With a cease-fire like this, who needs war?

[a_unique_person]

Re: Re: it's all moot, when this is the norm:

Being honorably mentioned is cause to comment

We can't read everything everyone posts, but I would like to point out that I am on record, many times, saying that not only do I object to the Jewish fundies thinking their god gave them lands; I also seriously resent them dragging us into this cesspool as a result.

Having said that; I have nothing but contempt for the Palestinian fanatics who have destroyed their own society with a primitive culture of death; but I don't think the Jews made them do it, they just provided the excuse, along with the ones their apologists use.

To say that it is just the fundies who are responsible for the breakdown of Palestinian society is to ignore the effects of an occupation. It is impossible to quantify who is more to blame, but to lay the blame soley on one side or the other is obviously false.

On balance I think there are more Jews who would end this, and act to end this, than there are Palestinians, so that is where my support of the day will go, while maintaining my right to argue that their vision of a "religious" based democracy is also doomed to fail eventually, as the concepts are fundamentally incompatible.

On the plus side, every "Jew" I have ever known has been an atheist, so there is hope yet.

IIRC, polls have indicated the majority of Jews in Israel were prepared to trade the occupation for peace, yet governments have continually aided and encouraged the settlers and land theft.

 

[Mycroft]

Re: Re: Re: it's all moot, when this is the norm:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
To say that it is just the fundies who are responsible for the breakdown of Palestinian society is to ignore the effects of an occupation. It is impossible to quantify who is more to blame, but to lay the blame soley on one side or the other is obviously false.

It's possible to quantify, you just don't like paying attention to evidence of the Palestinian Authority deliberatly creating a society that glorifies death and violence, teaching children how wonderful it is to die a martyr.

Edited by Darat: 

As per my announcement I am indicating that the paragraph above is borderline as it is attempting to personalise the issue. An example of how the same point about the issue could have been made without the attempt to personalise the issue: "It's possible to quantify if you use the evidence of the Palestinian Authority deliberately creating a society that glorifies death and violence, teaching children how wonderful it is to die a martyr."

Originally posted by a_unique_person
IIRC, polls have indicated the majority of Jews in Israel were prepared to trade the occupation for peace, yet governments have continually aided and encouraged the settlers and land theft.

It's too bad Arafat wasn't willing to accept the peace offered, I guess we'll see if Abbas is better.

 

[a_unique_person]

Re: Re: Re: Re: it's all moot, when this is the norm:

It's possible to quantify, you just don't like paying attention to evidence of the Palestinian Authority deliberatly creating a society that glorifies death and violence, teaching children how wonderful it is to die a martyr.

If you would like to quantify it, please do.

It's too bad Arafat wasn't willing to accept the peace offered, I guess we'll see if Abbas is better.

Arafat accepted Oslo, the growth in settlements was one of the main contributing factors in it's failure, IMHO.

 

[Mycroft]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: it's all moot, when this is the norm:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
If you would like to quantify it, please do.

We've discussed this at tremendous length. You are well aware (or should be) of the many influences by which the culture is twisted to glorify suicide terror. Everything from pressuring mothers to celebrate their childrens deaths, to naming streets, schools and hospitals for suicide bombers, to placing posters of them on walls, childrens programming, music videos, giving candy to children when there is a successful terrorist attack...it goes on and on.

Here is a brief blurb on the woman who was captured a few days ago. Do you remember when a woman suicide-bomber was shocking? Now it barely gets a notice
during a cease fire!

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/Three_Lessons_from_a_Woman_Terrorist.asp

1) SUICIDE TERROR: ASPIRATION, NOT DESPERATION

Al-Bas explained to reporters why she carried out the act:

I love Allah, I love the land of Palestine and I am a member of Al-Aksa Brigades... my dream was to be a martyr. I believe in death... Since I was a little girl I wanted to carry out an attack.

Since she was a little girl, her aspiration was to carry out an attack. Children in Nort Korea don't do this, nor do children in Tibet. Why? Because they don't have the relentless media pressure telling them to.

Knowing this and dismissing it is like historical revisionism.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Arafat accepted Oslo, the growth in settlements was one of the main contributing factors in it's failure, IMHO.

I think you add IMHO because you can't document any evidence to support that except that you want it to be true. The truth, that you've been made aware of but you continually revise away, is that Arafat did not accept Oslo, but quite obviously worked against it.

Edited by Darat: 

As per my announcement I am indicating that the paragraph above is borderline as it is attempting to personalise the issue. An example of how the same point about the issue could have been made without the attempt to personalise the issue: " I think you add IMHO because you can't document any evidence to support that. The truth, that you've been made aware of is that Arafat did not accept Oslo, but quite obviously worked against it."

 

[a_unique_person]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: it's all moot, when this is the norm:

We've discussed this at tremendous length. You are well aware (or should be) of the many influences by which the culture is twisted to glorify suicide terror. Everything from pressuring mothers to celebrate their childrens deaths, to naming streets, schools and hospitals for suicide bombers, to placing posters of them on walls, childrens programming, music videos, giving candy to children when there is a successful terrorist attack...it goes on and on.

Here is a brief blurb on the woman who was captured a few days ago. Do you remember when a woman suicide-bomber was shocking? Now it barely gets a notice during a cease fire!



Since she was a little girl, her aspiration was to carry out an attack. Children in Nort Korea don't do this, nor do children in Tibet. Why? Because they don't have the relentless media pressure telling them to.

Knowing this and dismissing it is like historical revisionism.

I don't recall dismissing it. I said, it is impossible to quantify the contribution, your response is to say it is all their own fault. From day one, I have said it is not reasonble to do so.

I think you add IMHO because you can't document any evidence to support that except that you want it to be true. The truth, that you've been made aware of but you continually revise away, is that Arafat did not accept Oslo, but quite obviously worked against it.

We have been over this before too. I would stop the accusations of 'revisionism' before you get edited again for offensive behaviour. We disagree, but you are not prepared to accept it as a honourable disagreement, but as one that involves fault on my part.

Edited by Darat: 

As per my announcement I am indicating that the paragraph above is borderline as it is attempting to personalise the issue. The Moderation team will take care of any post that are inappropriate. If you see a post you believe is problematic please use the “Report” feature or drop a PM to a member of the Mod Team or if it is a general point please start a discussion in the Forum Management section.

 

[Mycroft]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: it's all moot, when this is the norm:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I don't recall dismissing it. I said, it is impossible to quantify the contribution, your response is to say it is all their own fault. From day one, I have said it is not reasonble to do so.

You can quantify it my looking at how pervasive it is in that society and by comparing to other societies. The only other place on earth that produces suicide bombers, the Tamil Tigers, requires severe indoctrination/brain washing to accomplish what they do. It's not so different among the Palestinian-Arabs.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
We have been over this before too. I would stop the accusations of 'revisionism' before you get edited again for offensive behaviour. We disagree, but you are not prepared to accept it as a honourable disagreement, but as one that involves fault on my part.

We disagree, but you are not prepared to defend your disagreement and instead seek to manipulate others to silence me for you.

I believe disregarding these well documented influences is revisionism. I can only think of a small number of motivations for that kind of revisionism. You know that "fault" is not the word I choose to describe one of them.

Edited by Darat: 

As per my announcement I am indicating that the paragraph above is borderline as it is little more then bickering.

 

[a_unique_person]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: it's all moot, when this is the norm:

I believe disregarding these well documented influences is revisionism. I can only think of a small number of motivations for that kind of revisionism. You know that "fault" is not the word I choose to describe one of them.

Your inability to think of other reasons does not constitute proof in any form. Argument from ignorance, a classic fallacy.

Edited by Darat: 

As per my announcement I am indicating that the paragraph above is borderline as it is little more then bickering.

 

[zenith-nadir]

So the fool and a_u_p are debating that the Palestinians have the inalienable right to resist the "land theft" and "occupation" by any means.

Ok.

I hereby challenge a_u_p and the fool to go on the record that Aboriginies also have that "right"... Aboriginies have the inalienable right to resist the "land theft" and the "occupation" of Australia by any violent means at their disposal, up to and including mortar and rocket launches and suicide bombers.

Since the logic being argued here is that Palestinians have an inalienable right to resist "land-theft" and "occupation" by any means at their disposal then it follows that Aboriginies ALSO have the inalienable right to resist land-theft and occupation by any means at their disposal... especially considering that Australian was not given to the "western european colonialists", it was stolen, and many thousands of Aboriginies were slaughtered in the process.

You are no better than a zionist settler a_u_p, you live on stolen land that you occupy. Thousands of men women and children were murdered so that you could live where you live. The Aboriginies did not give the land to you a_u_p, it was taken from them so that you may occupy it. Therefore if "zionist settlers" have to move then put your money where your mouth is and start packing your bags pal. (Of course you won't move.....we all know that...therein lies your hypocrisy)

p.s. watch how quickly it is explained that "western european colonialists" settling in Australia is totally different from "eastern european colonialists" settling in Palestine....

Edited by Darat: 

As per my announcement I am indicating that the paragraph above is borderline as it is attempting to personalise the issue under debate. Whilst raising analogies and showing how someone is inconsistently applying logic or their stated line of reasoning are a perfectly acceptable tool of debate they can still be misused. This could have been presented like this:

“So the fool and a_u_p are debating that the Palestinians have the inalienable right to resist the "land theft" and "occupation" by any means.

Ok.

I hereby challenge a_u_p and the fool to go on the record that Aboriginies also have that "right"... Aboriginies have the inalienable right to resist the "land theft" and the "occupation" of Australia by any violent means at their disposal, up to and including mortar and rocket launches and suicide bombers.

Since the logic being argued here is that Palestinians have an inalienable right to resist "land-theft" and "occupation" by any means at their disposal then it follows that Aboriginies ALSO have the inalienable right to resist land-theft and occupation by any means at their disposal... especially considering that Australian was not given to the "western european colonialists", it was stolen, and many thousands of Aboriginies were slaughtered in the process.”

[edited to add]

Gunfire and explosions aimed at Palestinian PM on West Bank visit - 22/06/2005 - The Associated Press

Palestinian militants shot at a building in the Balata refugee camp in the West Bank, where Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia was speaking on Wednesday. An explosive device was also detonated as he and his entourage were leaving the Balata refugee camp. Qureia was not injured.

The incident began Wednesday morning as Qureia spoke to militants inside a sports club near the northern West Bank city of Nablus.

It's ok everyone, go back to debating....they are just resisting land theft and occupation.

 

[Darat]

Re: Re: Re: it's all moot, when this is the norm:

…snip…

but recent efforts to censor opposing opinions make it problematic for me to go into more detail.

..snip…

but the issue came up recently in another thread which I would explain in greater detail, except that changes due to recent attempts to censor opposing opinions make explanations problematic.

…snip…

As admin:

You have not been censored at all in regards to stating your opinions and views on matters discussing the issues relevant to this section, what you have been censored over is when your comments have been about your personal issues with other Members. This forum section is about discussing "Politics, Current Events, and Social Issues" not discussing your views about other Members.

Any further comments you wish to make about the censorship I am imposing please do so in the relevant section of the forum i.e. "Forum Management" where I will be more then willing to discuss Forum Management issues.

 

[The Fool]

So the fool and a_u_p are debating that the Palestinians have the inalienable right to resist the "land theft" and "occupation" by any means.

Sorry but this is not and has never been my position....and as I have not held or stated this position on this forum I cannot see how I can comment further.

Ok.

I hereby challenge a_u_p and the fool to go on the record that Aboriginies also have that "right"... Aboriginies have the inalienable right to resist the "land theft" and the "occupation" of Australia by any violent means at their disposal, up to and including mortar and rocket launches and suicide bombers.

They don't.

Since the logic being argued here is that Palestinians have an inalienable right to resist "land-theft" and "occupation" by any means at their disposal

Can you show evidence of someone arguing that this "right" exists?


then it follows that Aboriginies ALSO have the inalienable right to resist land-theft and occupation by any means at their disposal...

Unless you establish the first claim I don't see how anything can follow from it.


especially considering that Australian was not given to the "western european colonialists", it was stolen, and many thousands of Aboriginies were slaughtered in the process.

You are no better than a zionist settler a_u_p, you live on stolen land that you occupy. Thousands of men women and children were murdered so that you could live where you live. The Aboriginies did not give the land to you a_u_p, it was taken from them so that you may occupy it. Therefore if "zionist settlers" have to move then put your money where your mouth is and start packing your bags pal. (Of course you won't move.....we all know that...therein lies your hypocrisy)

Try to keep to the Issue ZN...

p.s. watch how quickly it is explained that "western european colonialists" settling in Australia is totally different from "eastern european colonialists" settling in Palestine....

Are you interested in hearing the words of others because I don't think your predictions are accurate enough to be a good substitute.

[edited to add]
It's ok everyone, go back to debating....they are just resisting land theft and occupation.

ZN....some time ago now Australians came to realise the magnitude of what had happened in this country and efforts were made to try to put things right. Where Indigenous ownership has not been extinguished by freehold title and a past and ongoing link could be established to land then Title to that land can and is awarded to the indigenous inhabitants. If this model were to be adopted by Israel I believe it would do a lot of good. Maybe you could look up "mabo" (the high court decision) and consider it as a potential model for a way ahead in land disputation between Israelis and palestinians?

 

[a_unique_person]

So the fool and a_u_p are debating that the Palestinians have the inalienable right to resist the "land theft" and "occupation" by any means.

First of all, provide evidence of exactly that claim.

My point of view is more like this one.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Rober...n/2004/12/05/1102182152001.html?oneclick=true

Partly as a consequence of Arab military opposition to the creation of Israel and partly because of the calculated policy of the Jewish leadership, the 700,000 Palestinian Arabs who fled or were driven from their ancestral homes suffered grievously as a result. To the Palestinian question - why should we have been asked to pay the price for the Jewish tragedy in Europe? - I have never heard, or believed there to be, a morally adequate reply.

My deepest pro-Israel feeling occurred in 1967 at the beginning of the Six-Day War. For a brief moment it seemed possible that Israel would be annihilated. As a consequence, however, of its victory in this war, Israel gained control of vast new territory - on the West Bank of the Jordan, in Gaza, on the Golan Heights and in Sinai. It now seems clear to me that Israel's failure to relinquish most of these territories sowed the seeds of future tragedy. It did not seem so clear at the time.

In the mid-1970s I went to Israel on an academic tour. Our group was assured that the "administered territories" were merely being held temporarily, as useful bargaining chips, in future peace talks with Israel's hostile neighbours. I dutifully believed what we were told. In June, 1977, the right-wing "revisionist" Zionist Likud Bloc was elected. Likud had never accepted the legitimacy of the partition of Palestine. It called the occupied territories by their biblical names, Judea and Samaria. Immediately a far more active policy of Jewish settlement, in the lands God was supposed to have given the Jews in perpetuity, was announced.

Sometimes political questions are complicated. Sometimes they are simple. The June 1977 situation was of the simple kind. If Israel had really decided to hold on to the occupied territories on a permanent basis it seemed to me obvious that a tragic outcome for both Palestinians and Jews could not be escaped.

As it happens, at this time I spoke of my concerns to a group of Jewish students. As the talk was published in the Australia-Israel Review I do not have to rely on memory for what I believed.

I believed that if Israel remained in permanent occupation of the West Bank and Gaza it would eventually be forced to decide whether or not to grant these Palestinians basic political rights. Enfranchising the Palestinians would, on demographic grounds, destroy the Jewish nature of the Israeli state. It would, therefore, not occur. The logic of permanent occupation was permanent oppression. In turn this would lead to an Algerian-style resistance movement; to the gradual poisoning of the then still relatively benign relationship between the Jewish majority and the Arab minority in Israel; and to Israel coming to be seen in the eyes of the world as a neo-colonial regime, as the moral-political equivalent of apartheid South Africa.

These predictions have all turned out to be true. They required no expertise or perspicacity. Yet among the supporters of Israel they were angrily denied.

Ten years after Israel succumbed to the temptation of permanent occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, a Palestinian uprising began. If anything, I was surprised by how long it took to come.

Robert Manne is an Australian Jew, middle of the road politically.
Ok. If you occupy them, they will revolt. It's not a matter of cheering them on, it's just a matter of knowing it will happen.

I hereby challenge a_u_p and the fool to go on the record that Aboriginies also have that "right"... Aboriginies have the inalienable right to resist the "land theft" and the "occupation" of Australia by any violent means at their disposal, up to and including mortar and rocket launches and suicide bombers.

I have long believed aboriginals have a right to take back land, Mabo was at first an enlightened piece of legislation, but it has been gradually wound back by a conservative government that hates the idea of justice for aboriginals.

If you are asking if there was violent resistance, there was, for many years, (off the top of my head, about 50 to 100 years), and it resulted in black and white deaths. So Israel, if you are asking about using the aboriginals as a model, has many more years yet to go. The Palestinians also have access to more modern weapons, so they can do more damage with them.

For now they have largely lost the will to fight, although I would advise you strongly against going in some areas, you will find there is lot of resentment still present. The destruction of their society has also seen a tragic rise in youth problems such as petrol sniffing, etc, that sees many children effectively committing suicide. That the conservative government seeks to blame them for this I find deplorable.

Since the logic being argued here is that Palestinians have an inalienable right to resist "land-theft" and "occupation" by any means at their disposal then it follows that Aboriginies ALSO have the inalienable right to resist land-theft and occupation by any means at their disposal... especially considering that Australian was not given to the "western european colonialists", it was stolen, and many thousands of Aboriginies were slaughtered in the process.

You are no better than a zionist settler a_u_p, you live on stolen land that you occupy. Thousands of men women and children were murdered so that you could live where you live. The Aboriginies did not give the land to you a_u_p, it was taken from them so that you may occupy it. Therefore if "zionist settlers" have to move then put your money where your mouth is and start packing your bags pal. (Of course you won't move.....we all know that...therein lies your hypocrisy)

p.s. watch how quickly it is explained that "western european colonialists" settling in Australia is totally different from "eastern european colonialists" settling in Palestine....

Edited by Darat: 

As per my announcement I am indicating that the paragraph above is borderline as it is attempting to personalise the issue under debate. Whilst raising analogies and showing how someone is inconsistently applying logic or their stated line of reasoning are a perfectly acceptable tool of debate they can still be misused. This could have been presented like this:

“So the fool and a_u_p are debating that the Palestinians have the inalienable right to resist the "land theft" and "occupation" by any means.

Ok.

I hereby challenge a_u_p and the fool to go on the record that Aboriginies also have that "right"... Aboriginies have the inalienable right to resist the "land theft" and the "occupation" of Australia by any violent means at their disposal, up to and including mortar and rocket launches and suicide bombers.

Since the logic being argued here is that Palestinians have an inalienable right to resist "land-theft" and "occupation" by any means at their disposal then it follows that Aboriginies ALSO have the inalienable right to resist land-theft and occupation by any means at their disposal... especially considering that Australian was not given to the "western european colonialists", it was stolen, and many thousands of Aboriginies were slaughtered in the process.”

[edited to add]
It's ok everyone, go back to debating....they are just resisting land theft and occupation.

I don't know if they have a right, all colonialist invasions have been resisted, if you don't expect them to be, read some more history.

 

[a_unique_person]

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/591103.html

The New York-based Human Rights Watch said in a report Wednesday that the Israel Defense Forces investigation of Palestinian civilian casualties is a ?sham?, and encourages soldiers to think they can act with impunity.

The IDF said in reaction there was no basis to the whitewashing charge.

All allegations claiming that innocents or terrorists had been killed as a result of the [military] opening fire in violation of official rules of engagement are thoroughly and seriously examined," the military said in a statement responding to the report.




Advertisement

Since the Palestinian intifada began in 2000, Israeli forces have killed or seriously injured thousands of Palestinians who weren't taking part in the hostilities, Human Rights Watch said in its 126-page report. But they have investigated less than 5 percent of the fatal incidents to determine whether soldiers used force unlawfully, and the investigations they did conduct were found wanting by international standards of impartial inquiries, the group said.

"Most of Israel's investigations of civilian casualties have been a sham," said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. "The government's failure to investigate the deaths of innocent civilians has created an atmosphere that encourages soldiers to think they can literally get away with murder."

thousands killed or seriously injured, who weren't taking part in hostilities, and no real response.

 

[Elind]

Re: Re: Re: it's all moot, when this is the norm:

Elind,

I want to take a moment to say that even though you hold some opinions on Israel and the Middle East that I disagree with, I do not consider you to be a bigot. Further, it has never once occured to me that you might be.

I know that sounds like a very strange statement to make, but the issue came up recently in another thread which I would explain in greater detail, except that changes due to recent attempts to censor opposing opinions make explanations problematic.

I trust you are not offended in being told you are not a bigot.

I thought I was making a clarification for the benefit of webfusion, and I didn't do so thinking I was being called bigoted (other things implied perhaps ); even though I have been in the past, but I think that was probably a result of not elaborating my positions enough.

So; no, I'm not offended and haven't been since the last censorship incident, which didn't invove bigotry.

Thanks anyway.

 

[zenith-nadir]

ZN....some time ago now Australians came to realise the magnitude of what had happened in this country and efforts were made to try to put things right.

So have the Israelis. They signed 10 different peace treaties with the Palestinian Authority. Every one addressed the need to make peace and every one addressed the need to stop the terror groups, yet after a decade the terror groups have yet to stop .

Where Indigenous ownership has not been extinguished by freehold title and a past and ongoing link could be established to land then Title to that land can and is awarded to the indigenous inhabitants.

Except for Sydney, Perth, Adelaide, Melborne, Brisbane, Cooktown, Cairns, Townsville, Canberra, Darwin, Broome and about a thousand other Australian "settlements"...

If this model were to be adopted by Israel I believe it would do a lot of good. Maybe you could look up "mabo" (the high court decision) and consider it as a potential model for a way ahead in land disputation between Israelis and palestinians?

As I said, Israel has signed ten different treaties with the Palestinian Authority, some of which addressed land claims and some of which addressed nationhood, all ten failed because of daily attacks by members of Fatah, Hamas, Al Aqsa and Islamic Jihad.....and that is what this thread is all about, that even under a declared ceasefire by the Palestinian Authority the attacks resume as they always have and now those same groups are even targetting Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I have long believed aboriginals have a right to take back land,

Except for the land your house sits on and Sydney, Perth, Adelaide, Melborne, Brisbane, Cooktown, Cairns, Townsville, Canberra, Darwin, Broome and about a thousand other Australian "settlements"...correct?

 

[a_unique_person]

So have the Israelis. They signed 10 different peace treaties with the Palestinian Authority. Every one addressed the need to make peace and every one addressed the need to stop the terror groups, yet after a decade the terror groups have yet to stop .Except for Sydney, Perth, Adelaide, Melborne, Brisbane, Cooktown, Cairns, Townsville, Canberra, Darwin, Broome and about a thousand other Australian "settlements"... As I said, Israel has signed ten different treaties with the Palestinian Authority, some of which addressed land claims and some of which addressed nationhood, all ten failed because of daily attacks by members of Fatah, Hamas, Al Aqsa and Islamic Jihad.....and that is what this thread is all about, that even under a declared ceasefire by the Palestinian Authority the attacks resume as they always have and now those same groups are even targetting Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia.

Except for the land your house sits on and Sydney, Perth, Adelaide, Melborne, Brisbane, Cooktown, Cairns, Townsville, Canberra, Darwin, Broome and about a thousand other Australian "settlements"...correct?

Well, they didn't keep to those treaties, did they?

It is that 'getting the facts on the ground' part of colonialism that is the messy part. If you are going through it, don't expect it to be very pretty.

Australia is 99% uninhabited, there is still more than enough land to go around. I am happy to see that a just compensation is made available, unfortunately, my conservative representatives won't hear a word of it, not even the word 'sorry'. You are correct to point out the Australia is deficient in this regard, and Australians can be very sensitive on it. They need to be reminded more often about it, IMHO, as they do tend to just ignore the issue, or blame the aboriginals themselves for it all.

 

[webfusion]

what response are you seeking?

thousands killed or seriously injured, who weren't taking part in hostilities, and no real response.

The IDF responded ---- it specifically denied the charges made by the New York-based HRW. Israeli soldiers aren't given orders to wantonly kill and shoot willy-nilly. They take great care to refrain from any "collateral damage" when engaging in combat. ◊◊◊◊ happens, however, in war.

Now, it might be instructive to realize the Israelis are going to respond with less precision and pinpoint-fire in the near future (August) should they come under attack by Islamic terrorists during the Gaza withdrawal. I suggest you take a look at the warnings issued today by Israel Brigadier-General (Res.) Eival Giladi, the head of the Coordination and Strategy team of the Prime Minister's Office.

"If pinpoint response proves insufficient, we may have to use weaponry that causes major collateral damage, including bombing by helicopters and jets, with mounting danger to surrounding people."

============================
Screw HRW.
This is their claim:
"During the course of its fieldwork in 2003, Human Rights Watch researched some thirty cases of alleged wrongdoing by members of the IDF."
30 cases. Big effing deal. From that they extrapolate the IDF is "promoting impunity" -- are they kidding or what?
Since the Palestinian intifada began in 2000, Israeli forces have killed or seriously injured thousands of Palestinians who weren't taking part in the hostilities, Human Rights Watch said in its 126-page report.
126 pages and not one single mention of the thousands of Israelis NOT TAKING PART IN HOSTILITIES (riding busses, eating in Piza restaurants, going to discos, etc) who were killed or seriously injured by terrorists.
Rachel Corrie they have written about in great detail.
Tom Hurndall they have devoted much time to.

Where are the mentions of these innocent dead Israeli non-combatants? Their names are already forgotten by the world, ignored by HRW.
What about their rights?

Yael Orbach

Aryeh Nagar

Ronen Rubenov

Itzik Buzaglo

=================================

09:19 Yevgeni Reider, killed in Mon. (6-20) terror shooting to be buried Wed. evening (Army Radio)
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArtVty.jhtml?sw=Yevgeni+Reider&itemNo=590675

 

[Mycroft]

ZN....some time ago now Australians came to realise the magnitude of what had happened in this country and efforts were made to try to put things right. Where Indigenous ownership has not been extinguished by freehold title and a past and ongoing link could be established to land then Title to that land can and is awarded to the indigenous inhabitants. If this model were to be adopted by Israel I believe it would do a lot of good. Maybe you could look up "mabo" (the high court decision) and consider it as a potential model for a way ahead in land disputation between Israelis and palestinians?

After 99% of them had already been slaughterd, and the culture of the remaining 1% had been obliterated through the Australian baby-stealing program.

Personally, I think it would be truly monsterous to suggest a similar solution for Israel.

 

[Darat]

After 99% of them had already been slaughterd, and the culture of the remaining 1% had been obliterated through the Australian baby-stealing program.

Personally, I think it would be truly monsterous to suggest a similar solution for Israel.

I think you are mistaken about what The Fool was suggesting may be a model to follow. To me it readsas he was suggesting the famous 1992 "mabo" judicial decision that altered the legal view of the rights of the indigenous people of Australia and there was no indication he was proposing that past atrocities carried out against the indigenous population of Australia (by the disgraceful behaviour of initially British people) should be inflicted on the Palestinians.

This is a good site for a summary of the consequences of the judicial decision in Australia and what happened over the next tem years, strongly enough they title it "Mabo: Ten Years On" http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/SP/mabo.htm, although length it’s well worth a read if you want to discuss if some of the principles it ended up enshrining could have meanings in other disputed countries/lands.

 

[Mycroft]

I think you are mistaken about what The Fool was suggesting may be a model to follow. To me it readsas he was suggesting the famous 1992 "mabo" judicial decision that altered the legal view of the rights of the indigenous people of Australia and there was no indication he was proposing that past atrocities carried out against the indigenous population of Australia (by the disgraceful behaviour of initially British people) should be inflicted on the Palestinians.

I understand, but I believe he's mistaken in assuming they can take the "good parts" of the white/aborigional reconciliation while ignoring the "bad parts" that make it possible.

 

[Darat]

I understand, but I believe he's mistaken in assuming they can take the "good parts" of the white/aborigional reconciliation while ignoring the "bad parts" that make it possible.

Why?