Gaza villages Wiped off the map

[Thunder]

Barak and Olmert can go **** themselves!! Israel's long term agenda is to take the lot and you damn well know it.

It is lies and bs like this that is the reason why the Palestinian people still do not have their own independent state.

They could have had one in 1949. The Arabs said NO.

They could have had one in 1968. The Arabs said NO.

They could have had one in 2000. The Arabs said NO.

They could have had one in 2008. And again..the Arabs said NO.

It is perfectly logical for one to now wonder whether their real goal is an independent Palestinian state next to a Jewish state...or the destruction of Israel.

..and btw, if I knew that the goal of most Israelis was to keep all of the West Bank and kick out the Arabs, I would say so. I don't appreciate being called a liar.

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

It is lies and bs like this that is the reason why the Palestinian people still do not have their own independent state.

They could have had one in 1949. The Arabs said NO.

They could have had one in 1968. The Arabs said NO.

They could have had one in 2000. The Arabs said NO.

They could have had one in 2008. And again..the Arabs said NO.

Of course the Arabs are going to say no.

Read this again ...

Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians 93% of the West Bank and all of Gaza.

Offered? They are are offering something that isn't theirs to offer. Does that not disgust you?


If someone stole you house and then offered you 93% of it back what would you say?

And what about the land that is Palestinian owned that resides inside Israel?

You know yourself from the recent leaked database that much of the Palestinians have had their land stolen.

What part of "Israel doesn't want a 2 state solution" do you not understand? And why should the Palestinians accept an offer that's an insult

It is perfectly logical for one to now wonder whether their real goal is an independent Palestinian state next to a Jewish state...or the destruction of Israel.

The extremist Palestinians don't want a 2 state solution an more than Israel wants one

..and btw, if I knew that the goal of most Israelis was to keep all of the West Bank and kick out the Arabs, I would say so. I don't appreciate being called a liar.

Oh come on! Of course many ordinary Israelis don't support the treatment and agenda against the Palestinians.

It's common linguistics to us the country's name when referring to the ruling elite. America invaded Iraq, that doesn't mean it was widely supported.

 

[Thunder]

Offered? They are are offering something that isn't theirs to offer. Does that not disgust you?

Israel controls the West Bank. Their control of this land, won in a war against Jordan in 1967, is legal, legitimate, and abides by all international laws concerning warfare. They must negotiate with the Palestinians the final status of this land. Each side of the puzzle must make an "offer".

But if you think the Palestinians should refuse any "offer" from the Israelis...even if its 95%...or even 96%..because you don't like that term "offer", then clearly peace with Israel is NOT your goal here, and you are a very silly person.

But....we all know that it isn't...now dont we?



Islamist Apologists are paper thin.

 

[gdnp]

Israel controls the West Bank. Their control of this land, won in a war against Jordan in 1967, is legal, legitimate, and abides by all international laws concerning warfare.

Have you read article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention?

Article 49

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.

The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.

The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.

The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

I bolded the most relevant part for you.

 

[yairhol]

'Offered them' something that was their's in the first place? I'd tell them **** Off as well. Barak and Olmert can go **** themselves!!

You're making less sense as the days pass. Are you now saying that the Palestinians don't want this land because it was theirs in the first place?

Israel's long term agenda is to take the lot and you damn well know it.

Is this coming from the same source that told you that the army teaches to dehumanize the enemy?

 

[Pardalis]

"Israel doesn't want a 2 state solution"

Neither do you, as it seems.

May I ask what it is you want, exactly?

 

[1337m4n]

[qimg]http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?blobcol=urlimage&blobheader=image%2Fjpeg&blobheadername1=Cache-Control&blobheadervalue1=max-age%3D420&blobkey=id&blobtable=JPImageSpotlight&blobwhere=1123495332804&ssbinary=true&timestamp=0208174657[/qimg]


Israelis cry over lost.....cars. While Palestinians cry over lost children.

Okay this is seriously freaking me out: Every time I view this thread, that picture is completely different.

WTF?

 

[webfusion]

Have you read article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention?
The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

I bolded the most relevant part for you.

Israel has not done so.

If you are the least bit aware of the legal background of the Conventions, there is nothing about the establishment of Jewish towns and communities in Gaza or the West Bank which would be classified as "deporting or transferring" ----
every single home and every single shack that Jews live in are VOLUNTARY domiciles.

Same as if you chose to buy and live in a home anywhere on Earth.

 

[Thunder]

Have you read article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention?


I bolded the most relevant part for you.

Israel's occupation of the West Bank is legal. The Jewish settlements, however, are illegal.

 

[Oliver]

Same as if you chose to buy and live in a home anywhere on Earth.

Well, if you chose to buy a home anywhere on Earth with the intent to annex the land to another country - or to establish your own state, on the other Hand ...

The ugly fact remains that Israel was build on injustice to the Palestinians. There is no logical reason that the victims of that injustice have to agree on anything other than to get their owned land back.

So while I understand the political diversity in Israel, I actually have to agree with TFT about the offer to get 93% of the Westbank back, it's an insult to fool the Palestinians this way after they lost the majority of land already due to what is called theft in western societies.

 

[bigjelmapro]

I find an army that consciously targets civilians and NOT enemy combatants to be morally bankrupt and corrupt beyond the pale. They someday will face war crimes trials for their actions.

Rubbish claim. The issue here that with the enemy Israel faces don't abide by the rules of distinction. So the moment one of these combatants hit the ground in civilian clothing, they become civilian and get counted as such.

 

[bigjelmapro]

Well, if you chose to buy a home anywhere on Earth with the intent to annex the land to another country - or to establish your own state, on the other Hand ...

The ugly fact remains that Israel was build on injustice to the Palestinians. There is no logical reason that the victims of that injustice have to agree on anything other than to get their owned land back.

So while I understand the political diversity in Israel, I actually have to agree with TFT about the offer to get 93% of the Westbank back, it's an insult to fool the Palestinians this way after they lost the majority of land already due to what is called theft in western societies.

Problem is, there was no country, so none of these conventions apply to land previously occupied by the Ottomans.

The brunt of 'settlement blocks' adjacent to Jerusalem were bought and paid for by Jewish settlers (e.g. Ma'ale Adumim) from some of the very Arab families claiming to have their land stolen today. This was back in the 1910's-20's, where the 1929 riots caused massive evictions of these blocks. When this ceased, those settlers came back until 1947-48, when they were evicted by the Jordanians and other invading Arab armies. Then again settled mid 1970's. Then partially evicted again in the early to mid 1980's for peace negotiations with the Palestinians. This failed, then re-settlement occurred once again.

The issue here is this farce/fantasy that the land carved out by the Jordanians between 1948-67 are de facto borders and are only allowed to be settled by Arabs, many of which are immigrants themselves. No UN resolutions state these specifics and neither do they state these requirements. There are resolutions that call for ending settlement expansion, but this does not include natural population growth and already existing settlement blocs before the 1948-67 hostilities.

And please no pigeonholing me as some right-wing Zionist. The issue here lies that the Arab immigration occurred in a greater amount than Jewish immigration decades prior to Israel gaining independence, but apparently those who reside in the N. African/Middle East region of non-Jewish origin trump the claims of Jewish settlers. Otherwise, why the special UN definition of a Palestinian refugee while disregarding the GREATER number of Jewish refugees? Once we come to a compromise between the two injustices that occurred through war stemmed in reality rather than perpetuating this farce can we resolve this conflict....

 

[bigjelmapro]

Israel's occupation of the West Bank is legal. The Jewish settlements, however, are illegal.

Some settlements are illegal, some aren't and shouldn't even be called settlements to begin with.

The problem that has to be resolved is that Jewish people can live in Judea and Samaria (since the West Bank doesn't really apply as a name anymore) without fear of being attacked, which was actually the main reason why the Haganah, precursor to the IDF, came into fruition. Once there isn't a need for Israeli forces to be in Judea and Samaria to protect Jewish people, then there would be no reason for the IDF to exist there. Everything to this date, with all the roadblocks and such, is a situation that has spiraled out of control which should be resolved by TALKS and no violence.

In Gaza, this has already failed miserably leading to the eviction of all Jews from there, which in legal terms, can be deemed as the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Gaza. The history of Jews in Gaza is irrefutable, but don't interpret this as exclusive access to Gaza or any land in question.

 

[webfusion]

The ugly fact remains that Israel was build on injustice to the Palestinians. There is no logical reason that the victims of that injustice have to agree on anything other than to get their owned land back.

The State of Israel was not built on any injustices to Arabs. Your claiming it is a "fact" doesn't make it so.

The State of Israel did not come about in the wave of a magic wand in 1947.
It was the end result of a 50-year nation-building process that the Jews paid for, in blood, in cash, and in a series of brutal indignities at the hands of Arabs that I will not recall here ---- they are well-known.

As for the historical record of what was considered "Palestine" -- we can easily use the San Remo Accords as a basis, and see that Arabs did pretty damn well for themselves regarding what they ended up with from the entire allocation of lands of the "Palestine Mandate" (they got over 75%).

As for "getting their owned land back" -- can you point to a map showing what exact lands that encompasses? Are you suggesting that there was such a thing as "Palestine" that the Jews stole from Arabs?

Good luck with that line of thought... Oliver.

 

[IDB87]

Have you read article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention?


I bolded the most relevant part for you.

Has Israel forcibly transferred part of its' own population to the West Bank and Gaza?

Does the Geneva Convetion say anything about voluntary settlements?

Advisory oppinons of a court do not negate what is in the Gevena Convetion.

 

[dudalb]

Neither do you, as it seems.

May I ask what it is you want, exactly?

I think we all know, but TFT will never admit it.

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

I think we all know, but TFT will never admit it.

And what is that exactly dudalb? Or are you too cowardly to say?


What you see is what you get with me. I've no reason to withhold anything.

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

The State of Israel was not built on any injustices to Arabs. Your claiming it is a "fact" doesn't make it so.

The State of Israel did not come about in the wave of a magic wand in 1947.
It was the end result of a 50-year nation-building process that the Jews paid for, in blood, in cash, and in a series of brutal indignities at the hands of Arabs that I will not recall here ---- they are well-known.

Another one in denial.

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

(Shrug)

When Israel was in Gaza, it was an evil occupier. Now that Israel isn't in Gaza, it's "ghettoizing" it. Obviously the only acceptable behavior on Israel's part is to both be contantly attacked by rockets and let Hamas get any sort of ammunition and weapons it likes throught the border. Anything else is "Nazi-like opression". Of course, if Israel does do just that, the sole result would be that that, too, would not be enough, and it would still be declared the "opressor" for some other reason.

As for the "Warsaw ghetto" analogy, first, it is obviously absurd to compare conditions in Gaza to the conditions in the ghetto. If this is not clear on the face of it, I may mention, say, the lack of deportations of Palestinians to extermination camps, supplying them with food, water, and electricity, not passing a law making it illegal for Palestinians to have children, and a few other minor dissimilarities.

That aside, for the analogy to work one would have to assume that the goal of the Jewish fighters in the ghetto had in store for the Germans was analogous to the goal Hamas has for the Jews: to wit, that the the Jewish fighters wanted to wipe Germany off the face of the earth, kill all Germans, and establish a Jews-only state run by Jewish religious law in its place. That's news for me. I thought it was rather the other way around: the Germans were trying to wipe off the Jews, not the Jews trying to wipe out the Germans.

But hey, there is one similarity between the Jewish treatment of the Palestinians in Gaza and the German treatment of the Jews in Warsaw: the Jews try to stop the Palestinians from smuggling weapons into Gaza, the Germans tried to stop the Jews from getting weapons into the ghetto. But since that is more or less the only significant similarity, one should in fairness claim that everybody who tries to stop some group from smuggling weapons into some area is ipso facto like the Nazis in the Warsaw ghetto. So the local school principal or airport security officer or Wal-Mart store owner are all just like the Nazis, since all attempt to stop people from smuggling weapons into their school, airport, or shop.

Ah, if only the poor opressed students, passangers, and customers had tunnels and rockets!

Wow! Back on form I see Skeptic!!

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Israel's long term agenda is to take the lot and you damn well know it.

Is this coming from the same source that told you that the army teaches to dehumanize the enemy?

Are you, as one of the forum's most ardent Zionist Apoligists, really stating that the Zionist Agenda is for a 2 state solution? Are you really saying that the 2,000 dream is to share the Promised Land with Arabs?

You're losing it.

----------------------------------------

Were the Zionists planning on living side by side with Arabs?

In 1919, the American King-Crane Commission spent six weeks in Syria and Palestine, interviewing delegations and reading petitions. Their report stated, “The commissioners began their study of Zionism with minds predisposed in its favor...The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission’s conferences with Jewish representatives that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase...

“If [the] principle [of self-determination] is to rule, and so the wishes of Palestine’s population are to be decisive as to what is to be done with Palestine, then it is to be remembered that the non-Jewish population of Palestine — nearly nine-tenths of the whole — are emphatically against the entire Zionist program.. To subject a people so minded to unlimited Jewish immigration, and to steady financial and social pressure to surrender the land, would be a gross violation of the principle just quoted...No British officers, consulted by the Commissioners, believed that the Zionist program could be carried out except by force of arms.The officers generally thought that a force of not less than fifty thousand soldiers would be required even to initiate the program. That of itself is evidence of a strong sense of the injustice of the Zionist program...The initial claim, often submitted by Zionist representatives, that they have a ‘right’ to Palestine based on occupation of two thousand years ago, can barely be seriously considered.” Quoted in “The Israel-Arab Reader” ed. Laquer and Rubin.

“Zionist land policy was incorporated in the Constitution of the Jewish Agency for Palestine...’land is to be acquired as Jewish property and..the title to the lands acquired is to be taken in the name of the Jewish National Fund, to the end that the same shall be held as the inalienable property of the Jewish people.’ The provision goes to stipulate that ‘the Agency shall promote agricultural colonization based on Jewish labor’...The effect of this Zionist colonization policy on the Arabs was that land acquired by Jews became extra-territorialized. It ceased to be land from which the Arabs could ever hope to gain any advantage...

“The Zionists made no secret of their intentions, for as early as 1921, Dr. Eder, a member of the Zionist Commission, boldly told the Court of Inquiry, ‘there can be only one National Home in Palestine, and that a Jewish one, and no equality in the partnership between Jews and Arabs, but a Jewish preponderance as soon as the numbers of the race are sufficiently increased.’ He then asked that only Jews should be allowed to bear arms.” Sami Hadawi, “Bitter Harvest.”