axiomatic."

*****

Firstly, this exposes the Hebrew University in Jerusalem as a hotbed of anti-Palestinian bigotry and incitement, and secondly, this exposes the depth of the lack of understanding concerning genuine human rights issues. This bigoted wench is espousing ethnic cleansing from a "human rights chair". The irony has gone from self-evident to overwhelming.

On Edit: Is Hebrew U a private university, or is it *gasp* state-run?

Well, I guess the Germans had every reason to lock up Polish Jews in Warsaw, after all some of them DID have typhus just like the Germans said they did and that was why they were locking up and I bet it did save a few Polish lives that they didn't get out and spread disease and after all the Polish people had to survive :eyes:

:puke:

n/t

it's just transposing your heinous ideas to another place.

Even if your example is accurate, which of course it isn't, a health problem is not the same as violent attacks and murder.

What the hell difference would it make in the end, to trot out this tired analogy further since there was organized armed Jewish resistance the Warsaw ghetto was entirely justified in your world.

actually read the bill? Or have we all just been responding to the Guardian story about it? Some of us know that the Guardian tends to take the Palestinian side against Israel.
From the story, I would say the bill seems heavy handed, although the fact that it has a one year expiration date and no retroactive component (as reported) ameliorate that slightly. There seems to be an assuption on this board that any effort Israel makes to control its borders and its immigration policy is a violation of human rights. Our own INS could produce many more horror stories than this in a single day; people deported for minor transgressions, established families separated. If there's an archive of Bob Herbert available on the web, check it out; he's been writing about the INS for several years.
I have yet to see anyone say how the possibility of a terrorist marrying and moving in next door to them might be solved by a kinder immigration policy.

This isn't a Guardian story.

I find it amusing you're attempting to chastise people for not taking into account all the facts when you're obviously incapable of understanding elementary newspaper/wire reports yourself.

Whatever point you may have had is therefore moot.

is moot, as well? Interesting way of avoiding the rest of my point.

edit: added a word.

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

If you didn't see my previous post, I'll modify and retype it, but needless to say, the title of this post should be sufficient.

I've read the full version of the bill from the Hebrew press release out of the government press office, where it was given as an appendix (forwarded to me by a friend). If I hadn't read it, I wouldn't be commenting on it.

If I thought you were even remotely serious, I'd quote it in full. But below should suffice:

"With regards to Knesset Decision 1813 a limit is proposed on granting to residents of Judea, Samaria and Gaza citizenship (with regards to the Citizenship Law), including through family relationship etc. and a limit also on the granting of permits to such residents to reside in Israel (with regards to the Israel Entry Law)" (Section 2, Israel Entry and Citizenship Law, Av 2, 5763).

To sum up:

• Your assumption that people routinely comment on things they haven't read just reveals your own mindset on the matter.



• You can't tell the difference between something labelled "Associated Press" and "The Guardian".



• When you're called your gross misrepresentation of fact, you produce a "point" that frankly, induces laughter.

So, let me correct myself. The argument contained within your original message is not only moot, it is ridiculous to the point of stupidity. Since you've further compounded that error by piling more idiocy on top of it, suffice to say, this discussion is over.

that you find ridiculous, stupid and idiotic:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/04/opinion/04HERB.html

" It's hard to imagine a family that is less of a threat to the peace and well-being of the United States. And yet everything the family has worked toward is unraveling.

On Nov. 30, 2002, Mr. Nikpreljevic was pulled over for speeding on the Connecticut Turnpike. A computer check revealed that his immigration papers were not in order. A nightmare scenario ensued. He was handcuffed and arrested, and has not been out of custody since. The government has ordered him deported. And under current law he would be barred from any realistic chance of returning."

My point is that this is an example of what we do here; we break up thriving families for paperwork violations. What excuses do we have and what makes this kind of immigration policy better than what Israel plans to do? Is Israel's policy more targeted toward a single group? Yes, it is, for some reasons that are not all about racism. Is it heavy-handed? Yes, and I wish they would find some other way that can't be hijacked by the far-right. Is the net effect on families worse than what we do here in America; NOT EVEN CLOSE! So why the seething venom against Israel in the name of principle? Maybe you should look around your own neighborhood and see who needs your help closer to home. Or is that just not a grand enough cause for you? And please don't call me ridiculous, stupid, idiotic or illiterate again.

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

when you then repeat the same insults, with amplification.
"4. I called your argument ridiculous (because it was), the conclusion you'd drawn from it "stupidity" (ditto), your secondary point "idiocy" (ditto) and stated that if you can't tell the difference between the words "Associated Press" and "The Guardian", that you must not be literate (which is accurate). If you have a more charitable interpretation, I'd like to hear it."
No, I am not interested in discussing this from the point of view that only Israel passes nasty laws. I have commented on our own laws to show that this is something even the US has not solved well. Many on the I/P board approach Israel's failings as though there has never been a worse country in the history of the world, which is not true. I like to add a bit of perspective, which is something you summarily reject. You would prefer that Israel be the sole focus of attention. Just because you want to confine this discussion to talking solely about Israel in a vacuum, that doesn't mean that we all do. There really is no other spot on this site where this kind of discussion would last very long.
If you wish to insult me again, I'll be glad to hit the alert.

So, cutting to the chase, you're charging me with wanting discuss Israel/Palestine in a forum called, um, "Israeli/Palestinian Affairs"?

Guilty.

Conclusion: the obvious and perfectly transparent trait that runs through all your posts can be summed up as follows:

"Hey, look over there!"

Pu-lease. Jim Sagle does that sort of thing a whole lot better, and he saves on typing.

You would prefer that Israel be the sole focus of attention. Just because you want to confine this discussion to talking solely about Israel in a vacuum, that doesn't mean that we all do.

Well, duh. You might not have noticed that this forum is titled Israeli/Palestinian Affairs. What the hell do you expect people to talk about here? New Zealand's relationship with Tonga perhaps? If you have got such a strong urge to discuss anything but the I/P conflict, then the FA forum is sitting right there where it can't be missed, though I haven't seen you posting there. Maybe tinnypriv 'summarily rejects' yr constant attempts to divert attention away from Israel to anywhere else for the same reason as I do - it's just another clumsy attempt to use the 'You can't criticise Israel until conflict x is resolved and until you've listed all conflicts around the world in a Top 10 of Nastiest Conflicts list'. Bullshit to all that. All it is is an attempt to try to stifle any discussion of the I/P conflict. Besides, if conflict x is much nastier than the I/P conflict, does that somehow absolve Israel from the things it's doing wrong? I don't think so. The thing that keeps striking me on the I/P issue is that Israel is the only advanced democratic nation that tends to behave in the way it is. Who cares if you can drag up the actions of some tinpot dictator and screech that their nation is acting much nastier. Maybe if you want to drag Israel, which is so proud of its democracy down to the same moral level as a dictatorship, it might even work, but then I wouldn't expect anyone to do that to run around trumpeting stuff about Israel being the *Only Democracy In The Middle-East* as if they think it means something...

Y'know, if yr going to hit alert, just do it and don't make a big fucking production out of it. Personally, I find when someone is offered an apology and rejects it, it's a rather churlish attitude, especially so when the person in question may be guilty of regular ad hominens and attacks on others views. Gosh, it might just make some of us who up till now haven't bothered too much to hit the alert when they see this person putting their size 2, foam-toed kicker-boots on next time ;)

Violet...

Is this a means by which an INDIVIDUAL who doesn't like an particular argument may "Alert" a monitor to have it removed? I had simply assumed that removing a post was a totally INDEPENDANT action of a moniter. Is there more than one moniter?

alerting the mods to a possible violation of the rules. Removal of the offending post is only one of several remedies available to the mods. Although I didn't like the argument, I liked even less having my responses referred to as stupid, idiotic and illiterate. I assume you wouldn't enjoy that either.
Whatever happened to liberal tolerance?

I was simply asking a question. But since you have responded. Is there more than one moderator? What other "remedies" are available? Is a moderator action always in response to an "alert".

There are two mods for this forum, Lithos and kcr. They can remove a post (pretty drastic), send a private email, post a caution or correction. They can also ban posters for a short time, or in consultation with the admins, permanently (sort of). I've seen Lithos post corrections to previous information. I wouldn't know if he'd been alerted or not.

n/t

bashing Israel as though it's the only country in the world that has ever done anything that you might not like. If you think that it should be, perhaps you should just say so. I introduce some context, suggesting that other countries are also not perfect, but they don't get bashed by you, and several of you act as though I've introduced some alien concept. I know you would rather wallow in your "Israel is a racist state" circle jerk, but I have every right to comment that there are other ways of saying that you disagree with something Israel has done. Here is a particularly stupid example of a religious law being help up as one more example of Israeli racism. http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=8390&forum=DCForumID30&archive=
You stayed out of that one, but I don't know if you were smart enough to avoid it, or you were busy during that period.
New Zealand's relationship with Tonga doesn't seem relevant in this context, although New Zealand's relationship with the Maori might be.

Apologies that are followed by another round of insults are lame, indeed.
edit: spelling

:thumbsup:

"Look over there!

Opens up that tunnel vision you're having such a problem with.

:thumbsdown:

Over There is supposed to be so bad we have to talk about it 24/7, right? Stop singing the praises of Over There - I want to condemn it!

You were doing so well too. Check out your record in this thread:

-----

#35 - argument with citation ignored
#52 - logic argument ignored
#27 - question ignored
#29 - question ignored
#31 - argument ignored
#61 - argument ignored
#40 - single point ignored
#66 - question ignored
#65 - point ignored, strawman offered
#67 - incorrect assumption made, point ignored, strawman offered
#97 - argument with citation ignored, strawman offered
#110 - multiple points ignored, strawman offered
#114 - argument ignored
#118 - argument with citation ignored, question ignored, strawman offered
#82 - argument ignored, question ignored, point with citation ignored
#119 - follow up question to #82 ignored

-----

:dunce:

You have a good day, I'm outta this thread.

It's not the 'People Discussing The I/P Issue Are Israel-Bashers Because Cassandra Says They Are' forum. You told me what you think. Now I'll tell you what I don't think this forum is not about. It's not about people who cannot tolerate any criticism of Israel's policies and who swiftly jump onto the fave tactic of conservatives and accuse anyone who does of 'bashing' or 'hating' Israel, the US, or whichever country they think they're 'defending' the honour of. If you are under some sort of delusion that Israel is the only state I criticise, then I think you need to read the forum much more closely. Even here, I'm way more critical of US foreign policy than I am of Israel, so maybe you should just call me a US-basher or anti-American US hater? ;) I asked you a question that you ignored. What other advanced democratic states have a racist law like this one about denying citizenship to those of a particular group when they marry a citizen of that state? I don't give a shit what some tinpot dictatorship somewhere does in this case. Israel isn't a tinpot dictatorship. Using that sort of skewed logic (which is nothing more than the 'hey! look over there!' diversion tactic that tinnypriv pointed out) means that I've been so terribly into Australia-bashing because I've been very outspoken about the mandatory detention policy for asylum seekers and in pointing out that Australia is the ONLY Western state that has this particular policy. Maybe I should have gone and found myself some shitty little dictatorship that executes asylum seekers and then waved that around as an example of why Australia's policy's not so bad and how anti-Australia refugee action groups are for daring to criticise our policy? No thanks. I'll leave that sort of crap to the conservatives. Personally, I think that if someone is opposed to an Israeli policy but then turns around and supports the same thing when done by another state, that's when people could be hypocritical. Of course there's the flip-side where someone defending a particular Israeli policy could be seen as hypocritical when they turn around and condemn the same thing when it comes to other states doing it...

Uh, I stay out of threads for a variety of reasons. Sometimes I'm too busy, sometimes I haven't got anything to add to what's being said, and always when it comes to threads about religion, religious laws etc, because I detest all religions equally and don't choose to say anything. I'll stick with the secular laws, thanks...

Apologies followed by another round of insults would be lame indeed, but in yr case it didn't happen...

Violet...

I don't think I could have managed to put it quite so bluntly, but all the points stated are correct.

I'm critical of my own country's foreign policy, as shown by my hatred of the war in Iraq, PNAC, imperialism, exploitational globalization, and so on. I'm also critical of my own country's domestic policies. (Perhaps I'm lucky, but I've never been called anti-American for my political views, though I have been called anti-Israel and anti-Zionist when it comes to teh I/P situation.)

While the story may be from the AP wire, the cited link to the story is from the Guardian's website.

L-

And an AP story on the Post website wouldn't be a "Washington Post story", would it?

My post was accurate. Anybody who says this is "by the" (from the) Guardian must not be literate.

Although the writer is said to be "an Associated Press Writer" the copywrite at the bottom of the page is the Guardian. I've never seen an Associated Press article that is introduced the way this is.

Do you really want it explained?

I really can't believe people seriously think this is a Guardian story.

As final proof, though the by line should be enough, and is it's purpose.

Same story
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/breaking_news/6427482.htm

Patrick Schoeb

The story is Associated Press, even with the author's name mentioned. I hadn't seen it that way before. Thanks for the information, Patrick.

The bill doesn't seem to be just 'heavy-handed', it's racist, and I haven't seen anything said in defence of that bill that convinces me otherwise. Maybe you could point out anyone here who claims they've read the Bill has interpreted it so it's not racist? I already addressed yr points in defence of it further down in another post. Who cares who could possibly come up with more racist laws?? That doesn't make this particular one right....

I have yet to see anyone say how the possibility of a terrorist marrying and moving in next door to them might be solved by a kinder immigration policy.

Because there's nothing extraordinarily kind or benevolent about not having a law that restricts spouses entering Israel only if they're of one particular group. Either have a law where no foreigners marrying an Israeli can get citizenship, or all have it. But this racist singling out of Palestinians is just bullshit where Palestinians are lumped together as portrayed as terrorists....

Violet...

Oh well...

so how can it be racist?

can also mean hatred of a religion.

is also racist, since they hate, not just Israelis, but Jews everywhere. That goes equally for many other Muslim leaders. Now that we've established "racist" credentials all around, how do you prevent terrorists from gaining easy access into Israel? (That was the problem this thread is about, right?)

Isn't just defined narrowly as being discimination towards another racial group. As Darranar pointed out it can also cover religion. It also includes discrimination towards a particular ethnic group....

The problem this thread is about isn't about preventing terrorists from gaining easy access into Israel unless you think that Palestinians who marry Israelis are terrorists. This thread was about a racist law that specifically targets one group while other nationalities who marry Israelis still automatically get Israeli citizenship...

And as for yr tangent, if any leadership were to hate Jews everywhere, they'd be anti-semitic, not racist. As it is, it seems highly unlikely to me that the Palestinian leadership hates Jews, not even everywhere. They've recognised Israel's right to exist, haven't they? But maybe some people see the Palestinian leadership's wish for their own state as automatically being anti-semitic. If having a stance supporting an independent, viable Palestinian state, wanting the settlements dismantled and Israel to withdraw to the 67 borders makes someone anti-semitic, then so be it....

Violet...

"I have yet to see anyone say how the possibility of a terrorist marrying and moving in next door to them might be solved by a kinder immigration policy."

it's called POLICE WORK, if there is any evidence of a terrorist trying to 'marry' into israel then they should be denied but not a whole people.

case closed

btw: maybe if israel ended the occupation there wouldn't be such a terrorist problem.

when talks were going on with the aim being a palestinain state the record shows that terrorism was dramatically reduced when compared to sharons heavy handed, brutal and inhumane tactics were introduced.

hard to argue with history, no?

peace

I rather think slighty more than 20 settlers have been engaged in terrorism since 1993. Bombs planted at schools etc.

So, if I propose a bill to ban all Israeli movement into the territories, and you oppose it, do you therefore not object to blowing up children?

Please.

The reason the bill passed is because the Israeli establishment wants to make transfer acceptable inside Israel. I'm sure if you pay any attention to Ma'ariv you'll see comments in the Hebrew comment sections saying how Israeli-Arabs are a "fifth column" etc. That may not be representative of general Israeli opinion, but it certainly adds weight to polls etc showing that "transfer" has either a majority of support or at least a plurality.

I'm sure that you won't be able to prove that.

that more than 20 settlers have been involved in terrorism or that the whole thing is an issue that the Israeli transfer fans have been pushing for years on years?

That several polls have shown support for transfer, or the fact that settlers have engaged in terrorism? (the latter I really hope you're not referring to, since that would display enormous ignorance).

BTW, you've gotta love this timing:

http://images.maariv.co.il/channels/1/ART/517/672.html (friend just IM'd me the link).

Israeli cabinet ministers complaining about too many Palestinians coming into Israel the same day the Land Administration says they're building more houses in Gush Katif in Gaza?

The age of freaking Orwell.

You posted a claim that more than 20 settlers have engaged in terrorism. (Let's say where Palestinaians were injured or killed, not just charges of planned events). Of course we are also speaking of the actual perpetrators.


Terrorism commited by settlers or Israelis is rare.

:thumbsup: :D

how many violent acts could be stopped if you just skipped the middle man and impaled all the Palestinians on the border of New Greater Israel?

More like freedom fighters if you ask me. Rocks don't always work when bullets kill the Palestinian children who thrown them. Get Real.

Is the appropriate label for people who blow up innocent men women and children, do you? I prefer "murderous, terrorist thugs".

I hope you're not serious. If you are, read "Erased in a Moment" by HRW and see if you still like your label.

I am glad to be reminded that there are plenty of reasonable people on this forum.

There seems to be a double standard here. Were the Israelis "murderous thugs" when they machine gunned that boy? Were the Americans "murderous thugs" at Mia Lia? Were the British black and tans "murderous thugs"? The Germans in Poland? The Italians in Ethiopia? The French in Algiers? The Dutch in South Africa? The list is endless. Get off that kick. It just doesn't pay!

They were indeed all murderous thugs.

The only people who seem to qualify are people like Ghandi and Martin Luther King. Both assassinated. Everyone else is a "murderous thug": Arafat, Sharon, Bush, Blair. Or are only those that actually pull the triggers and drop the bombs thugs? The military.

In the conflict we have two people fighting over the same piece of land. "Morality" is irrelevant. It is about survival. As simple as that. I support the Palestinians out of guilt because they have been greatly wronged by Britain and the USA. But I have no illusions that if the positions of the Israelis and Arabs were reversed the behaviour of the Palestinians would be better than the Israelis. Or worse.

Unintentional harm to innocent civilians does not imply murderous thuggery. Intentional harm to innocent civilians does, unless a greater wrong is being corrected and their is no oher way to remove the greater wrong.

The Palestinian terrorists are not preventing greater wrongs by the murders they commit; therefore, they are murderous thugs. The Israeli terrorists are not preventing greater wrongs by the murders they commit; therefore, they, too, are murderous thugs.

The second paragraph of your post I pretty much agree with.

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

and they view all Israelis as guilty, then that's their problem. The fact is they aimed and targeted innocent civilians by the world's standards on purpose-that is murder.

They would do the same if the occupiers were Chinese, Indians, or Eskimos. Of course they see every one occupying their country as "guilty". Any reason they shouldn't? Frankly, I've no idea what "world" standards are, or why the Palestinians should be obliged to care.

Anyway, since we seem to be arguing over terms and not realities, I have one question for you: Do you condemn suicide bombings that kill Israelis who are not part of the IDF and are simply riding a bus?

Just as the Germans were guilty. You can only distinguish the resistors.

No I do not condemn those bombings. I just can't see what alternative they have been given. Those suicide bombers don't want to die either. Take the present "road map". As far as I know there has been little "terrorism" from the Palestinians lately. But what is the Israeli response? Nothing. Israelis have a lot things they can do. Dismantle settlements, tear down that fence, remove check points, increase the water supply, release prisoners etc. etc. The Israelis and the Palestinians know none of this will happen. There will be a few "tokens" of course.

The ONLY thing Palestinians can do is stop the attacks. It is the only leverage they have. This they have done with little meaningful response. Now they are supposed to treat the people they have every reason to see as heroes as if they are criminals. Talk about "realities"!

Probably just about every Israeli benefits in some way from what their government does, but that doesn't make them guilty or deserving targets anymore than it makes Americans guilty because they do benefit from what their govt does. Sometimes people can benefit from their govts actions and be totally opposed to what the govts doing in their name...

Anything done to kill civilians should be condemned, no matter who's doing it. Suicide-bombings are wrong on so many levels. They're indiscriminate, so that for all they know they're killing people who actually oppose Israels actions in the Occupied Territories. They end up driving the Israeli public into the arms of the right-wing parties out of fear and empty promises that those parties can stop it. If I was living in fear of becoming a victim of suicide-bombings, I might stop giving a shit about how they're stopped, as long as they're stopped. And for those settlements to be dismantled and the fence to be taken down, I think there's got to be a groundswell of support for those things to happen amongst the Israeli public, which isn't going to happen if they're being labelled as legitimate targets for attacks. So the suicide bombings in my opinion actually harm the Palestinian cause as much, if not more than they achieve anything for it...

Also, I oppose the suicide-bombings because they're killing and injuring innocent civilians. If I were to support them, I'd have a very hard time trying to explain why I oppose the killing and injuring of innocent Palestinians without looking completely hypocritical....

Violet...

and, of course, the hardline methods of the Israeli government aren't helping either.

But unless you are in jail at this moment for refusal to pay taxes that bought the bombs that killed Iraqis, you are guilty. As am I. We are benefiting from the cheap oil, food, and security. Take away suicide bombs against civilians and what do Palestinians have left to fight with? You seriously expect these people to confront an Israeli highly mechanised army financed by you? If there is no Israeli "groundswell" over that fence there will be no "groundswell". Where is the "groundswell" over here about Bush invading Iraq?

Once the "Palestinian problem" has been "solved" do you think it will end there? The Israeli population will grow exponentially. Israelis will be demanding "lebensraum". It is an irony of history that the Jews are the Germans of the Middle East.

Palestinians have pretty much given up all hope of help from anyone. Any reason they shouldn't? To them who is "innocent"? Don't delude yourself that if you were in their situation you would act differently. I wouldn't. And nor would the Israelis, as their own history demonstrates. Palestinians are a people who began by believing they could regain their country. Now they beginning to believe they have nothing left to lose.

While I'm confining guilt to the governments, yr taking it further and applying it to the citizens of the country the governments supposedly acting on behalf of. And when you look at it that way, yes I'd be doubly guilty too. Not only did I continue to pay taxes (though I'm not sure if any Australian bombs were dropped on Iraq), but I'm an employee of our right-wing govt and I'm employed in the department that collects taxes. One thing my taxes aren't guilty of though is funding the Israeli military, something for which I'm eternally grateful....

I do understand the reasons why many Palestinians would support suicide bombings. They haven't got the luxury of sitting in middle-class suburbia and thinking like middle-class suburbanites the way many of us here do. They would see it as the only thing left to fight with and I doubt that in the situation many of them are in, they wouldn't give a toss about what's viewed as legitimate resistance as opposed to illegitimate. But the same can then be said for Israelis. They see their buses and cafes being bombed and aren't sure if there's an end in sight to it. When something affects them so directly, I can understand why they mightn't want to think about the reasons why this stuff happens in Israel. They'd just want it to be stopped. And maybe some of them would see Palestinians as being guilty because a majority of them do support suicide bombings. I just don't see civilians as being guilty and I really wish they could be kept out of the whole thing and Sharon, Arafat, assorted Palestinian groups like Hamas etc, and the IDF could be shoved on a deserted island somewhere, the military power balanced up, and left to duke it out to the death. Somehow I think none of those groups would like that much, because they seem to get a buzz out of harming civilians...

Wasn't one of the main themes of lebensraum that Germany considered the Slavs to the east to be sub-human and totally wasting that valuable land that could be put to good use by their Aryan super-people? And that to do so they'd just ride roughshod over the rights of sovereign nations and conquer them and exterminate the Slavs and Jews? I just don't see Israel being in the same league or even close. I don't think the Jews are the Germans of the Middle East, and I wouldn't even say they're the British Empire of the Middle East either, though maybe they should be, because Britain was very skilled at controlling its possessions by using very few British at the top and using the locals to basically control their own...

Violet...

Unfortunately you are about the only one who sees to understand what I am trying to say. I have had a number of my posts removed. Not for using bad language or being abusive, but for making "over-sweeping statements" and "steriotypical generalizations". Since they have been removed you cannot judge for yourself, and I would have valued that. I am trying to explore what a Palestinian might feel and think. Apparently that is more than some on this board are willing to confront. I would have liked very much to respond to your last paragraph. I will just make this statement and hope it is not censored. Hitler didn't begin where he ended.

Violet isn't the only one. You are coming in straight to me and others here as well. Hearing you loud and clear.

There must be more "Underground" than I realized.

the subterranean crazies do sing out here and there. Every now and then you can even here a blues lick or two... mouthpiece's with barbs so wired... Oxy-morons vs iron-eyes. Satarists with a dream ... so on the verge some even dare to walk way out on those limbs from time to time. If only to get back their sense of balance and perhaps a little leverage.

I like the "Oxy-morons vs iron-eyes" line. If I may suggest "cynics with a dream" might work better than "satirists with a dream". Still. Isn't this too good to waste on a post?

yes cynics would be better. me. I got a million of 'em.

n/t

n/t

Count me in.

However, I do have to qualify that as a human, I cannot support murder where Israeli to Palesinian or vice verse. You do make excellent points about "our" complicity. Americans and Israelis are complicit with their vote.

I see where you are coming from and I really can't say that I wouldn't do the same if I were Palestinian.

It's stories about Arabs and Jews coming together after much loss and trying to establish peace initiatives that offer me another view. I choose that. I can't remember the name of the thread, but it's very inspiring that these people could come together and set aside their hate for a greater good.

Blitzkreig & Lebensraum. The Israeli expansionists dream! Hold the mayo please!

You have not been paying attention. I don't think even you would deny the Israeli claim to the West Bank and Gaza. Next will be the Golan Heights, and back into southern Lebanon to "secure Israel's borders". With Iraq gone, I imagine the Jordanians are getting very nervous. The "IDF" assaults on Palestinians on the West bank and the Gaza strip were "blitzkreig" on the ground by anyone's standards. The lack of air "blitzkreig" was a political move not to demonstrate to the world that Israel has the same overwhelming military superiority to Palestinians as USA has to Iraq.

Though some like to pretend to get us to believe there was no such dream, but for Israel only defending. IMHO you had it correct. Blitzkreig and Lebensraum. You misunderstood me not I you. Now who hasn't been paying attention?

No Arab west of the Jordan River.....


Manifestos such as that should be used as toilet paper.

understands I got him... of course the game for the Israeli leaders has been expansion... not one peace plan every even intended to dismantle occupation. Quilp just has to read more of my posts. I believe my position is quite clear.

We are all on the same page in terms of understanding each other.

"Cynics with Dreams"

:-)

LOL! Too bad when Quilp suggested the change from satirists to cynics, it was too late for me to change it... oh well...

It evokes great images.

yes I agree with that as well. Although I never gave much thought as to the poetics of Oxy-Moran vs Iron-Eyes. It just seems to be what goes on all the time. Come to think of it. I really know very little about poetry. Never studied verse per se, although I have read some. I like language, nuance, the use of cadences. Lilt and lyricism. I particularly enjoy stream of consciousness, and trying to give voice to what dwells within me. A kind of groping in the dark. Landmines, sound scapes, and the audacious nerve of natural impulse. Synchronity and serendipty are thought provoking as well.

A vast herd of castrated oxen (Oxy-morons) grazing on dry grass totally oblivious of the watching pack of "iron-eyed" predators selecting their next filet mignon. The "vs" is ironic because there is no contest or doubt about the outcome. A good metaphor for corporate America really.

It was not what I was describing, however the vision it conjured within your mind is not far from the point. Your description actually illustrates it beautiful that aspect wherein we might well be in agreement. So I was correct to let you know there were others here that not only understand your opinions, but reflect them as well.

I guess that is what makes the phrase poetic.

My posts were being removed I thought for flimsy reasons always by the same moderator. But I didn't know about the alert button. Through your post I found a Violet post arguing about its use.
After that I decided I was not going to be treated like a Palestinian at a West Bank checkpoint.

At the same time some of my "opponents" were graceful enough to respond to my questions about the alert button. Also I think some of my comments were too cryptic and gave the wrong idea of what I was on about.

But to get to the poetry. Some "rational" poets like Frost, Eliot and Houseman understand every nuance of every word they use. Other "ecstatic" poets like Blake, Poe, Dylan Thomas, and Coleridge write like the Oracles of Delphi. It's as if their words come from else where and they themselves struggle, as they "record" them, to understand them. I don't mean you are in their league, but you are of the "ecstatic" school.

and I go back and forth. Mostly I would classify myself a ecstatic. Only certain of my poems do I write and rewrite. Much of my poetry I don't classify as poetry but creative writing. I log in journal most times no one reads it but me. In fact now that is all the time. I am the only one that knows of my writings and that is fine by me.

I do not struggle with my descriptions as much as I use to . now it seems my thoughts tumble out for the most part in order. I only pull something out of journal to work on when it seems I am doing what you call the rational poets.

I am in no ones league. In fact I do not call myself a poet. I just write stuff. I use to do spoken word long time ago now. Presently it is rare I will read anything I write to anyone.

You are the first one to ever make comment on a used phrase of mine. Anyway I guess you have studied literature. I am self taught. I read. I prefer non-fiction for the most part.

As far as the ecstatic school. That seems accurate. the stuff topples from my mind for the most part without too much hassle. I generally know what I have described and when I am being cryptic I always know what I mean. Your description was very embellished as I was really only describing one debate or debator verses another with i/p and the ME US Israel debate.

What an interesting side bar off topic like this. It has never happened before.

"Full many a flower is born to blush unseen, and waste its sweetness in the desert air". Even so the world is better for it. You may find Gray's narrator to your taste if you've not read his "Elegy". It is said to be the brightest jewel in English verse. He spent about twenty years polishing it!

I have no creative gift. And have had to be satisfied with a certain talent for recognizing the work of those that do.

The recontext of your line to the Israeli-Palestine debates still works with me as a target. I do find the Israeli whining about "morality" to be "oxymoronic", and I am "iron-eyed" in the total intolerance of my response to it. And your line, while maybe not specifically aimed at me, points out my posts do reflect this. But my sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians is only equaled by my disgust with the relentless rationalizations from the Israelis. And sometimes, I suppose, my "iron-eyes" get as blind-blank as grey metal.

<<<The recontext of your line to the Israeli-Palestine debates still works with me as a target. I do find the Israeli whining about "morality" to be "oxymoronic", and I am "iron-eyed" in the total intolerance of my response to it. >>>

that was EXACTLY what i was referring to!! LOL

n/t

but then neither are the israelis, and I don't believe all the israelis killings of rock throwing boys did it by mistake, no matter what their biased investigators say. I also don't believe me own government has never done such a thing. Nagasaki and Heroshima come to mind.

How can you do that without "attacking civilians"? Isn't the whole objective of an occupier to take the civilian's land, and therefore their means of life from them? If not, why invade them in the first place? I just don't get the argument that is ok to take someone's land and force them off provided you don't "attack the civilian population" during the conflict. Tell me how else it is done?

trying to kill 13 year old girls at a Bat Mitzvah?

Wow.

The people who occupy their land! They see no reason to distinguish. Those Israeli 13 year old girls were enjoying the fruits of their parent's actions, while Palestinian 13 year old girls go hungry. If your point is the Palestinians are as "amoral" as the Israelis, that is true. What I won't accept is that they are more "immoral". That the Israelis are "soldiers", and the Palestinians "terrorists". When Israelis kill Palestinian children it is "unfortunate", but when Palestinians kill Israeli children it is "terrorism". I don't buy what either side says is "intended". The only "intention" of Israelis is to occupy the land. The only "intention" of Palestininans is to get it back. It's as "moral" as that.

Israeli children are instantly guilty of a capital crime? Give me a break.

I'm not interested in "kneejerk" oneliners.

You mean moral, I assume?

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

I "assume" you had my post deleted. Perhaps you found it personally insulting. The effrontery of your teaching me what is "moral" didn't occur to you or the monitor as insulting?

Let us go back to your post about child guilt and innocence.

The most wanted Palestinian "terrorist" is in a car with his year old child. Would the Israelis bomb the vehicle. Yes. If the Palestinian has an Arab-Israeli one year old with him? Perhaps not, but still likely. The year old is now a kidnaped Jewish child? No. All children. All "innocent". Exactly the same argument could be used in the case of a Palestinian suicide bomber on a bus. But as Orwell always reminds us. "Some children are more innocent than others."

Children aren't born in a vacuum. Israelis are being urged to have children. A Palestian looks at an Israeli child and sees the destruction of his own. This thread is about discouraging marriage and the birth of Palestinian children. None of this is for moral reasons.

The "innocent child" is a disgusting political tool. There is too much "kneejerk" hypocritical "handwringing" and "finger pointing" about it. That they are all "victims" is a "moral" matter. Their "innocence" is "political". I just object to them becoming victims twice.

Anyway, do you support the invasion of Iraq? Are all Iraqis responsible for the actions of Saddam Hussein? I guess we should bomb the heck out of every one of them also. Wait, hasn't George Bush done some horrible things, too? I guess I should be pushed into an ocean and drowned, as I am directly responsible for his actions! And Slobodan Milosevic killed a large number of people as well. I guess his people should be slaughtered mercilessly, by your logic?

So a post to one person can be deleted at the request of another?

My post was about the polical use of "innocent children". You use terms like "directly responsible". I'm talking about the difference between "guilt" and "innocence".

I live in America. The native Americans were slaughtered, and Africans enslaved. Am I guilty? Clearly not. But am I purely "innocent". I'm not sure. I do enjoy the "spoils" of those crimes in the knowledge that restitution has never been made. If I was killed by black sniper in "revenge" for his grandmother's slavery. Would I be a totally "innocent" victim in exactly the same sense as if I was killed by a white man in a totally randomless shooting? Is there a difference, however subtle?

but ONLY if the black sniper intended for it to be in response to the slavery of his race. That does not make the murder just, however.

Similarly, the murdering of innocent civilians by suicide bombers is immoral, regardless of how much the Zionists might have stolen from them.

Supposing I have inherited the plantation on which his grandmother was a slave? Does the "slim difference" get greater?

Don't misunderstand me. I am not playing "gotcha". I'm trying to find where the lines cross between "innocence" and "culpability".

Do the Palestinians have the right to hold anyone accountable for their situation? The British who betrayed them? The Americans who for domestic political purposes finance their enemy? The Jews who emigrated to their land and pushed them out? Their totally corrupt leaders? The other Arab countries that use them like pawns? Where do they go for "justice" or a "moral" solution?

Is it "moral" if a suicide bomber kills a Zionist? Are Israelis responsible for the actions of Zionists if they vote in a government that supports them.

You use terms like murder, innocent, and civilian. "Murder" is usually for some personal gain. Which a suicide bomber obviously doesn't have. "Innocent" is a very problematic term that I shy away from. It is my understanding at one time that the Israeli government refered to its entire "civilian" population as "soldiers". Is a civilian working in a munitions factory a civilian? Are his wife and family who live off the income from munitions used against Palestinians "civilians"?

My problem is I don't now where anything begins or ends in this conflict. I just see the Palestians as the victims and the Israelis as the aggressors. Black and white. I don't see the Israeli side of the argument. If they just want a country, and are willing to die and kill for it, that I can understand. Just don't talk about "morality" and "innocent civilians".

part of a combat organization is a soldier.

The Palestinians have the right to resist against Israeli soldiers. They have the right to defend themselves agianst those who are attacking them. They have no right to kill those living off their land, unless those people are trying to kill them.

"Zionist" does not imply guilt in this case. I am a Zionist. I do not think that I deserve to die.

Murder is the killing of an innocent civilian. An innocent civilian is someone who has not committed any serious crimes against you or against anyone else.

Why should I not speak of morality? The only way we can judge the Palestinian terrorists' actions is through a code of morality. Without that, this conversation is pointless.

Let me make my position clear. It has nothing to do with "Palestinians" or "Israelis". If a people invade another people's country, the invading force is subject to what we call "international laws and norms". But the people being invaded are under no restraints whatever. They are entitled to torture, kill, maim, use biological weapons, to drive the invading force from their land. If the invading people bring their families with them so much the worse for their families. I would give no quarter.

The Jews are a special case in that the whole world saw what happens to a people without a country. That is why I feel the way I do about invading a country, and the fate of the Palestinians. The solution after the war to "give" Palestine to the Holocaust survivors was an international crime for which Britain and the USA are guilty. Since the fate of the Jews was largely the responsibility of Europe and the USA, they should have provided the "homeland".

I would at that time have suggested Alaska which was then sparsley populated, with the Americans living there financially compensated by the Europeans for moving out. Special arrangements would have to be made for the native population and their rights totally protected even to compromising the rights of the new Jewish inhabitants. No law could be made that infringed on their rights.

However there is no going back. Now the problem is the Palestinians. It is the full "moral" responsibility of the British, the USA, and now the Israelis to provide for them. All those West Bank settlements should be handed over to them. The Israelis should withdraw from the West Bank unconditionally. Don't say this was offered. It wasn't. The Palestinian sacrifice will be far greater. The fact is they have lost the fight. They will have to give up the rest of their country for ever. Their loss of any right to return compensated by a "Marshall Plan" financed by Britain and the USA. I don't know if this is possible. But if it isn't, what is?

So mass slaughter and extermination is allowable under some circumstances? There we strongly disagree.

The single moral imperative of the population of an invaded country is to drive the invaders out. This is absolute. But it does have one limit. Once the invaders have left the war ends. The invaded people do not have the right to invade their invader's country and claim the same moral position.

Actually this is not a radical position. The problem in Israel is the Israelis do not see themselves as invaders. They see themselves as returning home. To the generation that was born there it is home. But the Palestinians can never see it that way. There is no reason for anyone to expect them to, including the Israelis.

Israelis cannot continue to de-humanise these people and then rage about "inhuman" acts. The Israelis must be willing to take much greater risks than they have. They must be much more generous than they have proved to be. The problem is they now see the Palestinians as the "invaders" and are acting in the same "moral imperative" as the I claim the Palestinians have.

What solution to the conflict do you support?

I still disagree with you, though. I don't think that civilians, occupiers or not, should be targeted. The shooting of a mother and her children by a Palestinian gunman was not justified, regardless of the fact that they were settlers.

A first proposal:

Israel to turn over ALL the settlements with the ENTIRE West Bank to the Palestinians. Including all water rights. And the West Bank named PALESTINE. Britain and the USA to provide the Palestinians with a "Marshall" plan. USA to reduce financial support to Israel and the difference handed over to compensate individual Palestinians for property loss. Don't claim this has been already proposed because it hasn't.

The Israelis are still greatly rewarded for despicableand illegal behaviour, but that can't be helped. All that can be done now is to prevent more of it. They will have a lot of work to do to attain the respect and good will of most Westerners.

Palestine to give up all claim to the rest of their land including Jerusalem except for all their Mosques (give them sovereignty like the Vatican). Israelis cannot rebuild the Temple on it's original site. Nor build one that overshadows a Mosque or Christian Church. With "no right of return" the Palestinians are clearly on the losing end of this. But they have already lost. All that can be done now is to prevent their losing everything.

Once the Israelis are seen to be serious about removing the settlers there may still be "terrorist" acts by Palestinians with an agenda. That must be expected and accepted. And not politically exploited. But Abbas will then have cover to crack down that will be seen as legitimate by the Palestinians. That's a must. He would have no reason not to do so.

Something will have to be done about the "Gaza strip", but I don't know enough geography to know what.

Is it possible? I'd like to think so but I don't. If it isn't I don't know what is.

If a people invade another people's country, the invading force is subject to what we call "international laws and norms". But the people being invaded are under no restraints whatever. They are entitled to torture, kill, maim, use biological weapons, to drive the invading force from their land.

Keeping all morality out of it, I don't think that's the case at all when it comes to international law. There would be restraints on the actions an invaded people can take to drive the invaders from their land. I don't think being stateless or not being a signatory to the Conventions concerning torture etc would mean they aren't under any constraints when it comes to those things....

I think this HRW report has been posted elsewhere in this thread, but it speaks about the obligation of non-state parties in a conflict to abide by international law when it comes to targetting civilians....

War Crimes: The Prohibition Against Targeting Civilians

A fundamental rule of international humanitarian law is that civilians must enjoy general protection against danger arising from military operations. The rule of civilian immunity is one of "the oldest fundamental maxims" of international customary law, meaning that it is binding on all parties to a conflict, regardless of whether a conflict is international or non-international in character.115 Non-state parties to a conflict are also obliged to respect the norms of customary international law. At all times, it is forbidden to direct attacks against civilians; indeed, to attack civilians intentionally while aware of their civilian status is a war crime. It is thus an imperative duty for an attacker to identify and distinguish non-combatants from combatants in every situation.

In addition to its status as established customary law, the principle of civilian immunity has been codified in numerous treaties. One of the clearest expressions of the principle is set out in article 51(2) of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, which states:

The 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.116

By deliberately targeting civilians, suicide bombing attacks clearly violate this most fundamental rule of the laws of war. The prohibition against targeting civilians holds in all circumstances, including when a party undertakes such attacks in retaliation for attacks on its own civilians (discussed below).117

The principle of distinction between civilian and military targets is enshrined in article 48 of Protocol I:

In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants, and between civilian objects and military objectives, and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.118

Military objectives are defined as "those objects, which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action."119 Under international humanitarian law, attacks that are not, or as a result of the method of attack cannot, be aimed at military targets, are considered "indiscriminate." They are prohibited under Protocol I and, under the same treaty, constitute war crimes.120 The protocol's provisions prohibiting indiscriminate warfare are considered to be norms of customary international law, binding on all parties in a conflict, regardless of whether it is an international or internal armed conflict.121 That is, they are binding on all parties to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, even though Israel has not ratified Protocol I.


http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/isrl-pa/ISRAELPA1002-04.htm#P596_127872

Violet...

If the civilians are not the target what is the object of the invasion in the first place? After the the war is over, if the invaders win do they then just go back home? Their clear intent is to enslave the defeated civilian population and occupy their land. But that is ok as long as you don't "target" them during the conflict? To me what you are saying makes no sense.

Actually you have put what I have been groping for. An invaded population can never be guilty of a war crime. Only the invading country can be accused of that.

An invaded population can never be guilty of a war crime. Only the invading country can be accused of that.

What I posted said the complete opposite. Groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad etc are non-state parties in the conflict and there isn't an Anything Goes approach to them when it comes to complying with international law.

Again from the HRW report: "Non-state parties to a conflict are also obliged to respect the norms of customary international law. At all times, it is forbidden to direct attacks against civilians; indeed, to attack civilians intentionally while aware of their civilian status is a war crime. It is thus an imperative duty for an attacker to identify and distinguish non-combatants from combatants in every situation."

<snip>

"By deliberately targeting civilians, suicide bombing attacks clearly violate this most fundamental rule of the laws of war. The prohibition against targeting civilians holds in all circumstances, including when a party undertakes such attacks in retaliation for attacks on its own civilians."

There is absolutely no way this can be interpreted as saying that an invaded population can't be guilty of war crimes. Clearly they can be....

If the civilians are not the target what is the object of the invasion in the first place?

The purpose of most invasions have always been an increase in power and territorial expansion, economic reasons, a belief that the territory's needed to increase their security, or sometimes because they lost the territory before and are taking back what they say is theirs. Y'know, they don't sit around going: 'Hey! I've got an idea! We don't really need territory x for its resources or any piddly reason about increasing our security. Let's go kick the stuffing out of the civilian population by deliberately targetting them!!' I don't think it works like that somehow...

Just curious, but you've been arguing the case for why it's okay to kill Israeli civilians by removing morality from the argument. Can I ask why yr not applying the same thinking to Palestinian civilians? If morality isn't involved, then enslavement of civilians isn't an issue because saying slavery is wrong is just as dependant on morality as saying suicide-bombings are wrong...

Violet...

I would make the same case for ANY invaded people.

I'm not saying that war crime immunity for invaded people is Your argument. It is MY argument.

Your last paragraph is exactly what invading governments actually do from Ghengis Khan to George Bush. Where have you been?

For the Israelis to claim Palestine based on their 2000 year history is absurd. I think you said you live in Australia. Are you ready to give Sidney back to the Aborigines?

Let me try this: Which I think is a feasible scenerio.

Supposing the British had retreated and the USA had never entered WW11. The Nazis now rule France. The Nazi leaders were nearly all "civilians" by the way. They take the best homes; they decree that all the museums, gardens and art galleries etc. are for the exclusive use of members of the Nazi party. They bring their families over to enjoy the spoils of war. Meantime young German men are drafted into the army to serve as occupation forces.

Under your "morality" the drafted men ,who have no choice, are legitimate targets for the resistance to kill. But the "civilians" who benefit most from the occupation are not. Why?

Especially one like the Nazis. They were far from innocent.

Under my morality, I would not accept killing innocent Germans, even if my country was occupied.

Goebels, Speer, Hess etc. were civilians. The family of Hitler and the rest were also civilians. Their financial backers were all civilians. I have to say that if my country was invaded and occupied by Germans there would be no innocent German civilians. I would kill them, man, woman and child until they left. Then I would stop.

that's genocide.

If being occupied is dangerous because you might be forced to flee, then isn't having other human beings around you dangerous? Should you slaughter them all, too, just because they are a possible threat to you staying in your house?

Take the same logic, and the Iraq war is justified. in fact, using the same logic, obliterating all of the Soviet Union during the Cold War would have been justified.

So it's not really *my* argument. It's a fact when you look at international law. You said: 'An invaded population can never be guilty of a war crime. Only the invading country can be accused of that.' Maybe I've gotten it wrong, but I thought you were talking about international law and not yr own opinion when you said an invaded population can never be guilty of a war crime. I guess when it comes to opinions, you can be entitled to think that, but the fact is that an invaded population can be guilty of war crimes and when and if this whole conflict ever ends, the leadership of groups like Hamas, as well as the Israeli leadership should be held accountable for their crimes against civilians....

My last paragraph is exactly what folks from Ghenghis Khan to Bush have been doing? Well, of course it is and I was in no way saying that it's okay to do so. They'd all justify what they've done or how they think by placing the interests of their own state above that of others and apply a different morality to the people in conquered territory than they do to their own people. But that's no excuse for us to do the same by applying a different standard of behaviour on one side in a conflict to what we apply to the other side....

Of course I don't think it's okay for Israel to claim Palestine based on a 2000 year old claim. What I think is okay is regardless of what I think about the circumstances leading up to the creation of Israel in 1948, that Israel has since then had the same right to claim the parts of Palestine given to it in the Partition (and the added bits taken just after that for added measure, even though I know that's not fair at all) as any other state has to claim sovereignty within it's own borders. What it doesn't have the right to do is to claim any territory taken in 1967 onwards as part of Israel....

Am I ready to give Sydney back to indigenous Australians? I don't think they've ever asked for it, so why should I? But, yeah. If *I* got asked, I'd tell them to go for it. After all, I live in Canberra, not Sydney, so it's no skin off my nose ;) But there's a difference between Israel and the old colonies and Dominions of the British Empire. People are more enlightened now and see that the European settlement of places like Australia several hundred years ago did a grave injustice to its traditional owners. That's why it's now enshrined in legislation here now that Australia wasn't 'terra nullis' as the European settlers and British govt at the time claimed. But the Israeli situation is completely different, because the settlement in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip has happened post-WWII, after decolonisation of European 'possessions' mainly in Asia and Africa was happening and the US for a few years was pushing hard for independence for native populations...

I disagree totally that the Nazi leadership were civilians. That's like trying to claim Hamas are civilians. Speers, Goebbels, Mengele were all high-ranking members of the Nazi Party and they're the folk who gave the orders and decided policy. It's not just my *morality* that says attacks on civilians are wrong. It's international law that says it. When it comes to civilians of a state moving to an area occupied by their state, my morality starts to diverge from what international law says. I don't like seeing any civilians get killed in a conflict, but when it comes to Israeli settlers (not children. They're dragged there by their idiotic parents, have no way of defending themselves and are intentionally put in danger and don't deserve what happens to some of them) it's a grey area for me. Where there's no grey area at all is on attacks on Israelis in Israel. Morally and legally it's wrong, achieves nothing but alienating those Israelis who do oppose their govts actions in the Occupied Territories, and what's more the attacks are carried out in the full knowledge that it's not the people who planned the attack who'll be punished - it's the Palestinian people who suffer when Israel retaliates in that collective punishment way of theirs...

Violet...

If Churchill got away with Dresden, Truman with Nagasaki, Nixon with Cambodia, and Bush with Panama, what is the point of international war crime laws? It is worthless paper.

You think the Bushes of this world can be persuaded by reason or example? I am disgusted that governments still settle problems in 2000 AD the same way as 2000 BC. But I am not willing to be a martyr to a "standard of behaviour" if someone invades my country.

Who had the right to give the Israelis parts of Palestine?

The problem with my approach to "invasion" is as Darranah has pointed to. The Israelis now also have nowhere to go. Two scorpions in a bottle. They are going to have to kill each other or find a compromise. Sharon is not going to compromise. So the Palestinians are, in my veiw, entitled to kill every Israeli they can if there is a political advantage to doing so in gaining some solution they can live with. This what everyone else would do, and have done, in similar circumstances. I just don't accept the "moralizing" about them.

I wish I shared your confidence that "people are more enlightened now" now. But I live in the USA. And Im sure the "enshrinement" of"Terra Nullis" what ever that means has fully compensated the Aborigines for the loss of their land. Especially the dead ones.

In these conflicts I no longer accept that "civilians" can hide behind soldiers. The "civilians" are very happy to accept the spoils of war. If a "setteler takes his child into someonelses country the death of the child is ENTIRELY on him. I won't let "civilians" hide behind their own children any more than soldiers. "You can't attack us for taking your land because we have put our own children in jeopardy" is not a defense.

I am willing to accept the argument that the acts by the Palstinians against "civilians" is unwise or counterproductive. I am not willing to accept the argument they are "immoral". And just for the record. If the positions of the Israelis and the Palestinians was reversed I would make exactly the same argument on behalf of the Israelis.

I do not see Palstinians going to Jerusalem to kill Israelis as an "invasion". I do see the Israeli army in Jerusalem and the West Bank as an "invasion". Where did the Israelis get the right to have an army in Palestine in the first place? When, and only when the Palestinians agree to cede their land will I see it any differently.

do you seriously believe that the extremists who lead Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc, are any more willing to compromise then Sharon? Does that give the Israeis the right to commit genocide againsty the palestinians?

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

I know! you, your family, me, my family, and everyone else who lives in this country should be brutally slaughtered by Iraqis! Because we elected Bush!

All Israelis are evil, bloothirsty freaks, just like all of the arrogant Jews! :eyes:

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

My post above was rather cruel. It was made in anger and perhaps overstepped good sense and respect.

NO. I definitely do not believe the Iraqis have the right to come over here and kill your family. I've said time and again the violence of the invaded must stop at the their country's border.

BUT. If you go to Iraq now with your family, and the US army removes an Iraqi family from their home to make room for you. And you go there knowing this to be the case. Then YES they have a right to kill you all. And YOU are fully responsible for the fate of your wife and children. I just don't know how to make this plainer.

That's where war crimes will be prosecuted. Things like that didn't exist at the end of WWII, and I think most people know of the flaws in the two major war crimes tribunals at Nuremburg and Tokyo. The victors created those tribunals and operated on a rule that if the Axis powers had done something the Allies hadn't done, then that was to be prosecuted as a war crime. Which is a good reason for a permanent international court to exist. It does away with that sort of thing. As for whether laws are worthless because they're not enforced properly, the answer isn't to ignore those laws and act like they don't exist. The answer is to make sure they're enforced properly....

Who had the right to give what is now Israel to the zionists? Well, the British sure didn't, even though they thought they had the right to promise a Jewish homeland in Palestine and made that promise even before they'd taken Palestine from the Ottoman Empire. And when they handed the Mandate to the UN, the UN didn't have a right to create the Partition, not if yr looking at things the way we do now where we place a lot of emphasis on it about self-determination for the people on that land. But rightly or wrongly (and we could argue that it's wrongly when it comes to many nations and not just Israel) Israel has existed since 1948 as a state, and I think it's only the extremist groups like Hamas that don't acknowledge its existance, and Hamas is in no way representative of the Palestinian people....

There is no political advantage in killing every Israeli they can. I've been thinking about that one, and I can't even think of a single political advantage, while I can think of quite a few very obvious disadvantages....

'Terra Nullis' translates as empty land. I'm kind of curious, but how would you like the indigenous Australians to be fully compensated for the loss of their land? It's just that the piece of legislation that acknowledgement was in was the Native Title Act, which went a whole lot further than just acknowledging that this land had traditional owners prior to European settlement. I think there's a long way to go yet, but if Israel had even a fraction of what's been done here, it'd be a start...

I didn't say that anyone travelling to Israel to kill a bunch of civilians was an invasion. Just going there and doing it is a violation of international law. In yr last paragraph, when you say Palestine, do you mean the West Bank and Gaza Strip, or do you include what is now Israel? If yr talking about the former, then I've never said that wasn't an invasion....

Violet...

I don't accept the way it was imposed on the Plaestinians.

My point about the "indigenous Australians" is this. They lost, and like Native Americans over here have lost their identity. Not to the soldiers they fought against, but to the "civilians" who profited from the war. That is why I do not accept the idea that the invading civillan population that follows the soldiers is "off limits".

They can never be compensated which is why they are entitled to give no quarter at the time of the invasion.

What you call "Israel" I call "Palestine". And will until the Palestinians say otherwise. Either through surrender to the Israelis or through some negociated agreement.

By the Way have you ever read Bruce Chatwin's book "Songlines"?

After all, it was another partition at around the same time. Partitions seem to have led to lots of bloodshed and misery from what I can see, but I'd never reject the existance of either Pakistan or Israel...

Uh, the 'invading civilian army' here was a bunch of convicts who didn't want to be dumped here in the first place. How can they be seen as aggressors when to most of them being put on a ship and being sent permanently to the furthest point from England they could be sent to was a fate worse than death?

Haven't the Palestinians said otherwise when it comes to recognising Israels existance? Like I said, the only groups I know of that don't recognise Israels existance would be extremists like Hamas which are in no way representative of the Palestinian people...

Violet...

And both sides were given a country. Where is the Palestinian's country recognized by the Israelis. I agree about the misery of "partition". But at least the death toll of Moslems and Hindus was reduced. But I don't see how the Palestinians and the Israelis can live together. Nor is it the intention of the Israelis to do so. A true observation that generally gets my posts removed. I am appently supposed to believe in Sharon's sincerity.

Well, the Indigenous population were not responsible for the British using their country for a penal colony. I glad at least you didn't say the "convicts" were "criminals". Which of course they wern't. But it was the full intention of the British to use these "convicts" to colonize the country. It was a conscripted civilian invasion.

The Palestinian "recognition" of Israel has all the validity of an L.A. police department "confession".

You aren't supposed to refrain from criticizing Sharon's sincerity. You ARE supposed to refrain from posting large, sweeping generalizations.

can be had without "sweeping generalizations" That's how you learn how other people think and learn from that. The rule looks like a copout to allow an insider "opponent" in collaboration with a sympathetic moderator to remove arguments he can't answer. It seems to me it is for the recipient of the "sweeping statement" to challenge it. Not have it unilaterally removed. Especially since I have never once been told which of my statements are so objectionable. That is why I assumed it was about Sharon. I have never said anything "anti-semetic". Nor have I been abusive to a fellow poster. Nor do I use bad language. I think that is about as much as anyone can reasonably ask.

There is no need to make bigoted statements about a group of people in a reasonable debate. Sweeping generalizations, by the way, include "Jews believe that they are more moral than anyone else" (a claim, by the way, that is completely ridiculous) and that all Israelis advocate the plan of the Sharon government for eventual transfer of the Palestinians from the West Bank/Gaza.

It is my own stupid fault. When I was talking of Jews I was talking on the one hand of Jewish intellectuals, who I believe do have a moral insight that certainly I don't have. And, on the other hand, these smarmy Jewish spokesmen that appear on our television. Perhaps they are chosen precisely because they are so repugnent.

When I said what I said about Jews and morality I was not being pejorative. Which I went to some trouble to make clear. You chose to ignore it. By the way I have NEVER made a bigoted statement. Unless anyone only looking for such would CHOOSE to interpret it that way.

In my own defence it seems to me that people frequently say America did this or that when they mean the American government. I don't accept that the Jews have a state. So it sometimes becomes very tortuous for me to get my point across. Because I refuse to use the word "Israel".

If I have to make all the qualifiers you insist on I would be typing forever. The fact is Sharon was elected by the Israelis. I didn't vote for Bush, but I have to accept the legitimate criticism that comes from his behaviour. I can't speak as if his behaviour didn't occur because I didn't vote for him.

I didn't read that post until after I posted that. Had I read it before, I never would have posted that.

Saying that Israel did something is fine with me, as long as it consitently refers to the government of Israel.

I do not accept the state of Israel. I will never accept it until the Palestinians have agreed to a country of their own. Do you agree the Palestinians should have their own country? If so, where?And I'll ask you the same question as I asked Cassandra. What does Sharon expect the Palestinians to do?

in all of the West Bank and Gaza, along with the Muslim section of the Old City of Jerusalem.

I have no idea what Sharon expects the PAlestinians to do. I am not his spokesman, and I disagree with him on almost every issue anyway. If I knew, I could well :puke:.

among Israelis and Non-Israeli Jews? I fully agree with your position and was under the impression it had no support except among those sympathetic to the Palestinians. Of course over here we get one view about everything and I hadn't realised there was an alternative view. We do get the impression that most Israelis support Sharon in the same way that most Americans support Bush.

if one knows where to look.

I know Tinoire came up with a list of websites that advocate such a position or close to it, many of which were Israeli- and American-Jewish run. I don't remember which thread it was in.

n/t

Someone can alert a post that he or she deems offensive by clicking on the Alert button. The moderators will then investigate the post and see if it warrants deletion. An alerted post is not certain of being deleted, and some deleted posts are not alerted.

He's actually making the point at the realities of the situation. The reality is really quite simple. The reality sucks ass, but is very simple. People occupy...and people kill.

How is murder and harm to innocent people any more justified because people are being occupied? It is only justified at the destruction of a greater wrong. However imperfect the reality is, the fact still remains.

I certainly agree that the killing of an innocent Palestinian girl is as bad as the killing of an innocent Israeli girl-but I don't think that the killing of the Israeli girl is any more just than the other killing. They are both immoral, and yes I will continue to use that term.

...the view where morality doesn't apply...just reality.

When you take someone elses country you are threatening the existance of the entire population. The word "moral" doesn't even apply. What was the fate of the Jews in Europe when they had no country to go to? That is my entire point.

How does "moral" not apply? Because they are occupied, they can do whatever they want?

I can take the opposite standpoint, and say that because the Israelis are being attacked by terrorists, they have the right to ethnic cleanse the Palestinians and occupy their land. How is that any less legitimate?

In fact the Israelis now see the Palestinians as the "invaders" and are acting in the same "moral imperative" as the I claim for the Palestinians. Don't kid yourself that the Israelis are acting under any "moral" restraint. But they do have the political need to appear to have a "decent respect for the opinions of mankind". To the Palestinians and me, and may others in the world, the Israelis are still the invaders. Even if their original invasion was "civillian" in nature and was fifty years ago.

As far as I am concerned the only difference between a Palestinian "terrorist" and an Israeli "terrorist" is the Israelis cover their "terroristic" acts under the shield of a military uniform and superior technology. It's amazing how superior technology excuses barbarous acts. Look at the USA and Iraq.

With the approval of two arrogant super powers, to assauge their own guilt, Jews were "given" a country occupied by a people who had no say in the decision of those powers. It was imposed on them. The Palestinians were given some worthless paper rights which have been systematically ignored by the Israelis. Frankly to their eternal shame. Many Jews went to Palestine not for a "homeland", but under a mandate from "God" to regain their "Holy Land". Just as "if God is dead all is permissible". So "if God is on your side all is permissible".

about the difference between an Israeli terrorist and a Palestinian terrorist. I poste d a reply to post #194 that covers your other points.

Jews of all people must know what it means to be without a country. Look what happened to them in WW11 because they had nowhere to go? Yet this is what Jews are today imposing on the Palestinians. That is what I find so Damning. It's not only what is happening to the Palestinians, but who is doing it.

but not innocent civilians. Yes, the israelis are imposing an occupation on the Palestinians. But how does that justify the murder of innocent civilians?

I think I catch his drift. What he's trying to say is take yourself out of your moral person. Try to imagine a world without the constraints of morality. All you have to deal with is reality. I think, and I could be wrong, what he's saying is that maybe the resistance fighters or terrorists, bumblebees, whatever, you want to call them, don't see the Israelis as "civilians." Perhaps, they see all Israelis as a threat. A threat to their very existence. I know it's hard to fathom, but bear with me. I don't condone the killing of civilians. I don't really condone killing at all, really. But live the Palestinian reality (not morality) for just a moment. Since 1948 your land and people have slowly been taken and killed for the sake of another people (for whatever reason, be it religious, political, fun and games, whatever). Your grandpa's house was taken, your father's house was taken, your brother killed, your land taken. Settlers mock you. You can't travel on certain roads or go to certain villages. Your children are sick. They don't enjoy the lives that other children have (they can watch on tv). Your put into curfew. You are an adult and you can't leave your house. You watch the news. You hear of your brothers being bombed in a building because the "occupiers" wanted to kill one terrorist. You see, live, smell, and breathe this reality everyday. Morality aside, you don't see these people as "civilians." You see them as threats to your existence. You see them as obstacles to what your dreams are made of. These "civilians" are not worthy of your morality. They are worthy of death. I think I understand what he's saying.

Now, that was all just a perspective. One that was painful to type. I really can't see how this might be a typical or fanatic or whatever you want to call it Palestinian's perspective, irrespective if it's right or wrong, it's reality.

I believe I understand what quilp is trying to say. This might be ugly to us, but it's still something we have to address. It's something very real and we can't treat it like it doesn't exist. That maybe the only chance at peace. Address the cause and not symptoms. Try not to look at things from a "moral" perspective (after all everybody's morals are different anyway). Try to look at things from a human or "real" perspective.

Sorry for the rant.

I understand that in the situation that there is today, there is a reason for terrorism.

However, there are Palestinians who have no conflict with Israelis or Jews, but rather with those trying to take over their land. Those people are, thankfully, in the majority. They can handle reality without letting go of morality.

But the suicide bombers aren't letting go of morality for reality. They're accepting a morality of the fundamentalists of thier religion. The ability to make yourself go against human nature and kill yourself for a cause requires belief, not reality, and that is what the terrorists have. Sure, reality is part of the equation, but not the only part.

Few people let go of morality. Most of the time, their morality ends up being skewed in a situation like the one above, but not removed.

The invader does not merely threaten the existing population. The threat is also to generations yet unborn. The invaded population is not about to debate "morality". They stand to lose everything. The invader can always go back home. The invaded have no such option. It is all or nothing.

Do you think the Palestinians don't know the history of the fate of the Jews when they lost their land nearly two thousand years ago? What would be the "morality" of them accepting such a fate for their children today and to come? That is what is staring them in the face. It isn't just Jews who say "never again".

as I believe you have pointed out, they are back home.

I have never "pointed out" the Israelis are "back home". If you are going to be as dishonest as that we may as well forget it.

I suppose you are not one of those revisionist historians who completely ignore the period of a jewsih state in what is now israel thousands of years ago?

Anyway, where do you think the Israelis should go?

...complete with a constitution and guarantees for equal rights for "all" citizens regardless of ethnicity, religion, creed, underwear preference, ice cream flavor preference and all that comes from being a free democratic society.

that's the way it would be. However, the problem is that neither side will agree to such a thing.

I don't know....I don't have all the answers. I'm sure something will work out where both people will live in peace. I hope at least.

The Israelis must stay where they are in the "East Bank". But TOTALLY leave the West Bank for the Palestinians. Including all water rights. To be renamed Palestine with all the rights of a sovereign state. Mosques and Christian churches in Jerusalem to be given "Vatican" status. No rebuilding of the Temple on its original site, and nowhere else that would overshadow another religious edifice.

When, and only when, Sharon starts removing those illegal squatters called "settlers" can anyone believe he is serious about peace. Unilaterally. And without making any further impossible demands on the Palestinians.

The Palestinians will still be huge losers, but they can't fight the USA subsidised Israelis. They will have to give up their right of return. The biggest demand on any people I can imagine. More than should ever be asked. But it must be done. But not without substantial compensation from Britain and USA.

That's what Realism operates on, as well as the major themes of power and a belief that a sovereign state is top of the pecking order and shouldn't be answerable to any international group that's into collective security blah blah blah. To Realists international politics is anarchial and force has to be relied on heavily to resolve conflicts between states. Of course Realism doesn't really apply to the I/P conflict because it's not a conflict between two states, which really bums me because I can't rightfully call Sharon King Of The Realists. Bush and Reagan still have the crown :(

The problem with removing any moral issues from the equation is that there's no reason that same line of thought shouldn't be used on Israel's side of things, which I guess it is when I read some of the posts from The Defenders Of Any Naughty Thing Israel Does. A devotee of Realism would tell you that Israel's security is utmost and that no-one and nothing but Israel has the right to decide whether or not something is being done in the name of security. There'd be none of the moral questions of taking land that belongs to another people. No moral issues about killing Palestinians either. That land was acquired after a war and Israel's entitled to it because they won it fair and square and no pissy little international organisation like the UN is going to tell them they can't have it. After all, it's all about security and power....

So while I'm like you and do oppose the killing of civilians in conflicts, and while I do understand the reasons why some Palestinians do support suicide bombings, I don't think trying to look at the issue by removing all morality from it is such a good move because it opens up a can of worms about what Israel could be entitled to do with all restraints removed...


Violet...

They don't. They occupy Palestine. Someone elses land. The "restraint" they have used has no moral component whatever. Their economy and military relies on the USA taxpayer. That is the only "restraint" they have. Frankly, I find even the use of the word "morality" in this issue preposterous. This is about basic raw survival. It is amazing that the very people who's "morals" should challenged have managed to get people to question the "morals" of their victims.

Dosteovski said "If God is dead all is permissible". The Zionists say: "With God on our side all is permissible".

I was arguing from a Realist perspective, which seems to be similar to yr approach when looking at the issue. Whether or not something is someone else's land isn't an issue because in the long run it boils down to being an issue of morality (that is, it's *wrong* to take someone else's land off them). Like you said, it's about basic raw survival, and when I apply the same Realism to the Israeli occupation of the OT it comes up with the same Anything's Permissable ending that yr one would. What I don't understand is yr reluctance to apply yr thinking to the Israelis and why you immediately resort to morals to exclude them by saying taking someone else's land is wrong...

Violet...

We are talking about two things. My position regarding the right of total resistance against an invading army applies to ANY invaded country. France, Poland, Australia had it been invaded by the Japanese, Palestine, you name it.

Palestine is, as far as I am concerned, an invaded country. Actually they were invaded by civilians and are occupied by that civilians' military. The whole thing sanctioned by Britain and the USA without any consultation with the Palestinians. They were, and are, being treated as if they have no sovereign rights.

There is no going back now. The Palestinians have lost. What I find unconscionable is the Israelis and their supporters treating the Palestinians as the aggressors. They are the victims. To expect the Palestinians to accept "rules" that force a bunch of stone throwers to fight against a highly mechanized army is obscene.

Their former homes, are still a living menory, not a 2000 year hiatus. All that is left of the Jewish former occupation of that land is a wall. The palestinians are suposed to fight an army heavily subsidised by the worlds only superpower, while ignoring the "civilians" that occupy their homes. I can't see how anyone can seriously expect this.

I have one point to make. When you walk into a crowded resturant, blow yourself up, and kill twenty innocent people, it... is... wrong!

Btw, there is something known as legitimate armed resistance that doesn't involve terrorism and doesn't require stone throwing. So, your claim that they are being restricted to stone throwing by those arguing against you is ridiculous.

between the USA financed Israeli army and the pathetic ragtag Palestinian resistance. Our media over here is poor so perhaps they have simply failed to tell us about the Palestinian tanks, gunships, guided missiles and fighter aircraft.

In fact when the Palestinians have tried to get conventional weapons they have been interdicted and there is another great Israeli PR campaign about "terrorists". If the Palestinians are to fight then surely they must be able to obtain weapons to fight with. You can't have
it BOTH WAYS. Or do you think the Palestinians actualy prefer to use their own bodies as weapons.

It is only "wrong' if you accept the "innocence" of those people. Those people are fully enjoying the benefits of the Israeli army occupational force. I have more sympathy with the Israeli soldier who is drafted and sent to the West Bank and has little choice. I don't see why he is the only legitimate target. Though to their undying credit there are a few who have refused to serve. But they are largely officers with political connections so are not likely to pay the price a private would. Even so I detract nothing from their extraordinary bravery.

Of course Israel has a real nerve accusing anyone of immorality when you look at what Israel's done, but that's a trick every side in a conflict will pull to try to dehumanise the opposing side as much as they can. Me, I think any people invaded have a right to resist. What they have no right to do is to travel to the state that's invaded it and deliberately target its civilians. But I don't think anyone other than the Israeli govt and its most blinded supporters would try to say that militant groups have no right to attack Israeli troops in the Occupied Territories and hopefully do it with the most advanced weaponry they can get their hands on...

One of the reasons I guess that the Palestinians are treated like they have no sovereign rights is because that's something they've never had. It's what they want to get. What gets up my nose is that they're treating the Palestinians as though they don't have or have never had any aspirations to sovereignty. That sort of stuff is just plain bullshit as far as I'm concerned, especially when it comes from people who did have their own claims to sovereignty over land that didn't belong to them recognised and rewarded...

Violet...

I don't know what to you are "sovereign rights". The Palestinians had all the "sovereign rights" as any other people. They are losing them the way every people lose them. By defeat in war. What I can't take is the Israeli pretence they have some "moral" or "historical" or 'theological" claim. They took land from a weaker people at the point of a gun. Just like all the other thugs of history.

That state Palestinians "travel to" is THEIR STATE. It is occupied by the invaders they are trying to drive out. I do not recognise "Israel" as a state. To me that country is still Palestine. And always will be until the Palestinians say otherwise. When they formally surrender.

We agree that even an invaded country should not cross their borders and deliberately target civilians. I have never said otherwise. Though I can't remember a war when it didn't happen. I just don't agree that they do not have the right to target civilians within their borders. No part of an occupation force is "civilian" whether they wear a uniform or not.

Does BUYING land count as taking it with a gun? Does claiming unnocupied land count as taking it with a gun? Does making uninhabited swampland fertile count as taking it with a gun? Does self-defense of their legitimate settlements count as taking them with a gun?

There have been atrocities on both sides. I don't deny that. There were many Jewish settlers who did indeed take land with a gun. But not all the land was taken that way.

I take issue with you justifying the atrocities committed by one side while at the same time blaming the other for more atrocities then they actually committed.