Peace Plan - "Accept it or face more violence."

Ironic? No. All nations have laws regulating and defining who may enter, as immigrants. It's normal.

I posed a question to you in another thread, and it seems appropriate to repeat it here ----- can you point to any single refugee palestinian (by name) who has come out publicly and said that he/she wants to return to Israel and become an Israeli citizen?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2491999&postcount=14

I'm not exactly sure why you are avoiding this simple challenge.

I am not avoiding the challenge, there is no onus on me to prove it, as it was raised as a challenge to someone who claimed that right of return is just a ruse used by the Arab states. I offered a plausible alternative to his claim.
 
If it is so plausible, then it shouldn't be much of a strain to offer something in the way of evidence for your "alternative" -- and yes, you are avoiding the challenge I made. While there indeed is no onus on you to take me up on it, I would think it should be simple enough, considering that the palestinians are now clamoring for a return to Israel, as a fundamental thing, could you point to one person who has said he/she is willing to do so and become an Israeli citizen?
 
Mycroft, AUP, Webfusion - I've just deleted some of your posts, I'm not even bothering moving them to AAH. And yes there were some points in some of them that were appropriate for discussion here but you apparently just couldn't help mixing in a dash of your puerile personal dislike of one another so they've gone completely. My patience is at an end - the next stage will be a month long suspensions from the Forum followed by a probationary period during which any breach will mean an immediate ban. (I will also issue this as an infraction.)
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat
 
That territory just happens to contain millions of stateless people.
It seems to me that they're an ovbious solution to that problem. Perhaps the Palestinians should be working harder at keeping the Israelis from losing their patience and implementing that solution.

With each passing year, they seem to get angrier at that state of affairs.
And yet not willing to actually do anything about it.

I think its time for the world to just impose a peace settlemant.
It other words, steal land from Israeli land. Rather hypocritical for you to claim the Israelis are basing their position on might makes right.

Jerusalem should be shared.
You can't "share" a city.

The Muslems get the Temple Mount, the Jews get the Western wall. Some settlemants bordering Israel can be annexed in exchange for an equal size of land.
So Israel gets nothing in compensation for half a century of oppression?

The Israelis will have to give up this nonsense of "Greater Israel" and accept the totally defensable borders of June 4, 1967.
"Totally defensible"? What are you on? The country can be crossed by a jet in less than a minute. A MINUTE. That's "totally defensible"?

Is there any reason why everyone who wants to visit them shouldn't be able to?
Uh.. because some are terrorists?

Don't you find that ironic though? You have never lived there, but were able to move their under a law of return, but someone who did live there, isn't allowed to return?
He hadn't lived there, not he hasn't lived there. And you have utterly failed to support your claim that someone who did live there isn't allowed to return. Furthermore, it's hardly a novel concept that nationals of a hostile power are not allowed into a country, even if they were born there. Do you seriously think that if, during WWII, the US had raised a battalion of soldiers born in Germany, Germany would have just let them walk in unopposed?

Forget the rationalizations and history and religion...this is about might makes right.
No, it's about right makes right. No one is claiming that Isreal should get anything because it's powerful, and it's dishonest to claim they are. The claim is that they should get it because it's right.

a_unique_person said:
I am not avoiding the challenge, there is no onus on me to prove it, as it was raised as a challenge to someone who claimed that right of return is just a ruse used by the Arab states.
Of course you have an onus. You made a claim, the onus is on you to defend it. The fact that you don't like the motive prompting the invocation of the onus is completely irrelevant.
 
The Palestinian authority has never taken any action to prevent or stop terror attacks against Israelis, even when it is required from them by negotiated treaties. It means that they're either unable or unwilling to actually abide by the resolutions, which would make them one of the three options listed.

For example the Quassams fired from Gaza after the Israeli withdrawal.. How many arrests has the Palestinian security force made, if any? They sure don't seem to try very hard.


More Qassems fired today.

Israel uses air strike in self-defense:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/846282.html
Israel Air Force helicopters fired into the northern Gaza Strip early Saturday, killing a Palestinian militant and wounding two others in what local residents described as the fiercest exchange of fire between Israel Defense Forces troops and Palestinian militants since a November truce. The Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a militant group, said their gunmen were on a holy mission.
 
He hadn't lived there, not he hasn't lived there. And you have utterly failed to support your claim that someone who did live there isn't allowed to return. Furthermore, it's hardly a novel concept that nationals of a hostile power are not allowed into a country, even if they were born there. Do you seriously think that if, during WWII, the US had raised a battalion of soldiers born in Germany, Germany would have just let them walk in unopposed?

This made me laugh out loud. Funny, but very true, and an excellent point.

It seems to me that those who advocate a pro-Palestinian position (and I don't mean just from this board though many would be included in this generalization as well, but advocates from B'tselem to electronic intifada dot com, to the ISM and so on) do so by purposefully (and somewhat dishonestly) ignoring the context of any given Israeli action and merely presenting it as a grievance.
 
It seems to me that those who advocate a pro-Palestinian position...do so by purposefully (and somewhat dishonestly) ignoring the context of any given Israeli action and merely presenting it as a grievance.

Here's how it works:

1. Israel conducts an air-strike to stop bomb-planting terrorists (not militants, not gunmen ---- Islamic terrorists).

2. Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit issued harsh words to Israel regarding an Israeli airstrike on Saturday.
Gheit said Israeli actions did not "add to the ongoing efforts ... to bring the peace process back on track."
 
Israel also engages in collective punishment now. (terrorism) I may not believe in God but I still identify with my Jewish background and culture, and it shames me to see what 'we've' allowed ourselves to do in the name of Israel's security.

Nothing the Palestinians do justify using some of the tactics that have been used in retaliation.
 
Last edited:
Israel also engages in collective punishment now. (terrorism) I may not believe in God but I still identify with my Jewish background and culture, and it shames me to see what 'we've' allowed ourselves to do in the name of Israel's security.

Nothing the Palestinians do justify using some of the tactics that have been used in retaliation.


You're kidding, right? Tell me you're kidding.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/845642.html
Israel and the Palestinian Authority have agreed on opening trade passages to the Gaza Strip.

A terminal for imports to Gaza will operate via the Kerem Shalom Crossing. Palestinians will be able to import and export goods from Egypt and other countries via the Rafah Crossing alone.
The plan is supported by the international community


Calling the Israelis "terrorists" pretty much puts you out of the loop, as far as I'm concerned. I have an option here on JREF called "IGNORE" and you, sir, just earned second place on my list. Congratulations.
 
Well it seems that a few posters here are only able to see one side of this story. I find it interesting that instead of asking me to back up my claims, webfusion instead chooses to run away from the discussion.
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/01/29/isrlpa7482_txt.htm
[FONT=Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif]Israel/Occupied Territories[/FONT]

[FONT=Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif]Briefing to the 60th Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights[/FONT]

[FONT=Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif]January 2004

The Commission on Human Rights should condemn continuing egregious violations by Israeli authorities and armed Palestinian groups. These violations include Israeli policies that amount to collective punishment, Palestinian attacks targeting civilians, and the severe humanitarian impact of the separation barrier on the Palestinian population. [/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif]

[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif]Parties to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict continue to ignore basic standards of human rights law and the laws of war. The current intifada, now in its fourth year, has resulted in the killing of some 3,500 people and injured more than 30,000, many severely. The overwhelming majority of casualties were civilians. The intensity of violence by Israeli security forces and Palestinian armed groups involving harm to civilians varied with political developments.

Palestinian abuses. Armed Palestinian groups continued to target Israeli civilians through suicide bombings and other deliberate attacks that constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity. At least 130 civilians were killed in such attacks in 2003. Armed Palestinian groups also executed dozens of Palestinians for allegedly collaborating with Israeli authorities.

Separation Barrier. Israel’s “separation barrier” is having a disastrous humanitarian impact. According to UN OCHA, some 650,000 Palestinians will be directly affected by the barrier’s construction. It has aggravated crippling restrictions on freedom of movement, and imperils essential access to education, work, water, and family life.

Settlements. Israel’s policy of establishing and expanding civilian settlements in the territories under military occupation violate international humanitarian law’s prohibitions against transfer of civilians to occupied territory and the creation of permanent changes that are not for the benefit of the protected population. The settler population of the West Bank and Gaza Strip has doubled in the ten years since the signing of the Oslo Accords, and now stands at 236,381 people. The government continues to confiscate Palestinian lands to expand existing settlements and bypass roads, particularly in the East Jerusalem area. At least 62 new settlement outposts have reportedly been established since the current government took office in 2001. The separation barrier’s existing and planned route reinforces the pernicious humanitarian human rights consequences of Israel’s illegal settlement activity in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

As of January 2004, the government indicated it might dismantle some “settlement outposts,” and possibly some government-authorized settlements as well. These proposals are largely cosmetic and fail to address the human rights and international humanitarian law violations attached to the settlements as a whole.

Use of Force/Impunity. Human rights groups continued to document repeated indiscriminate use of lethal force by Israeli troops, as well the excessive use of force in situations where law enforcement means were called for. Investigations into alleged wrongdoing by Israeli forces were infrequent, and the results rarely made public. Palestinian Authority (PA) officials condemned attacks on civilians, including suicide bombings, but failed to move decisively against those responsible for ordering and organizing them where they had the capacity to do so.

Assassinations policy. Israeli forces killed some 97 individuals under its assassinations policy in 2003, and injured 500 others. More than half those killed were civilian bystanders. At least some of these attacks were indiscriminate and disproportionate, including an operation on 21 October 2003 in Gaza city that killed 12 civilians.

Israel originally depicted its assassinations policy as a last-resort means to prevent imminent attack. By 2003 the government had steadily expanded the selection of targets and killed repeatedly without showing any link to imminent attack and that the arrest of suspects was not possible. The essentially political nature of the killings was shown even more clearly when Israel twice suspended its assassination policy for political reasons.

Collective punishment. By May 2003 Israel’s policy of house demolitions had made more than 13,000 Palestinians homeless. Thousands of homes and buildings have been demolished on alleged security grounds, many in excess of the requirements of military necessity. Twenty-one thousand dunums (approximately five thousand acres) of agricultural land have been razed. Israeli forces also demolished the homes of scores of families of alleged armed militants, a clear violation of the prohibition against collective punishment contained in Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Israeli restrictions on freedom of movement in the West Bank and Gaza Strip were so severe and widespread as to constitute collective punishment. These crippling restrictions disrupted access to medical care, education, and economic activity, and were frequently accompanied by extended curfews. Movement restrictions remained even as additional restrictions were imposed as a result of the separation barrier. The UN OCHA reported 757 movement barriers in place at the end of 2003.

Humanitarian crisis. Israel has a positive obligation under the Fourth Geneva Convention and the 1907 Hague Regulations to ensure the welfare of residents of occupied territory. In November 2003 the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) ended its emergency relief aid program, arguing that “what began as an emergency situation facing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians has now turned into a long-term collapse of the local economy.” The ICRC statement said that “humanitarian aid is no longer the best way to help ... It is essential that the West Bank Palestinians' basic rights under international humanitarian law are respected.”

Arbitrary detention and torture. As of January 2004, some 5,900 Palestinians were being held on security-related grounds. Reports of ill-treatment were widespread, including kicking, beating, squalid conditions, and deprivation of food and drink, and Israeli human rights organizations documented cases of torture. Some 631 persons were administrative detainees, held on the basis of secret evidence without effective judicial review. [/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif]


Who's out of the loop?[/FONT][FONT=Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif]

[/FONT]
 
Last edited:
and that is by no means a definitive list... One of the most troubling more recent developments is the use of cluster munitions by both Hezbollah and the IDF.
 
Who's out of the loop?

Honestly, I think it's the UN that's out of the loop. The honest truth is that the UN is strongly biased against Israel and has been for decades.

I don't believe those specific tactics mentioned constitute collective punishment. They are certainly controversial, but the label “collective punishment” seems contrived to evoke thoughts of war crimes. It’s a propagandists trick.
 
"Nothing the Palestinians do justify using some of the tactics that have been used in retaliation."

We have seen that same three-year-old HRW report posted in JREF several times (you are not the first poster to threw it in our faces, it's been offered here over and over). Each time, it gets riper with age.

The one sentence that stands out is this:

Palestinian abuses: Armed Palestinian groups continued to target Israeli civilians through suicide bombings and other deliberate attacks that constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity.

It is not hinted at. It is spelled out in black and white.

Looking at the archives, Z-N made the following post that still is relevant today:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1464581&postcount=103

Yet, it's Israel that obtains the label -- "terrorist" --- and for that, thinkingaboutit makes a mockery of his username, and I am more than confident that ignoring his posts is the proper course of action today.
 
Good lord, it's you who I should ignore. Quibble over the word terrorist and ignore all the facts. I can see that peace is close at hand, with the way both sides are working so hard to understand each other's grievances and all.

p.s. If I'm supposed to feel unhappy or ashamed that you're (supposedly) going to ignore me, it ain't working. Enjoy your ignorance.
 
Last edited:
Just for the sake of balance here is a part of the dialogue which seems to get ignored...
David Ben Gurion (the first Israeli Prime Minister): "If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti - Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault ? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?" Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp121.


"We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population." Israel Koenig, "The Koenig Memorandum"

"Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population." Moshe Dayan, address to the Technion, Haifa, reported in Haaretz, April 4, 1969.


"Everybody has to move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements because everything we take now will stay ours... Everything we don't grab will go to them." Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998. "It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism,colonialization or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands." Yoram Bar Porath, Yediot Aahronot, of 14 July 1972.


"Spirit the penniless population across the frontier by denying it employment... Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly." Theodore Herzl, founder of the World Zionist Organization, speaking of the Arabs of Palestine,Complete Diaries, June 12, 1895 entry.
 
Is this terrorism?

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2003/04/29/isrlpa5821_txt.htm
[FONT=Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif](Jerusalem, April 29, 2003) -- The Israeli army should immediately stop using U.S.-supplied flechette shells in the Gaza Strip, Human Rights Watch said today. The use of such antipersonnel weapons in densely populated areas makes the risk of civilian casualties intolerably high under international law. [/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif]Human Rights Watch responded to an April 27, 2003, ruling by Israel’s Supreme Court of Justice in a case brought by the Palestinian Center for Human Rights and Physicians for Human Rights - Israel. The court said that it would not intervene in the army’s choice of weapons because use of flechettes was not banned outright in international law.

“Flechettes may not be banned outright, but they should never be used in areas where there are large numbers of civilians,” said Hanny Megally, executive director of the Middle East and North Africa Division of Human Rights Watch. “The Israeli Army doesn’t use them in the West Bank because of potential risks to civilians. It makes no sense to keep using them in Gaza, one of the most densely-populated areas on earth.”

Flechettes are razor-sharp 3.75mm darts released from canisters that explode in mid-air and spray thousands of them in an arc some 300 meters long and 90 meters wide. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) generally fires them in 105 mm tank shells. According to Jane’s Defence Weekly, the IDF is using a modified version of US-supplied M494 105mm APERS-T rounds, acquired in the 1970s.

Their wide “kill radius” renders flechettes particularly deadly. Their use in heavily populated areas contravenes two basic principles of the laws of war. The first is the prohibition against indiscriminate attacks, which means that forces cannot use weapons or mount attacks that do not or cannot distinguish between civilians and military objectives. The second is the requirement to take all feasible precautions to avoid or minimize harm to civilians when choosing method and means of attack.

The Gaza Strip has a population density of some 3,273 persons per square kilometer – eleven times that of the West Bank. Palestinian residential areas, Israeli settlements, and Israeli military installations exist in close proximity. Human Rights Watch, the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, B’tselem, and other organizations have documented multiple civilian deaths in Gaza as a result of flechette use.

“Although the IDF says it has guidelines, we don’t know what they are or what happens to those who don’t follow them,” Megally said. “The IDF record on investigating wrongdoing is abysmal. The IDF should stop flechette use in Gaza now.” The Supreme Court accepted the IDF’s statement that its use of flechettes did not deviate from strict but undisclosed internal army guidelines (The Israeli Supreme Court Sitting as the High Court of Justice High Court Ruling 8990). In fact, three days after flechettes killed three women and wounded three others from the al-Malalha family on June 9, 2001, Israeli army officials confirmed that the shelling, in a populated area between Gaza City and the Netzarim settlement had been a mistake (Israel: Dart Shells Pose Civilian Threat).

“The mistake is not just one incident but the policy of continued use of this weapon in a context inconsistent with the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks,” Megally said.






[/FONT][FONT=Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif]
[/FONT]
 
Good lord, it's you who I should ignore. Quibble over the word terrorist and ignore all the facts.
You use the outrageous label "terrorist", and then call it "quibbling" when it's pointed out that it is not appropriate?

Also, it is punishment only if it is done with punitive intent. Otherwise, it is not a punishment, but a consequence. Security wall, for instance, are not collective punishment, but collective consequence. And even if something is collective punishment, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's unjustified.
 
I think it can be argued that using flechettes in Gaza is punitive intent. Disagree?

edit: As well let's not forget the targeting of infrastructure (houses, roads, ambulances, water purification, sewage treatment) Oh right those are all military targets somehow? Are these things not outrageous? I don't have double standards.
 
Last edited:
http://www.ajds.org.au/intifada/barzilai.htm

"More than anything else, this war is characterized by Israel's heavy response. Killing every Arab with a 500-kilo hammer is way out of proportion," says reserve major general Avraham Tamir. "Our reactions, like those of the Americans in Vietnam and the Soviets in Afghanistan, cause a lot more casualties and create a lot more hostility and hatred. Sharon can adopt a scorched earth policy, destroy the Palestinian infrastructure, and exile the entire Palestinian leadership, but as long as the hostility remains, he won't defeat terror."

Tamir, 78, says that he knows Sharon better than almost anyone else. An emergency appointment sent him to Sharon's headquarters as assistant operations officer when Sharon commanded the army that crossed the Suez Canal in the Yom Kippur War. During the Lebanon war, Tamir was head of the National Security Unit and served as Sharon's strategic advisor.

"The man elected prime minister is not what the state needs now. But he was elected. Why was he elected? Because of a security crisis," says Tamir, whose military career was woven through with his involvement in the formulation of Israel's military doctrines and defense strategies.

In recent years, he has been a research fellow at Tel Aviv University.

He says he has "a sense of deja vu" about Sharon. In the early 1950s, Sharon appeared to be someone with a magic solution to the fedayeen problem. After the 1981 elections he was named defense minister in the hope he would solve the problem of Palestinian terror from Lebanon. "There are elements that have returned, but in the past there was always political control, so he didn't get everything he wanted," notes Tamir. Those two episodes and what is happening today share another common denominator, he adds: Sharon's totally disproportionate reactions. That's the way he worked in the cross-border retaliations in the days of Unit 101, at the Mitla Pass during the Suez campaign, and in the war in Lebanon. Another common denominator has to do with the nature of fighting terror. It always involves a campaign against the civilian population.

"The difference between a war on terror and a war with an army," explains Tamir, "is that you can't fight terror without killing civilians. Terror resides in the civilian population. The main source of Palestinian terror is the refugee camps. That's where they grew. That's where the distress and humiliation is."

He says that the IDF's war on terror now also appears to be an army's war against a civilian population. But with one big difference. In the past, Palestinian terrorism had an address inside a state. States like Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon hosted the organizations. Now the terror comes from the territories of the Palestinian Authority.

"I'm not saying we shouldn't fight terrorism with determination," he says. "But the new phenomenon is the critical mass of suicide terrorists. That can only deteriorate into a war of a much larger scope. And that won't help us at all. Suicide attacks are the Palestinian response to the sieges, assassinations, and helicopters. There's a direct correlation between the assassinations and the suicide attacks."

One of the worst terrorist attacks, by a woman, was in repsonse to her brother being summarily shot by the IDF outside their own home while she was sitting inside it.
 
If it is so plausible, then it shouldn't be much of a strain to offer something in the way of evidence for your "alternative" -- and yes, you are avoiding the challenge I made. While there indeed is no onus on you to take me up on it, I would think it should be simple enough, considering that the palestinians are now clamoring for a return to Israel, as a fundamental thing, could you point to one person who has said he/she is willing to do so and become an Israeli citizen?

Said Olmert: "We are not deluding ourselves — they want us to return to the 1967 borders and implement the right of return."

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opini...go-back-to-1967/2007/04/07/1175366527215.html

There are two sticking points, according to Olmert. On the right of return, if it's such a non-issue, why does Olmert say it is not a negotiable point?
 

Back
Top Bottom