Reaffirming the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war
Reaffirming the illegality of Israeli actions aimed at changing the status of Jerusalem, including settlement construction and expansion, home demolitions, evictions of Palestinian residents, excavations in and around religious and historic sites, and all other unilateral measures aimed at altering the character, status and demographic composition of the city and of the Territory as a whole,
Reaffirming also that the construction by Israel, the occupying Power, of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and its associated regime are contrary to international law,
Expressing deep concern about the continuing Israeli policy of closures and severe restrictions on the movement of persons and goods, including medical and humanitarian, via the imposition of prolonged closures and severe economic and movement restrictions that in effect amount to a blockade, as well as of checkpoints and a permit regime throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the consequent negative impact on the contiguity of the Territory and the serious socio-economic and humanitarian situation of the Palestinian people, which is critical in the Gaza Strip, and on the efforts aimed at rehabilitating and developing the damaged Palestinian economy, while taking note of recent developments regarding the situation of access to the Gaza Strip,
Reiterating its concern over the negative developments that have continued to occur in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, including the large number of deaths and injuries, mostly among Palestinian civilians, the construction and expansion of settlements and the wall, acts of violence, vandalism and brutality committed against Palestinian civilians by Israeli settlers in the West Bank, the widespread destruction of public and private Palestinian property and infrastructure, the internal displacement of civilians and the serious deterioration of the socio-economic and humanitarian conditions of the Palestinian people,
Expressing grave concern, in particular, over the crisis in the Gaza Strip as a result of the continuing prolonged Israeli closures and severe economic and movement restrictions that in effect amount to a blockade and the military operations in the Gaza Strip between December 2008 and January 2009, which caused extensive loss of life and injury, particularly among Palestinian civilians, including children and women, widespread damage and destruction to Palestinian homes, properties, vital infrastructure, public institutions, including hospitals and schools, and United Nations facilities, and internal displacement of civilians,
Expressing concern over continuing military actions in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including raids and arrest campaigns, and over the continued imposition of hundreds of checkpoints and obstacles to movement in and around Palestinian population centres by the Israeli occupying forces, and emphasizing in this regard the need for the implementation by both sides of the Sharm el-Sheikh understandings,
Emphasizing the importance of the safety, protection and well-being of all civilians in the whole Middle East region, and condemning all acts of violence and terror against civilians on both sides,
15. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to comply strictly with its obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law, and to cease all of its measures that are contrary to international law and unilateral actions in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, that are aimed at altering the character, status and demographic composition of the Territory, including via the confiscation and de facto annexation of land, and thus at prejudging the final outcome of peace negotiations;
1. Affirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples under colonial and alien domination recognized as being entitled to the right of self-determination to restore to themselves that right BY ANY MEANS AT THEIR DISPOSAL;
2. Recognizes the right of peoples under colonial and alien domination in the legitimate exercise of their right to self-determination to seek and receive all kinds of moral and material assistance, in accordance with the resolutions of the United Nations and the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations;
5. Condemns those Governments that deny the right to self-determination of peoples recognized as being entitled to it, especially of the peoples of southern Africa and Palestine;
High guys, just wanted to start a thread about what people's views are on Zionism.
I would like to know if people believe that it is a morally justifiable ideology or movement, and what people think about such a movement in general.
I would also like to see some views on whether or not it is a part of Jewish faith, as I am aware that not ALL Jews support the movement.
in light of the above, the effects of Zionism are undoubtedly immoral and illegitimate, and indeed most forms of resistance to such opression would seem legitimate, but I fear that international perceptions may be distorted by the effects of political ideology more so than true Zionism. I am especially interested if anyone would like to "clear the name" (or so to speak) of this movement.
This is quite a reasonable view of Zionism. However it is quite obvious that, when married with political ideology, it cannot seriously be its true face. I mean, in all honesty, there are many Zionists out their who DO NOT recognise the entire west bank as Palestinian territory, and indeed a case can be put forth for the likelihood that many if not most Zionists actually believe in further expansion of Jewish land, with parallel dispossesion of those already living on it.
So when someone says they are "anti-Zionist", is it really "anti-Israel" (i.e lets destroy a country with 7 million people) or "anti-Israel expansion" (i.e: essentially, it is time Israel started acknowledgint that the people it has displaced are actually human beings and stopped commiting continuous crimes against humanity.
Its also funny that you say that ulterior motives are blatantly tranparent based on my edit, when the majority of my post is just quoted UN resolutions. Oh well, maybey there is a case to be put forth that resolutions that are voted for at 164-7 in the UN general assembly maybe really are misrepresenting the situation.
Does it really sound like i just want people to agree with my views? I had clear calls for discussion in the opening post.
zionism itself which is simply the belief that the Jewish state should exist and that it should be protected.
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379, adopted on November 10, 1975 by a vote of 72 to 35 (with 32 abstentions), "determine[d] that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination";
If that is what you believe about the topic then you don't need to continue posting. Feel free to continue reading though.
And as to why so many people care about it? Governments who claim to to be democracies somehow back completely and withouth compromise the action of a regime that has brutalised millions and continues to do so. People vote for those governments in good conscience. That's why it is important.
and why did it stand for 16 years?
Whatever you need to tell yourself. At the end of the day, you value the lives of Palestinians over Africans by more than 1000:1. That says more about you, really.
Those are the lives you get upset about. Not the ones dying and suffering 3 orders of magnitude greater. Just understand that your hypocrisy is blatant and ugly.
And now, for the first time, we have a real chance to fulfill the U.N. Charter's ambition of working "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and nations large and small to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom. Those are the words from the charter. We will not revive these ideals if we fail to acknowledge the challenge that the renewal of history presents.
....No one here can promise that today's borders will remain fixed for all time. But we must strive to ensure the peaceful, negotiated settlement of border disputes. We also must promote the cause of international harmony by addressing old feuds. We should take seriously the charter's pledge "to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors."
UNGA Resolution 3379, the so-called "Zionism is racism" resolution, mocks this pledge and the principles upon which the United Nations was founded. And I call now for its repeal. Zionism is not a policy; it is the idea that led to the creation of a home for the Jewish people, to the State of Israel. And to equate Zionism with the intolerable sin of racism is to twist history and forget the terrible plight of Jews in World War II and, indeed, throughout history. To equate Zionism with racism is to reject Israel itself, a member of good standing of the United Nations.
This body cannot claim to seek peace and at the same time challenge Israel's right to exist. By repealing this resolution unconditionally, the United Nations will enhance its credibility and serve the cause of peace.[1]
Last Resort
Winston loved his country. It hurt him deeply to see its people oppressed by the Nazi occupiers. But after the German defeat of the British army in the slaughter of Dunkirk, and America's decision to stay out of the war, it was only a matter of time before Britain became part of the Third Reich.
Now the situation looked hopeless. Hitler faced no international opposition and the British resistance was ill equipped and weak. Many, like Winston, had come to the conclusion that there was no way they could defeat the Germans. But by being a constant source of irritation and forcing them to divert precious resources to crushing the uprising, it was hoped that, sooner or later, Hitler would realise occupying Britain was more trouble than it was worth and would withdraw.
Winston was far from convinced the plan would work, but it was their last resort. The major problem, however, was that it was so difficult to strike in ways which would cause the regime serious problems. That is why they had reluctantly agreed that the only effective and reliable method was for the resistance fighters to turn themselves into human bombs, so that their own sacrifices caused maximum disruption and terror. They were all prepared to die for Britain. They just wanted to make sure their deaths made a difference.
mr.politiks,
you are misguided and shamefully antisemitic
As for the charter, it has been declared invalid by Hamas leadership and as far as I know is no longer found on their website. It is however very fashionable to quote it.
I think there is a small point to be made surrounding finer details. Often Hamas is stated to be a "terrorist organisation". This is, I think, too general. It is an organisation with a military wing that terrorises, or at least has the aim to terrorise. The line between legitimate resistance and terrorising is the line between non-civilian and civilian targets.
Problems arise when people fail to acknowledge that the Israeli Defence Forces also (and there is too much evidence for this) terrorise, though it would be far fetched to say they are terrorists. I think most people have a problem when people say, hey look Hamas is terrorist but the IDF isnt, to somehow signify that one side has a higher moral ground in the conflict. Many people see it as more just to label both sides as ones that terrorise the other.
I would recommend to not try to read history from a single source.
Whenever civilians are killed in an IDF mission that it is considered a failure of the mission.
For you to defend an organisation
Whilst terrorism is clearly immoral
QuoteWhenever civilians are killed in an IDF mission that it is considered a failure of the mission.
Srs? If you can claim that with a straight face, then i think there is really no point of continuing this discussion.
QuoteWhenever civilians are killed in an IDF mission that it is considered a failure of the mission.
Srs? If you can claim that with a straight face, then i think there is really no point of continuing this discussion.QuoteFor you to defend an organisation
I posted this. Strong defence:QuoteWhilst terrorism is clearly immoral
You support terrorism against Israelis by supporting Hamas. You are a supporter of terrorism. You support a fanatical dictatorship that kills its political enemies in the gaza strip and parades their bodies in front of their families. Those are the animals you support
Negotiations have been tried, and have simply failed.
Israel does not target cvilians. They target Hamas and other militia. Civilians are unavoidable casualties because Hamas uses them as human shields. You know Israel gives a shit because when they fuck up, there are top level inquiries held to make sure it doesn't happen again. If it's ever the case that a soldier gets trigger happy, they like any other country in the world, prosecute him within their court martial system. If there's a mission that can even be thought of as targeting civilians there is a full, independent inquiry.
Civilians are unavoidable casualties
Oi. Let's cut it out with the personal attacks shall we? Be constructive.
QuoteYou support terrorism against Israelis by supporting Hamas. You are a supporter of terrorism. You support a fanatical dictatorship that kills its political enemies in the gaza strip and parades their bodies in front of their families. Those are the animals you support
Please re-read my post. Never said it isnt fair game. That was an insinuation that you took to be the core of my opinion on the charter. Go and read about the charter, and go and read about what has been said about its current status. I read about the current status of the UN charter, and when i said i had criticised the UN resolution wrongly, i admitted a scandalous mistake. I posted a video that you might like to watch, and also stated that you can make your own conclusions or draw your own opinions.
As for the IDF conducting those investigations. Please give me the links, i would like to read them.
As for the IDF conducting those investigations. Please give me the links, i would like to read them.
Also, in the time it took you to write this, mr.politiks, 200 African children died of starvation and you did not give a shit.
Also, in the time it took you to write this, mr.politiks, 200 African children died of starvation and you did not give a shit.
In fairness, I don't really see the need to bring this up. I can't recall mr.politiks saying he didn't specifically care about the terrible happenings in Africa, and this thread isn't trying to construct a debate regarding those issues either.
Maybe they're less personal to him. He might care, but this is more personal. It's like how one would be a lot more concerned with what's happening in one's family as opposed to what is happening on the other side of the world.
Israel does target civilians there is an instance where a person i know had an auntie purposefully killed by an attack dog because she was wearing a veil...
I don't support Hamas but i also don't support Israel's seizure of the West Bank.
Gave it back
QuoteGave it backYou need to read a bit more, in all honesty.
For goodness sake, the IDF has targeted Palestinian journalists and cameramen and then said they weren't civilians because they are affliated with the government.
Your opinion is clearly shaped by nothing more than IDF propaganda and your own myopic view of the conflict.
If you're going to condemn Israel and get morally outraged, why only Israel? I've never once seen him get angry at other injustices. It shows him to be blinkered and single-minded.On the other hand, western nations aren't explicitly expressing support for Congolese rapists. We do have a vested interest in any actions, taken by supported nations, that we deem illegitimate.
"After the 2007 split between Fatah and Hamas, the West Bank areas under Palestinian control are an exclusive part of the Palestinian Authority, while the Gaza Strip is ruled by Hamas."
This is meant to mean they gave the entire west bank "back"
In the same article:
"As of December 2010, 327,750 Israelis live in the 121 settlements in the West Bank officially recognised by the Israeli government, 192,000 Israelis live in settlements in East Jerusalem.[5] There are approximately 100 further settlement outposts which are not officially recognized by the Israeli government and are illegal under Israeli law, but have been provided with infrastructure, water, sewage, and other services by the authorities."
So even though it officially doesn belong to Israel, its ok to for 121 settlements to continue to persist, and for the government to still maintain teh viability of "Illegal" settlements.
And its also ok to maintain a military occupation with military outposts scattered across teh entire West Bank territory.
Please reconsider the UN resolutions at the beginning of the thread.
"After the 2007 split between Fatah and Hamas, the West Bank areas under Palestinian control are an exclusive part of the Palestinian Authority, while the Gaza Strip is ruled by Hamas."
This is meant to mean they gave the entire west bank "back"
In the same article:
"As of December 2010, 327,750 Israelis live in the 121 settlements in the West Bank officially recognised by the Israeli government, 192,000 Israelis live in settlements in East Jerusalem.[5] There are approximately 100 further settlement outposts which are not officially recognized by the Israeli government and are illegal under Israeli law, but have been provided with infrastructure, water, sewage, and other services by the authorities."
So even though it officially doesn belong to Israel, its ok to for 121 settlements to continue to persist, and for the government to still maintain teh viability of "Illegal" settlements.
And its also ok to maintain a military occupation with military outposts scattered across teh entire West Bank territory.
Please reconsider the UN resolutions at the beginning of the thread.
If you're going to condemn Israel and get morally outraged, why only Israel? I've never once seen him get angry at other injustices. It shows him to be blinkered and single-minded.On the other hand, western nations aren't explicitly expressing support for Congolese rapists. We do have a vested interest in any actions, taken by supported nations, that we deem illegitimate.
Also, of course Hamas is embedded within civilian populations. All of them are penned up there in the first place and that's sorta the definition of a militia
Israel actively drops pamphlets and alerts people before they initiate an air-strike in set location in gaza order to minimize causalities .How nice of them
Wait, so if the hospital wasn't there, an air strike would be okay?Israel actively drops pamphlets and alerts people before they initiate an air-strike in set location in gaza order to minimize causalities .How nice of them
The area is densely populated and an air strike is hardly what I would consider precise. In fact, I'd say its more indiscriminate than anythingWait, so if the hospital wasn't there, an air strike would be okay?Israel actively drops pamphlets and alerts people before they initiate an air-strike in set location in gaza order to minimize causalities .How nice of them
An air strike on a terrorist leader? Why not?
The area is densely populated and an air strike is hardly what I would consider precise. In fact, I'd say its more indiscriminate than anythingWait, so if the hospital wasn't there, an air strike would be okay?Israel actively drops pamphlets and alerts people before they initiate an air-strike in set location in gaza order to minimize causalities .How nice of them
An air strike on a terrorist leader? Why not?
The area is densely populated and an air strike is hardly what I would consider precise. In fact, I'd say its more indiscriminate than anythingWait, so if the hospital wasn't there, an air strike would be okay?Israel actively drops pamphlets and alerts people before they initiate an air-strike in set location in gaza order to minimize causalities .How nice of them
An air strike on a terrorist leader? Why not?
Israel has exercised considerable restraint over years
Except that Israel is consistently hitting the targets...So did the recent strikes all 'hit their targets'?
I agree, it's a very morally difficult situation to navigate. But what do you do? Do you let Hamas just grow and grow and strengthen their bases so they can make it rain qassams on Tel Aviv as much as they please?
There is no such thing as Moral Symmetry with Hamas, they consistently fire rockets into densely populated areas. Disrupting the livelihoods of millions of Israelis living in Southern Israel. What do you expect Israel to do. Israel has exercised considerable restraint over years, copping thousands and thousands of rockets being fired by Hamas. In it's attempts to preserve it's international reputation.You're doing it again. What Hamas does, does not in any way validate the IDF's actions. If Israel were exercising restraint, then you'd have a hard time in explaining illegal settlements, the Sabra and Shatila incident, Operation Cast Lead etc. A moral obligation to defend does not include excessive retaliatory attacks on known civilian areas. If Hamas military hardware has grown, then an improvement on the iron dome is warranted, not to launch more attacks.
Hamas Attacks have been far more indiscriminate, they aim to wreck havoc on Innocent Israeli Civilians. The I.D.F is merely aiming to disable or reduce the military capacity Hamas has in firing rockets into Israel . Israel has a moral obligation to defend it's from a Terroist Organization otherwise known as Hamas. We have seen how Hamas military hardware has grown , with rockets/missiles being able to reach Tel Aviv.
Israel has a moral obligation to defend it's from a Terroist Organization otherwise known as Hamas.
Except that Israel is consistently hitting the targets...So did the recent strikes all 'hit their targets'?
I agree, it's a very morally difficult situation to navigate. But what do you do? Do you let Hamas just grow and grow and strengthen their bases so they can make it rain qassams on Tel Aviv as much as they please?
No, but I'd expect a nation with an incredibly effective intelligence agency and a ludicrous amount of military aid to exercise some discretion.There is no such thing as Moral Symmetry with Hamas, they consistently fire rockets into densely populated areas. Disrupting the livelihoods of millions of Israelis living in Southern Israel. What do you expect Israel to do. Israel has exercised considerable restraint over years, copping thousands and thousands of rockets being fired by Hamas. In it's attempts to preserve it's international reputation.You're doing it again. What Hamas does, does not in any way validate the IDF's actions. If Israel were exercising restraint, then you'd have a hard time in explaining illegal settlements, the Sabra and Shatila incident, Operation Cast Lead etc. A moral obligation to defend does not include excessive retaliatory attacks on known civilian areas. If Hamas military has grown, then an improvement on the iron dome is warranted, not to launch more attacks.
Hamas Attacks have been far more indiscriminate, they aim to wreck havoc on Innocent Israeli Civilians. The I.D.F is merely aiming to disable or reduce the military capacity Hamas has in firing rockets into Israel . Israel has a moral obligation to defend it's from a Terroist Organization otherwise known as Hamas. We have seen how Hamas military hardware has grown , with rockets/missiles being able to reach Tel Aviv.
This is restraint?
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2012-11-23-vpviolencetimeline20121123_0.png
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/869666/thumbs/o-ISRAEL-WEAPONS-ARSENAL-900.jpg?4
Israel has been targeted time and time again in it's history by Arab Countries. Six-Day War, Yom Kippur War. It is justified to have such Arsenal in order to deter these states from using aggressive tactics in order to get rid of Israel. Back in that time , Arab Leaders aimed to drive the Jews into the Sea.
QuoteThis is restraint?
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2012-11-23-vpviolencetimeline20121123_0.png
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/869666/thumbs/o-ISRAEL-WEAPONS-ARSENAL-900.jpg?4
Israel has been targeted time and time again in it's history by Arab Countries. Six-Day War, Yom Kippur War. It is justified to have such Arsenal in order to deter these states from using aggressive tactics in order to get rid of Israel. Back in that time , Arab Leaders aimed to drive the Jews into the Sea.
Israel has been exercising restraint in regards to Hamas firing Rockets into Southern Israel. 4000 to 5000 rockets have been fired into Israel since Operation Cast Lead. And it is not excessive retaliatory attacksSo the attacks done in retaliation is justified?
And time and time has warned civilians to evacuate surrounding areas before launching a strike on set location.Do you think this is an appropriate military tactic?
An improvement on the Iron Dome will do nothing to sufficiently ward of these rocket attacks.Why not?
Destroying and seriously inhibiting their ability to launch rocket attacks will ensure that the Citizens living in Southern Israel are able to live their lives normally as they can.What do you think Israel should do, then?
I've only read a couple posts (they're all really long), and I'm going to admit that my knowledge on middle eastern affairs is zilch. In my opinion, Jewish people definitely deserve they're own state. My opinion on the matter is similar to Enwiabeard's, the optimal solution would be for peace between Israel and Palestine. Until I read more comments, this is all I'll say.The British mandate (forgot his name) gave the West Bank to Israel. This was a result of the demise of the Ottoman empire due to WW2.
I've only read a couple posts (they're all really long), and I'm going to admit that my knowledge on middle eastern affairs is zilch. In my opinion, Jewish people definitely deserve they're own state. My opinion on the matter is similar to Enwiabeard's, the optimal solution would be for peace between Israel and Palestine. Until I read more comments, this is all I'll say.The British mandate (forgot his name) gave the West Bank to Israel. This was a result of the demise of the Ottoman empire due to WW2.
You have people living on this land previously some of which form a military group (Hamas) who want to defend their land from the Israelis who also claim that land to be there. The war is over that stretch of land.
That's beside the point, this is a grossly oversimplified sequence of events, all these events lead to what israel is today.I've only read a couple posts (they're all really long), and I'm going to admit that my knowledge on middle eastern affairs is zilch. In my opinion, Jewish people definitely deserve they're own state. My opinion on the matter is similar to Enwiabeard's, the optimal solution would be for peace between Israel and Palestine. Until I read more comments, this is all I'll say.The British mandate (forgot his name) gave the West Bank to Israel. This was a result of the demise of the Ottoman empire due to WW2.
You have people living on this land previously some of which form a military group (Hamas) who want to defend their land from the Israelis who also claim that land to be there. The war is over that stretch of land.
Please tell me you don't honestly believe that is the correct version of events...
1) It was the Balfour declaration
2) It was more than just the west bank
3) You skipped over about 5 different wars.
4) Hamas was only formed in 1987, 40 years after the formation of Israel. Countless other militias and groups existed before them, do not even understand how you could gloss over all of that.
5) Wow.
Israel has a moral obligation to defend it's from a Terroist Organization otherwise known as Hamas.
Hamas is not a terrorist organisation, you get nowhere by labelling other groups as terrorist organisations, just because they are of different people to you and just because they stand for different causes doesn't mean that they are a terrorist organisation.
To many people, Hamas are freedom fighters who are fighting to get back land that (according to them) they rightfully own.
Resolving disputes requires both sides to understand the motives of each other and accept that both their motives are understandable and reasonable. To call a party a terrorist organisation is just inciting hatred and not assisting others to understand why Hamas do what they do. This will never assist to resolve the current situation in Gaza.
Israel has been targeted time and time again in it's history by Arab Countries. Six-Day War, Yom Kippur War. It is justified to have such Arsenal in order to deter these states from using aggressive tactics in order to get rid of Israel. Back in that time , Arab Leaders aimed to drive the Jews into the Sea.
I've only read a couple posts (they're all really long), and I'm going to admit that my knowledge on middle eastern affairs is zilch. In my opinion, Jewish people definitely deserve they're own state. My opinion on the matter is similar to Enwiabeard's, the optimal solution would be for peace between Israel and Palestine. Until I read more comments, this is all I'll say.The British mandate (forgot his name) gave the West Bank to Israel. This was a result of the demise of the Ottoman empire due to WW2.
You have people living on this land previously some of which form a military group (Hamas) who want to defend their land from the Israelis who also claim that land to be there. The war is over that stretch of land.
Jerusalem is holy land to all 3 Abrahamic religions.
Labeling Hamas as terrorists is not accurate since their objective is not to kill innocent people, it is to defend land they believe they own.
Sadly there can't be complete peace until one side gets the land. This can only be achieved by one side, unfortunately, wiping out the other.
Since the land originally belonged to the Palestinians I believe that they deserve the land.
I hope someone could come up with some compromise. It is unlikely though because both parties are so adamant about their entitlement to the land.I've only read a couple posts (they're all really long), and I'm going to admit that my knowledge on middle eastern affairs is zilch. In my opinion, Jewish people definitely deserve they're own state. My opinion on the matter is similar to Enwiabeard's, the optimal solution would be for peace between Israel and Palestine. Until I read more comments, this is all I'll say.The British mandate (forgot his name) gave the West Bank to Israel. This was a result of the demise of the Ottoman empire due to WW2.
You have people living on this land previously some of which form a military group (Hamas) who want to defend their land from the Israelis who also claim that land to be there. The war is over that stretch of land.
Jerusalem is holy land to all 3 Abrahamic religions.
Labeling Hamas as terrorists is not accurate since their objective is not to kill innocent people, it is to defend land they believe they own.
Sadly there can't be complete peace until one side gets the land. This can only be achieved by one side, unfortunately, wiping out the other.
Since the land originally belonged to the Palestinians I believe that they deserve the land.
I understand that Jerusalem is the holy land to all three Abrahamic religions. Considering Judaism is the oldest of the three, wouldn't that mean they were the original inhabitants? I was merely using that as an argument, since you were saying the original inhabitants should have all the land.
Again, I said before that my knowledge on this topic is zilch. However, in my opinion there should be a way to satisfy both parties in a way that's peaceful.
I hope someone could come up with some compromise. It is unlikely though because both parties are so adamant about their entitlement to the land.I've only read a couple posts (they're all really long), and I'm going to admit that my knowledge on middle eastern affairs is zilch. In my opinion, Jewish people definitely deserve they're own state. My opinion on the matter is similar to Enwiabeard's, the optimal solution would be for peace between Israel and Palestine. Until I read more comments, this is all I'll say.The British mandate (forgot his name) gave the West Bank to Israel. This was a result of the demise of the Ottoman empire due to WW2.
You have people living on this land previously some of which form a military group (Hamas) who want to defend their land from the Israelis who also claim that land to be there. The war is over that stretch of land.
Jerusalem is holy land to all 3 Abrahamic religions.
Labeling Hamas as terrorists is not accurate since their objective is not to kill innocent people, it is to defend land they believe they own.
Sadly there can't be complete peace until one side gets the land. This can only be achieved by one side, unfortunately, wiping out the other.
Since the land originally belonged to the Palestinians I believe that they deserve the land.
I understand that Jerusalem is the holy land to all three Abrahamic religions. Considering Judaism is the oldest of the three, wouldn't that mean they were the original inhabitants? I was merely using that as an argument, since you were saying the original inhabitants should have all the land.
Again, I said before that my knowledge on this topic is zilch. However, in my opinion there should be a way to satisfy both parties in a way that's peaceful.
Even if they weren't i don't think any would just give the land for 2 reasons
1) Pride would be at stake.
2) This conflict gives both sides a good reason to blast each other since there is more than just political hatred between both parties.
@pi, it's interesting that you would look at raw deaths as a way of measuring who is right or wrong in this situation. Firstly, let's look at the rockets fired into Israel over the past 12 years - more then 13,000 rockets have been fired. Now, assuming these rockets have the POTENTIAL to kill one person each (although one can and has killed more) - if they were in fact killing Israeli's, would that in your mind give Israel the moral impetus to fight back and somehow make them more in the right? This in my opinion is flawed logic... I would argue that although more Palestinian civilians have died (a tragedy in itself), having Israeli kids need to run into bomb shelters every second day for a few years is equally tragic. Israel is acting to prevent future deaths, and it is precisely that which has ensured their death toll remains relatively low.
The next element is WHY are more Palestinian civilians dying? Now on the one hand, I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that Israel does not need to somehow retaliate to the Hamas rocket threat because it is a substantial threat that in reality, no other country would tolerate. These fighters for Hamas are not bastions of morality who are fighting for some grand cause, it is a well documented fact that Hamas will place their rocket launch sites in areas where they can maximize civilian casualties. What then can Israel do to reduce casualties? JellyDonut touched upon this earlier, when he suggested that Israel could be using more discretion in their air strikes. Well firstly, as according to your link, look at the civilian deaths and compare Cast Lead to Pillar of Defense - yes, Pillar of Defense was shorter, but the militant:civilian death ratio was also much lower. I would argue that Israel is improving it's air strikes in an effort to reduce civilian deaths.
@pi, it's interesting that you would look at raw deaths as a way of measuring who is right or wrong in this situation. Firstly, let's look at the rockets fired into Israel over the past 12 years - more then 13,000 rockets have been fired. Now, assuming these rockets have the POTENTIAL to kill one person each (although one can and has killed more) - if they were in fact killing Israeli's, would that in your mind give Israel the moral impetus to fight back and somehow make them more in the right? This in my opinion is flawed logic... I would argue that although more Palestinian civilians have died (a tragedy in itself), having Israeli kids need to run into bomb shelters every second day for a few years is equally tragic. Israel is acting to prevent future deaths, and it is precisely that which has ensured their death toll remains relatively low.
The next element is WHY are more Palestinian civilians dying? Now on the one hand, I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that Israel does not need to somehow retaliate to the Hamas rocket threat because it is a substantial threat that in reality, no other country would tolerate. These fighters for Hamas are not bastions of morality who are fighting for some grand cause, it is a well documented fact that Hamas will place their rocket launch sites in areas where they can maximize civilian casualties. What then can Israel do to reduce casualties? JellyDonut touched upon this earlier, when he suggested that Israel could be using more discretion in their air strikes. Well firstly, as according to your link, look at the civilian deaths and compare Cast Lead to Pillar of Defense - yes, Pillar of Defense was shorter, but the militant:civilian death ratio was also much lower. I would argue that Israel is improving it's air strikes in an effort to reduce civilian deaths.
Well firstly, I didn't make any point in mentioning who was "wrong" or "right". Neither side are "right" in my honest opinion, not that I ever tried to address that. I haven't taken a side, but I do feel for civilian losses.
The point I was trying to address was whether the response from Israel is and was justified.
As aforementioned in this thread "Israel does not target cvilians" (and I have seen a similar line on the IDF site) and from a few posts (and knowledge), it can be inferred that clearly Israel has the superior protection for it's citizens and the better weaponry to respond. Personally, I find it ironic that although (again as aforementioned) "Whenever civilians are killed in an IDF mission, that it is considered a failure of the mission", civilians in Palestine continue to die by the hands of the IDF despite their being so many of these "failure missions".
Surely Israel could and should have rethought their approach to combat the strikes made my Hamas to one that meets their goal? You make mention of the recent developments/improvements (which is fine, although I can't find much evidence on the net to support the claim), but in Cai's post, the discussion was one that was referring to missile strikes "over years", not just more recent strikes: The justification to retaliate they way they have done so over many years. Hence, my links and my stance.
Again I ask, was and is Israel's overall response justified?
Over the past 72 hours, the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) have escalated their aerial and ground attacks against the Gaza Strip. Five Palestinian civilians, including 3 children, have been killed, and 52 others, including 6 women and 12 children, have been wounded. Four of these deaths and 38 of the injuries resulted from an Israeli attack on a football playground in al-Shoja’iya neighborhood east of Gaza City. Additionally, 2 members of the Palestinian resistance were killed, and some civilian facilities were destroyed or damaged.
According to investigations conducted by the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR), at approximately 15:30 on Saturday, 10 November 2012, Israeli military vehicles stationed at the border between the Gaza Strip and Israel fired an artillery shell at a number of Palestinian children who were playing football at al-Mentar Hill east of al-Shoja’iya neighborhood, which is east of Gaza City and nearly 1,500 meters away from the border. As a result, 2 children were instantly killed:
1- Mohammed Ussama Hassan Harara (16); and
2- Ahmed Mustafa Khaled Harara (17).
Following this attack, a number of Palestinian civilians, who were gathered to mourn a bereaved in the house of the Harara family, rushed to the area, where the IOF immediately fired another 3 shells. As a result, 2 Palestinian civilians were instantly killed:
1- Ahmed Kamel Al- Dirdissawi (18); and
2- Matar ‘Emad ‘Abdul Rahman Abu al-‘Ata (19).
Additionally, 38 civilians, including 8 children, were wounded; the wounding of 10 of these civilians was described by medical crews as being serious.
Earlier, on Thursday evening, 08 November 2012, the IOF killed a Palestinian child during an incursion in the ‘Abassan village, east of the southern Gaza Strip town of Khan Yunis. According to investigations conducted by PCHR, at approximately 16:30 on Thursday, as a result of the indiscriminate shooting by IOF military vehicles that had moved into the ‘Abassan village, 13-year-old Ahmed Younis Khader Abu Daqqa was seriously wounded by a bullet to the abdomen. At the time he was shot, Ahmed had been playing football with his friends in front of his family’s house, located nearly 1,200 meters away from the area where the IOF were present. He was evacuated to the European Gaza Hospital in Khan Yunis, but he was pronounced dead 15 minutes later.
I'll answer that for him, he's talked to me about it, and yes he believes Israel should exist - he just wants Israel to stop massacring civilians and committing genocide.
That right Mr Politiks?
The entire basis for this debate is whether or not the IDF actively terrorises civilians. Those who claim that when it does, investigations are launched, and themselves claim that they can POST the links for these investigations, could you please post the link for the investigation that followed this attack:
QuoteOver the past 72 hours, the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) have escalated their aerial and ground attacks against the Gaza Strip. Five Palestinian civilians, including 3 children, have been killed, and 52 others, including 6 women and 12 children, have been wounded. Four of these deaths and 38 of the injuries resulted from an Israeli attack on a football playground in al-Shoja’iya neighborhood east of Gaza City. Additionally, 2 members of the Palestinian resistance were killed, and some civilian facilities were destroyed or damaged.
According to investigations conducted by the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR), at approximately 15:30 on Saturday, 10 November 2012, Israeli military vehicles stationed at the border between the Gaza Strip and Israel fired an artillery shell at a number of Palestinian children who were playing football at al-Mentar Hill east of al-Shoja’iya neighborhood, which is east of Gaza City and nearly 1,500 meters away from the border. As a result, 2 children were instantly killed:
1- Mohammed Ussama Hassan Harara (16); and
2- Ahmed Mustafa Khaled Harara (17).
Following this attack, a number of Palestinian civilians, who were gathered to mourn a bereaved in the house of the Harara family, rushed to the area, where the IOF immediately fired another 3 shells. As a result, 2 Palestinian civilians were instantly killed:
1- Ahmed Kamel Al- Dirdissawi (18); and
2- Matar ‘Emad ‘Abdul Rahman Abu al-‘Ata (19).
Additionally, 38 civilians, including 8 children, were wounded; the wounding of 10 of these civilians was described by medical crews as being serious.
Earlier, on Thursday evening, 08 November 2012, the IOF killed a Palestinian child during an incursion in the ‘Abassan village, east of the southern Gaza Strip town of Khan Yunis. According to investigations conducted by PCHR, at approximately 16:30 on Thursday, as a result of the indiscriminate shooting by IOF military vehicles that had moved into the ‘Abassan village, 13-year-old Ahmed Younis Khader Abu Daqqa was seriously wounded by a bullet to the abdomen. At the time he was shot, Ahmed had been playing football with his friends in front of his family’s house, located nearly 1,200 meters away from the area where the IOF were present. He was evacuated to the European Gaza Hospital in Khan Yunis, but he was pronounced dead 15 minutes later.
source: http://www.pchrgaza.org/portal/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8978:new-israeli-escalation-against-the-gaza-strip-7-palestinians-including-3-children-killed-and-52-others-including-6-women-and-12-children-wounded-&catid=145:in-focus#
It was this agression by the IDF that led to the latest escalation (which was followed by operation Pillar of Cloud). There are many more such incidences, but as long as you can provide evidence of independent investigation and prosecution of the guilty soldiers to prove that the IDF does not believe it is ok to kill civilians, i'll give you the debate. (this should be really easy, after all the most im asking you to do is produce two links, one giving evidence of investigation, the other giving evidence of prosecution)
"Note that the crude death rate as defined above and applied to a whole population can give a misleading impression. The crude death rate depends on the age (and gender) specific mortality rates and the age (and gender) distribution of the population. The number of deaths per 1000 people can be higher for developed nations than in less-developed countries, despite life expectancy being higher in developed countries due to standards of health being better. This happens because developed countries typically have a completely different population age distribution, with a much higher proportion of older people, due to both lower recent birth rates and lower mortality rates. A more complete picture of mortality is given by a life table which shows the mortality rate separately for each age."
Though I expect in Sierra Leone, everyone is dying
so much anger and frustration encased in a structurally elaborate cocoon of facts and arguments... such is the fate of the future of humanity. savagery disguised as civility.
*interpret this as you may. i dont feel that elaboration is necessary
so much anger and frustration encased in a structurally elaborate cocoon of facts and arguments... such is the fate of the future of humanity. savagery disguised as civility.
*interpret this as you may. i dont feel that elaboration is necessary
so much anger and frustration encased in a structurally elaborate cocoon of facts and arguments... such is the fate of the future of humanity. savagery disguised as civility.
*interpret this as you may. i dont feel that elaboration is necessary
so much anger and frustration encased in a structurally elaborate cocoon of facts and arguments... such is the fate of the future of humanity. savagery disguised as civility.(http://www.google.com.au/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/27694611.jpg&sa=X&ei=iUm7ULr9POrDmQXWlIDwAw&ved=0CAkQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNEDMuEzdaitalX4O0ISEyc8kN137Q)
*interpret this as you may. i dont feel that elaboration is necessary
I'll answer that for him, he's talked to me about it, and yes he believes Israel should exist - he just wants Israel to stop massacring civilians and committing genocide.
That right Mr Politiks?
"viii. The loss of life and injuries resulting from the use of force by Israeli forces
during the take-over of the Mavi Marmara was unacceptable. Nine
passengers were killed and many others seriously wounded by Israeli forces.
No satisfactory explanation has been provided to the Panel by Israel for any
of the nine deaths. Forensic evidence showing that most of the deceased were
shot multiple times, including in the back, or at close range has not been
adequately accounted for in the material presented by Israel.
ix. There was significant mistreatment of passengers by Israeli authorities after
the take-over of the vessels had been completed through until their
deportation. This included physical mistreatment, harassment and
intimidation, unjustified confiscation of belongings and the denial of timely
consular assistance."
“Mahmoud al-Koumi and Husam Salameh, camera operators for local TV station al-Aqsa, were killed in a car marked as a press vehicle near the al-Wihda towers in Gaza. Both journalists were 30 years old and had four children.
Two other al-Aqsa employees were wounded in the first strike. The second attack killed the director of al-Quds Educational Radio, Muhammad Abu Aisha, in his car.”
The Israeli authorities continued to blockade the Gaza Strip, prolonging the humanitarian crisis there, and to restrict the movement of Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT). In the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, the authorities continued to construct the fence/wall, much of it on Palestinian land, and to expand settlements, breaching international law. They demolished Palestinian homes and other facilities in the West Bank, and homes of Palestinian citizens inside Israel, especially in “unrecognized” villages in the Negev. The Israeli army frequently used excessive, sometimes lethal force against demonstrators in the West Bank and civilians in border areas within the Gaza Strip. Israeli military forces killed 55 civilians in the OPT, including 11 children. Settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank increased, and three Palestinians were killed by Israeli settlers. Israeli settlers and soldiers accused of committing abuses against Palestinians generally escaped accountability. The authorities failed to conduct independent investigations into alleged war crimes by Israeli forces during Operation “Cast Lead” in 2008-2009. The Israeli authorities arrested thousands of West Bank Palestinians. More than 307 were administrative detainees held without charge or trial; others received prison terms following military trials. Israel held more than 4,200 Palestinian prisoners at the end of 2011. Reports of torture and other ill-treatment of detainees continued.
Background
International efforts to restart negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) failed. Israel opposed the PA’s application for full UN membership and temporarily withheld tax revenues due to the PA after Palestine became a full member of UNESCO.
Palestinian armed groups in Gaza fired indiscriminate rockets and mortars into southern Israel, killing two Israeli civilians (see Palestinian Authority entry); Israeli forces carried out attacks targeting Palestinians they deemed responsible. An Israeli high-school student was fatally injured in April when a missile fired from Gaza struck a school bus in the Negev. Eight Israeli settlers were killed by Palestinians in the West Bank, including one by PA security forces. Seven other civilians were killed in Israel, including six by armed militants who entered Israel from Egypt in August.
In October and December, Israel released 1,027 Palestinian prisoners, including some sentenced for killing Israeli civilians, in exchange for the release of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit on 18 October. He had been held captive in Gaza and denied access to the ICRC by Palestinian armed groups since 2006. Israel also released 25 Egyptians in October in exchange for the release of an Israeli-US national imprisoned in Egypt.
From July to October, hundreds of thousands of Israelis participated in peaceful protests calling for lower housing costs and improved health and education systems.
Gaza blockade and humanitarian crisis
Israel maintained its military blockade of Gaza, imposed in 2007, and closed the Karni crossing in March, leaving Kerem Shalom as the only entry point for goods, despite its lack of capacity. The blockade prolonged the humanitarian crisis faced by Gaza’s 1.6 million residents, more than 70 per cent of whom were dependent on humanitarian aid. A near-complete ban on exports continued, stifling the economy, and severe restrictions on imports fuelled shortages and high prices. The blockade constituted collective punishment – a breach of international law – and particularly affected children and the sick. The Israeli authorities hindered or prevented hundreds of patients from leaving Gaza to obtain medical treatment.
Egypt opened the Rafah crossing to Gazans in May, but strictly controlled movement into and out of Gaza. At least 36 Palestinians were killed in accidents in or Israeli air strikes on tunnels used to smuggle goods between Egypt and Gaza.
Israel’s navy blocked several international flotillas seeking to break the Gaza blockade. In September a UN Panel of Inquiry ruled that the naval blockade of Gaza was lawful but did not address the legality of the overall closure regime imposed on Gaza.
Restrictions in the West Bank
More than 500 Israeli military checkpoints and barriers continued to hinder Palestinians’ access to workplaces, schools and hospitals in the West Bank, and Israel continued its construction of a 700km fence/wall, mostly on Palestinian land within the West Bank, separating thousands of Palestinian farmers from their land and water sources. West Bank Palestinians with Jerusalem entry permits were allowed to use only four of the fence/wall’s 16 checkpoints.
Palestinians were denied access to areas surrounding Israeli settlements, established and maintained in breach of international law. The construction of settlements increased. Settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, had more than 500,000 residents at the end of 2011.
Movement restrictions compelled some 200,000 Palestinians from 70 villages to take detours between two to five times longer than the direct route to reach the closest city, undermining their access to basic services.
Housing rights – forced eviction
The Israeli authorities generally withheld construction permits from Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem and Area C of the West Bank, where Israel retains full authority for planning and zoning, impeding their right to adequate housing. The Israeli authorities intensified their demolition of Palestinian homes and other facilities in the West Bank that had been built without permits, demolishing more than 620 structures during 2011. Almost 1,100 Palestinians were displaced as a result, an 80 per cent increase over 2010; more than 4,200 others were affected by demolitions of 170 animal shelters and 46 cisterns. Vulnerable Bedouin and herding communities were particularly affected, with some at risk of permanent displacement due to severe restrictions on their movement, repeated demolitions and violence by settlers.
• In June, Israeli forces carried out repeated demolitions in Hadidiya, a herding community in the northern Jordan Valley, destroying 33 structures and making several families homeless. An appeal to the High Court of Justice resulted in a temporary injunction against further demolition orders that were issued in November.
The authorities also intensified demolitions of Palestinian homes inside Israel, particularly in officially “unrecognized” villages, where all construction is banned. In September, the cabinet approved plans to regulate “illegal” Bedouin construction in the southern Negev region; if implemented, these could lead to the forced eviction of thousands of Palestinian citizens of Israel.
• Shacks and other structures in al-‘Araqib, an “unrecognized” village in the Negev, were demolished at least 20 times in 2011, following other demolitions in 2010. In July, the Israeli authorities brought a legal claim against the village residents seeking 1.8 million NIS (approximately US$500,000) to meet the costs of the repeated demolitions and evictions.
Excessive use of force
Israeli forces used live fire and other excessive force against Palestinian demonstrators in the West Bank and protesters at the Lebanese and Syrian borders, and to enforce the “exclusion zone” within Gaza and along its coast. They killed 55 Palestinian civilians in the OPT, including 11 children. Among them were 22 civilians, including nine children, killed by Israeli fire in Gaza’s land and sea restricted areas.
The army initiated internal investigations into some of these incidents, but these were not independent or transparent.
• Up to 35 people were reportedly killed and hundreds injured when Israeli soldiers fired at thousands of Palestinian refugees and others who protested on 15 May and 5 June at the Lebanese border with Israel and the Syrian border with the Israeli-occupied Golan. Some protesters threw stones and some crossed the border in the Golan Heights, but demonstrators did not have firearms and did not appear to pose a direct threat to the soldiers’ lives. Israel disputed the numbers killed and the circumstances.
• Israeli soldiers regularly used excessive force against Palestinians demonstrating against the fence/wall, and those demonstrating against settlement expansion in the West Bank village of al-Nabi Saleh. On 9 December, they fatally injured Mustafa Tamimi, aged 28, who was struck in the face with a tear gas grenade fired at close range, in violation of military regulations, after he threw a stone at a military jeep.
Impunity
In January, Israel’s Turkel Commission concluded that Israeli forces had not violated international humanitarian law when they attacked a Gaza-bound aid flotilla in May 2010 and killed nine Turkish nationals, but failed to account for the nine deaths.
The authorities again took no steps to conduct credible, independent investigations into alleged war crimes and possible crimes against humanity committed by Israeli forces during Operation “Cast Lead” in 2008-2009, in which hundreds of Palestinian civilians were killed, although a few military police investigations into specific incidents continued.
Israeli settlers and security forces accused of abuses against Palestinians generally escaped accountability. The Israeli authorities routinely opened investigations, but these rarely resulted in prosecutions. Yesh Din, an Israeli NGO, reported that almost 90 per cent of official investigations into alleged settler violence that it had monitored since 2005 were closed, apparently because of investigatory failures, and that only 3.5 per cent of complaints to Israeli military authorities made by Palestinians alleging rights violations by Israeli soldiers between 2000 and 2010 had resulted in indictments.
Detention without trial
The Israeli authorities held at least 307 Palestinians from the OPT without charge or trial during 2011, under renewable administrative detention orders based on secret information withheld from the detainees and their lawyers. Three women administrative detainees were among the Palestinians released in exchange for the release of Gilad Shalit by Hamas.
• Writer and academic Ahmad Qatamesh was arrested in April and held under a six-month administrative detention order which was renewed in September; he was still detained at the end of 2011. He was a prisoner of conscience.
Prison conditions – denial of family visits
The Israeli authorities continued to bar families from visiting Palestinian prisoners from Gaza held in Israeli prisons, maintaining a policy in force since June 2007. Although more than 200 prisoners from Gaza were released during 2011, some 440 remained in Israeli prisons at the end of the year. Relatives of West Bank prisoners were also frequently denied visitor permits by the Israeli authorities on unspecified “security” grounds.
Unfair trials
Palestinians in the OPT continued to be tried before military courts and routinely denied access to lawyers during pre-trial interrogation. On 27 September, Military Order 1676 raised the age of majority for Palestinians being tried before Israeli military courts from 16 to 18. Previously, 16 and 17 year olds had been tried by these courts on the same basis as adults. The new order failed to require that child detainees be provided with access to legal counsel during interrogation or that children over 16 be held separately from adults.
Torture and other ill-treatment
Allegations of torture and other ill-treatment, including of children, continued to be reported. Among the most commonly cited methods were beatings, threats to the detainee or their family, sleep deprivation, and being shackled in painful positions for long periods. Confessions allegedly obtained under duress were accepted as evidence in Israeli military courts.
• Islam Dar Ayyoub, aged 14, was arrested at his home in the West Bank village of al-Nabi Saleh at around 2am on 23 January. Blindfolded and handcuffed, he was transferred by military jeep via the nearby settlement of Halamish to the police station in the settlement of Ma’ale Adumim, where he was interrogated for hours without the presence of a lawyer; he was not allowed to rest, eat, or go to the toilet. Information obtained from him during interrogation was used to incriminate al-Nabi Saleh protest organizer Bassem Tamimi (see below).
• In February, Gazan engineer Dirar Abu Sisi was forcibly transferred to Israel from Ukraine and held at Shikma Prison, near Ashkelon, where he was denied access to a lawyer for 25 days. In April, he was charged with developing rockets for Hamas’ military wing; the Israeli authorities said he had confessed but his lawyers alleged that his confession had been obtained under torture. He was still held, reportedly in solitary confinement, at the end of the year.
Freedom of expression and association
The Knesset, Israel’s parliament, passed laws restricting freedom of expression and association, including one which made it an offence to advocate a boycott of Israeli individuals or institutions in Israel or Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Another penalized commemoration by institutions or municipalities of the Nakba (catastrophe), a term used by Palestinians to describe their dispossession in 1948. The Knesset also discussed, but by the end of 2011 had not passed, proposed legislation to limit or prevent the receipt of funds from foreign governments by Israeli human rights NGOs, particularly those that provided information to the 2009 UN Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict.
Palestinian activists in the West Bank who mounted protests, some peaceful, against the fence/wall and the presence of illegal Israeli settlements continued to face arrest and trial before Israeli military courts. The Israeli authorities arrested at least 14 Palestinian journalists, two of whom were held as administrative detainees.
• In January, a military appeals court extended the sentence of Abdallah Abu Rahma, a non-violent activist against the fence/wall from the village of Bil’in, from one year to 16 months. He had been convicted of incitement and organizing illegal demonstrations on the basis of statements made by children under duress. He was a prisoner of conscience. He was released in March after serving his full sentence.
• Bassem Tamimi, a long-standing activist and peaceful critic of Israeli policies, was arrested on 24 March and later charged with organizing protests in the village of al-Nabi Saleh. He remained in custody as his military trial continued at the end of 2011. He was a prisoner of conscience.
Refugees and asylum-seekers
The Israeli authorities continued to deny access to refugee-determination procedures to Eritrean and Sudanese asylum-seekers, who comprised about 80 per cent of the approximately 45,000 asylum-seekers in Israel. They were provided only with temporary documents and were not allowed to work or access public health and welfare services. Only a small number of asylum-seekers from other countries were granted refugee status.
Tough new measures to deter future asylum-seekers progressed through parliament. In March, the Knesset approved the first reading of an Anti-Infiltration Bill under which undocumented migrants and asylum-seekers would be liable to imprisonment for three or more years. In September, the National Council for Building and Planning published plans for a 10,000-bed detention centre for asylum-seekers near Israel’s border with Egypt. Despite an Israeli army decision in March to suspend the practice of “hot returns” of asylum-seekers entering Israel from Egypt without first checking their asylum claims, NGOs documented further cases of forced returns to Egypt until July.
Prisoners of conscience – Israeli conscientious objectors
At least three Israeli conscientious objectors were imprisoned during 2011 for refusing military service because they opposed Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories.
I have no more interest in debating someone who doesn’t even read through their own provided evidence.
Israel does not target cvilians. They target Hamas and other militia. Civilians are unavoidable casualties because Hamas uses them as human shields. You know Israel gives a shit because when they fuck up, there are top level inquiries held to make sure it doesn't happen again. If it's ever the case that a soldier gets trigger happy, they like any other country in the world, prosecute him within their court martial system. If there's a mission that can even be thought of as targeting civilians there is a full, independent inquiry.
If you can't acknowledge that, you are truly brainwashed. If you want me to post you links to these inquiries I can. But I'd rather you do some actual research of your own for once before mouthing off so blithely without knowing anything remotely resembling the facts.
As for the IDF conducting those investigations. Please give me the links, i would like to read them.
This is how I have to present the links for this: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=IDF+investigation+into+civilian+casualties
the first page alone has 10 goldmine links flush with information.
You aren't unable to find this information for yourself
That body is literally guilty of the same bias you decry from IDF.
Israel does not target cvilians. They target Hamas and other militia. Civilians are unavoidable casualties because Hamas uses them as human shields. You know Israel gives a shit because when they fuck up, there are top level inquiries held to make sure it doesn't happen again. If it's ever the case that a soldier gets trigger happy, they like any other country in the world, prosecute him within their court martial system. If there's a mission that can even be thought of as targeting civilians there is a full, independent inquiry.
The Centre states on its website that its founding principles are to:[2]
Protect human rights and promote the rule of law in accordance with international standards.
Create and develop democratic institutions and an active civil society, while promoting democratic culture within Palestinian society.
Support all the efforts aimed at enabling the Palestinian people to exercise its inalienable rights in regard to self-determination and independence in accordance with international Law and UN resolutions.
In its philosophy statement,[3] PCHR repudiates the Oslo Accords as 'fatally flawed' and adds:
Moreover, the Oslo accords failed to address the essential elements of the Palestinian question -- the right to self-determination, the right to an independent Palestinian state with its capital in Jerusalem, the right of return for Palestinian refugees and the removal of Israeli settlements from the OPT. In light of this wide-ranging disregard for the human rights of the Palestinian people, the Centre resolved to continue its work to protect human rights from ongoing violations by the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF).
The group has consultative and affiliative status with a number of Arab, European and United Nations' organizations and has received the 1996 French Republic Award on Human Rights and the 2002 Bruno Kreisky Award for Outstanding Achievements in the Area of Human Rights.[2] The group has repeatedly called for a ban on capital punishment in the Palestinian territories, which is supported by a majority of Palestinians.[4] The group has also released reports relating to violence in the Palestinian territories and Israel.[5][6] Raji Sourani, director of the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, was denied a permit to exit the Gaza Strip to attend a human rights conference in September 2008.[7]
In their report titled "Impunity for US Peace Activist's Death" that contains eyewitness testimonies for Rachel Corrie's disputable death case, on 30 June 2003, PCHR declared they have "submitted more than 1200 complaints to the Israeli occupying forces regarding human rights violations since the beginning of the current Intifada. In no case in which PCHR has submitted a complaint, has any individual in the Israeli occupying forces, security services or other persons, been prosecuted or otherwise disciplined for any act perpetrated against a Palestinian or foreign national. PCHR asserts that the State of Israel should be aware that where it fails in its specific legal obligations to conduct full and fair investigations into human rights violations, and bring those responsible to justice in accordance with international law, victims of Israeli war crimes may seek alternative judicial remedies abroad, including under the principle of universal jurisdiction." [9]
The PCHR condemned the Israeli government for allowing "Jewish settler groups to enter the yards of the al-Aqsa Mosque in occupied East Jerusalem" and for using excessive force against Palestinians attempting to "prevent the provocative entry of settlers into the Mosque."[10]
In 2011 the PCHR criticized a decision by Hamas prohibiting a group of seven high school students from leaving Gaza in order to spend a year studying in the United States. The American nonprofit Amideast had awarded the students special scholarships for the program. A Hamas minister explained that "A 15-year-old girl cannot spend a year in America without a supervisor."[11]
2011 saw further attacks by Hamas who criticised the Centre for releasing a statement with Israeli human rights groups calling for the appropriate treatment for captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. [12]
The Centre has consistenly maintained its fearless stance and has been the leader in the fight to bring Israeli alleged war criminals to justice through use of the principle of universal jurisdiction. A number of promnent international cases have been taken, including that against Maj-Gen Doron Almog in the UK. [13]
Israel does not target cvilians. They target Hamas and other militia. Civilians are unavoidable casualties because Hamas uses them as human shields. You know Israel gives a shit because when they fuck up, there are top level inquiries held to make sure it doesn't happen again. If it's ever the case that a soldier gets trigger happy, they like any other country in the world, prosecute him within their court martial system. If there's a mission that can even be thought of as targeting civilians there is a full, independent inquiry.
I would submit that if you try to fight terrorists by working within the rules, you're never going to win
I would submit that if you try to fight terrorists by working within the rules, you're never going to winThat's true, as they're not playing within any rules. But, and it's a big but, by playing outside the rules you risk becoming just as bad.
But not playing outside the rules leaves YOU responsible for the deaths of your own civilians once the enemy obliterates your people.It's a very difficult situation, I have no idea what I'd do either. But playing outside of the rules complicates it further and will not improve the rest of the world's view of you.
See how difficult it is? Tbh if I were in command of the Israeli forces I'd have no idea what to do, because I can't make those decisions. It's either kill civilians or let civilians be killed.
"will not improve the rest of the world's view of you"I didn't mean so much Israel's reputation as the view of their actions. For example, the US provides $2 billion in aid per year to Israel, although the US is one of their closest allies, playing outside the rules could cost them vital money from other countries.
You're right. But...is it worth losing your reputation to protect your civilians (whilst killing other civilians?) Or leaving those civilians alone at all costs, allowing your civilians to get killed, whilst keeping your rep - with the motive of maintaining your rep?
Remember...obedience is doing what you are told, whether right or wrong. Morality is doing what is right, whether you are told to or told not to.
But...the problem is that you have to do one of two wrongs. Which wrong is it? Which is more wrong? I don't envy those who are in power at the moment.
"will not improve the rest of the world's view of you"I didn't mean so much Israel's reputation as the view of their actions. For example, the US provides $2 billion in aid per year to Israel, although the US is one of their closest allies, playing outside the rules could cost them vital money from other countries.
You're right. But...is it worth losing your reputation to protect your civilians (whilst killing other civilians?) Or leaving those civilians alone at all costs, allowing your civilians to get killed, whilst keeping your rep - with the motive of maintaining your rep?
Remember...obedience is doing what you are told, whether right or wrong. Morality is doing what is right, whether you are told to or told not to.
But...the problem is that you have to do one of two wrongs. Which wrong is it? Which is more wrong? I don't envy those who are in power at the moment.
True. Why are they so close to Israel? I've heard it's because there's a very powerful Jewish lobby in the US, but they must be extremely powerful to push the US and Israel's friendship almost to the point of alienation."will not improve the rest of the world's view of you"I didn't mean so much Israel's reputation as the view of their actions. For example, the US provides $2 billion in aid per year to Israel, although the US is one of their closest allies, playing outside the rules could cost them vital money from other countries.
You're right. But...is it worth losing your reputation to protect your civilians (whilst killing other civilians?) Or leaving those civilians alone at all costs, allowing your civilians to get killed, whilst keeping your rep - with the motive of maintaining your rep?
Remember...obedience is doing what you are told, whether right or wrong. Morality is doing what is right, whether you are told to or told not to.
But...the problem is that you have to do one of two wrongs. Which wrong is it? Which is more wrong? I don't envy those who are in power at the moment.
Assuming the US acts out of morality and not their own vested interests.
Mr Politiks reckons that there is an easy solution to stop Hamas from attacking - this way civilians need not be killed.
Upgrade the Iron Dome. Because Hamas' missiles are 'useless' and can easily be neutralised by an upgraded Iron Dome.
Is it really that easy?
He thinks its easy, and the only reason Israel are not doing it is to 'make sure there's enough deterrence to prevent existence of Palestine,' in his words.
Your thoughts? Esp to Enwiabe.
He thinks its easy, and the only reason Israel are not doing it is to 'make sure there's enough deterrence to prevent existence of Palestine,' in his words.
He thinks its easy, and the only reason Israel are not doing it is to 'make sure there's enough deterrence to prevent existence of Palestine,' in his words.
Unless you've misquoted, I don't understand this.
The Israel Defense Forces surrounded the camps and at the Phalangists' request,[7] fired illuminating flares at night.[8][9] In 1982, a UN commission chaired by Sean MacBride concluded that Israel bore responsibility for the violence.[10] In 1983, the Israeli Kahan Commission, appointed to investigate the incident, found that Israeli military personnel, aware that a massacre was in progress, had failed to take serious steps to stop it. Thus Israel was indirectly responsible, while Ariel Sharon, then Defense Minister, bore personal responsibility, forcing him to resign
Their rockets are already ineffective, and has been even before the dome was put in place
What do you think Hamas would do if their rockets became ineffective?
To say that a policy does not exist to intentionally kill citizens is one thing, to say that IDF has taken an active stance to prevent deaths is one that is strictly false.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacreQuoteThe Israel Defense Forces surrounded the camps and at the Phalangists' request,[7] fired illuminating flares at night.[8][9] In 1982, a UN commission chaired by Sean MacBride concluded that Israel bore responsibility for the violence.[10] In 1983, the Israeli Kahan Commission, appointed to investigate the incident, found that Israeli military personnel, aware that a massacre was in progress, had failed to take serious steps to stop it. Thus Israel was indirectly responsible, while Ariel Sharon, then Defense Minister, bore personal responsibility, forcing him to resignTheir rockets are already ineffective, and has been even before the dome was put in place
What do you think Hamas would do if their rockets became ineffective?
Wounded could mean minor injuries... Of those 260 im guessing only a handful are actually at risk of dying. Either way it is still significantly lower than the Palestinian casualties.To say that a policy does not exist to intentionally kill citizens is one thing, to say that IDF has taken an active stance to prevent deaths is one that is strictly false.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacreQuoteThe Israel Defense Forces surrounded the camps and at the Phalangists' request,[7] fired illuminating flares at night.[8][9] In 1982, a UN commission chaired by Sean MacBride concluded that Israel bore responsibility for the violence.[10] In 1983, the Israeli Kahan Commission, appointed to investigate the incident, found that Israeli military personnel, aware that a massacre was in progress, had failed to take serious steps to stop it. Thus Israel was indirectly responsible, while Ariel Sharon, then Defense Minister, bore personal responsibility, forcing him to resignTheir rockets are already ineffective, and has been even before the dome was put in place
What do you think Hamas would do if their rockets became ineffective?
260 Israeli civilians were wounded in Hamas' latest round of rocket attacks. What koolaid are you drinking?
To say that a policy does not exist to intentionally kill citizens is one thing, to say that IDF has taken an active stance to prevent deaths is one that is strictly false.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacreQuoteThe Israel Defense Forces surrounded the camps and at the Phalangists' request,[7] fired illuminating flares at night.[8][9] In 1982, a UN commission chaired by Sean MacBride concluded that Israel bore responsibility for the violence.[10] In 1983, the Israeli Kahan Commission, appointed to investigate the incident, found that Israeli military personnel, aware that a massacre was in progress, had failed to take serious steps to stop it. Thus Israel was indirectly responsible, while Ariel Sharon, then Defense Minister, bore personal responsibility, forcing him to resignTheir rockets are already ineffective, and has been even before the dome was put in place
What do you think Hamas would do if their rockets became ineffective?
260 Israeli civilians were wounded in Hamas' latest round of rocket attacks. What koolaid are you drinking?
Sabra and Shatila was in 1982, resulted in the resignation of Sharon and was not perpetrated by the IDF - those people were massacred by the Phalangists.Firstly, even if Phalangists were the ones that conducted the raping and killing of civilians, it happened under IDF and Sharon's direct watch, with knowledge of it occurring. His resignation means nothing.
http://www.idfblog.com/2012/11/15/how-does-the-idf-minimize-harm-to-palestinian-civilians/
Name one other army that drops leaflets before it bombs an area... if you're going to use one mistake which wasn't even perpetrated by the IDF to condemn it, then you should at the very least not ignore every other positive thing it's done to minimize casualties.
260 Israeli civilians were wounded in Hamas' latest round of rocket attacks. What koolaid are you drinking?
How many rockets were fired?Sabra and Shatila was in 1982, resulted in the resignation of Sharon and was not perpetrated by the IDF - those people were massacred by the Phalangists.Firstly, even if Phalangists were the ones that conducted the raping and killing of civilians, it happened under IDF and Sharon's direct watch, with knowledge of it occurring. His resignation means nothing.
http://www.idfblog.com/2012/11/15/how-does-the-idf-minimize-harm-to-palestinian-civilians/
Name one other army that drops leaflets before it bombs an area... if you're going to use one mistake which wasn't even perpetrated by the IDF to condemn it, then you should at the very least not ignore every other positive thing it's done to minimize casualties.
If they were serious in minimising casualties, aerial strikes would be an utter, last resort. You misinterpreted me before when I called for an exercise of discretion. Releasing pamphlets then bombing houses, while does in fact minimise casualties, does not reveal intent. I can admit that there has been actions, for whatever reason, to minimise casualties so making an absolute statement on the matter was silly on my part. However, one hand doesn't wash the other
260 Israeli civilians were wounded in Hamas' latest round of rocket attacks. What koolaid are you drinking?
How many rockets were fired?Sabra and Shatila was in 1982, resulted in the resignation of Sharon and was not perpetrated by the IDF - those people were massacred by the Phalangists.Firstly, even if Phalangists were the ones that conducted the raping and killing of civilians, it happened under IDF and Sharon's direct watch, with knowledge of it occurring. His resignation means nothing.
http://www.idfblog.com/2012/11/15/how-does-the-idf-minimize-harm-to-palestinian-civilians/
Name one other army that drops leaflets before it bombs an area... if you're going to use one mistake which wasn't even perpetrated by the IDF to condemn it, then you should at the very least not ignore every other positive thing it's done to minimize casualties.
If they were serious in minimising casualties, aerial strikes would be an utter, last resort. You misinterpreted me before when I called for an exercise of discretion. Releasing pamphlets then bombing houses, while does in fact minimise casualties, does not reveal intent. I can admit that there has been actions, for whatever reason, to minimise casualties so making an absolute statement on the matter was silly on my part. However, one hand doesn't wash the other
Edit:
Fuck that was worded badly. I'm just saying that what I should have realised that the speculation on intent is useless in that most evidence presented are, in essence, unknowable claims. You can say that they release pamphlets to protect civilians. A counterargument, however, could be that its a form of forceful eviction and that perhaps bombing wouldn't even be needed in the first place.
Wounded could mean minor injuries... Of those 260 im guessing only a handful are actually at risk of dying. Either way it is still significantly lower than the Palestinian casualties.
To be fair, you are not sounding like you are really providing oglow100 with a response. I think s/he has asked a germane question as to what "wounded" means and how many casualties. S/he also said "could", "Wounded could mean minor injuries..." I am not sure of how this makes them some morally reprehensible person or that they are necessarily "brainwashed".
???
To be fair, you are not sounding like you are really providing oglow100 with a response. I think s/he has asked a germane question as to what "wounded" means and how many casualties. S/he also said "could", "Wounded could mean minor injuries..." I am not sure of how this makes them some morally reprehensible person or that they are necessarily "brainwashed".
???
Take it in context with his second sentence... "either way it's still significantly lower than the palestinian casualties"
Did he impugn the severity of their wounds? Not even once, not even close. His bias is clear and, yes, very reprehensible.
To be fair, you are not sounding like you are really providing oglow100 with a response. I think s/he has asked a germane question as to what "wounded" means and how many casualties. S/he also said "could", "Wounded could mean minor injuries..." I am not sure of how this makes them some morally reprehensible person or that they are necessarily "brainwashed".
???
Take it in context with his second sentence... "either way it's still significantly lower than the palestinian casualties"
Did he impugn the severity of their wounds? Not even once, not even close. His bias is clear and, yes, very reprehensible.
But, that second part is a statistical question (at least for me); you would have to verify that. Note that he uses the word "casualties" versus the word "wounded". Do they mean the same thing? Sure, it might seem in bad taste and perhaps callous, but I do not think it is as "dripping" with maladjustment as you lead it on to be. I think it is perfectly fair to impugn what constitutes "wounded" and what severity of injury it implies.
Well, that is my take. I am not trying to say the second claim is true, because I do not know, but I can see sort of why he is asking the question.
You need to look up the definition of the word casualties...
You need to look up the definition of the word casualties...
I took it to be a fatality? Excuse me if they are used interchangeably or if casualty includes "wounded" or "injured".
Let me put to you how absurd the notion is... How much more or less should you care if 50 people had their arms blown off, with 210 having scrapes and bruises. Should you care exactly 50% less if 25 people have their arms blown off with 235 escaping with just scrapes and bruises?
How about you look it up, mate.You need to look up the definition of the word casualties...
I took it to be a fatality? Excuse me if they are used interchangeably or if casualty includes "wounded" or "injured".
Let me put to you how absurd the notion is... How much more or less should you care if 50 people had their arms blown off, with 210 having scrapes and bruises. Should you care exactly 50% less if 25 people have their arms blown off with 235 escaping with just scrapes and bruises?
This is not really about how much I care. This was about, what I thought, was a question about whether "wounded" includes fatalities and a comparison between the two.
I think both sides are wrong. You seem to have a closer attachment to Israel, he to Palestine. You both think one another needs to recognise the plight of the other and no progress is being made. Much like the whole situation, really.How about you look it up, mate.You need to look up the definition of the word casualties...
I took it to be a fatality? Excuse me if they are used interchangeably or if casualty includes "wounded" or "injured".
I did. My apologies. As I said, I was under the impression a casualty was a fatality.
Not trying to get anyone angry here. ::)
If only that were actually the case. I do recognise the plight of the Palestinians. I am willing to concede ground, and I'm willing to crticise Israeli governments when they're out of line. He is blinded by his brainwashing that Israel is evil and everything Palestinian militants do in the name of their movement for statehood and self-determination is justified.
The only thing aggravating me this entire time is this sheer myopia. It's ugly and is what contributes to making this conflict so intractible.
If only that were actually the case. I do recognise the plight of the Palestinians. I am willing to concede ground, and I'm willing to crticise Israeli governments when they're out of line. He is blinded by his brainwashing that Israel is evil and everything Palestinian militants do in the name of their movement for statehood and self-determination is justified.
The only thing aggravating me this entire time is this sheer myopia. It's ugly and is what contributes to making this conflict so intractible.
You seem to have beef with Hamas (not that I am condemning you for that view, because I share it), but a lot of Palestinians sympathise with Hamas (according the a 2007 survey I think I mentioned earlier). It is not really just myopia onone side, it is both sides. The Zionist policies of the major parties are pretty steadfast as well (at least according to their platforms).
I think you have sympathies, if ever so slight, more for Israel. That is my impression. I definitely can see in previous posts where he has a greater bias, but I did not take this particular post to be too bad.
That's just me. Not trying to cause waves.
I would be lying if I said my upbringing did not influence me to have a bias towards Israel. I try to keep that bias in check as much as possible, and weigh the Israeli government's actions on their merits rather than any sentimentality that I feel.
Hamas won the election in 2006 and have since banned elections. They no longer carry a manadate to represent the palestinian people. They are a dictatorship and a militia and serve as precious little more than agitators for conflict. They have squirrelled away aid from their own people, and put their lives in danger for far too long.
In your quest to strive for "fairness" you have mistaken equal placing of blame with equal weighting of blame. That is not balance, it is nothing more than pandering and lip service. You have mistaken my defense of the truth (when mr.politiks and oglow were making baseless accusations against IDF) with support for Israel. I've largely just been calling them out on their misrepresentations.
I am very sceptical about any historical truth, so forgive me if I do not really hold any one side to really presenting truth. It is not really lip service or pandering; I do not think either have made a strong case for the Palestinians and I think you are getting too worked up about this. Calling people "brainwashed" and talking about "koolaid" just seems to be verging on the abrasive side, eh? I can see your are passionate, and I respect that, but it is not really warranted to have any proper discussion. Also, it does not seem fair to be accusing me of "lip service" and "pandering" when I made an honest mistake.
If you honestly think that "It is not really just myopia on one side, it is both sides. The Zionist policies of the major parties are pretty steadfast as well (at least according to their platforms)." is the case, you're either naive or disingenuous. I'll let you pick.
Kadima would happily give up all of east jerusalem in exchange for peace. That's hardly a "steadfast Zionist policy".
Or is this merely another case of you talking out of your ass without knowing the facts? You seem to do an awful lot of that, and then you get upset when people get angry at you for airing your malformed opinions. "What??? Me??? I'm just trying to have a proper discussion. Who cares that I don't know much about the topic at hand?! It's not important!"
That is what frustrates me about you. You're happy to admit a large amount of ignorance and you're upset when people call you out for being so authoritative while admitting to knowing very little.
If you honestly think that "It is not really just myopia on one side, it is both sides. The Zionist policies of the major parties are pretty steadfast as well (at least according to their platforms)." is the case, you're either naive or disingenuous. I'll let you pick.
Kadima would happily give up all of east jerusalem in exchange for peace. That's hardly a "steadfast Zionist policy".
Likud and Shas parties do not share that view.
I am happy to admit I do not take a strong side either way and I do not know the view of Hamas by Palestinians based on stats other than I have seen. I am not trying to be authoritative, I just thought he was making a point and made a mistake.
Take it easy.
And your civility goes out the window. Some here just find it fucking annoying to see the CEO act like a little kid and would like it if you did not get angry.
You said THE major parties. You did not say Likud and Shas. You made a blanket statement about all of them, once again talking out your ass.
"I think both sides are wrong."
That was your statement. Wear it.
I'm not angry, I'm frustrated by your ignorance. Why should my position preclude me from calling you out on your ignorance? It feels more like you're just trying to use this as a bludgeon to silence me. So much for wanting to foster a robust discussion.
As far as I am aware, the Likud is the second largest party and the Shas are like fourth or fifth.
How hard is it for you to admit that you had once more made a statement that was ill-considered?
Calling people brainwashed serves the purpose of impugning their biases... I don't take it as an insult, it's not a statement about me personally, it's a statement about something that happened to me. I was able to overcome it, and I hope they will too.
Do you believe they are wrong in equal measure?
How can you think that...
You are brainwashed. Do not take that personally.
So this is a contest about who is more or less wrong now? I, personally, do not agree with the whole Zionist philosophy or a Jewish state in the middle of Palestine; I also do not agree with Hamas and I do not agree with how they go about the whole thing. Both sides are wrong to me.
Because I do not share the same view as you and perhaps I am not as well-versed as you in the history, but nobody needs to be insulted when you try and tell them about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine
Listen to the brainwashing that's just dripping off your words. You know -nothing- about the 260 wounded. Your FIRST assumption (without having -any- facts) is that "oh, most of them must be minor injuries". And the fact that "only a handful are actually at risk of dying" makes it okay.The reason for that argument is that the rockets Hamas uses are weak and with the iron dome these rockets are hardly capable of hurting somebody. Furthermore Israel's retaliation was much more dramatic i presume since they do have more advanced technology and weaponry.
Are you kidding me? Do you understand how you sound?
The reason for that argument is that the rockets Hamas uses are weak and with the iron dome these rockets are hardly capable of hurting somebody.
The reason for that argument is that the rockets Hamas uses are weak and with the iron dome these rockets are hardly capable of hurting somebody. Furthermore Israel's retaliation was much more dramatic i presume since they do have more advanced technology and weaponry.
Iron dome doesn't intercept 100% of rockets, and the rockets are still a disruption to everyones daily life - could you imagine having to interrupt your daily life once every hour by running into a bomb shelter?Sadly this is the situation in both countries not just Israel.
Did you actually just try to argue that because PCHR Gaza won some obscure award that that qualifies their integrity? And they made one critcism of Hamas and released one joint statement with some Israeli NGOs? Really? Okay :)
Obama won the Nobel Peace prize but that didn't stop him droning the fuck out of Pakistan...
I see that your problem was with my misuse of the word "independent", unfortunate because the synapse in my brain attached to "inquiry" is preceded by "independent", so I used the word without really thinking. It's kind of impossible for an organisation to investigate itself independently. Other organisations like the UN and NGOs do the independent investigations. Wonder if you've read those?
What I conveyed was that the IDF investigates itself and publishes the findings. If you really need links and cannot find them for yourself, here is the Cast Lead review:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/E89E699D-A435-491B-B2D0-017675DAFEF7/0/GazaOperation.pdf
And you can google for analysis of it. You'll find opinions from all sides of the spectrum, but I'm sure whichever ones demonise the IDF the most will tickle your fancy.
You let me know when Hamas releases its report on how it could minimise civilian casualties.
Ultimately, all you've done is derail this argument in to one of semantics. You just can't fathom that, no, IDF does not indiscriminately attack civilians. That's not to say there's never been a trigger-happy soldier, but read the report. Those soldiers get court-martialled and punished. Its a long report, lets be fair, point out the evidence in the report that shows soldiers were persecuted
The IDF targets terrorists, and civilians are collateral damage because Hamas are a bunch of cowards and use them as human shields.
You're ultimately stepping away from your real goal which is valid criticism of Israeli government policy which sends them to war. Let's talk about the idiotic settlements, and you'll have no argument from me. Bibi's an idiot, and I hope he's thrown out on his ass at the next election.
But I don't know that you're capable of that rational dialogue. You'd come back after that with "yes, and that is why it's all Israel's fault".
You still never answered my question. You just ignore points that are brought up when they become too uncomfortable. Do you acknowledge that Hamas fired 171 rockets into Israel in the month of October, which predates the event you claimed was the antecedent to the conflict by weeks? Do you acknowledge that, or are you just going to dodge any facts that do not support your cause again and again and again like you have for this entire 'debate'?
It seems to me like the only reason you don't want to debate me is you don't like being confronted with facts.
Inb4hecomesupwithsomebullshitjustificationfortheIDF
removed comment.
Now read about those horrific war crimes which mr.politiks put effort into bringing into this conversation.
Goldstone also praised Israel for investigating claims of war crimes while faulting Hamas for its failure to launch any investigations of its own forces.
UN human rights council spokesman Cedric Sapey stated "The UN will not revoke a report on the basis of an article in a newspaper. The views Mr Goldstone expressed are his own personal views." Sapey explained "A move to change or withdraw the report would either require a formal written complaint from Goldstone, backed unanimously by his three fellow authors, or a vote by the UN general assembly or the human rights council."
"Further information as a result of domestic investigations could lead to further reconsideration, but as presently advised I have no reason to believe any part of the report needs to be reconsidered at this time."
Quoteremoved comment.
Now read about those horrific war crimes which mr.politiks put effort into bringing into this conversation.
this action doesn't change my point
It's not called the "Cedric Sapey" report. It's called the "Goldstone Report"
That's not the official title. It's "known" by that title.
Either way, the writers have full authority to modify it if they so wish. Why havent they?
Why is it known by that title? :)
I love how that's the only thing you can take away from my post. It just fits with your usual "Selective but Humourous Moral Outrage".
HOW DARE HE MISQUOTE THE TITLE OF THE REPORT
Because Goldstone was the chair.
Now instead of dodging the question, answer it. Why hasn't it been retracted or modified?
Because Goldstone, as the chair, was the one who wanted to modify it, but has faced opposition from other writers. He has moved on with his life, as have the other authors. But the fact that the CHAIR OF THE REPORT in the face of new evidence issued personal retractions should be enough for you to stop and think "maybe he has a point"
79. The Committee reiterates the conclusion of its previous report that there is no
indication that Israel has opened investigations into the actions of those who designed,
planned, ordered and oversaw Operation Cast Lead.
I think enwiabe can have the final say. Why is it fair to call out Assad (who drops cluster bombs on civilian areas) for brutally murdering civilians, but not the IDF?
Why lock it? Reason?
IVE GOT THE FINAL SAY