Barack Obama: "Enemy of the Jews"

[Thunder]

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1131258.html

this is what more then a few Likudnicks in Israel are saying.

President Obama, in order to get peace talks going again, demanded that Israel suspend settlement construction, even if temporarily.

Not one country on Earth considers ANY of the settlements legal or legitimate, not even those in East Jerusalem.

But of course, most rational people understand that in any peace plan, some settlements will be annexed by Israel, in exchange for Israeli land for the Palestinians. President Obama and myself included.

Nevertheless, it is only prudent for Israel to temporarily suspend settlement construction to get peace talks going again.

So how does the Israeli right-wing react to this? They accuse President Obama, and by extension the USA, of being "an enemy of the Jews".

Because our President wants settlement construction to be temporarily suspended, he is now an "anti-Semite"???

President Obama has declared time and again, his commitment to a safe and secure State of Israel. I do not doubt this commitment one bit.

President Obama has also declared that if Iran dared to attack Israel, the USA would defend the Jewish State. I also do not doubt this commitment one bit.

President Obama has not suggested even once, that the generous billions of dollars in aide that we give to Israel every year, would be reduced for any reason...even during these trying times.

So, Likudnicks, how exactly is Obama "anti-Jew"????

What gives you guys the right to suggest that being against Jewish right-wing extremist goals and agendas makes one "an enemy of the Jews"????

Such chutzpah. Such arrogance. Such a disgrace to the millions of Jews who have been the tragic victims of true anti-Semitism. These Likudnicks, and all right-wing Jews and Christians who spew this venom, should be ashamed of themselves.

[Thunder]

oh, come on guys!! nothing?

[Darth Rotor]

oh, come on guys!! nothing?
Bacon.

[Sporanox]

oh, come on guys!! nothing?

Would this be the first response to every parky baiter thread.

[Thunder]

Would this be the first response to every parky baiter thread.

nope. most of the time someone actually does say something. where is Marc39 when you need him?

[Sporanox]

nope. most of the time someone actually does say something. where is Marc39 when you need him?

It was a wish. I will forever be reaching for the stars...

[INRM]

Well that is Israel's general practice. If criticized for it's policies and practices, immediately accuse opposition of anti-semitism, or nazism.


INRM

[Thunder]

Well that is Israel's general practice. If criticized for it's policies and practices, immediately accuse opposition of anti-semitism, or nazism.


its not the official govt. practice. but it doesn't need to be, when they can rely on loud and obnoxious Likudniks to do it for them.

"oh I am shocked..shocked and such disrespect for the President of the USA!! now take the $50 and keep it up."

[Cynic]

Bacon.

So much for that adage. ;-)

As for the OP, I'm not sure what a likudnick even is and lost interest in them shortly after finding out they were declaring that anyone was an "enemy of the Jews". I mean, come on, say "enemy of Israel", and maybe I'll hear it out. But of "the Jews"? That's a little like saying sanctions against Iran makes us the "enemy of Islam". These guys shot their credibility with me in the foot with a bazooka.

[Skeptic]

There is something odd about a president who is deeply concerned if a Jew builds a house, but not if an Iranian mullah builds an A-bomb.

Jews building houses where he doesn't like MUST STOP IMMEDIATELY.

Iranian mullahs building an A-bomb? Well, let's talk a little first, and ask them nicely, and...

This is not Jew-hatred, but rather Obama's weak character: he is a wimp towards those who defy him and are his enemies, under the delusion that this will make them like him, while he ignores or threatens his allies -- because that is easy to do and looks like "progress" and "even handedness".

The lesson is clear: if you say "yes" to Obama, he will just demand more and more (like after stopping the settlements, which got enthusiastic responses from the Israeli left, made him demand stopping building in Jerusalem). If you defy him, he will be your rug mat (like the desire to continue the talks with Iran at any price -- including completely ignoring and throwing to the wolves the Iranian protesters. Wouldn't want to make Ahmadejinad angry, now would we?)

He isn't an antisemite. He's just a coward. He's like the wife-beater who brown-noses the boss, only on a global scale. Such folks are a dime a dozen, so it's not surprising one of them eventually became president.

[Puppycow]

He isn't an antisemite. He's just a coward. He's like the wife-beater who brown-noses the boss, only on a global scale. Such folks are a dime a dozen, so it's not surprising one of them eventually became president.

"Wife-beater"? How is he like a wife-beater?

[Safe-Keeper]

Jews building houses where he doesn't like MUST STOP IMMEDIATELY.

Iranian mullahs building an A-bomb? Well, let's talk a little first, and ask them nicely, and...Because being all heavy-handed with them worked so well when Dubya did it...

"Wife-beater"? How is he like a wife-beater? I think Skeptic means that Obama is afraid of Iran, and takes his frustration out on Israel. Because, you know, Israel is such a weak, defenseless country that can't stand up for itself and all that.

Wait. It isn't.

[Puppycow]

There is something odd about a president who is deeply concerned if a Jew builds a house, but not if an Iranian mullah builds an A-bomb.

Jews building houses where he doesn't like MUST STOP IMMEDIATELY.

Iranian mullahs building an A-bomb? Well, let's talk a little first, and ask them nicely, and...

I'd like to point out that this is an apples-and-oranges comparison, and that in any case Obama has opposed the Iranians getting nukes.

Obama has never mentioned Israel's nuclear weapons, BTW. On the nuclear issue, he is much more tolerant of Israel having such weapons than of Iran. So this is a rather bizarre accusation.

[Sporanox]

I'd like to point out that this is an apples-and-oranges comparison, and that in any case Obama has opposed the Iranians getting nukes.

Obama has never mentioned Israel's nuclear weapons, BTW. On the nuclear issue, he is much more tolerant of Israel having such weapons than of Iran. So this is a rather bizarre accusation.

Obama made a blanket demand to an ally while preferring a softer outreach to an enemy. It's not the best thing to do.

[Puppycow]

ADL Calls Israeli Settlement Freeze 'Courageous And Unprecedented' (http://www.adl.org/PresRele/IslME_62/5660_62.htm)
Rage Grows in America: Anti‑Government Conspiracies (http://www.adl.org/special_reports/rage-grows-in-America/default.asp)

Seems that American Jews, at least, are not so down on Obama as their Israeli counterparts.

[Puppycow]

Obama made a blanket demand to an ally while preferring a softer outreach to an enemy. It's not the best thing to do.

"Iran's development of a nuclear weapon, I believe, is unacceptable and we have to mount an international effort to prevent that from happening," Obama said Friday, in his first press conference as U.S. president-elect.
How is it softer?
Besides, the US is pushing for sanctions on Iran, while at the same time the US defends Israel at the United Nations.

[Darat]

There is something odd about a president who is deeply concerned if a Jew builds a house, but not if an Iranian mullah builds an A-bomb.

...snip...

Why is that odd for the President of Iran?

[Dr Adequate]

There is something odd about a president who is deeply concerned if a Jew builds a house, but not if an Iranian mullah builds an A-bomb.

Jews building houses where he doesn't like MUST STOP IMMEDIATELY.

Iranian mullahs building an A-bomb? Well, let's talk a little first, and ask them nicely, and...

This is not Jew-hatred, but rather Obama's weak character: he is a wimp towards those who defy him and are his enemies, under the delusion that this will make them like him, while he ignores or threatens his allies -- because that is easy to do and looks like "progress" and "even handedness".

The lesson is clear: if you say "yes" to Obama, he will just demand more and more (like after stopping the settlements, which got enthusiastic responses from the Israeli left, made him demand stopping building in Jerusalem). If you defy him, he will be your rug mat (like the desire to continue the talks with Iran at any price -- including completely ignoring and throwing to the wolves the Iranian protesters. Wouldn't want to make Ahmadejinad angry, now would we?)

He isn't an antisemite. He's just a coward. He's like the wife-beater who brown-noses the boss, only on a global scale. Such folks are a dime a dozen, so it's not surprising one of them eventually became president. You know, I thought that the decision to freeze settlement in the West Bank was made by some chap called Netanyahu, who is currently Prime Minister of some little country whose name escapes me right now.

Still apparently Obama said that it was a good idea OMG!!! I guess that's kinda like wife-beating, in a not-remotely-like-like-wife-beating sort of way. Well, let us know when Obama asks Israel to give up its nukes, or calls for international sanctions against Israel, or describes Iran as "our strongest ally in the region", or describes the Israeli government as "a threat to us all", or starts giving Iran three billion dollars a year in military aid. What will you do for hyperbole then?

At present, it seems that you accuse Obama of "brown-nosing" the Iranians and beating up the Israelis based solely on the shocking fact that he agrees with a decision made by the Prime Minister of Israel.

Sheesh.

[Dubbi]

Parky,

Haaretz is a left of center newspaper. Majority of right-wing Israelis and right-wing American Jews don't consider Obama to be an anti-Semite. My grandparents voted for McCain, yet when asked about Obama's win, they responded that they're fine with it as they find Obama to be an overall mensch. You'll also notice that the article mentions that Netanyahu distanced himself from this nonsense. I think you're desperately seeking to argue with the meshuge segment of the right wing, which is uncommon in Israel and less likely to appear on JREF. Might I suggest a different forum?

[Liszt]

You know, I thought that the decision to freeze settlement in the West Bank was made by some chap called Netanyahu, who is currently Prime Minister of some little country whose name escapes me right now.

Still apparently Obama said that it was a good idea OMG!!! I guess that's kinda like wife-beating, in a not-remotely-like-like-wife-beating sort of way. Well, let us know when Obama asks Israel to give up its nukes, or calls for international sanctions against Israel, or describes Iran as "our strongest ally in the region", or describes the Israeli government as "a threat to us all", or starts giving Iran three billion dollars a year in military aid. What will you do for hyperbole then?

At present, it seems that you accuse Obama of "brown-nosing" the Iranians and beating up the Israelis based solely on the shocking fact that he agrees with a decision made by the Prime Minister of Israel.

Sheesh.

Brilliantly put, Dr A.

[ponderingturtle]

Bacon.

Hmm, how do we weaponize bacon...

[Cynic]

Hmm, how do we weaponize bacon...

Given the long-term effects of bacon abuse, for the patient, weaponizing bacon would be redundant.

[Drudgewire]

Hmm, how do we weaponize bacon...


Not sure, but the self-defense classes to protect against them would be delicious.

[Darth Rotor]

Hmm, how do we weaponize bacon...
Dip your bullets in the drippings, of course, as Black Jack Pershing (allegedly) did in the Philippines.

@ Cynic: thanks for getting the joke/ref. :)

[Undesired Walrus]

There is something odd about a president who is deeply concerned if a Jew builds a house, but not if an Iranian mullah builds an A-bomb.


Hmmm. (http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/1109/WH_reacts_to_Iran_bluster_in_wake_of_IAEA_censure. html)

[Cynic]

Obama made a blanket demand to an ally while preferring a softer outreach to an enemy. It's not the best thing to do.

I dunno. We expect better of those who know better. With the rest we do what we can to encourage them to wisen up. It's probably a little patronizing (by definition!) but I think the best diplomacy mimics parenting. Show that you care, encourage development, but don't be afraid to correct where necessary.

[Skeptic]

"Wife-beater"? How is he like a wife-beater?

In the sense that he bullies those who are his allies and friends.

[Cynic]

In the sense that he bullies those who are his allies and friends.

The word "bully" probably isn't accurate here. Regardless, I think that sends the message that bad behavior shouldn't be tolerated. This is better, I think, than the message we traditionally send out, which is that if you're in the Allies Club, anything you do it OK, but if you're not, anything you do will be interpreted in the worst possible light and possibly punished.

[Darth Rotor]

Parky, if Barack Obama is the enemy of the Jews, then why did 70-80% of the Jewish vote go to Obama in the 2008 US election? Are the vast bulk of Jews practicing self-haters, who vote for their enemy? I mean, parky, come on, Hussein is his middle name. You don't need to be Einstein to figure this one out. :p

It is tiring using that much sarcasm.

DR

[Thunder]

Parky, if Barack Obama is the enemy of the Jews, then why did 70-80% of the Jewish vote go to Obama in the 2008 US election? Are the vast bulk of Jews practicing self-haters, who vote for their enemy ?

according to the Likudnicks? you betcha!!

[Thunder]

Parky,
I think you're desperately seeking to argue with the meshuge segment of the right wing, which is uncommon in Israel and less likely to appear on JREF. Might I suggest a different forum?

do you know how many times I have been called a self-hating Jew, for exposing racism of right-wing Israeli rabbis and politicians?

do you know how many times I have been accused of falsifying my Jewish identity, because of standing up for the 2-state solution and being opposed to the settlements?

you are a new member, so you're lack of experience at JREF is understood.

[Vorticity]

Barack Obama: "Enemy of the Jews"

Enemy of the Jews? C'mon, what's the big deal? I mean, seriously, who isn't?

[Sporanox]

How is it softer?

The call for an immediate freeze of all settlement was a precondition to negotiations, IIRC. In the context of the negotiations in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, this was a stronger demand than any in recent memory and, as such, not something the Israelis would necessarily agree to. (Understatement.)

Now, in the context of the Iranian/American standoff, what are Obama's preconditions to negotiation?

[Cynic]

The call for an immediate freeze of all settlement was a precondition to negotiations, IIRC. In the context of the negotiations in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, this was a stronger demand than any in recent memory and, as such, not something the Israelis would necessarily agree to. (Understatement.)

Now, in the context of the Iranian/American standoff, what are Obama's preconditions to negotiation?

These are different things, really. Between the Israelies and the Palistinians, it's important that both sides be taken seriously, which also means that both sides need to be treated equally. We normally treat Israel as special and beyond repproach. Besides being a refreshing change of pace, this is also correct.

With regard to Iran, this is different in that it's between us (and I suppose the world) and Iran, but it's over an issue that doesn't involve Iran's neighbors. While it's completely understandable that we don't want Iran to possess nuclear capability, it's also irrefutable that no one has any damned business telling them they can't have it. If we're to encourage them to stop, we need to ask as if we recognize that basic fact.

ETA: BTW, Sporanox, where did you get that avatar? I really like it.

[Sporanox]

These are different things, really. Between the Israelies and the Palistinians, it's important that both sides be taken seriously, which also means that both sides need to be treated equally. We normally treat Israel as special and beyond repproach. Besides being a refreshing change of pace, this is also correct.

There are reasons to be partial to Israel, but never mind them. The trendy thing these days is to desire pragmatism. Obama's approach stalled the negotiations. Therefore, according to a pragmatic viewpoint, this is incorrect.

With regard to Iran, this is different in that it's between us (and I suppose the world) and Iran, but it's over an issue that doesn't involve Iran's neighbors. While it's completely understandable that we don't want Iran to possess nuclear capability, it's also irrefutable that no one has any damned business telling them they can't have it. If we're to encourage them to stop, we need to ask as if we recognize that basic fact.

You think nuclear capability doesn't involve Iran's neighbors? That's hilarious. Never mind that their president has called for the annihilation of Israel; Iran is a Shi'ite regime, a minority in Islam. A number of its neighbors in the ME are Sunni. Iran possessing a nuclear bomb would set off a chain reaction of untold consequences.

A basic fact, indeed.

[Skeptic]

The word "bully" probably isn't accurate here. Regardless, I think that sends the message that bad behavior shouldn't be tolerated.

Funny. He seems to send the exact opposite message to Iran: for example, he totally ignored the Iranian protesters; and he rushed to Iran with yet another proposal for "negotiations" about whether it will be really nice and stop its nuclear program, despite the fact that Iran completely ignored all previous such negotiations and broke all previous agreements.

It is only "bad behavior" (building a house for Jews where he doesn't like it) by allies and friends that is dealt with harshly and is "not tolerated". Bad behavior by totalitarian thugs -- like building an A-bomb to wipe out said Jews -- gets Obama groveling, all in the name of "realistic power politics" and "pragmatism".

[Cynic]

There are reasons to be partial to Israel, but never mind them. The trendy thing these days is to desire pragmatism. Obama's approach stalled the negotiations. Therefore, according to a pragmatic viewpoint, this is incorrect.

The proper application of pragmatism requires the proper application of perspective. In the game of go, there is a circumstance called atari in which the placement of a stone results in taking territory, but your opponent's next placement will reverse it to the initial conditions. Following a more myopic pragmatism results in an endless cycle of tit-for-tat and the larger goal of the game is lost. So to preserve a larger sense of pragmatism, the rules stipulate that such situations are avoided. Feeding into the same cycle of letting Israel do whatever they want and treating Palistine like a red-headed step child, however "pragmatic", has proven to be an atari-style stituation for years.


You think nuclear capability doesn't involve Iran's neighbors? That's hilarious. Never mind that their president has called for the annihilation of Israel; Iran is a Shi'ite regime, a minority in Islam. A number of its neighbors in the ME are Sunni. Iran possessing a nuclear bomb would set off a chain reaction of untold consequences.

A basic fact, indeed.

Slippery slope (even if you're right). Regardless of the consequences, Iran has no real obligation to listen to us just because we said so. Their autonomy is their right, and if we want them to willingly give up one of their rights, we need to give them a reason to. Demanding that they concede the argument as a condition of having the discussion not only isn't pragmatic, it's childish.

ETA: in the above discussion involving go, I'm basically refering to prevention of "ko fights". I'm not sure about the terminology, but I hope you get my drift.

[Cynic]

Funny. He seems to send the exact opposite message to Iran: for example, he totally ignored the Iranian protesters; and he rushed to Iran with yet another proposal for "negotiations" about whether it will be really nice and stop its nuclear program, despite the fact that Iran completely ignored all previous such negotiations and broke all previous agreements.

It is only "bad behavior" (building a house for Jews where he doesn't like it) by allies and friends that is dealt with harshly and is "not tolerated". Bad behavior by totalitarian thugs -- like building an A-bomb to wipe out said Jews -- gets Obama groveling, all in the name of "realistic power politics" and "pragmatism".

I'm not sure how your philosophy leads to anything that isn't war, Skeptic. Are you suggesting your proposed tactics would work on the US? Why or why not? And if they wouldn't work on the US, why would you expect them to work anywhere else? Can you elaborate?

[FireGarden]

I think Israel needs more "enemies" like Obama and Carter (remember that anti-Semitic peace maker?) and fewer "friends" like Bush.

(Real) Friends don't let friends drive drunk.

[Sporanox]

The proper application of pragmatism requires the proper application of perspective. In the game of go, there is a circumstance called atari in which the placement of a stone results in taking territory, but your opponent's next placement will reverse it to the initial conditions. Following a more myopic pragmatism results in an endless cycle of tit-for-tat and the larger goal of the game is lost. So to preserve a larger sense of pragmatism, the rules stipulate that such situations are avoided. Feeding into the same cycle of letting Israel do whatever they want and treating Palistine like a red-headed step child, however "pragmatic", has proven to be an atari-style stituation for years.

Forgive me for not believing that a move widely recognized (even by the NYT) to be the diplomatic equivalent of slipping on a banana peel is a brilliant tactical adjustment in a long-running go game.

Slippery slope (even if you're right). Regardless of the consequences, Iran has no real obligation to listen to us just because we said so. Their autonomy is their right, and if we want them to willingly give up one of their rights, we need to give them a reason to. Demanding that they concede the argument as a condition of having the discussion not only isn't pragmatic, it's childish.


Who said that the precondition had to be "you will never produce a nuclear bomb?" That would indeed be a childish maneuver, because Iran denies trying to produce a bomb in the first place.

Besides that, a nation like Iran really has no inherent right to atomic weaponry. If the regime has consistently been provocatively and idiotically dangerous ever since they came to power, there's no reason to let them have the nuclear button. Because we have one? Give me a break.


ETA: in the above discussion involving go, I'm basically refering to prevention of "ko fights". I'm not sure about the terminology, but I hope you get my drift.

I think so. You mean we want to avoid a stalemate, yes?

[Cynic]

Forgive me for not believing that a move widely recognized (even by the NYT) to be the diplomatic equivalent of slipping on a banana peel is a brilliant tactical adjustment in a long-running go game.


You're forgiven. But consider my favorite definition of insanity, which is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Ultimately, that's the reason behind the "no ko fights" rule of go, sometimes taken to the point of declaring that no two states of the same game may resemble each other. The United State's role is as arbiter and moderator. It can't afford to pick sides and play they Ally game any more because it hasn't worked before. The process has no credibility, otherwise. No one would tolerate a situation in which the supposed arbiter was acting in an obviously skewed in favor of their opponent. In the court system, mistrials are forced over that kind of crap. Why do it here? And the reality is, if a similar demand was made of the Palestinians instead, no one would flinch -- because that's what everyone is used to seeing.


Who said that the precondition had to be "you will never produce a nuclear bomb?" That would indeed be a childish maneuver, because Iran denies trying to produce a bomb in the first place.

Besides that, a nation like Iran really has no inherent right to atomic weaponry. If the regime has consistently been provocatively and idiotically dangerous ever since they came to power, there's no reason to let them have the nuclear button. Because we have one? Give me a break.



Would you accept that argument for why the US shouldn't have nuclear technology? It doesn't matter why we don't want them to have one because, again, if we expect them to surrender some measure of their autonomy (which is exactly what we're asking them to do), we have to give them a reason. Related to the problem above, a good start might be to convince them that they aren't going to be treated with the same arrogant attitude that Palestine generally is.

Both of these issues have historically failed the reasonable person test, which is where you ask a reasonable person if they'd put up with that kind of treatment from another person. If the answer is no, it might not be the best way to treat a nation either. No doubt many people consider that politically niave, but chances are, the other side isn't thinking about it that way.

[Thunder]

I think Israel needs more "enemies" like Obama and Carter (remember that anti-Semitic peace maker?) and fewer "friends" like Bush.

(Real) Friends don't let friends drive drunk.

totally. If Israel got a little tough love 20 years ago, there would be an independent Palestine as we speak, and Israelis would be free of this burden.

[bigjelmapro]

:D Another thread dedicated to fantasies.

Would agree with Carter if his interests were genuine, but his funding from the Saudis make him highly questionable in his motivations.

[Dr Adequate]

Funny. He seems to send the exact opposite message to Iran: for example, he totally ignored the Iranian protesters; and he rushed to Iran with yet another proposal for "negotiations" about whether it will be really nice and stop its nuclear program, despite the fact that Iran completely ignored all previous such negotiations and broke all previous agreements.

It is only "bad behavior" (building a house for Jews where he doesn't like it) by allies and friends that is dealt with harshly and is "not tolerated". Bad behavior by totalitarian thugs -- like building an A-bomb to wipe out said Jews -- gets Obama groveling, all in the name of "realistic power politics" and "pragmatism". * drums fingers lightly on desk *

Were you unable to answer my post on this subject --- or did you just prefer not to do so?

In either case, I think it ridiculous and contemptible for you to go on reciting the same gibberish as though you had not been answered.

[Dr Adequate]

Obama made a blanket demand to an ally while preferring a softer outreach to an enemy. It's not the best thing to do. I think I'll just post the same thing again.

Well, let us know when Obama asks Israel to give up its nukes, or calls for international sanctions against Israel, or describes Iran as "our strongest ally in the region", or describes the Israeli government as "a threat to us all", or starts giving Iran three billion dollars a year in military aid. Sheesh.

[bigjelmapro]

Well, let us know when Obama asks Israel to give up its nukes, or calls for international sanctions against Israel, or describes Iran as "our strongest ally in the region", or describes the Israeli government as "a threat to us all", or starts giving Iran three billion dollars a year in military aid.

Why should the US demand Israel give up its alleged nuclear arsenal? Is Israel part of NPT? Nope. Is Iran? Yes.

Do you somehow equate an unstable theocracy such as Iran with a history of non-conventional weapons proliferation (which are in turn used against Israel via its many proxy terrorist groups, ie PLO, Hamas, PFLP, Hezbollah, etc) to that of a stable democratic nation such as Israel? I see that you do. How else would you omit the UK, Russia, France, and China among others when demanding nuclear disarmament? Or do you somehow think that Israel's alleged nuclear deterrent is not justified?

What does military grants and loans have to do with this thread? No a whole lot. Or are you somehow assuming that the $2.1-2.5 bil per year through US Foreign Military Financing is somehow 'free money' that burdens US tax payers? (As is often the propaganda ploy with anti-Israel detractors) There's a reason its called a loan and 'bilateral military aid'. How's this different compared to Egypt's $1.2-1.5 bil per year?

Go to this website to see the exact numbers: U.S. Overseas Loans and Grants (http://gbk.eads.usaidallnet.gov/query/do?_program=/eads/gbk/countryReport&unit=N)

There are reasons why Iran is not seen as US's strongest ally and reasons why Israel is. Do you want to go into this and other matters or are you simply bringing this up as a means to deflect?

[Thunder]

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1131926.html

EU to recognize Jerusalem as a shared capital for two states, Israel and Palestine. I hope the USA can also soon show such courage.

[bigjelmapro]

Sweden-sponsored draft document it should be noted. Taking an official stance on one of the most central final-status point:


A draft document authored by the current holder of the rotating EU presidency, Sweden, and implying that the EU would recognize a unilateral Palestinian declaration of statehood, has been obtained by Haaretz.

On top of a unilateral declaration. I do fully agree with this statement as a result of this statement by Sweden:


"The process being led by Sweden harms the European Union's ability to take part as a significant mediator in the political process between Israel and the Palestinians," said a statement by Israel's Foreign Ministry.

If the EU would support this document, which its members as a whole definitely do not, they would officially exclude themselves as the role of mediators.

Couldn't think of a worse position by the EU as a means to kill any peace negotiations before they even re-start.

Sheer short-sightedness.

[funk de fino]

If Israel was a person it would be an arrogant dickhead that cries a lot.

[Skeptic]

There is something to what you say, funk, alas. Still, a partial explanation could be seen in Israel Zangwil's answer to a British peer who asked him why Jews are so paranoid and clannish. His answer: "2000 years of Christian love".

[Cynic]

There is something to what you say, funk, alas. Still, a partial explanation could be seen in Israel Zangwil's answer to a British peer who asked him why Jews are so paranoid and clannish. His answer: "2000 years of Christian love".

Heh! :)

[funk de fino]

There is something to what you say, funk, alas. Still, a partial explanation could be seen in Israel Zangwil's answer to a British peer who asked him why Jews are so paranoid and clannish. His answer: "2000 years of Christian love".

Paranoid and clannish does not excuse illegal settlements IMO. Its about time someone like Obama or the EU ruffled their feathers. Stop the settlements, act like grown ups and show the world it is really the Palestinians who are unreasonable. It should be a doozy for Israel to come out of this with heads held high and smelling of roses but they are flunking it big time.

At the moment a lot of the rest of the world see Israel like I used to see my golden child younger brother. The favoured one who has the gall to blub like an idiot when finally admonished for being a hideously spoiled little brat.

[Thunder]

If Israel was a person it would be an arrogant dickhead that cries a lot.

"i have been the victim of racism and persecution in the past, therefore I cannot be a perpetrator of racism or criminal activity now"

its a common theme...amongst the persecuted.

remember when African-Americans used to say "we can't be racist"?

[Skeptic]

Paranoid and clannish does not excuse illegal settlements IMO. Its about time someone like Obama or the EU ruffled their feathers. Stop the settlements, act like grown ups and show the world it is really the Palestinians who are unreasonable. It should be a doozy for Israel to come out of this with heads held high and smelling of roses but they are flunking it big time.

I edited my post slightly, but doobiedoright quoted me before I finished, so see the original reply quoted in his post below...

[doobiedoright]

Hamas claims the holocaust never happened. Its goal is a Jihad until every Jew is killed. The PLO's central committee had, only a few months ago, declared that its goal remains unchanged: fighting zionism until Israel is eliminated. Somehow this didn't cause the world to think the Palestinians are unreasonable. The world still blames "the occupation" and "the zionists".

Indeed, ever since the so-called "peace process" started in Oslo, the more the Arabs demand, the more the Jews give, the greater the number of terrorist attacks, the more the Jews are blamed by the world for not giving even more.

Why?

Because nothing makes you more angry than someone who reminds you that you are a bastard. The EU (in particular) had, foolishly, believed Arafat's and the Palestinian leadership's lies about their desire for "peace". They had, as a result, given billions of dollars to a bunch of corrupt terrorists whose real, and oft-expressed, goal is a second holocaust -- literally.

To admit this, to admit that Israel was in the right, is intolerable. To admit the "right wing extremist warmongers" with their "simplistic view of the conflict" were right, while the "peace loving moderates" with their "sophisticated" view were totally wrong -- as amply proven by what happened after Oslo -- is embarrassing. Nobody wants to admit they gave billions to terrorists who pulled a rather crude one over them.

So they hang on to the fiction that if only Israel gave a little more to the terrorists who want to destroy it, peace would have arrived somehow anyway. Every time Israel does give a little more and that, too, naturally, does not help, they once more blame Israel.

So, no, no. Stopping the settlements would not make the world realize the Palestinians are the ones in the wrong. It will just lead to growing Palestinians demands -- say, for no more building in Jerusalem -- and the world will blame Israel once more, saying that if only Israel did that, then peace will surely arrive. Just like every other Israeli concession was simply taken on and more was demanded, while the blame continued to lay squarely, in the EU's view in any case, with the "extremist" Israelies.

This isn't antisemitism, by the way. It is the basic human tendency to not admit the king has no clothes. It is just as prevalent among the Israeli left as among the European left -- Ha'aretz editorial pages print, practically every day, one article claiming Israel should be "smart" (give in to the latest Arab demand) and another claiming Israel is "ruining its chances for peace" (blaming Israel for the fact that giving in to the previous Arab demand, like they themselves recommended, did not produce peace.)

That the child in this case is Jewish is not too relevant -- they crowd of experts, demanding that if the child only looked a little harder surely he would find out the king does have clothes -- probably world have blamed the child anyway.

I am not saying this means everything Israel does is right. I am saying that what Israel does is more or less irrelevant to who the world will blame, since the world, having cast its lot with a bunch of genocidal terrorists and called them "peacemakers", will blame Israel for lack of peace no matter what it does or doesn't do.

They already did just that when these terrorists launched a terror war on Israel after being offered a state (the so-called "second Intifada"). If that didn't make them see who is the murderous aggressor here, why would freezing the settlements even register, let alone change their minds?


Head of nail meet hammer..........Bravo!!!!!!!!!!

[doobiedoright]

"i have been the victim of racism and persecution in the past, therefore I cannot be a perpetrator of racism or criminal activity now"

its a common theme...amongst the persecuted.

remember when African-Americans used to say "we can't be racist"?



Used to say?:eek:

[Skeptic]

I can see funk's point. If Israel stopped the settlements as a gesture, people of common sense and good will, would realize that no reciprocity from the Palestinians is evidence they are to blame.

Fair enough -- but, unfortunately, Israel cannot base its foreign policy on the support of 0.2% of the world's population...

[Skeptic]

There is an old Israeli joke that every time Israel sends singers to the Eurovision contest, then, according to some opinion writers in the newspapers, one of the three occurs:

1). Israeli singers win. Israel had DEFEATED THE ANTISEMITES.

2). Israeli singers get some middle place. Israel WOULD have won, if it wasn't for the ANTISEMITES that denied it first place.

3). Israeli singers come in last. CLEAR PROOF THE WORLD IS ANTISEMITIC.

A more serious reply to funk is that, yes, he is correct: many Israelies know quite well that sometimes Israel tends to be too paranoid and see suggestions made in good faith as part of an antisemitic conspiracy against it.

I don't think Obama's suggestions are exactly in good faith, frankly, in the sense that I don't think he cares about Israel's well being too much and more about other issues, and that his suggestion is due to his weak character more than to anything else.

But that, as I noted, doesn't make it an antisemitic conspiracy.

Still, fun... can you blame us?

[Thunder]

Used to say?:eek:

NYC is 23% black, and I have not heard such a statement in at least 15 years.

[Sporanox]

You're forgiven. But consider my favorite definition of insanity, which is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Ultimately, that's the reason behind the "no ko fights" rule of go, sometimes taken to the point of declaring that no two states of the same game may resemble each other. The United State's role is as arbiter and moderator. It can't afford to pick sides and play they Ally game any more because it hasn't worked before. The process has no credibility, otherwise. No one would tolerate a situation in which the supposed arbiter was acting in an obviously skewed in favor of their opponent. In the court system, mistrials are forced over that kind of crap. Why do it here? And the reality is, if a similar demand was made of the Palestinians instead, no one would flinch -- because that's what everyone is used to seeing.





Would you accept that argument for why the US shouldn't have nuclear technology? It doesn't matter why we don't want them to have one because, again, if we expect them to surrender some measure of their autonomy (which is exactly what we're asking them to do), we have to give them a reason. Related to the problem above, a good start might be to convince them that they aren't going to be treated with the same arrogant attitude that Palestine generally is.

Both of these issues have historically failed the reasonable person test, which is where you ask a reasonable person if they'd put up with that kind of treatment from another person. If the answer is no, it might not be the best way to treat a nation either. No doubt many people consider that politically niave, but chances are, the other side isn't thinking about it that way.

1) Nobody said Obama had to go about this the way Bush did. I don't think it's too much to ask, though, that he not go about it so ham-fistedly. Perhaps his approach will be validated, so there is a chance you are right - though it is small.

2) You make two assumptions: we have to give Iran a reason to stop development of nukes other than the ones we have already, and the government of Iran is composed of reasonable people. Both are incorrect.

[Thunder]

I don't think Obama's suggestions are exactly in good faith, frankly, in the sense that I don't think he cares about Israel's well being too much and more about other issues, and that his suggestion is due to his weak character more than to anything else.

I see no reason to see his suggestions about the Middle East peace process to be ANYTHING BUT good faith.

do you have any evidence of Obama being anti-Jewish..or anti-Israeli..or of being clearly biased against Israeli security needs?

Obama said something extremely intelligent about the peace process, early in the campaign. He said that:

"there are some who seem to argue that being against certain right-wing Israeli agendas and being against the settlements, is the same thing as being against Israel. And I just don't accept that."

He is right. Too many knuckle heads in Israel and the USA make the very false argument, that to be pro-settlements is to be pro-Israel, and to be anti-settlements, and anti-no sharing of Jerusalem, and pro-two state solution, is the same as being anti-Israel and in effect...supporting the destruction of the State of Israel.

such an attitude, is insulting, offensive, and downright BS.

and I hope, that such an attitude, is not the majority attitude in Israel. Cause if it is, then that country is gonna have a lot of problems and a lot less friends down the road, both Jewish and non-Jewish friends.

[INRM]

Parky 76,

If Israel got a little tough love 20 years ago, there would be an independent Palestine as we speak, and Israelis would be free of this burden.

Probably true.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1131926.html

EU to recognize Jerusalem as a shared capital for two states, Israel and Palestine. I hope the USA can also soon show such courage.

I thought recognizing a nation as a nation was up to individual nations? This sounds like the E.U. is usurping the national rights of all the other nations in the E.U.


INRM

[funk de fino]

I can see funk's point. If Israel stopped the settlements as a gesture, people of common sense and good will, would realize that no reciprocity from the Palestinians is evidence they are to blame.

Fair enough -- but, unfortunately, Israel cannot base its foreign policy on the support of 0.2% of the world's population...

It neednt be a gesture, they should not be happening anyway. Show these animals like Hamas for what they really are. The Israel I admired was the one that refused to retaliate when Saddam fired the Scuds at them at the same time he was firing them at me.

Obama is saying what a huge amount of people around the world are thinking. Yet, you use it to attack him. It's always someone elses fault eh?

[Cynic]

I thought recognizing a nation as a nation was up to individual nations? This sounds like the E.U. is usurping the national rights of all the other nations in the E.U.

As things are evolving over there, that may soon be no more true than suggesting that the US is usurping the rights of Nebraska for doing the same thing.

[Thunder]

I thought recognizing a nation as a nation was up to individual nations? This sounds like the E.U. is usurping the national rights of all the other nations in the E.U.


sounds like a conspiracy theory.

[Dr Adequate]

Why should the US demand Israel give up its alleged nuclear arsenal? Is Israel part of NPT? Nope. Is Iran? Yes.

Do you somehow equate an unstable theocracy such as Iran with a history of non-conventional weapons proliferation (which are in turn used against Israel via its many proxy terrorist groups, ie PLO, Hamas, PFLP, Hezbollah, etc) to that of a stable democratic nation such as Israel? I see that you do. How else would you omit the UK, Russia, France, and China among others when demanding nuclear disarmament? Or do you somehow think that Israel's alleged nuclear deterrent is not justified?

What does military grants and loans have to do with this thread? No a whole lot. Or are you somehow assuming that the $2.1-2.5 bil per year through US Foreign Military Financing is somehow 'free money' that burdens US tax payers? (As is often the propaganda ploy with anti-Israel detractors) There's a reason its called a loan and 'bilateral military aid'. How's this different compared to Egypt's $1.2-1.5 bil per year?

Go to this website to see the exact numbers: U.S. Overseas Loans and Grants (http://gbk.eads.usaidallnet.gov/query/do?_program=/eads/gbk/countryReport&unit=N)

There are reasons why Iran is not seen as US's strongest ally and reasons why Israel is. Do you want to go into this and other matters or are you simply bringing this up as a means to deflect? Do I really have to provide subtitles for the hard of thinking?

Very well.

My point was that the US does in fact treat Israel better than Iran.

[Skeptic]

It neednt be a gesture, they should not be happening anyway. Show these animals like Hamas for what they really are.

Hamas practices suicide bombings, holocaust denial, declares it wants a genocide of the Jews, and randomly shells Israeli towns. Hamas has TV shows where stuffed animals urge children to kill themselves as suicide bombers. When the world objected for once, Hamas killed off one of the animals, the mouse Farfur, telling the viewers he was "killed by the zionists".

Should be enough, I think, to show them for what they are. What's more, Hamas doesn't even bother, so far as I know, with the settlements in particular, since for them, the entire "zionist entity" is one big settlement to be removed by Jihad.

It is not necessary to stop the settlements to show Hamas for who they are. It won't help, anyway: anybody who doesn't realize what Hamas is due to the above, will surely not realize it now just because the settlements are stopped.

[Cynic]

Hamas practices suicide bombings, holocaust denial, declares it wants a genocide of the Jews, and randomly shells Israeli towns. Hamas has TV shows where stuffed animals urge children to kill themselves as suicide bombers. When the world objected for once, Hamas killed off one of the animals, the mouse Farfur, telling the viewers he was "killed by the zionists".

Should be enough, I think, to show them for what they are. What's more, Hamas doesn't even bother, so far as I know, with the settlements in particular, since for them, the entire "zionist entity" is one big settlement to be removed by Jihad.

It is not necessary to stop the settlements to show Hamas for who they are. It won't help, anyway: anybody who doesn't realize what Hamas is due to the above, will surely not realize it now just because the settlements are stopped.

Short of exterminating the Palestinians, what do you suggest be done about that? Seems like someone needs to the be the bigger person here, and it might as well be the Israelies.

[Thunder]

Short of exterminating the Palestinians, what do you suggest be done about that? Seems like someone needs to the be the bigger person here, and it might as well be the Israelies.

some Israelis and Jews think it is unfair to expect more from the Israelis, then we expect from Hamas.

they proclaim that they are the Middle East's only true Western-style democracy, but when we expect them to ACT like such a democracy, they yell "anti-Jewish double-standard!!!!!"

I can think of no other nation Earth, who spends soo much time advertising to the world how western and democratic they are, but wants to occupy territory, build illegal settlements, and discriminate against unpopular ethnic groups. its truly unreal...and without precedent.

they cannot have it both ways. if you want to act like Hamas, then admit that you are NOT a Western-style democracy, and stop proclaiming shared values with the USA and the West...and kill all the innocent Palestinians you like.

but if you want to walk around proclaiming how democratic and modern you are, well..then...reap what you sow.

it is not the West that requests a double-standard be placed upon Israel..but Israel itself.

damn I'm smart. :)

[funk de fino]

Hamas practices suicide bombings, holocaust denial, declares it wants a genocide of the Jews, and randomly shells Israeli towns. Hamas has TV shows where stuffed animals urge children to kill themselves as suicide bombers. When the world objected for once, Hamas killed off one of the animals, the mouse Farfur, telling the viewers he was "killed by the zionists".

Should be enough, I think, to show them for what they are. What's more, Hamas doesn't even bother, so far as I know, with the settlements in particular, since for them, the entire "zionist entity" is one big settlement to be removed by Jihad.

It is not necessary to stop the settlements to show Hamas for who they are. It won't help, anyway: anybody who doesn't realize what Hamas is due to the above, will surely not realize it now just because the settlements are stopped.


We will not stop the settlements and if you continue to ask us we will scweam and scweam and scweam until we are sick. Is that really how you want the rest of the world to see Israel? Your arguments are childish.

Have you seen the films of the settlers who get pulled out of settlements by the Israel authorities and how they act? How do you suppose that looks to overseas viewers? Or boys throwing stones being shot dead? Or reporters being shot dead?

There is going to be a protest this week at a large sporting event in the UK, promoted by the STUC, playing on the actions of Israel over the last few years to con a load of people who do not know better to support the Palistinians in huge numbers. They are getting their message across to others and getting the PR right, Israel has to do better. You should have the moral high ground but for some reason you do not.

Grow up, use brains not brawn, and defeat the extremists by removing their support. Dont just vote in your own extremists and stamp your feet and say that they are bad, so we can be bad.

Stop blaming Obama, the EU and others for your own failings.

[Skeptic]

Short of exterminating the Palestinians, what do you suggest be done about that?

I fail to see why the thing that needs to be done about Hamas being a murderous organization is Israel giving more concessions.

[Skeptic]

Look, it's simple. You're saying the stopping the settlements will bring peace and make the world think Israel are the good guys. I say neither will happen, since (a) the real reason there is no peace is the murderous terroristic goals of the Palestinian leadership, namely, Israel's annihilation, and (b) no previous Israeli concession actually ended with any positive result. The Palestinians will simply swallow whatever they are given, continue the war, and demand more; the world will support them.

Take the withdrawal from Gaza, which was supposed to do "support peace". Israel should be the big man... make a jesture... improve its international standing... blah blah blah. What happened? 30,000 Jews uprooted, a terrorist Hamastan established, Israel bombed daily more and more. And when Israel finally fought back, it was accused of being a "war criminal". Why should the removal of the settlements in the west bank end up any differently?

I fail to see why pointing out the obvious is "whining".

[Cynic]

I fail to see why pointing out the obvious is "whining".

Because pointing out the obvious without offering a solution is the definition of whining.

[Skeptic]

I'm not offering a solution. I'm simply noting that stopping Israeli settlements will not be a solution. If this is "whining", so be it. But your accusation seems more like being angry at the kid who says the king has no clothes to me. "Oh sure, the kid points out the king does not have any clothes, but what is he offering as a solution to the king's undressed problem? He's just criticizing!"

[Cynic]

I'm definately sympathetic to Israel in this -- they're definately in a damned if they do, damned if they don't situation. Traditionally I've argued much as you are, that it's up to the Palestinians to stop being such jackasses. But someone is going to have to at least pretend that they want a peaceful and lasting resolution to all this. Right now both sides have huge credibility problems. Coming to the negotiations saying something is on the table while acting in a way that is completely contrary to that isn't going to work.

Settlements are the heart of so many problems like this. After a while the problem becomes intractable because arguments that those people shouldn't be there become equally matched by claims that since they've been there for so long already, yes they should. At some point that sort of cycle has to be stopped, since no one was smart enough to see it coming and prevent the cycle from starting in the first place.

After all these years, isn't it time that Israel recognized the inevitable exacerbation this behavior creates and take steps to ensure the peace between both nations rather than appeal to the emotions and indignance of the people trying to defend territories they shouldn't have had in the first place?

[Cynic]

1) Nobody said Obama had to go about this the way Bush did. I don't think it's too much to ask, though, that he not go about it so ham-fistedly. Perhaps his approach will be validated, so there is a chance you are right - though it is small.

2) You make two assumptions: we have to give Iran a reason to stop development of nukes other than the ones we have already, and the government of Iran is composed of reasonable people. Both are incorrect.

I just think there needs to be more honesty injected into the situation. And generally, I don't tent to think any governments (even or perhaps especially America's) are composed of "reasonable" people, in the sense that governments are composed of people pushing agendas irrespective of the realities they come across (which is quite often unreasonable).

As for Iran and nukes, I think the first assumtion is warranted. We and our allies have collectively created a global culture in which possession of nukes gives leverage, and possession of nukes when no one wants you to have them gives you even more leverage. Whether that's a side effect of how things must be or a mistake isn't relevant -- it's just the way things are. We have taught the world, as very well demonstrated by North Korea, that if you acquire nuclear capability and aren't on the Approved list, then cha-cha-ching. The acquisition of nuclear technology has become more than a means to threaten your neighbors -- it's become a very sound business plan and negotiating tool.

So for good or ill, that's what it is. Just demanding that they stop isn't reasonable because even if it makes sense to us that they stop it most certainly doesn't make sense for them to. Expecting Iran to operate as if they see the situation from our perspective is just weird, isn't it? If they say things from our perspective, we wouldn't be in this, would we?

BTW, where'd you get that avatar? I really like it.

[INRM]

Parky 76,

sounds like a conspiracy theory.

Why? The ability to recognize a nation is generally a power attributed to a nation. If the E.U. can do it for all of them, it sounds kind of like it is usurping the power of the individual nations that make up the E.U.


Cynic,

Yeah, but Nebraska is not a sovereign nation. I wouldn't be surprised though at the rate things are going that the E.U. will become the United States of Europe.

[Skeptic]

I just think there needs to be more honesty injected into the situation. And generally, I don't tent to think any governments (even or perhaps especially America's) are composed of "reasonable" people, in the sense that governments are composed of people pushing agendas irrespective of the realities they come across (which is quite often unreasonable).

Perhaps familiarity breeds contempt here: because you know American politics and therefore hear both the reasonable and the unreasonable folks of the political scene rant at each other, it makes you overemphasize the unreasonables' effect on foreign policy.

But let me tell you something... if you think American policies are "especially unreasonable", you don't know nothin' about the kind of stuff we, in the middle east, see every day... and not just, I admit, from the other side.

Perhaps putting if graphically will help.

American unreasobleness:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/3154HJSW4HL._SL500_AA280_.jpg

Israeli unreasobleness:

http://www.autosite.com/images/2005/Buick/LaCrosse/400/05_Buick_LaCrosse_extfrt12.jpg

Hamas & co.'s unreasobleness:

http://www.learnheapsabout.com/bjornwalker/aircraft%20carrier2.jpg

[quixotecoyote]

Hamas & co.'s unreasobleness:

http://www.learnheapsabout.com/bjornwalker/aircraft%20carrier2.jpg

If they can weaponize unreasonableness, you really are in trouble.

[Cynic]

If they can weaponize unreasonableness, you really are in trouble.

One could argue that they already have. ;)

[funk de fino]

Look, it's simple. You're saying the stopping the settlements will bring peace and make the world think Israel are the good guys.

I am not saying it will bring peace. It would improve Israels image and remove excuses for the support of the idiots and hopefully pile more presure on them to take part. If they then refuse to budge then hopefully they begin to be isolated. Continuing the violence is not going to work. The settlements are wrong regardless of any of this and they are an easy thing to fix.

[Thunder]

a settlement freeze will not bring peace. but it will bring forth renewed peace talks..which may bring peace.

but even if Israel is willing to give the Palestinians 95% of the WB, and control over Arab areas of East Jerusalem (which they ain't), they still want control over Palestine's airspace and water, which is a no-go.

[Sporanox]

I just think there needs to be more honesty injected into the situation. And generally, I don't tent to think any governments (even or perhaps especially America's) are composed of "reasonable" people, in the sense that governments are composed of people pushing agendas irrespective of the realities they come across (which is quite often unreasonable).

As for Iran and nukes, I think the first assumtion is warranted. We and our allies have collectively created a global culture in which possession of nukes gives leverage, and possession of nukes when no one wants you to have them gives you even more leverage. Whether that's a side effect of how things must be or a mistake isn't relevant -- it's just the way things are. We have taught the world, as very well demonstrated by North Korea, that if you acquire nuclear capability and aren't on the Approved list, then cha-cha-ching. The acquisition of nuclear technology has become more than a means to threaten your neighbors -- it's become a very sound business plan and negotiating tool.

So for good or ill, that's what it is. Just demanding that they stop isn't reasonable because even if it makes sense to us that they stop it most certainly doesn't make sense for them to. Expecting Iran to operate as if they see the situation from our perspective is just weird, isn't it? If they say things from our perspective, we wouldn't be in this, would we?

BTW, where'd you get that avatar? I really like it.

The perception that governments are all unreasonable at times is not uncommon as far as I know. I can see what you mean, especially wrt our support of autocrats in the Cold War and afterward. But Iran is much, much more unreasonable. Their embassy takeover was considered a valid cause for war then and now. Think about it - who in their right mind would want to bring the US military down on their country? But they went right ahead and tried their best to do it.

Second, I think I get what you're saying. We have created somewhat of a mobility opportunity for Iran. Problem is, if you accept that premise, we have pretty much no carrots left for them. What advantage we would grant could be better than the ability to give the finger to any Western country at any time? The only thing left is the stick. That is why the soft approach is bankrupt.

Glad to hear you like the avatar. I got it while surfing deviantart. :D

[Cynic]

The perception that governments are all unreasonable at times is not uncommon as far as I know. I can see what you mean, especially with our support of autocrats in the Cold War and afterward. But Iran is much, much more unreasonable. Their embassy takeover was considered a valid cause for war then and now. Think about it - who in their right mind would want to bring the US military down on their country? But they went right ahead and tried their best to do it.

Second, I think I get what you're saying. We have created somewhat of a mobility opportunity for Iran. Problem is, if you accept that premise, we have pretty much no carrots left for them. What advantage we would grant could be better than the ability to give the finger to any Western country at any time? The only thing left is the stick. That is why the soft approach is bankrupt.

I wouldn't be so sure they weren't just calling our bluff. There's crazy and then there's poker. It reminds me of the Plains Indian practice of whacking their enemies with coup sticks so they could gain bragging rights with the tribe later on. Iran probably understood then as they do now that we're quite unlikely to attack them directly unless provoked by something extraordinary.

The problem with this situation is that the world will need to decide if Iran having or nearly having nuclear capability is extraordinary enough. Will the world agree to invade a nation based on what they might do? I don't think they will. And after the last decade, I don't think the US would be willing to go about that unilaterally (extra emphasis on uni this time too). The stick is a mostly a bluff, and they know it.

If the threat of a nuclear Iran is so great, and neither carrot or stick are available to avoid it... it's best to convince them not to use it on anyone, right? To me, it makes sense that if you want someone or some country to act like a friend, the first step is to stop treating them like the enemy.

[Sporanox]

I wouldn't be so sure they weren't just calling our bluff. There's crazy and then there's poker. It reminds me of the Plains Indian practice of whacking their enemies with coup sticks so they could gain bragging rights with the tribe later on. Iran probably understood then as they do now that we're quite unlikely to attack them directly unless provoked by something extraordinary.

The problem with this situation is that the world will need to decide if Iran having or nearly having nuclear capability is extraordinary enough. Will the world agree to invade a nation based on what they might do? I don't think they will. And after the last decade, I don't think the US would be willing to go about that unilaterally (extra emphasis on uni this time too). The stick is a mostly a bluff, and they know it.

If the threat of a nuclear Iran is so great, and neither carrot or stick are available to avoid it... it's best to convince them not to use it on anyone, right? To me, it makes sense that if you want someone or some country to act like a friend, the first step is to stop treating them like the enemy.

I don't buy your first point. Put yourself in the shoes of Iran's leaders at the time. You are choosing to unnecessarily provoke the greatest world power by abduction and humiliation of several of its citizens over the course of a very long period of time. You have no nuclear weapons and little to no leverage from allies. Why would you expect the US not to attack? What possible cards could it believe you are holding?

Re the stick, we could just conduct bombing, but yes, it's likely that there are hidden sites to continue enrichment. I'd still take it over the carrot.

Your last point hinges on the rationality discussion we've been having...you definitely have more faith in the reasoning and self-preservation of Iran's leadership than I do. I'm curious as to what evidence you might have that they are not full-stop religious fanatics who cannot be convinced to show restraint.

[Skeptic]

I am not saying it will bring peace. It would improve Israels image

I see your point, funk, but 3 things you do not consider.

1). What will happen when the Palestinians start shelling Israel from the ex-settlements? That will mean more dead Jews, and not a price worth paying for improving one's image. To give an extreme example, if Israel dismantled itself tomorrow, declaring it is very sorry it had stolen the holy Palestinian land that must be Jew-free all those years, it will improve its image, perhaps, but still that's not reason to do it.

2). I doubt it will improve the image. We have long experience with withdrawals and concessions to the Palestinians. Remember Gaza? Oslo? Usually, the result is that the minute Israel is forced to fight back to try and undo the damage done by the concessions (series of suicide bombers, rocket attacks, etc.) then Israel's image not only does not improve, but the world goes ape over Israel "overreaction" and "war crimes".

3). The one thing you are saying is that it "will put pressure on the idiots [PLO, Hamas] to cooperate". Yeah, and that and $1 will get you a cup of coffee. They were "under pressure" to cooperate for decades. Their answer? "Kill the Jews!". If anything it will make them even more intransigent: it will prove to them that if they only wait, Jews will give them concessions for nothing, like giving Gaza and, now, the settlements.

So I fail to see what withdrawal would achieve. It would not improve Israel's security, but worsen it. It will not bring peace. If anything it would make peace even further. It would not improve Israel's image, but worsen it the moment the Palestinians simply use the concessions to start a war on Israel. It will not make people realize the Palestinians are at fault for reason I noted in precious posts.

So why do it?

[Skeptic]

For those who said, "what's my solution?" It just occurred to me.

The rationale for this "solution" is that the real goal of pressuring Israel to stop the settlements is to pressure the Palestinians to renounced their terroristic ways make peace, by the roundabout way of:

World pressures Israel --> Israel stops settlements --> World realizes Israel is not at fault --> World pressures Palestinians --> Palestinians make peace.

But if your real goal is to pressure the Palestinians to cooperate, isn't pressuring Israel a rather roundabout way to do it? I fail to see why, if the goal is to make the Palestinians change their terroristic government, stopping Israeli settlements would be the most efficient way. Certainly it never worked before: the chain of event seems to stop at "Israel makes concessions" and never reach "World realizes Palestinians are at fault".

How about starting at "world pressure Palestinians", for a change? Suppose the world gave the Palestinians "tough love" and "an ultimatum". Say, the UN declaring it will give no aid to the Palestinians unless they renounce terrorism and the goal of genociding the Jews? Isn't the UN supposed to be against such things? Wouldn't that be a more effective way to make them renounce terrorism and genocide, and a much more efficient way for peace?

[bigjelmapro]

The Israel I admired was the one that refused to retaliate when Saddam fired the Scuds at them at the same time he was firing them at me.

First Gulf war, there were Israeli boots on Iraqi soil mainly hunting for scud TELs. Unmarked plain uniforms, operating predominantly during the night, albeit not publicly known.

I realize you admire pacifism, but when has that ever worked in this region? Its quite counter-productive around here.

As for the Palestinian leadership and motivations for a final status agreement with the Israelis, why on earth would they even consider final status when the Palestinian leadership has milked the international community, UN, and a number of NGOs for billions in their private Swiss bank accounts, vacation homes, etc, etc. for decades already?

[The Fool]

First Gulf war, there were Israeli boots on Iraqi soil mainly hunting for scud TELs. Unmarked plain uniforms, operating predominantly during the night, albeit not publicly known.



but son, you know about it....are you not a member of the public? And now that you have spilled the story on the JREF we all know about it too.

tell me, honestly, do you really believe this blog tale?


actually you may be confusing Imaginary Israeli troops with real troops. Australian special forces who actually were doing ops like you describe, hunting scud launchers.

[Dragoonster]

But if your real goal is to pressure the Palestinians to cooperate, isn't pressuring Israel a rather roundabout way to do it? I fail to see why, if the goal is to make the Palestinians change their terroristic government, stopping Israeli settlements would be the most efficient way. Certainly it never worked before: the chain of event seems to stop at "Israel makes concessions" and never reach "World realizes Palestinians are at fault".

The world should realize both are at fault. That Israel bears more burden on change is because they're the more powerful of the two and can afford to maintain their security enough while maintaining the high road. But they (usually) don't.

I wouldn't have any problem with your UN proposal, but if it actually succeeded in mollifying the Palestinian violence, what do you think Israel would do? Without similar sanctions/warnings on them my guess is that they'd view it as a prime opportunity for some more settlement-building. They already pursue that despite it being at least some motivation for anti-Israel attacks, so why wouldn't they keep pursuing it knowing that it wouldn't lead to such attacks? I guess in other words--just why is Israel building and extending these settlements?

My solution is a bit of a non-solution (and mostly from my perspective as a US citizen)--neither side should receive any aid until a two-state solution is reached. This would force them, or the Israelis more, to not be as comfortable extending the status quo of conflict. Hopefully they'd reach their own peace so they could start receiving aid again, but if they didn't at least I or my country wouldn't be enabling the ridiculous situation any longer.

As is, continuing largely unconditional aid makes finding a lasting peace pragmatically harmful for Israel, and somewhat for Palestine. Assuming a stable two-state solution were reached, the US might draw-down aid and weapons sales/tech sharing to Israel. Palestine would lose its star status among the arab world too. It would also hurt the political power of hawks for both sides, who are benefitting more from a continued conflict than a resolution. With all this, aid could have caused a lot more harm than good.

Whatever the reasons for a lack of peace are, neither side is demonstrating worthiness to any aid whatsoever, imo.

[Thunder]

just why is Israel building and extending these settlements?

two possible reasons:

A) they think that there will eventually be a peace settlement that will force them to leave much of the West Bank. so they wanna put down as many facts on the ground as possible in certain areas.

B) they think there is no chance of a peace settlement any time soon, and just feel like building, cause God gave them the land, bla bla bla.

[The Fool]

two possible reasons:

A) they think that there will eventually be a peace settlement that will force them to leave much of the West Bank. so they wanna put down as many facts on the ground as possible in certain areas.

B) they think there is no chance of a peace settlement any time soon, and just feel like building, cause God gave them the land, bla bla bla.
Its Jerusalem... and water.

Israel is not going to voluntarily relinquish one square inch of Jerusalem and it also doesn't want Jerusalem to be right on the border. So the boundries of "jerusalem" have to be pushed out as much as possible.

Israel needs most of the west bank water resources. I can't Imagine Israel ever tolerating a situation where it has to go begging for water from Arabs.

[Thunder]

Israel needs most of the west bank water resources. I can't Imagine Israel ever tolerating a situation where it has to go begging for water from Arabs.

yes. Israelis seem to believe it should be the other way around.

[bigjelmapro]

but son, you know about it....are you not a member of the public? And now that you have spilled the story on the JREF we all know about it too.

tell me, honestly, do you really believe this blog tale?

Not if you've served in the IDF. Have you served?


actually you may be confusing Imaginary Israeli troops with real troops. Australian special forces who actually were doing ops like you describe, hunting scud launchers.
:D Says the civi. Come on armchair warrior!

[The Fool]

Not if you've served in the IDF. Have you served?


:D Says the civi. Come on armchair warrior!
so thats your response to a request for anything...anything at all.... that backs up a claim that israeli troops were on the ground in Iraq?

Is this a secret only known to members of the IDF? Australians were there, doing exactly what you claim Israelis were doing. Do you think they would have noticed them?

anything to add?

[The Fool]

dup

[bigjelmapro]

so thats your response to a request for anything...anything at all.... that backs up a claim that israeli troops were on the ground in Iraq?
Predictable. I said its not publicly acknowledged but confirmed within the IDF and now you ask for internet references. :D



Is this a secret only known to members of the IDF? Australians were there, doing exactly what you claim Israelis were doing. Do you think they would have noticed them?

Reference? I know of SAS and Americans (Rangers, force recon, navy special forces, etc.) were part of these Scud hunting teams, never heard of SASR or a derivative being involved in 1991 with Scud hunting. Or do you assume that somehow the Aussies had a monopoly on Scud hunting?

Do you even know how big Iraq is? Making it sound as if Iraq is some sandbox...

And just to clarify, I did mention the first Gulf war (1991). I know full well of the Aussie SAS being involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that of the 2003 Scud teams.

[The Fool]

Predictable. I said its not publicly acknowledged but confirmed within the IDF and now you ask for internet references. :D



Reference? I know of SAS and Americans (Rangers, force recon, navy special forces, etc.) were part of these Scud hunting teams, never heard of SASR or a derivative being involved in 1991 with Scud hunting. Or do you assume that somehow the Aussies had a monopoly on Scud hunting?

Do you even know how big Iraq is? Making it sound as if Iraq is some sandbox...

And just to clarify, I did mention the first Gulf war (1991). I know full well of the Aussie SAS being involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that of the 2003 Scud teams.
so to clarify....support for your claim so far is.....nothing?

oops sorry. Not nothing, you have said its "confirmed within the IDF" anything in writing or is it whispered to you while you wait in line for your army issue underwear?


want some advice? run from this one....you probably picked this up from some stupid blog somewhere and are going to look particularly stupid trying to get it to fly on a sceptic forum.

[bigjelmapro]

so to clarify....support for your claim so far is.....nothing?

oops sorry. Not nothing, you have said its "confirmed within the IDF" anything in writing or is it whispered to you while you wait in line for your army issue underwear?

Bit slow on this one too eh? Its common knowledge within the IDF, as in those who served in the IDF, that in 1991 there were Israeli commandos in Iraq who partook in scud hunting. Its never officially stated that it has occurred since Israel officially agreed with the US government to sit out any official involvement within Iraq.

But hey, if its not quoted on an internet website, then it doesn't exist eh?


want some advice? run from this one....you probably picked this up from some stupid blog somewhere and are going to look particularly stupid trying to get it to fly on a sceptic forum.
Nah, I don't use the same tactics as you and Parky :D Bloggers as references and conveniently glossing over posts.

Still awaiting the reference of the 1991 Aussie commando scud hunters, if it exists. And please no references to 2003, I know they existed then.

[The Fool]

Bit slow on this one too eh? Its common knowledge within the IDF, as in those who served in the IDF, that in 1991 there were Israeli commandos in Iraq who partook in scud hunting. Its never officially stated that it has occurred since Israel officially agreed with the US government to sit out any official involvement within Iraq.

But hey, if its not quoted on an internet website, then it doesn't exist eh?


Nah, I don't use the same tactics as you and Parky :D Bloggers as references and conveniently glossing over posts.

Still awaiting the reference of the 1991 Aussie commando scud hunters, if it exists. And please no references to 2003, I know they existed then.
maybe I should just say its "common knowledge" within the Australian army??
but yes, you are correct...Australians were not there in 91....seems that you have decided your imaginary Israeli commandos were only there in 91?

LOL....one of your best bigjel ....trust me its a secret I was told when in the IDF?

do the US army and or Executive know about this? and are they are part of the conspiracy of secrecy? Hey...maybe even the US didn't know they were there either?

so which is it....The US also knows this secret and is suppressing it or the Israelis were also operating in IRAQ and the US army didn't notice them?

seems you may have listened to one too many barracks room brag sessions. want to go on? I would like to start a thread in the conspiracy theory forum that the US and Israel are conspiring to suppress the fact that Israeli troops were on the ground in Iraq in 91. would you turn up to defend the conspiracy theory?

[The Fool]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,60836,00.html

Israel says it is far better prepared for an Iraqi attack, including with chemical or biological weapons, than in 1991, when it was hit by 39 Iraqi Scud missiles with conventional warheads. At the time, under stern U.S. pressure, Israel did not retaliate.


excuse me!!! you are wrong. Israel did retaliate. Bigjelmapro knows all about this secret retaliation...he heard it from someone in the IDF.

[Darth Rotor]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,60836,00.html

Israel says it is far better prepared for an Iraqi attack, including with chemical or biological weapons, than in 1991, when it was hit by 39 Iraqi Scud missiles with conventional warheads. At the time, under stern U.S. pressure, Israel did not retaliate.


excuse me!!! you are wrong. Israel did retaliate. Bigjelmapro knows all about this secret retaliation...he heard it from someone in the IDF.
How droll, you quoted Fox News.
but yes, you are correct...Australians were not there in 91....seems that you have decided your imaginary Israeli commandos were only there in 91?

LOL....one of your best bigjel ....trust me its a secret I was told when in the IDF?

do the US army and or Executive know about this? and are they are part of the conspiracy of secrecy? Hey...maybe even the US didn't know they were there either?

so which is it....The US also knows this secret and is suppressing it or the Israelis were also operating in IRAQ and the US army didn't notice them?

seems you may have listened to one too many barracks room brag sessions. want to go on? I would like to start a thread in the conspiracy theory forum that the US and Israel are conspiring to suppress the fact that Israeli troops were on the ground in Iraq in 91. would you turn up to defend the conspiracy theory?
Go for it, mate! This could be fun.

DR

[The Fool]

How droll, you quoted Fox News.

Go for it, mate! This could be fun.

DR
actually I may have to be a bit careful. I went out into my back yard this morning and what do you know?? the IDF has snuck in and mowed the grass. If they are that good maybe they could get into Iraq without the Americans noticing.

[bigjelmapro]

do the US army and or Executive know about this? and are they are part of the conspiracy of secrecy? Hey...maybe even the US didn't know they were there either?

Why would this be a conspiracy theory?

I do find it strange that you cannot fathom the concept of special units, be it SAS, SEALs, Sayeret, M15, CIA, GSG9, etc. etc. having executed certain operations, whatever they may be, without official acceptance of said operations. And that said operations are talked about within certain circles within the military.

If you think this hopeless attempt at mockery is insulting, I do find it to be quite the other way around.


seems you may have listened to one too many barracks room brag sessions. want to go on? I would like to start a thread in the conspiracy theory forum that the US and Israel are conspiring to suppress the fact that Israeli troops were on the ground in Iraq in 91. would you turn up to defend the conspiracy theory?
Nah, bragging would involve having 1 single special forces guy take out 20 of these scud launchers with 1 leg under a hail of bullets. Not that they were simply there.

Same can be said about IDF hits on upper echelon members of Hamas or Hezbollah, or the strike on Syria's nuclear site. But hey, can't be true eh?

:D

[The Fool]

Why would this be a conspiracy theory?

I do find it strange that you cannot fathom the concept of special units, be it SAS, SEALs, Sayeret, M15, CIA, GSG9, etc. etc. having executed certain operations, whatever they may be, without official acceptance of said operations. And that said operations are talked about within certain circles within the military.

If you think this hopeless attempt at mockery is insulting, I do find it to be quite the other way around.


Nah, bragging would involve having 1 single special forces guy take out 20 of these scud launchers with 1 leg under a hail of bullets. Not that they were simply there.

Same can be said about IDF hits on upper echelon members of Hamas or Hezbollah, or the strike on Syria's nuclear site. But hey, can't be true eh?

:D
cool, you want to defend it..
firstly, you don't know why its a conspiracy theory? Well, its a theory (not proven) and it concerns a group of people acting together with the common purpose of keeping something secret. (a conspiracy) so...its a conspiracy theory. Similar to "the Jews were behing 911" and with similar amounts of supporting evidence.

so first what we need to explore is who is involved....who knows that it is true but is participating in the coverup.

I may suggest that the Israeli Government and the IDF are on the list. You have not yet said if the US is a participant in the coverup or just simply didn't know about it....could you clarify that?

what about the Jordanians? Assuming that the Israeli forces entered Iraq through Jordan? Did they know? Maybe they flew in and so we can add the American Airforce to the list of conspiracy members? although it may be possible that they flew in and out and the US airforce didn't notice them.



before I give your conspiracy theory its own thread we need to establish some more basics

can you please list any evidence that you have that is not covered by "I heard it somewhere"

I think you have been playing too many fantasy wargames on the internet...


and please....I can "fathom" the operations of special forces. I just need a little bit more than a laughable improbable theory put forward by someone on the internet based on "I heard it somewhere"

keep finishing your posts with smileys, it may help when you have to figure out how you are going to back away from such a silly claim....I would suggest "it was all just a joke" so all the smileys will help.

[Eyeron]

World pressures Israel --> Israel stops settlements --> World realizes Israel is not at fault --> World pressures Palestinians --> Palestinians make peace.

I truly don't believe it will work out that way. Are you aware that Israel called a halt to the building of settlements in 2005? The problem is the citizens are refusing to stop because they believe it to be their God-given land.

Plus Israel is faced with a lot of double standards by people who are heavily critical of Israel. I believe that it won't stop there, they'll be calling for ISrael to withdraw to pre-war borders and withdraw until there is no Israel.

Added:

Here's an article to consider:

Netanyahu faces rightwing protests

By Tobias Buck in Jerusalem

Published: December 3 2009 15:41 | Last updated: December 3 2009 16:34

Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, faces mounting pressure from rightwing activists and settlers, who are furious about his decision to impose a partial construction freeze on Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank.

In an attempt to calm tensions, which have triggered violent clashes between settlers and Israeli police, Mr Netanyahu met leaders of the settler movement. A government spokesman said the prime minister took note of their complaints but insisted that the freeze had to be respected.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3d6bf816-e028-11de-8494-00144feab49a.html

[Thunder]

I believe that it won't stop there, they'll be calling for ISrael to withdraw to pre-war borders and withdraw until there is no Israel.


beautiful strawman. he should audition for The Wizard of Oz.

[bigjelmapro]

firstly, you don't know why its a conspiracy theory? Well, its a theory (not proven) and it concerns a group of people acting together with the common purpose of keeping something secret. (a conspiracy) so...its a conspiracy theory. Similar to "the Jews were behing 911" and with similar amounts of supporting evidence.

Wow, what a stretch. IDF Hayaret forces taking out Scuds = Jews were behind 911.

Its a theory, sure, since there's no definitive proof of its existence and you would not get a admission by the governments involved (which I've stated from the beginning). However, far from what would be termed as a conspiracy theory. There's no conspiracy angle, no deception of the masses, etc.

As superficial as the statement that apartheid simply involves separation.


so first what we need to explore is who is involved....who knows that it is true but is participating in the coverup.

But its not a coverup since nobody is investigating the matter. Why is this such an issue for you to fathom again?


and please....I can "fathom" the operations of special forces. I just need a little bit more than a laughable improbable theory put forward by someone on the internet based on "I heard it somewhere"

Improbable how? By a transportation issue? That the military powers involved 'conspired' (:p) to takedown Scud launchers?

I do find it funny that you're going all out on attempting to ridicule this statement. I would hope that you would have such a lengthy and concerted effort on other posts or would not gloss over them altogether.

What could have resulted from this initial claim of mine is simply a stalemate in me being unable to prove this claim and you unable to disprove it. Not that its unfathomable.

[The Fool]

Wow, what a stretch. IDF Hayaret forces taking out Scuds = Jews were behind 911.

Its a theory, sure, since there's no definitive proof of its existence and you would not get a admission by the governments involved (which I've stated from the beginning). However, far from what would be termed as a conspiracy theory. There's no conspiracy angle, no deception of the masses, etc.

so all the Israeli and US denials that it happened are not "deceiving the masses"? Apparently the Israeli government know it to be true but denies it in official statements....but this is apparently not an attempt at deception.....damned if I can come up with a definition of deception that allows that one to fly...

ok, you have reluctantly had to agree its a theory because of you complete inability to find a shred of evidence...so its now down to denying that Israel and the US are apparently trying to deceive by denying something that you believe (without evidence) to be fact?

I know you don't like your conspiracy theory described as a conspiracy theory....tough luck. it is you that has decided to anoint barrack room bragging as truth.

OK, enough of the waffle. I have stsrted the conspiracy theory thread. Maybe you will turn up to defend your conspiracy theory?

[bigjelmapro]

so all the Israeli and US denials that it happened are not "deceiving the masses"? Apparently the Israeli government know it to be true but denies it in official statements....but this is apparently not an attempt at deception.....damned if I can come up with a definition of deception that allows that one to fly...

What? The one official statement by IDF General Gilad of no direct IDF involvement in Iraq equates to a 'deceiving of the masses'. You are trying extremely hard for this to fit the true definition of a conspiracy.

Try again.


ok, you have reluctantly had to agree its a theory because of you complete inability to find a shred of evidence...so its now down to denying that Israel and the US are apparently trying to deceive by denying something that you believe (without evidence) to be fact?

Nope, I've accepted this to be a theory from the get-go. You, however, are trying to turn this into some sort of conspiracy theory when I stated that it couldn't be officially verified. You saw blood in the water and didn't hesitate with the resulting rants.


I know you don't like your conspiracy theory described as a conspiracy theory....tough luck. it is you that has decided to anoint barrack room bragging as truth.

Nope. Not a conspiracy theory, according to its definition. Try again.

There are a number cases of indirect involvement by Israel. This wasn't bragged about either. So another conspiracy theory?:


· The United States benefited from the use of Israeli-made Have Nap air-launched missiles on its B*52 bombers. The Navy, meanwhile, used Israeli Pioneer pilotless drones for reconnaissance in the Gulf.

· Israel provided mine plows that were used to clear paths for allied forces through Iraqi minefields.

· Mobile bridges flown directly from Israel to Saudi Arabia were employed by the U.S. Marine Corps.

· Israeli recommendations, based upon system performance observations, led to several software changes that made the Patriot a more capable missile defense system.

· Israel Aircraft Industries developed conformal fuel tanks that enhanced the range of F*15 aircraft. These were used in the Gulf.

· General Dynamics has implemented a variety of Israeli modifications to improve the worldwide F*16 aircraft fleet, including structural enhancements, software changes, increased capability landing gear, radio improvements and avionic modifications.

· An Israeli-produced targeting system was used to increase the Cobra helicopter's night-fighting capabilities.

· Israel manufactured the canister for the highly successful Tomahawk missile.

· Night-vision goggles used by U.S. forces were supplied by Israel.

· A low-altitude warning system produced and developed in Israel was utilized on Blackhawk helicopters.

· Other Israeli equipment provided to U.S. forces included flack vests, gas masks and sandbags.

· Israel offered the United States the use of military and hospital facilities. U.S. ships utilized Haifa port shipyard maintenance and support on their way to the Gulf.

· Israel destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981. Consequently, U.S. troops did not face a nuclear-armed Iraq.

· Even in its low-profile mode, Israeli cooperation was extremely valuable: Israel's military intelligence had focused on Iraq much more carefully over the years than had the U.S. intelligence community. Thus, the Israelis were able to provide Washington with detailed tactical intelligence on Iraqi military activities. Defense Secretary Richard Cheney said, for example, that the U.S. utilized Israeli information about western Iraq in its search for Scud missile launchers (UPI, March 8, 1991).


Oh no's, putting Israel is a positive light here. So sorry. Pfft.

[Thunder]

What? The one official statement by IDF General Gilad of no direct IDF involvement in Iraq equates to a 'deceiving of the masses'. You are trying extremely hard for this to fit the true definition of a conspiracy. .

do you think Israel EVER does anything wrong? or are Jews incapable of being bad.

[Liszt]

actually I may have to be a bit careful. I went out into my back yard this morning and what do you know?? the IDF has snuck in and mowed the grass. If they are that good maybe they could get into Iraq without the Americans noticing.

lol. It's funny because it's not true.

Threads like this should be saved and independently analysed.

I'm emailing the mods to get The Fools' username changed to The Rule. Because you do.

[bigjelmapro]

do you think Israel EVER does anything wrong? or are Jews incapable of being bad.
You ever get tired of this angle? Obviously you don't. :p

[Thunder]

You ever get tired of this angle? Obviously you don't. :p

i find your avoidance of the question to be very revealing.

[Liszt]

i find your avoidance of the question to be very revealing.

Indeed.

There is a video on youtube right now of an Israeli settler repeatedly running over a Palestinian in his car. I can't link it, as you have to sign in to see it. Besides, it is horrible. Truly horrible. It has disturbed me, and I'm already on thorazine and in a straightjacket.

I have already been told by an extreme Zionist that he deserved it (he was accused of stabbing the driver's wife).

Do you hold that opinion, Bigjelmapro? (the opinion of the extreme Zionist, just in case you want to dance around that question)

(Edit - the IDF were watching the whole thing. It is all on youtube. But it will not be for long.)

[The Fool]

Nope. Not a conspiracy theory, according to its definition. Try again.


LOL... busted pushing a conspiracy theory on a skeptics forum so panics and decides to redefine "conspiracy"..

one of your best efforts.

according to you.......The Israeli government know its true, the IDF knows its true, obviously every single person that went in knows its true....and all these people are keeping the secret. Possibly also including the US Government, and the US military forces but this can't be determined yet because you are avoiding saying if you think they also know about it...or just didn't notice.

not a conspiracy theory?? just exactly what do you think IS a conspiracy theory?

[Skeptic]

There is a video on youtube right now of an Israeli settler repeatedly running over a Palestinian in his car... I have already been told by an extreme Zionist that he deserved it (he was accused of stabbing the driver's wife).

You probably mean this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emG2hLVq9WY).

Well, I watched. Presuming it's authentic -- there are videos on youtube proving "Jewish ritual murder", after all -- is is something quite different than what you make it out to be.

First, the settler's car (the white Mercedes) is, in the beginning, surrounded by Israeli ambulance personnel and police / army (it's not completely clear from the video what units exactly). Apparently the Palestinian wasn't merely "accused" of stabbing the settler's wife -- nice weasel word there, "accused" -- but it seems he had just stabbed her. Clearly the ambulance personnel are treating her for the stabbing and, presumably, the army personnel are subduing the stabber (since he is on the ground when the camera first shows him).

The poor, innocent lamb... yeah, I know, I know, big deal -- he only stabbed a Jew, what's the big fuss? -- but I tell you, if someone just stabbed my wife, I too would be very tempted to run him over repeatedly. It was an impulsive act of revenge at someone who has just stabbed his wife, not exactly a racist attack.

And what are the other people in the video doing? Are they cheering him? Saying the Palestinian had it coming? No. After two seconds of shock and surprise, they are all -- medics, soldiers, and other settlers (the guys in civvies) -- rushing at the driver and stopping him, getting him out of the car and ending the incident.

Not quite the sort of "brutal disregard of innocent Palestinians' lives by racist settlers" you make it out to be, is it? "Momentary loss of control by victim's husband after yet another Palestinian terror attack" is a more accurate title.

[bigjelmapro]

i find your avoidance of the question to be very revealing.
No. Really implies that the nth time I've answered this, the nth + 1 time I'm just going to mock you about it.

[bigjelmapro]

Do you hold that opinion, Bigjelmapro? (the opinion of the extreme Zionist, just in case you want to dance around that question)

I think Skeptic covered the brunt of it and I tend to agree with his points.

And how am I am extreme Zionist again? I think the latter, and the knee-jerk response of 'right-winger' are signs of a poster who can't reply, hence they resort to veiled ad hominem fallacies and an attempt to falsely categorize me as an 'extreme Zionist' or 'right-winger', neither which I am.

End of defensive line since I'm not being baited into this position.


(Edit - the IDF were watching the whole thing. It is all on youtube. But it will not be for long.)
Since its shows violence, I think it would be removed or have a warning. This whole IDF/Zionist media control angle is also laughable.

[Thunder]

And how am I am extreme Zionist again?

:D:p:D:p:D:p....oh my.

[Liszt]

And how am I am extreme Zionist again?

I was refering to someone else, on a different site.

And yes, Skeptic does make some valid points.

[Thunder]

Most of his posts do indeed express right-wing extremist Zionist ideas.

[Skeptic]

And how am I am extreme Zionist again?

Some people use "extreme" as an insult. As in "extreme zionist", "extreme right-winger", "extreme left", etc. What they really means is "zionist and I don't like zionism", "Right winger and I don't like right wingers", etc.

[Thunder]

What they really means is "zionist and I don't like zionism", "Right winger and I don't like right wingers", etc.

another great strawman.

I call people "right-wing Zionist" and "extremist Zionist" all the time. that does not mean that I think that ALL Zionists are bad and ALL versions Zionism are bad.

such an argument is used to simply disregard criticism of Israel. it basically says: "those who criticize Israel simply want Israel to be destroyed".

[Skeptic]

"Extremist!" is the new "Racist!". Translated into English it means something like, "I disagree with you on that". (I don't no groups are extremists, just like some groups are racists; I mean using such terms as an insult in conversation).

[Cynic]

I've never seen anything productive come from telling other people what they meant by something they said.

[Thunder]

"Extremist!" is the new "Racist!".

you know, I bet if you keep telling yourself that enough times, you might actually start to believe it.

[Skeptic]

I've never seen anything productive come from telling other people what they meant by something they said.

Oh yeah? Try talking with holocaust deniers and creationists. Try doing so without explaining to them that you know very well what they mean by "I am just a skeptic about the numbers" or "the Intelligent Designer".

It won't be productive in the sense that you won't convince them, but it's impossible to talk people out of their delusions. Others, however, might be enlightened.

For instance, "extreme zionist" means "does not bend over backward to satisfy any foreign demand", while plain old "zionist" -- the "allowed" kind -- means "does just that, despite the total failure of previous Israeli concessions to do anything but launch a war of terror and rekindle the Arab hope for Israel's elimination, as in the 'peace' process from Oslo".

It's not a perfect fit, but in 90% of the cases, those anti-Israel folks who do not simply condemn "zionism" as thoroughly evil tout court, mean something like that.

[Thunder]

"Extremist!" is the new "Racist!". Translated into English it means something like, "I disagree with you on that". (I don't no groups are extremists, just like some groups are racists; I mean using such terms as an insult in conversation).

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1134455.html

Jewish extremists torch and destroy a West Bank mosque, including Muslim holy texts. Ehud Barak calls culprits "extremists".

[bigjelmapro]

Most of his posts do indeed express right-wing extremist Zionist ideas.
So again, explain to me how my views have anything to do with right-wing politics and how they are extreme.

And referring to your last post, you align me with those loonies who burn down mosques? Is that what you're getting at? If not, explain.

[Thunder]

So again, explain to me how my views have anything to do with right-wing politics and how they are extreme.
.

you stated that Jerusalem has had a Jewish majority for 350 years.

you stated that the East Jerusalem Jewish areas are not settlements.

well, Jerusalem has had a Jewish majority for only 150 years and the USA, the EU, the UN, and most of the planet Earth considers the Jewish areas of East Jerusalem to indeed be settlements.

hence, your views are extremist.

[Skeptic]

So again, explain to me how my views have anything to do with right-wing politics and how they are extreme.

You think Jews have a right to defend themselves.

That's a no-no.

[The Fool]

So again, explain to me how my views have anything to do with right-wing politics and how they are extreme.

And referring to your last post, you align me with those loonies who burn down mosques? Is that what you're getting at? If not, explain.
well, what I would like to see is where your views differ from extremist right wing Israeli views. You obviously want to dance with Netanyahu yet don't like to actually have to admit it. I have invited you many times to point out something done by the right wing government of Israel that you don't unconditionally support.....not much luck so far.

I notice "skeptic" flapping around the thread...try not to be distracted from the questions at hand by his racist hatred driven drivel.

[Thunder]

You think Jews have a right to defend themselves.

That's a no-no.

so right-wing Zionist terrorism= Jews defending themselves?

the terrorist attack upon the King David Hotel was an act of self-defense?

the murder of Ambassador Folk Bernadette was an act of self-defense?

give me a *********** break. these were pure terrorist acts, had NOTHING to do with self-defense, and your posts are justifying and making excuses for pure terrorism.

[bigjelmapro]

you stated that Jerusalem has had a Jewish majority for 350 years.

How is this extreme or right-wing?


you stated that the East Jerusalem Jewish areas are not settlements.

They aren't. Explained why. If you equate these Jewish areas as settlements, so are the Arab ones by that line of thought.

And how is this right-wing or extremist?


well, Jerusalem has had a Jewish majority for only 150 years and the USA, the EU, the UN, and most of the planet Earth considers the Jewish areas of East Jerusalem to indeed be settlements.

hence, your views are extremist.
Nope. You tried this on another thread as well. You fail here and you fail there. Try again.

[Thunder]

H
They aren't. Explained why. If you equate these Jewish areas as settlements, so are the Arab ones by that line of thought. .

i have no problem with Jewish communities that were destroyed by the Jordanians, being rebuilt.

Because Israel has annexed East Jerusalem and gave the Arabs permanent residency status, I am willing to accept all Jewish areas in East Jerusalem as not being settlements.

But the ones in the WB are. All of them.

[Dr Adequate]

For instance, "extreme zionist" means "does not bend over backward to satisfy any foreign demand" ... N ... o ... o.

To speak for myself, I'd call someone an "extremist" when he denounces the President of the USA an "enemy of the Jews" for agreeing with a Likud Prime Minister of Israel rather than with his own more extreme views.

[Thunder]

To speak for myself, I'd call someone an "extremist" when he denounces the President of the USA an "enemy of the Jews" for agreeing with a Likud Prime Minister of Israel rather than with his own more extreme views.

extremists are also known for their constant and obsessive use of strawman arguments and wild exaggerations.

[RedIbis]

Likud is the enemy of the Jews.

[bigjelmapro]

i have no problem with Jewish communities that were destroyed by the Jordanians, being rebuilt.

Because Israel has annexed East Jerusalem and gave the Arabs permanent residency status, I am willing to accept all Jewish areas in East Jerusalem as not being settlements.

Alright, thanks for a clearer position. But you do realize that this is contradictory to your previous statements here and in the other threads where you bring up this settlement allegation in relation to E. J'lem.


But the ones in the WB are. All of them.
Technically this would include Ma'ale Adumim, Ariel, and Modi'in Illit. The latter, is one that should be relocated since the barrier surrounding Modi'in Illit does crouch on the Palestinian town of Bil'in. Its a hotspot of confrontations. Luckily, in this situation, haredim live here, which comprise the majority (~60%) of Jews living in the WB/Judea/Samaria. They don't have issues of relocation, but regardless if they choose to relocate within the WB final status borders (in the future) or in Israel, they rely on those respective states to pay for them all the way in support and whatnot. They are extremely isolationist as well.

Ma'ale Adumim I've already addressed in a previous post in regards to its legality. No voided armistice lines is going to change this Israeli town.

Ariel was also accepted to be included in the land swaps.

[Thunder]

i consider all WB settlements to be illegal, for they were build on land not annexed by israel. and many of these settlements were built on private property confiscated by the IDF, for military and NOT civilian purposes.

it is illegal to confiscate private property in non-annexed land, for the purpose of civilian purposes. such land can ONLY be used for security or military reasons.

[bigjelmapro]

Nope. Again, you make this assertion that all and everything where Jews are settled in the WB/Judea and Samaria as automatically owned by Palestinians. Not the case. Peace now tried to route with Ma'ale Adumim and fudged it up.

Moving on.

[FireGarden]

Nope. Again, you make this assertion that all and everything where Jews are settled in the WB/Judea and Samaria as automatically owned by Palestinians. Not the case. Peace now tried to route with Ma'ale Adumim and fudged it up.

Moving on.

That's sweet.
That whole topic was about adding up the amount of private land Vs state land which is used in settlements. By "state land", which state is being reffered to? Or are you going to argue that, because Israel has not agreed to a Palestinian state, all "state land" is Israeli?

[Thunder]

Nope. Again, you make this assertion that all and everything where Jews are settled in the WB/Judea and Samaria as automatically owned by Palestinians. .

is 100% of the settlements built on private property? no.

is some of it? yes.

did Israel confiscate Arab owned private property in the WB for military purposes, and then turn it into civilian settlements for Israelis? yes.

this is illegal under international law.

[bigjelmapro]

That's sweet.
That whole topic was about adding up the amount of private land Vs state land which is used in settlements. By "state land", which state is being reffered to? Or are you going to argue that, because Israel has not agreed to a Palestinian state, all "state land" is Israeli?
You referring to the status of privately owned land before or after the Ottoman Tanzimat reform or the British land reform?

When I'm referring to state-owned land I'm referring to the land that was referred to 'jiftlik' prior to British land reform and the subsequent purchasing of land thereafter.

[bigjelmapro]

is 100% of the settlements built on private property? no.

is some of it? yes.

Absolutist claims yet again. Never claimed this. Each of the settlements should be investigated on a case by case manner. As far as I know, the brunt of outposts will be pulled out of with a 3-4% of the land where the biggest blocs exist on being kept by Israel with accompanied land swaps.


did Israel confiscate Arab owned private property in the WB for military purposes, and then turn it into civilian settlements for Israelis? yes.

this is illegal under international law.
Sure, some land was taken over for the military and transferred to non-military usage, does this mean that in these cases this land was Arab-owned? Don't think so.

Again, case by case basis.

Don't really know where you're going with this. You keep repeating the same thing and go no where with it.

I'm also curious which international law you're referring to. Specify.

[Thunder]

Sure, some land was taken over for the military and transferred to non-military usage, does this mean that in these cases this land was Arab-owned? Don't think so.

I'm also curious which international law you're referring to. Specify.

the UN charter and the Geneva Conventions. they clearly state that occupied territory can ONLY be confiscated by the occupying power for military purposes.

but I guess, since Israel answers to a "higher power", they can tell the UN and the GC to go scratch huh?

[FireGarden]

You referring to the status of privately owned land before or after the Ottoman Tanzimat reform or the British land reform?

When I'm referring to state-owned land I'm referring to the land that was referred to 'jiftlik' prior to British land reform and the subsequent purchasing of land thereafter.

I don't see how it matters.
What is it about "state-owned" land that makes you think it is more legal to take it than to take "privately owned" land?

[Thunder]

if a person has documents proving that he owns land, Israel can ONLY confiscate that land for military purposes. building civilian settlements on that land is illegal under international law.

[FireGarden]

Parky, what makes you so sure that the distinction private/state owned land makes a difference?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/10/opinion/10gorenberg.html?ei=5090&en=50d5f401aaec21a9&ex=1299646800&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

The legal counsel of the Foreign Ministry, Theodor Meron, was asked whether international law allowed settlement in the newly conquered land. In a memo marked "Top Secret," Mr. Meron wrote unequivocally, "My conclusion is that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention."

In the detailed opinion that accompanied that note, Mr. Meron explained that the Convention — to which Israel was a signatory — forbade an occupying power from moving part of its population to occupied territory. The Golan, taken from Syria, was "undoubtedly 'occupied territory,' " he wrote.

Mr. Meron took note of Israel's diplomatic argument that the West Bank was not "normal" occupied territory, because the land's status was uncertain. The prewar border with Jordan had been a mere armistice line, and Jordan had annexed the West Bank unilaterally.

But he rejected that argument for two reasons. The first was diplomatic: the international community would not accept it and would regard settlement as showing "intent to annex the West Bank to Israel." The second was legal, he wrote: "In truth, certain Israeli actions are inconsistent with the claim that the West Bank is not occupied territory." For instance, he noted, a military decree issued on the third day of the war in June said that military courts must apply the Geneva Conventions in the West Bank.

There is a subtext here. In treating the West Bank as occupied, Israel may simply have been recognizing legal reality. But doing so had practical import: if the land was occupied, the Arabs who lived there did not have to be integrated into the Israeli polity — in contrast to Arabs within Israel, who were citizens.

Eshkol and other Israeli leaders knew that granting citizenship to the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza Strip would quickly turn Israel into a binational state. In effect, the Meron memo told Eshkol: you cannot have it both ways. If the West Bank was "occupied" for the Arab population, then neither international law nor Israel's democratic norms permitted settling Jews there.

As I read it: annex the land, make the people citizens, or the land is not yours. In the latter case, you can't build permanent settlements on it.

[Thunder]

As I read it: annex the land, make the people citizens, or the land is not yours. In the latter case, you can't build permanent settlements on it.

u got it. building civilian settlements is only legal if u annex the land. don't annex it and give the Arabs permanent residency? then don't build jewish housing.

[bigjelmapro]

I don't see how it matters.
What is it about "state-owned" land that makes you think it is more legal to take it than to take "privately owned" land?
It does matter in the case where Palestinian Arabs claim ownership of previously state-owned land. I've linked the issues with the British land reform as well. State-owned land in post-Ottoman was voided when their claims to what would become the British mandate was retracted.

How would it not be an issue?

[bigjelmapro]

the UN charter and the Geneva Conventions. they clearly state that occupied territory can ONLY be confiscated by the occupying power for military purposes.

Quote and specify the parts within the UN charter and Geneva conventions.

[Thunder]

Quote and specify the parts within the UN charter and Geneva conventions.

no problemo. it shall be done.

.....on the other hand, if you are gonna simply say, after I go through the trouble of finding the relevant quotes from the Geneva Conventions and the UN Charter, that the WB is NOT "occupied" and is rather "disputed", and therefore such laws regarding occupied territory do not apply to Israel and the WB, then you can forget it.

are you gonna play that little game with me?

[FireGarden]

It does matter in the case where Palestinian Arabs claim ownership of previously state-owned land. I've linked the issues with the British land reform as well. State-owned land in post-Ottoman was voided when their claims to what would become the British mandate was retracted.

How would it not be an issue?

It's not an issue because whether the land is owned by a private individual or not, it is NOT owned by Israel.

In case you missed it, you should read the article about Theodor Meron -- quoted above.

[Thunder]

Israel has no right to confiscate privately-owned land in the non-annexed WB, and use it for civilian purposes. this is the law. they can only use such land for military bases, security fences, etc.

if Israel wants to apply laws of eminent domain, they must first annex such lands.

[bigjelmapro]

It's not an issue because whether the land is owned by a private individual or not, it is NOT owned by Israel.

In case you missed it, you should read the article about Theodor Meron -- quoted above.
So its either all or nothing here. The issue here is that Israel would either annex all or nothing of the WB, which is simply not the case. Israel has no intention of annexing all of the WB, only about 3-5% in any final status agreement with land swaps, which has been the case from the get go. This 3-5% is partly owned by Jews, hence privately held, hence will be part of Israel.

I've read the above article and it does not address this issue. Neither does it apply the 4th Geneva convention adequately.

Doesn't the Fourth Geneva Convention make Israeli settlements illegal? (http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_4thgeneva.php)

Israel rejects applying the Fourth Geneva Convention to Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, stating that those territories were captured in 1967 as a result of a defensive war against Jordan and Egypt, countries which had illegally occupied them since 1948. Furthermore, it is Article 49 that is commonly cited to accuse Israel of violating the Fourth Geneva Convention. But a close reading of Article 49 reveals that it prohibits "individual or mass forcible transfers" which are not happening in the territories under Israeli administration. Further, the Occupying Power is obliged not to "deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population" to territories under its control. The use of "deport" and "transfer" indicate that the Convention prohibits the Occupying Power from the active or forcible transfer of its own civilians. Article 49 does not oblige Israel to prevent voluntary settlement by its civilian population just because Arabs don't like it.


The status of the WB has to be resolved with peace negotiations on final status agreements.

[Oliver]

The status of the WB has to be resolved with peace negotiations on final status agreements.


Maybe Israel should just give it back. I mean they can conquer the land back any time if necessary. However, to allow Settlements on occupied land was and is wrong, no matter if Jews, Arabs, Caucasians, Americans or Natives in general inhabit the occupied place... :"/

[FireGarden]

So its either all or nothing here. The issue here is that Israel would either annex all or nothing of the WB, which is simply not the case. Israel has no intention of annexing all of the WB, only about 3-5% in any final status agreement with land swaps, which has been the case from the get go. This 3-5% is partly owned by Jews, hence privately held, hence will be part of Israel.

I've read the above article and it does not address this issue. Neither does it apply the 4th Geneva convention adequately.

Doesn't the Fourth Geneva Convention make Israeli settlements illegal? (http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_4thgeneva.php)

2 things from your article:

"Israel rejects..."
What about everybody else? What is their opinion? Their opinion seems to match that of the legal advice to the Israeli Foreign ministry.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1682640.stm

Secondly,
Further, the Occupying Power is obliged not to "deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population" to territories under its control. The use of "deport" and "transfer" indicate that the Convention prohibits the Occupying Power from the active or forcible transfer of its own civilians.

Notice how the obligation not to transfer has been become an obligation not to transfer by force? Who else agrees with this interpretation?

You are stretching.

The status of the WB has to be resolved with peace negotiations on final status agreements.

Pre-empting these final status agreements by building "facts on the ground" is okay, then?

Wow, have your cake and eat it. That's impressive.

[Oliver]

Maybe Israel should just give it back. I mean they can conquer the land back any time if necessary. However, to allow Settlements on occupied land was and is wrong, no matter if Jews, Arabs, Caucasians, Americans or Natives in general inhabit the occupied place... :"/


Don't you agree, Bigjelmapro? :)

[bigjelmapro]

"Israel rejects..."
What about everybody else? What is their opinion? Their opinion seems to match that of the legal advice to the Israeli Foreign ministry.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1682640.stm

Who is everybody else?


Notice how the obligation not to transfer has been become an obligation not to transfer by force? Who else agrees with this interpretation?

You are stretching.

Not stretching at all here. This has been an issue with article 49 when it was first hammered out:

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949. (http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/COM/380-600056?OpenDocument)

PARAGRAPH 6. -- DEPORTATION AND TRANSFER OF PERSONS INTO
OCCUPIED TERRITORY

This clause was adopted after some hesitation, by the XVIIth International Red Cross Conference (13). It is intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories. Such transfers worsened the economic situation of the native population and endangered their separate existence as a race.
The paragraph provides protected persons with a valuable safeguard. It should be noted, however, that in this paragraph the meaning of the words "transfer" and "deport" is rather different from that in which they are used in the other paragraphs of Article 49, since they do not refer to the movement of protected persons but to that of nationals of the occupying Power.
It would therefore appear to have been more logical -- and this was pointed out at the Diplomatic Conference (14) -- to have made the clause in question into a separate provision distinct from Article 49, so that the concepts of "deportations" and "transfers" in that Article could have kept throughout the meaning given them in paragraph 1, i.e. the compulsory movement of protected persons from occupied territory.

The issue in italic, the bold in part that points out that this is not the intention of Israel.

Mind you, its completely disregarded that Jews in fact did inhabit certrain area in the WB before Jordan forcibly evicted and often destroyed many of the buildings there as well. So how can we apply these articles in one direction?

The end result does remain the same. The land in question was not part of a sovereign country, it was part of the Ottoman empire, which relinquished control of this land post WWI.


Pre-empting these final status agreements by building "facts on the ground" is okay, then?

Wow, have your cake and eat it. That's impressive.

[Thunder]

Mind you, its completely disregarded that Jews in fact did inhabit certrain area in the WB before Jordan forcibly evicted and often destroyed many of the buildings there as well. So how can we apply these articles in one direction?


if Israel can keep areas of the WB that were inhabited by Jews before 1948, then the Palestinians can get back their lands in Israel that they had before 1948.

right Bigjemapro? you don't want to have a double-standard..now do you?

[bigjelmapro]

Its a possibility. Again, on a case to case basis. However, just as the Jews who were evicted due to the wars of 1948 and 1967 from Arab countries, which is related as a whole to this conflict and the issue of displacement, resettlement in combination with compensation packages would be a possible solution as well.

[Thunder]

Its a possibility. Again, on a case to case basis. However, just as the Jews who were evicted due to the wars of 1948 and 1967 from Arab countries, which is related as a whole to this conflict and the issue of displacement, resettlement in combination with compensation packages would be a possible solution as well.

how about this: all the Arab countries that kicked out Jews, let those Jews return to their lands and property and get back citizenship. no ifs, ands, or buts.

and in return for this good will on the part of the Arabs, Israel allows the Palestinians to return to THEIR lands and property in Israel.

however, if a Jew does not want to return to his former home, he is **** out of luck.

if an Arab does not want to return to his former home, HE is **** out of luck.

sounds like a good deal to me.

[Cynic]

how about this: all the Arab countries that kicked out Jews, let those Jews return to their lands and property and get back citizenship. no ifs, ands, or buts.

and in return for this good will on the part of the Arabs, Israel allows the Palestinians to return to THEIR lands and property in Israel.

however, if a Jew does not want to return to his former home, he is **** out of luck.

if an Arab does not want to return to his former home, HE is **** out of luck.

sounds like a good deal to me.

But this just highlights the problem with worrying about the past, as these factions seem intent to do. Those properties have been in someone else's hands for decades. The only way to give the lands back is to evict the current owners, who likely had nothing to do with any of this and will now be resentful. Past is past. The need to stop looking back and move forward already.

[Thunder]

The only way to give the lands back is to evict the current owners,

or, give back pieces of land that are not inhabited, of equal size and value.

let the Arabs come back to their lands, or get equivelent lands.

let the Jews come back to THEIR lands, or get equivelent lands.

sounds like a damn good deal.

[Cynic]

or, give back pieces of land that are not inhabited, of equal size and value.

let the Arabs come back to their lands, or get equivalent lands.

let the Jews come back to THEIR lands, or get equivalent lands.

sounds like a damn good deal.

I still think past is past is best. I suppose monetary restitution might be in order, however. But even that gets complicated, because you have to calculate the value of the original property, hardship, etc. If the original property is now worth way more (relatively) than it used to be, you have to consider investment, etc. Too complicated. They need to stop looking back and over it.

[Thunder]

I still think past is past is best. I suppose monetary restitution might be in order, however. But even that gets complicated, because you have to calculate the value of the original property, hardship, etc. If the original property is now worth way more (relatively) than it used to be, you have to consider investment, etc. Too complicated. They need to stop looking back and over it.

if Holocaust survivors can till this day, sue Germany and other countries and various companies for compensation, then Palestinians and Jewish refugees from Arab lands can still seek redress for their losses too.

[Cynic]

if Holocaust survivors can till this day, sue Germany and other countries and various companies for compensation, then Palestinians and Jewish refugees from Arab lands can still seek redress for their losses too.

True enough. I just wish that this horrible game of tit for tat would end though -- it's childish. That's how the whole of the middle east seems sometimes, like a bunch of kids squabbling over toys and who had what first.

[FireGarden]

Who is everybody else?

That's a deep philosophical question, thanks for bringing it up.

Not stretching at all here. This has been an issue with article 49 when it was first hammered out:

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949. (http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/COM/380-600056?OpenDocument)

The issue in italic, the bold in part that points out that this is not the intention of Israel.

Have you even understood what you quoted?
The whole purpose of that article is to protect the native population:

"This clause was adopted after some hesitation, by the XVIIth International Red Cross Conference (13). It is intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories. Such transfers worsened the economic situation of the native population and endangered their separate existence as a race."

See, it was a bad thing in the past when the occupying power transferred some of its own population into occupied land. Specifically... Bad for the native population. So paragraph 6 intends to protect the native population from that practice with these words: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

The bit in italics you so like merely points out that the words "deport" and "transfer" are (in paragraph 6) being used in regards to the movement of a different group of people than in earlier paragraphs. How does that make it okay for the occupying power to "transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies"?

Tell you what Israel could have done.... They could have gotten hold of some non-Israelis (say Australians) and transfered THEM into the West Bank. That would have kept them in line with the wording (if not the spirit) of paragraph 6 -- though there are other laws, no doubt!

You really are stretching.

Mind you, its completely disregarded that Jews in fact did inhabit certrain area in the WB before Jordan forcibly evicted and often destroyed many of the buildings there as well. So how can we apply these articles in one direction?

Who is "we"? You don't seem to be applying them at all.
Take Jordan to task for what Jordan has done. But it is not a legal defence to point and say: "But, but... There's another criminal over there."

The end result does remain the same. The land in question was not part of a sovereign country, it was part of the Ottoman empire, which relinquished control of this land post WWI.

This does not make the land Israeli.

[bigjelmapro]

Have you even understood what you quoted?
The whole purpose of that article is to protect the native population:

Thanks for bringing this up. Native population, which is quite difficult to ascertain due to the different movements over the centuries in this very region. Who is defined as the 'native population'? If its so clear, why the need for the UN to come up with a specific definition of what is considered a refugee for this very area? If its so crystal clear who these natives are, there wouldn't be any need for such definitions.

And no need for the stonewalling tactic of 'Time Immemorial' whenever addressing population movements...


See, it was a bad thing in the past when the occupying power transferred some of its own population into occupied land. Specifically... Bad for the native population. So paragraph 6 intends to protect the native population from that practice with these words: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

I agree with this. Yet, no sovereign state. No country with previously recognized border demarcations. So how can we distinguish between a territory previously occupied by another occupier (namely, Jordan in this case) in a territory that previously was reigned over by one of the largest empire builders of the time for 400+ years? An empire builder which had a limited amount of private land owners?

So can you finally explain this and how to apply this Geneva conventions to a land without a distinct government and people that has not been an extension of an empire?

So how is it bad for the native population, if we were to consider Arabs as the only natives? Economically?


Tell you what Israel could have done.... They could have gotten hold of some non-Israelis (say Australians) and transfered THEM into the West Bank. That would have kept them in line with the wording (if not the spirit) of paragraph 6 -- though there are other laws, no doubt!

Ok, so we'll ignore that Jews didn't live in Judea and Samaria before it was called the WB. Fine.

Or better yet, why not the Americans whom also have nice stories of how they bought massive swaths of land by giving the natives such wonderful items like glass bead necklaces (ie NYC)? Or if they didn't accept such trinkets, send their tribes blankets infected with smallpox? Nation-building when it comes to Israel seems to be put in a bloodless, warless,

I know, to apply such laws, rules and regulations retroactively (whilst ignoring the history on which these laws/regulations are based on) would be fool-hearty, since Israel obviously missed the boat on that one.


Who is "we"? You don't seem to be applying them at all.
Take Jordan to task for what Jordan has done. But it is not a legal defence to point and say: "But, but... There's another criminal over there."

Israel is ''we" since I presently reside in Israel.

Legal defense as in not being able to apply responsibility to those who sullied any chance for a peaceful resolution when Israel was first formed in 1948? Obviously I'm wrong in assuming that the wars days after Israel declared independence by Arab aggressors and the subsequent wars in '67 and '73 bear any sort of responsibility. That these Arab states are relinquished of any responsibility for Israel having to absorb over 1/2 million refugees from these very countries.

Nope. Can't be taken into consideration at all. How foolish of me.


This does not make the land Israeli.
Where have I said that it does? 2nd time you made this statement, now the 2nd time I'm stating that final status of the land in question would be negotiated, with 3-5% going to Israel with land swaps.

Capiche?

[FireGarden]

Thanks for bringing this up. Native population, which is quite difficult to ascertain due to the different movements over the centuries in this very region. Who is defined as the 'native population'? If its so clear, why the need for the UN to come up with a specific definition of what is considered a refugee for this very area? If its so crystal clear who these natives are, there wouldn't be any need for such definitions.

And no need for the stonewalling tactic of 'Time Immemorial' whenever addressing population movements...

Your stretching again. Israel didn't approach settlements with a view of returning those Jews who were forced out by earlier fighting when Jordan took over the area. Unless you can supply demographic data to show otherwise.

I agree with this. Yet, no sovereign state. No country with previously recognized border demarcations. So how can we distinguish between ....

There is only one distinction we need to make. The laws states: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

So the only distinction which matters is: who occupies the territory now?

Does Israel occupy the West Bank? Yes. So, regardless of the status of the West Bank in the preceeding years, Israel occupies it now and is bound by the law quoted above.

So can you finally explain this and how to apply this Geneva conventions to a land without a distinct government and people that has not been an extension of an empire?

Where in this: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies," is there a mention of the history of the occupied territory? Nowhere. The only thing that matters about the territory is that it is occupied now. That is enough for the law to apply.

So how is it bad for the native population, if we were to consider Arabs as the only natives? Economically?

It takes away their independence without giving them a say in the government which rules their lives.

Ok, so we'll ignore that Jews didn't live in Judea and Samaria before it was called the WB. Fine.

I think you missed the sarcasm by which I was trying to illustrate the meaning of: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." Taken literaly it does not stop Israel transfering non-Israelis into the West Bank. Nor, indeed, does it stop the USA transfering Israelis into the West Bank. Maybe Israel should hire a third party to do the transfering!

I know, to apply such laws, rules and regulations retroactively (whilst ignoring the history on which these laws/regulations are based on) would be fool-hearty, since Israel obviously missed the boat on that one.

I hope you don't regret progress.

Nope. Can't be taken into consideration at all. How foolish of me.

Of course it can be taken into consideration.

Where have I said that it does? 2nd time you made this statement, now the 2nd time I'm stating that final status of the land in question would be negotiated, with 3-5% going to Israel with land swaps.

Capiche?

Well, since the land isn't Israeli, Israel should stop building on it. It's that whole eating the pizza while negotiating how to split it.

[Thunder]

i have no problem with Jews or descendants of Jews who were forced out of the WB or East Jerusalem by the Jordanians, being settled back by the Israeli govt. that would be just to me.

any other Jews, as far as I am concerned, are unwanted and illegal settlers.

[Oliver]

Don't you agree, Bigjelmapro? :)


Bigjelmapro? http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107451db56d36f14.gif

[bigjelmapro]

Bigjelmapro? http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107451db56d36f14.gif
What? I don't see much to respond to which I haven't responded to already, just not to you directly.

[bigjelmapro]

Your stretching again. Israel didn't approach settlements with a view of returning those Jews who were forced out by earlier fighting when Jordan took over the area. Unless you can supply demographic data to show otherwise.

You're asking for demographic data that's already sparse to begin with? This sparse data doesn't support your assertion either.


There is only one distinction we need to make. The laws states: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

So the only distinction which matters is: who occupies the territory now?

So you still can't make the distinction that I've mentioned already. You keep restating the same false assertion that the territory in question is that of a previous sovereign state. It isn't.


Does Israel occupy the West Bank? Yes. So, regardless of the status of the West Bank in the preceeding years, Israel occupies it now and is bound by the law quoted above.

There was no West bank until the Jordanians occupied it between 1948-67. Even in the legal sense of the word, Jordan didn't occupy this land. Its disputed territory.


Where in this: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies," is there a mention of the history of the occupied territory? Nowhere. The only thing that matters about the territory is that it is occupied now. That is enough for the law to apply.

You're running here with this false assertion. The Geneva convention article 49 does not apply to this territory.

This however, does:

The Palestine Mandate
The Council of the League of Nations:
July 24, 1922

ART. 6. The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.



It takes away their independence without giving them a say in the government which rules their lives.



I hope you don't regret progress.

So it doesn't apply then to other countries in their approach to state-building.


Well, since the land isn't Israeli, Israel should stop building on it. It's that whole eating the pizza while negotiating how to split it.
Disputed, so doesn't officially belong to anybody. Hence the property claims. Official annexation is the next step.

[Thunder]

There was no West bank until the Jordanians occupied it between 1948-67. Even in the legal sense of the word, Jordan didn't occupy this land. Its disputed territory. .

right. Jordan annexed the land. a step Israel has failed to take.

i guess, unlike Israel...Jordan actually intended on making the WB part of their country. Israel however, is just playing games.

[FireGarden]

You're asking for demographic data that's already sparse to begin with? This sparse data doesn't support your assertion either.

Which assertion?

So you still can't make the distinction that I've mentioned already. You keep restating the same false assertion that the territory in question is that of a previous sovereign state. It isn't.

I'm not restating that the West Bank was part of a sovereign state, I am asking why such a thing is important. The law makes reference to "territory" not "territory which was formerly part of a sovereign state".

There was no West bank until the Jordanians occupied it between 1948-67. Even in the legal sense of the word, Jordan didn't occupy this land. Its disputed territory.

It is both disputed and occupied.

You're running here with this false assertion. The Geneva convention article 49 does not apply to this territory.

Why does it not apply? You've suggested that it is because their was no sovereign Palestinian state before Israel took control of the land. But that is neither here nor there regarding the law. Israel occupies the land, so (as occupier) it cannot transfer its people onto the land.

This however, does:

That does not make the land in question Israeli, so I have no idea why you bring it up. Israel can make the land Israeli by annexing the land -- which has been suggested by a Likud MP:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3822759,00.html

With much complaint directed towards her. But her suggestion would end the occupation.

So it doesn't apply then to other countries in their approach to state-building.

Which other countries are you talking about? Are these countries which have broken these laws since the laws were written?

btw,
Compensation has been paid by plenty of countries. A resent one I heard about was Italy paying Libya.
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Italy_will_give_Libya_US%245_billion_as_compensati on_for_occupation

The government of Italy has agreed to pay Libya US$5 billion as compensation for its occupation of the country from 1911 to 1943.

[...] The deal has also made some people ask if the United Kingdom should provide compensation to Nigeria for it's colonisation of the country.





Disputed, so doesn't officially belong to anybody. Hence the property claims. Official annexation is the next step.

So the next step is not negotiation?
Oh, that's only for final status. And "final" is a tough word, with a certain "finality" to it. There's ages to wait for that -- it's more than a billion years before the sun goes kablooey.

[FireGarden]

right. Jordan annexed the land. a step Israel has failed to take.

i guess, unlike Israel...Jordan actually intended on making the WB part of their country. Israel however, is just playing games.

Jordan tried to annex the land, and it gave the people Jordanian citizenship. But I'm not sure the rest of the world recognised it. According to wiki, only the UK recognised the annexation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_West_Bank_and_East_Jerusalem_by_ Jordan#Annexation

Only the United Kingdom formally recognized the annexation of the West Bank, de facto in the case of East Jerusalem

But, as you say, Jordan's intentions were that the West Bank (and its people) be part of Jordan.

[Thunder]

The West Bank is currently occupied by Israel, and disputed between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

The West Bank would lose some of its "occupied" status, if it was annexed by Israel.

Personally, I do not consider East Jerusalem or the Golan to be "occupied" by Israel. Both lands were annexed, the people given permanent residency status.

Though, these lands are still in dispute.

[bigjelmapro]

Which assertion?

This one:


Israel didn't approach settlements with a view of returning those Jews who were forced out by earlier fighting when Jordan took over the area.


I'm not restating that the West Bank was part of a sovereign state, I am asking why such a thing is important. The law makes reference to "territory" not "territory which was formerly part of a sovereign state".

The Geneva convention article is based off the Hague Convention of 1907 regarding war and land between nations, not territory.

Here's a primer on the difference between 'occupied' and 'disputed':

"Occupied" or "disputed" territories? The difference is enormous. Here's everything you need to know (http://www.aish.com/jw/me/48892832.html)

Examples are within the article.


It is both disputed and occupied.

Can't be both.


Why does it not apply? You've suggested that it is because their was no sovereign Palestinian state before Israel took control of the land. But that is neither here nor there regarding the law. Israel occupies the land, so (as occupier) it cannot transfer its people onto the land.

It is, refer to previous.


That does not make the land in question Israeli, so I have no idea why you bring it up. Israel can make the land Israeli by annexing the land -- which has been suggested by a Likud MP:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3822759,00.html

Not arguing here what Likud thinks or not. This isn't the issue.


Which other countries are you talking about? Are these countries which have broken these laws since the laws were written?

Laws are based on previous laws. Some even go back to the OT.


btw,
Compensation has been paid by plenty of countries. A resent one I heard about was Italy paying Libya.
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Italy_will_give_Libya_US%245_billion_as_compensati on_for_occupation

So you suggest that Israel just throw money at those whose families were affected by the wars in '48 and '67 without an agreement with the PA? Once there's an agreement, which in the article above states there as being, then there would be compensation packages for all refugees.

Italy colonized Libya. What's Israel an extension of? Itself?


So the next step is not negotiation?
Oh, that's only for final status. And "final" is a tough word, with a certain "finality" to it. There's ages to wait for that -- it's more than a billion years before the sun goes kablooey.
I'm patient.

[Thunder]

the Jordanians occupied the West Bank from 1949-1967. they also annexed the WB.

now Israel occupies the West Bank. however, they have NOT annexed the WB.

Israel's claim on the WB would be increased, if they at least had the balls to annex the land, like the Jordanians did. But Israel, has no balls.

[bigjelmapro]

What the legal argument about not having balls?

Jordan relinquished control of the WB in 1988.

Also at this point, it was considered disputed.

[Thunder]

What the legal argument about not having balls?

Jordan relinquished control of the WB in 1988.

Also at this point, it was considered disputed.

is "disputed" a legal status recognized by the UN or any other international organizations?

land can be claimed by more then one party , which means "disputed", but be legally part of one state.

mind you, Israel is the occupying power over East Jerusalem, even though they have annexed it. and yet, it is still in dispute.

like I said, if Israel at the very least, had the balls to actually ANNEX the damn land, as Jordan did, their case would increase.

[FireGarden]

The Geneva convention article is based off the Hague Convention of 1907 regarding war and land between nations, not territory.

Here's a primer on the difference between 'occupied' and 'disputed':

"Occupied" or "disputed" territories? The difference is enormous. Here's everything you need to know (http://www.aish.com/jw/me/48892832.html)

Examples are within the article.

Can't be both.

Yes, it can be both.
Occupied means Israel has control of it without making it part of Israel. Disputed merely means that there is a disagreement.

I'll repeat this from the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1682640.stm

Within the international community the overwhelming view is that Article 49 is applicable to the occupation of the West Bank including East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights.

Almost the entire international community, including allies of Israel, have referred to the situation in these territories as occupation.

If you disagree, then start listing those nations which do not regard the situation to be an occupation. The list really does need to be longer than merely "Israel".

You might also want to read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_465

[part of UN resolution, adopted unanimously on March 1, 1980]

Affirming once more that the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,

[...]

5. Determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

And don't forget the opinion of the legal counsel of the Israeli Foreign Ministry, Theodor Meron:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/10/opinion/10gorenberg.html?ei=5090&en=50d5f401aaec21a9&ex=1299646800&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

which I quoted earlier.

My sources seem a lot less biased than yours.

So you suggest that Israel just throw money at those whose families were affected by the wars in '48 and '67 without an agreement with the PA? Once there's an agreement, which in the article above states there as being, then there would be compensation packages for all refugees.

The compensation was by agreement in the example I gave. So I don't know where you got that suggestion from.

[Darth Rotor]

But, as you say, Jordan's intentions were that the West Bank (and its people) be part of Jordan.
For which 11 Olympic athletes were killed, and they weren't Jordanian. :p

[Ootsruoypu]

if Holocaust survivors can till this day, sue Germany and other countries and various companies for compensation, then Palestinians and Jewish refugees from Arab lands can still seek redress for their losses too.

You are equating the suffering of Holocaust survivors, the remnants of a people that have been locked up and tortured under the worst imaginable circumstances and who saw their family and friends abused, persecuted and 6 million of them slaughtered in the most ghastly manners, to 600,000 Arabs whose majority left their homes on their own accord, hoping and having been assured by their fellow Arabs that their Jewish neighbors would be annihilated so that they could return to a Judenfrei ex-Israel, and the 820,000 Jews that were kicked out of the Arab countries they and their ancestors have lived, sometimes longer than their Arab neighbors?

How disgusting! Edited for rule 12.

[Thunder]

You are equating the suffering of Holocaust survivors,

your appeal to emotion is dually noted.

I too have relatives that perished in the Holocaust. But that does not keep me for feeling sympathy for the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who were forced from their homes in Israel, and are still kept from returning to their lands or receiving any compensation.

r u suggesting that only Jews have the right to sue for pain and suffering?

[Ootsruoypu]

your appeal to emotion is dually noted.

I too have relatives that perished in the Holocaust. But that does not keep me for feeling sympathy for the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who were forced from their homes in Israel, and are still kept from returning to their lands or receiving any compensation.

r u suggesting that only Jews have the right to sue for pain and suffering?

I suggest you read and (at least) try to understand what I wrote.
Feeling sympathy for people that suffer is different than what you theorize in your original post.

Also, don't try your "leading" questions on me, using a style that conjures an opinion I never expressed.

[bigjelmapro]

Yes, it can be both.
Occupied means Israel has control of it without making it part of Israel. Disputed merely means that there is a disagreement.

Bit more to the concept of occupied that simply controlling a patch of land. Again, article 49 of the Geneva convention is based on the Hague laws which is based on wars between nations, hence sovereign states with clear border demarcations, not voided armistice lines of previous wars.


I'll repeat this from the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1682640.stm

Plenty of inconsistencies in that article as well as completely disregarding that Jewish were permitted, paid for, and settled in land prior to Jordan 'occupying' this land.

ie Kfar Etzion, it was destroyed and the occupants evicted (Jews that is) in the 1929 riots. Then was resettled again in the '30s, then destroyed again by the Arab riots of 1936. Then resettled in '43 until 1948 with the Arab legion killing and evicting the rest of the settlers. In 1967 this same area was resettled, but miraculously this time its called occupying.

This same line of reasoning is applied to a number of settlements which were evicted by the 1948 and 1967 wars.


If you disagree, then start listing those nations which do not regard the situation to be an occupation. The list really does need to be longer than merely "Israel".

This is not a legal argument. Its simply a broader concept of mob justice.


You might also want to read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_465

I've read that. This somehow bears credence to your position how? Politicking and disregarding how 5 years before the UN came up with General Assembly Resolution 3379. Using the UN to help your argument is laughable. The UN only, and has only, stepped in when Israel has gained an advantage and has never come in when Israel has been at a disadvantage.


And don't forget the opinion of the legal counsel of the Israeli Foreign Ministry, Theodor Meron:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/10/opinion/10gorenberg.html?ei=5090&en=50d5f401aaec21a9&ex=1299646800&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

which I quoted earlier.

Meron in this article applies the Geneva conventions in a very narrow-minded way, which as he presents the case, is legitimate, but completely ignores the broader picture. Sure, if you take the narrow case of Israel taking land under the auspices of utilizing this land for a military function following a war (in this case the '67 war), then moving in civilians, then under the conventions, its deemed illegal. What it completely disregards are the parts which were previously settled prior to the outbreak of hostilities which led up to the 1948 war.

I've argued from the beginning that Israel should not take land that was previously not purchased and settled by Jews prior to the '48 and '67 war. Land which was permitted to be settled by previous agreements, from the 1924 American-Anglo agreement to the Palestine mandate clause.


My sources seem a lot less biased than yours.

Right, Gorenberg is less biased since its in line with the Leftist way of thought. If I would present links from right-wing Evangelists, would this be regarded as less biased?

Or perhaps Meron who disregards historical roots (not biblical even) to parts of land. Just because certain people hold a position, doesn't mean their opinions are unquestionable. Even with the case of Goldstone, where there were a number of South Africans who questioned the way he handled the apartheid cases.


The compensation was by agreement in the example I gave. So I don't know where you got that suggestion from.
Its an agreement between both parties, which doesn't exist between the Israelis and Palestinians. Israel has made offers in a number of peace negotiations under final status agreements along the lines of compensation (even without Arab countries agreeing in compensating those 800,000+ Jews that were evicted from their lands). The PA leadership has failed to agree with any of them.

These maximalist demands by the PA leadership stems from the 1939 White paper agreement which gave Arabs the one-state solution option (by the British), ruled by the Arabs and Jews being at the whim of this Palestinian Arab leadership. Even at this point the Palestinian Arabs disagreed with the terms.

The link you provided also provided a clause:


In return for providing compensation, Italy has asked that Libya attempts to reduce the number of immigrants illegally moving from Libya to Italy.

In addition to:


"The accord will provide for $200 million a year over the next 25 years through investments in infrastructure projects in Libya

Which Israel has already been doing for over 3 decades already, with actual results as previously stated (employment increase, wage increase, higher level of education, etc. etc.) compared to Libya. Ever been to Libya?

Gaddafi pockets most of this $200 million per year.

Are we arguing actual results from this extensive conflict or merely the use of terms at this point?

[Thunder]

the west bank is occupied by israel. deal with it. no one gives a **** what some right-wing Zionist lawyers say. the world is in almost 100% agreement on this issue...except for some bigots and nuts.

good to see ya Marc. :)

[bigjelmapro]

Funny to see that your rebuttals haven't gotten any better. You're once again pulling the right-wing drivel. Still no reaction what this right-wing allegation has to do with my responses.

Useless and fallacious responses....got anything else Parky?

[FireGarden]

Bit more to the concept of occupied that simply controlling a patch of land. Again, article 49 of the Geneva convention is based on the Hague laws which is based on wars between nations, hence sovereign states with clear border demarcations, not voided armistice lines of previous wars.


Plenty of inconsistencies in that article as well as completely disregarding that Jewish were permitted, paid for, and settled in land prior to Jordan 'occupying' this land.

ie Kfar Etzion, it was destroyed and the occupants evicted (Jews that is) in the 1929 riots. Then was resettled again in the '30s, then destroyed again by the Arab riots of 1936. Then resettled in '43 until 1948 with the Arab legion killing and evicting the rest of the settlers. In 1967 this same area was resettled, but miraculously this time its called occupying.

When Israel declared itself a state, it was recognised with particular borders. Those borders did not include the West Bank. So, when Israel takes control of that land -- even if it is Jewish land -- it is not Israeli land. Therefore Israel is an occupier.

This is not a legal argument. Its simply a broader concept of mob justice.

So, when legal bodies make legal claims... That counts for nothing? It's not a legal argument to quote legal opinion?

[UN bad!]

Meron in this article applies the Geneva conventions in a very narrow-minded way, which as he presents the case, is legitimate, but completely ignores the broader picture. Sure, if you take the narrow case of Israel taking land under the auspices of utilizing this land for a military function following a war (in this case the '67 war), then moving in civilians, then under the conventions, its deemed illegal. What it completely disregards are the parts which were previously settled prior to the outbreak of hostilities which led up to the 1948 war.

What you ignore are the recognised borders of Israel. It doesn't matter that there is Jewish land in the West Bank. It isn't Israeli land. There is a difference.

The link you provided also provided a clause:
In return for providing compensation, Italy has asked that Libya attempts to reduce the number of immigrants illegally moving from Libya to Italy.

In addition to: "The accord will provide for $200 million a year over the next 25 years through investments in infrastructure projects in Libya

Which Israel has already been doing for over 3 decades already, with actual results as previously stated (employment increase, wage increase, higher level of education, etc. etc.) compared to Libya.

Are you claiming Israel has done the former? Because the legality of these immigrants is the topic of discussion.

Could you give me some examples of Israel's investment in the infrastructure of the West Bank? Perhaps it's building a Palestinian city:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/08/new-palestinian-city-west-bank

The money for that plan seems to be coming from Qatar. How many Palestinian homes has Israel built?

As for economic improvement, that comes after the economy suffered quite a bit. A recovery isn't the same type of growth as breaking previous records.

[FireGarden]

...and the 820,000 Jews that were kicked out of the Arab countries they and their ancestors have lived, sometimes longer than their Arab neighbors?

If Israel demands the return of Jews to the places they were thrown out of, or merely left, then I support that. In actual fact, so do some Arab countries, eg: Jews are allowed to go back to Morocco and Syria. I've tried to discusse that before on this forum:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4947074&postcount=130

Perhaps you could list those Arab countries which forbid Jews returning? Syria and Morocco, and some other Arab countries, actually had laws forbidding Jews to leave. That was also an unfair policy. They were pressured, correctly, by the international community to change that policy.

Egypt did force Jews to leave. Jordan is mentioned above. There were, no doubt, other deportations. But not every Jew who left Arab lands was forced out, nor are they (in every case) prevented from returning.

[Thunder]

I say, let the 750,000 Arab refugees return to Israel, and let the 700,000 Jewish refugees return to the Arab and Muslim countries where they came from.

but sadly, from what I have read regarding this issue over the last few years. only the Arabs want to actually return to their homes and lands.

the Jewish refugees, however, either just want money, or they want to turn the issue into some sort of BS swap deal, whereby they choose NOT to return to their former homes, and ZERO Arabs are allowed to return to Israel.

utter BS.

[Ootsruoypu]

The blabbering and fictitiousness about the Jewish Refugees from Muslim countries in this thread are amazing. Statements without proof, opinions without corroboration, allegations without moral fiber.

Catch up on some facts from the source itself, the Jewish Refugee.

Somehow I can't post URL's but try to glue this together:
justiceforjews dot com

:ISRAEL::NETHERLANDSANTILLES:NETHERLANDS:

[Thunder]

Somehow I can't post URL's but try to glue this together:
justiceforjews dot com

:ISRAEL::NETHERLANDSANTILLES:NETHERLANDS:

how about this: all the Jews who were kicked out from the Arab and Muslim countries get to return to their homes and lands....and all the Arabs who were forced to leave Israel in 1948 get to return to their homes and lands.

sounds fair to me..how about you?

[Skeptic]

Not really, since if they return they'll be butchered again, as minorities usually are in the Middle East, while the Palestinians' goal of the "right of return" is explicitly to complete the butchery they missed out on in 1948 by destroying Israel demographically.

But APART from being a de facto call for a murder of the Jews in the Arab world and is Israel, yes, your suggestion is quite fair.

If your goal is a Judenrein middle east.

[Thunder]

Not really, since if they return they'll be butchered again

proof? evidence?

while the Palestinians' goal of the "right of return" is explicitly to complete the butchery they missed out on in 1948 by destroying Israel demographically.

funny. again..no evidence.


But APART from being a de facto call for a murder of the Jews in the Arab world and is Israel, yes, your suggestion is quite fair. If your goal is a Judenrein middle east.

:D:p:D:p:D:D:p:D:p;):):D:p

that is some funny stuff. i really gotta say.

very funny stuff. you should do this full time.

[Thunder]

The call for "Rights for the Jewish Refugees from Arab Lands"..is a total con. one big con.

no Jews in Israel, who came from Arab countries, or who's ancestors came from Arab countries, have ANY intention of EVER returning to their former homes. Many of them don't even want monetary compensation for their lost property (though many do).

what they DO want, is for their to be some sort of BS exchange:

"No Jews return to the Arab/Muslim world..and no Palestinians return to Israel". this is what they want. it is BS. utter BS.

[bigjelmapro]

The call for "Rights for the Jewish Refugees from Arab Lands"..is a total con. one big con.

Evidence?


no Jews in Israel, who came from Arab countries, or who's ancestors came from Arab countries, have ANY intention of EVER returning to their former homes. Many of them don't even want monetary compensation for their lost property (though many do).

Proof?

Holy crap! Another post full of drivel and hypocrisy. What a surprise.

[Thunder]

Holy crap! Another post full of drivel and hypocrisy. What a surprise.

hypocrisy? where is the hypocrisy?

I think Jews from Arab states should have every right to return to their former lands, if they so choose.

[FireGarden]

no Jews in Israel, who came from Arab countries, or who's ancestors came from Arab countries, have ANY intention of EVER returning to their former homes. Many of them don't even want monetary compensation for their lost property (though many do).

What do you base this on?