Hackers operating for Anonymous have been launching DDoS attacks and defacing websites to demonstrate their displeasure at Israel's recent military action in the Gaza Strip, which is currently in its second day. According to its Twitter feed, the group claims to have taken down or defaced over 40 government and military websites …
Must watch more news
I hadn't even realized they had started another "Ghettoputzen". What's the pretext this time? Looks like someone needs to gather some righteous right votes for the upcoming election with the blood of others. Again.
Re: Must watch more news
I think they're pissed that Obama won the US election (after all he was the first US leader with the balls to suggest they get out of gaza), and are waving their willies around.
Re: Must watch more news
Watch news? Ha! I thought you only read alternet and prisonplanet.
Re: Must watch more news
I think it's more to do Palestine's recent announcement of bidding for UN observer status. I mean 2 days ago Israel basically threatened to kill the Palestinian President if they were to go ahead with the bid:
Re: Must watch more news
no more like they got pissed off with Hamas firing hundreds of rockets at their civilians in the past couple of weeks.
1.) Israel got out of Gaza in 2005....who was the US President then? oh right Bush.
2.) Ahmed Jabari got what he damn well deserved
3.) it's simple, you want Israel to stop attacking you? Stop attacking their civilians.
In Sderot civilians have 15 seconds from the IDF radar picking up Hamas rockets and sounding a warning before the rockets hit. In the week befor eIsreal took out Jabari they had fired over a hundred into Sderot.
Re: Must watch more news
So, the Israeli bombings were a response to the Palestinians firing rockets towards Israel?
Well, according to the Palestinians, those rockets were a response to the following events:
1) First, on Monday, November 5th, Israeli forces shot and killed 23 year old Ahmad Nabhani  when he “approached the border fence with Israel.” According to at least one account, Nabhani was mentally challenged:
2) Then, on Thursday, November 8th, the Israeli Occupation Forces – eight tanks and four bulldozers, to be exact – invaded southern Gaza, shooting and killing a 13-year old boy:
I guess, these killings of Palestinian CIVILIANS were a response of something else naughty that the Palestinians have done.
Which itself was a response to yet something else naughty the Israelis have done.
Which was... Well, you get my drift.
Re: Must watch more news
What's the pretext this time?
Israeli elections in January.
Re: Must watch more news
If you are going to watch/read the news then best get a balanced view, and not the blinkered twaddle this AC apologist has been watching.
".....according to the Palestinians, those rockets were a response to the following events:....." THOSE rockets, maybe, but what about the others that are laucnhed daily into Israel? On October 24th alone - just one day! - there were "more than 65" rockets fired into Israel from the Gaza Strip. What was the Hamas excuse then? You could have asked Ahmed Jabari himself as he was alive and planning those rocket attacks at the time.
"....Nabhani was mentally challenged...." So what was he doing near the buffer zone? The Israelis have plenty of warning signs, the locals have known for years not to approach the fence, were his family not looking after him? But then it could be just another case of an Islamic family trying to get rid of an "embarrassing" member (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/palestinian-family-sends-mentally-ill-son-to-settlement-in-hope-idf-shoots-him-1.332433). And it's not like suicide bombers from Gaza have never tried getting into Israel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_militant_groups_suicide_attacks). And if you want to try and claim Hamas would never stoop so low, you probably don't want to check out the regularity with which they have used children as suicide bombers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_suicide_bombers_in_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict). Admittedly, it was Fatah that sent a mentally-challenged boy as suicide bomber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussam_Abdo).
As well as using kids as suicide bombers the leaders of Hamas are also into using them as human shields, a trend started by their "holy" Shiekh Yassin, who used to pack his car with kids to deter Israeli precision attacks. Often he didn't have a problem finding local families willing to offer their children for the job, but at times his bodyguards are reported to have picked up kids off the street at gunpoint to make up the numbers. Rumours abound that the IDF always knew where Jabari was sleeping at nights because his bodyguards forced at least a dozen women and kids to sleep openly on the roof of the building, regardless of the weather, to stop Israeli precision attacks. Such a brave little Islamic warrior, hiding behind women and kids.
"....the Israeli Occupation Forces – eight tanks and four bulldozers, to be exact – invaded southern Gaza...." And what were the IDF forces doing? Clearing explosives laid by Hamas in an attempt to kill Israeli border patrols. What was a kid doing going anywhere near what was obviously a military operation? Why wasn't he safely indoors? Don't his family care, or was he another Hamas courier that got caught in the crossfire? You do know it is a war crime to use children as soldiers, couriers or suicide bombers?
".....these killings of Palestinian CIVILIANS...." Hamas deliberately sites their units and equipment amongst civillians so that it either deters IDF counter-attacks or gets the Israelis accused of "war crime" when they do counter. It is a well-publicised fact that Hamas based their military HQ in Gaza's largest hospital before and during the Cast Lead operation as it guaranteed the Israelis would not strike it. Hamas sees the civillians in Gaza as nothing more than expendables to the great Islmaic dream of wiping out Israel. To that end they deliberately time rocket attacks for the early morning when they know Israeli children are on the way to school (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel#Tactics).
Hamas even try to tie up the Israeli emergency services call lines to stop ambulances going to help the wounded Israelis. Please note that can only impede civillian ambulances as the IDF have their own mdeical units (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_political_violence#Denial_of_service_attacks_on_the_emergency_services).
But you go on daydreaming about Hamas if you like.
Re: Must watch more news@Matt Bryant
"If you are going to watch/read the news then best get a balanced view, and not the blinkered twaddle this AC apologist has been watching."
Well we won't be getting a balanced view from you, Matt.
Whenever the the Middle East crops up on the Reg, you're there, spouting piffle about how the Israeli's have every right to continue their track record of US sponsored agression and war crimes, plus sabotage and assassinations in other countries, but what complete bastards the Palestinians, Iranians, Lebanese or whover are. But surely if both pre-emptive and reactive violence is justified for the Jews then it must be OK for the Arabs, wouldn't you agree?
And you know what? History is pretty clear that Israel's long term strategy isn't going to fix the problem, and it isn't very good at doing any more than containing it. In the UK we didn't beat the IRA into military submission, despite the overwhelming military balance in favour of the British government. The Yank led coalition in Afghanistan has dismally failed to suppress the insurgents to any significant degree. Pakistani government attempts to suppress the Swat Valley have had no lasting success. The Indonesian government failed to crush the Aceh insurgency through military means. History is clear that the answer is not military, and Israel refuses to understand that, and refuses to give sufficient ground when negotations have been attempted.
Obviously the Israeli people can continue to live waiting for the air raid sirens, and spending 6.5% of GDP on their military, but is that really the life you think they should lead, because it would be "wrong to negotiate with terrorists"?
Re: Must watch more news@Matt Bryant
".....Well we won't be getting a balanced view from you, Matt....." I'm betting you only consider a view "balanced" if it agrees exactly with your preconceptions, and the real problem is I would have to have a labotomy to reach that level of obtuseness. Sorry, having been to the Mid East many times, lived and worked there, and known people from both sides, I'd have to jump in a time-machine and go back to age five to even consider agreeing with you.
"....you're there, spouting piffle...." Gee, then it should be so easy for you to debunk my point if they're all "pifflle", right? So you did debubk them all, yes? No? Well, even one then? Nope! In fact, once again we have another of your fashionably-ignorant displays of moral indignation dressed up as a POV. Try disproving or arguing the points and I might be impressed, otherwise you're just wasting bandwidth.
"....But surely if both pre-emptive and reactive violence is justified for the Jews then it must be OK for the Arabs...." Israel is governed by a legal democracy and their military acts in accordance with Israeli law. If an Israeli soldier deliberately killed seventeen children and twenty-one unarmed adult Fakeistinians then they would be tried for murder. If an Israeli soldier killed four unarmed civillians, including beating a four-year old girl to death on a rock, he'd be tried and convicted of murder. But if you're a Fakeistinian or Lebanese then those actions make you a hero. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalal_Mughrabi#Commemoration_and_martyrhood, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samir_Kuntar#Reception_in_Lebanon).
"....History is pretty clear that Israel's long term strategy isn't going to fix the problem...." What, you want to try looking at history? The problem is you very obviously have not looked at ANY history. In 1947, when the UN drew up the partition plan, having already given away 76% of the Palestine Mandate territories to make Transjordan (where only Arabs could own land), the Jews accepted the much smaller portion of what was left and were ready to live peacefully beside their Arab neighbours, but the Arabs rejected the deal and tried to wipe the Jews out. The Arabs lost. Even then, Ben Gurion let Arabs stay in Israel and gave them citizenship and equal rights. In Arab countries the Jews were driven out. Ever since the Arabs have looked for every opportunity to rebuff peace. In the 2000 Camp David Summit the Israelis made an offer that amounted to 95% of the PLO's claims and shared Jerusalem, an offer so unexpected even Bill Clinton was shocked (he described it as Barak commiting political suicide in return for peace). Arafat didn't even bother with a counter offer, he didn't negotiate, he just walked out and started the intifada.The latest example was Abbas walking out of talks claiming Israel was making "settlement expansion", despite Israel having frozen expansion for the period of the talks. No-one insisted on the Fakeistininas not building in contested lands in the West Bank. The simple fact is neither of the current Fakeistinian factions want peace, Hamas wanting to eradicate Israel and Fatah only on terms which would be suicide for Israel to accept. Abbas deliberately picks so-called discussion topics he already knows Israel cannot agree to so he can avoid real talks. Even if Abbas was really willing to talk peace he has no mandate as the Fakeistinians elected Hamas. It takes two to make peace unless you impose it on one party as the Allies did on the Axis in WW2, and until the Fakeistinians actually become partners for peace the Israelis are bound to use a strategy of containment, assassination and the inevitable infrequent military incursions to smash terrorist infrastructure.
"..... In the UK we didn't beat the IRA into military submission...." You really don't have a clue, do you. The Provisional IRA gave up the armed conflict because they realised they could gain more through the political process than they had failed to gain in sixty-odd years of terrorism. The terrorism failed for two reasons - becasue the British military, security and intelligence forces were very good at finding, arresting and -if necessary - killing PIRA members; and because the Southern Irish government made it clear they wanted peace and would not support the PIRA. As long as the rest of the World puts no pressure on Hamas or Fatah there will be no peace. Whilst the rest of the World cluelessly bankrolls Hamas and Fatah there is no reason for them to make even a pretence of wanting peace.
".....The Yank led coalition in Afghanistan has dismally failed to suppress the insurgents to any significant degree....." Despite that having nothing to do with the topic, again all you do is demonstrate that you know nothing. The majority of Afghanistan is peaceful, it is largely the border area with Pakistan that is violent. Indeed, the annual rate of murders in Afghanistan as a whole is less than the US's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#By_country). You really should try that reading thing sometime, it will make you better prepared not to look quite so stupid.
".....Israel refuses to understand that, and refuses to give sufficient ground...." Is there no end to your complete lack of a clue!??! Israel unilaterally pulled out of the buffer zone in Southern Lebanon in 2000 in the hope that the Lebanese would stick to their own affairs. Instead, Hezbollah has continued terrorist attacks on Israel and threatens more whenever their puppetmasters in Tehran direct them to. The Lebanon is still technically at war with Israel, having declared war on Israel in 1948, so Israel has the right to bomb it every day if required. The Lebanese government refuses to make peace with Israel despite US prodding and despite the UN validating that Israel had completely withdrawn from the Lebanon. Israel also unilaterally pulled out of Gaza in 2005 and Hamas seized power and turned it into a war base to launch rockets at Israel. Hamas has no intention of making peace with Israel despite being completely reliant on handouts, having completely destroyed their own economy. Israel pulled out of the Sinai in 1982 in return for a peace treaty with Egypt that was supposed to protect the southern Israeli border and stop weapons getting to Gaza, but now we have an Islamic government in Egypt just looking for an excuse to attack Israel. Jordan finally made peace with Israel and has ever-since fought its own people as the Fakeistinians have twice tried to violently overthrow the Hashemite regime. How long it is until Jordan falls is debateable, but the Muslim Brotherhood is lining up for another go. Israel has fought four major wars with neighbouring Arab countries on all fronts, the last being 1973. Since then they have only mounted limited actions in the Lebanon, Gaza and West Bank, so the strategy of carrying a big stick and swinging it when required seems to be working very well. Do you really think Israel will suddenly roll over, change their stragetgy and give any more land back when even peace treaties have proven virtually worthless? Sorry, I just asked you to think, that's obviously a bit much for you.
"....Obviously the Israeli people can continue to live waiting for the air raid sirens...." If the majority of Israelis ever get tired of the war then they can vote in an appeasist government that will surrender to the Fakeistinian claims. The Fakeistinians and Lebanese have no choice - neither Hamas or Hezbollah will allow true debate and Fatah are fast becoming an irrellevance. If Arabs disagree with the stance of their rulers they usually end up dying.
Re: Must watch more news@Matt Bryant
"I'm betting you only consider a view "balanced" if it agrees exactly with your preconceptions, and the real problem is I would have to have a labotomy to reach that level of obtuseness"
There we go yet again - presuming what other people think, and resorting to weak ad hominems. Given that's the best you can offer I didn't read the rest of your rant any further. Hopefully, releasing the bile soaked invective that it doubtless contains will have made you feel better, and on that basis I've achieved something positive today for your unfortunate anger management problems.
Your difficulties with the Arab peoples would appear to be unfortunately beyond help.
Re: Must watch more news@Matt Bryant
"..... I didn't read the rest of your rant any further...." What a shame, you might have actually learned something about the realities of the Mid East conflict. But I'm not surprised seeing as you couldn't answer any of the points made earlier either. I presume it's not hip'n'trendy enough for you to want to actually debate the matter. Best if you just live in ignorance and parrot whatever some clueless celebrity tells you to think, right? After all, pretensions are so much easier for you than actually forming an opinion.
/I'd use the Paris icon but it's probably an insult to her to compare you with her.
Re: Must watch more news@Matt Bryant
"you might have actually learned something about the realities of the Mid East conflict."
Nope. Your one sided agressively parroted tripe doesn't inform anybody of anything, other than that you are an israeli fanbois, wilfully blind to the fact that all conflicts have two sides. In Palestine terrorism is practised by both sides, although you obviously believe that if a missile is fired from an American supplied and funded attack helicopter, and kills Palestinian civilians it has some special attribute that makes it permissible, whereas a crude Iranian made rocket fired by Hamas that kills Israeli civilians isn't.
"Best if you just live in ignorance and parrot whatever some clueless celebrity tells you to think, right?"
Actually I'm fairly well read on the Middle East - you could be as well, but it certainly doesn't shine through in your shouty contributions. In all your whiney accusations of liberalism against anybody who has the temerity to disagree with you, I wonder what you actually know of the situation on the ground, or of being at risk of terrorism. I've been in situations where, working for my country's defence services, I've had to check my car daily for explosive devices. I've separately worked in low income locations as a commercial consultant where lawlessness, murder and kidnap are common. I suspect when it comes to comfortable people spouting crap without any relevant experience, you are the one.
"After all, pretensions are so much easier for you than actually forming an opinion."
You really are weak on this logical argument business, aren't you? You've typed several thousand words in this thread, blustered and shouted, and mouthed off abusively precisely because I have an opinion of my own. In this respect your approach to polite discourse is a bit like israel's approach to anything - loud mouthed, agressive, and counter-productive.
"/I'd use the Paris icon "
You should have, because it shows your true colours - a complete lack of respect for others, and for views that differ from your own rigidly held belief system. I've chosen the unhappy icon, because I'm sad for you. If this is truly how you are, then you must be a really unpleasant person to be around - rude, agressive, and bigoted.
Re: Must watch more news@Matt Bryant
".....a missile is fired from an American supplied and funded attack helicopter, and kills Palestinian civilians it has some special attribute that makes it permissible, whereas a crude Iranian made rocket fired by Hamas that kills Israeli civilians isn't....." You fail to grasp the basic concept that the Israeli missile is fired at a specific target - known terrorists, after careful selection by intelligence, by a uniformed military acting to laws - with the minimum amount of collateral damage intended, and often NOT fired when there are civillians in close proximity of the target, whereas the Hamas rocket is fired by militants that hide behind women and kids, with the intent to kill as many Israeli civillians as possible regardless of whether they are women, kids or the old. Indeed, the Hamas tactic of firing rockets early in the morning when Israeli kids are travelling to school speaks volumes about their intent. What you dress up as equivalence is actually a completely different intent and practice. You seem to believe that it is wrong for the Israelis to use their superior technology just because Hamas does not have such tech, would you prefer it if the Israelis answered Hamas rockets with equally untargeted rockets of their own, fired at random into the cities of Gaza? I bet not. In short your prattle pretending at equivalence is just the usual anti-Israeli twaddle.
Don't worry, you're not the only one falling for that stupid eqivalence line. You can see it on the BBC, where they talk about Israel backing down if Hamas "limits rocket attacks" - what, the Israelis are supposed to accept a certain number of rockets being fired daily without comment? Just imagine if just one rocket was being fired daily at London, do you think everyone would shrug and accept it? I bet you'd be frothing for a response.
".....I suspect when it comes to comfortable people spouting crap without any relevant experience, you are the one....." Whatever. Have you been to Israel? Bet not. I have. Have you been to the Lebanon? Again, I bet not, whereas I have. And I'm not talking peacetime Lebanon, I was in Beiruit in 1982 and '83 amongst other visits. In fact, I can probably list a dozen other Mid East countries I have visited and worked in, including those with serious stability issues and inherent risk, which you have only seen on the news but consider yourself "well read" on. My views are built on direct experience whereas your "well read" ones are secondhand at best and based on the observations of others.
".....You really are weak on this logical argument business, aren't you?...." That's funny seeing as you haven't actually made a single argument yet. You have insisted you know so much, have lived "under the threat of terrorism", etc, yet can't even provide one argument!
".....precisely because I have an opinion of my own...." Great, why don't you share it then instead of shrieking and ranting. I look forward to poking holes in any you manage to string together. Well, if you can.
"... they could find themselves fingered very quickly ..."
So what, who do the Israeli's think they are? The USA?
It's high time the UN enforced all it's outstanding decisions against damn Israel including the inspection of their nuclear equipment - the original radioactive material having been delivered from US stocks.
Re: "... they could find themselves fingered very quickly ..."
What could possibly go wrong, a PM whose evangelical family doesn''t appear to want to use its Lithuanian/Belarussian name Mileikowsky, living in the Middle East since 1920, now with tanks and nukes? ;)
Just stop it already
..amazing to see how an informative Tech report can turn the forum to a pro/anti Palestinian/Israeli slogging match.. such a pity
Right, time for some popcorn and deflective armour..
Nothing better to do
This war has been going on and of for many years; in its current form since 1948....
I get the feeling that Anonymous have very little idea about what is really going on in Israel/Palestine. If they did
1 : They would not be so stupid as to attack Israel who has some of the most technologically aware teams that exist today.
2 : The Palestinians can easilly live without the Internet, they are more worried about Food and Water than being able to Tweet. They are a hardy people with nothing left to lose, they are not a bunch off script kiddies sitting in front of computer screens with nothing better to do than pretend to be the International Internet Law Enforcement Group.
Anonymous is becoming synonymous with Kids with No Ideas or Purpose. What talent they have/once had is slowly disappearing into nothingness..... The original members of Anonymous must be embarrased about what the ideal has become..
Internet connectivity is important to Palestinians
See I thought the same at first, ie surely food, water, shelter and medical supplies are for more important - and they are - but don't underestimate the importance of an internet connection there. Communication through twitter, YouTube, blogging, Skype et al may be the only way we get an idea of what's going on there. Israel has, in the past prevented news media from entering Gaza and those communication channels have proven themselves to be invaluable in various other conflicts where the state tried to implement a media blackout.
If the IDF are so good at on-line security...
...then why were their web sites defaced by a bunch of script kiddies without a clue?
IDF tracking Anonyputzs?
I don't think they IDF will do much more than pass on any data gleaned to the UK. After all, half the Putzs will have IP adresses from Birmingham, Leicester and Bradford, and the IDF won't be bombing those soon.
See that's the big problem with what the Anonyputzs have become - anyone's bitch. The original idea of being able to claim they were "anyone anywhere" has been hijacked by every single-interest skiddie group out there for their stunts, all claiming "we're Anonymous". Truly an embarassment.
Meanwhile the media are falling all over themselves to get nice pics of explosions in Gaza, neatly missing other news. Like how the cash-strapped EU, keen on austerity and keeping the Greeks on budget, just gave 5bn Euros to Egypt. I'm sure the Egyptians will rush to convert it into dollars before the Euro drops any lower. Mind you, Merkel has declared the Euro is a "symbol", so I suppose financial prudence has long since gone out the window in Euroland.
Re: IDF tracking Anonyputzs?
Matt, you are banging your head against a brick wall in trying to get through to those that have drunk the anti Israel kool aide provided by the the arab terrorist loving left - the FCO has been imbibing it for years so what hope for the younger generation.
Fun to watch, anyway, regardless of one's views on the physical conflict,
"Anonymous" hackers worldwide, versus a nation that has its own professional military hackers, and international death squads, and U.S. backing.
I'm not a fan of Anonymous and I don't mind if they get themselves killed, I just want the entertainment.
I didnt have sound on at work
But watching that video gave me flashbacks to command and conquer.
Not to worry about these not so Anonymous hackers
When the Israelis get thru with them they won't be hacking anything.
Here we go again!
Yet another online skirmish between Jews and their fanbois and those who are not blinded by bullshit propaganda from either side - this time complete with "Anonyputzes" and "Fakestinians", for fuck's sake! :(
Re: Here we go again!
"....between Jews and their fanbois and those who are not blinded by bullshit propaganda from either side...." So, in your view, only one side is not "blinded"? Care to point out where the propaganda is in my post? Which bit are you arguing with - that the Fakeistinians shoot rockets out of Gaza into Israel? That they do so at random? That they do so with the express intention of killing ISraeli civillians?
The term "Fakeistinians" came about years ago and is poke at the Palestinian Arabs attempt to corner the term "Palestinian" so they can imply they are the only rightful inhabitants of the area. This is more amusing seeing as the Mulsims Arabs arrived in the area with the drive of Mohammed's cult out of the Saudi peninsula long after his death, and thousands of years after Jews and Christians (and other faiths) had been living in the area. Before WW2 the local Jews refered to themselves as Jewish Palestinians, local Christians refered to themselves as Christian Arabs or Christian Palestinians, and the Arabs mainly as South Syrian Arabs. The application fo the term "Palestinian" solely to Palestinian Arabs started under Arafat as a deliberate attempt to hijack the name. Not only is that ironic given Arafat's Egyptian origin, but even more so becasue the Arabs cannot pronounce the hard "p" sound, resorting to saying "Falastin". Paelstine itself is not even an Arab name. Hence "Fakeistinian". You would know that if you weren't blinded by propaganda.
I don't knowingly converse with morons!
"I don't knowingly converse with morons!" Well, I suppose at least you'll never have to worry about boring yourself then.
"In the 2000 Camp David Summit the Israelis made an offer that amounted to 95% of the PLO's claims and shared Jerusalem, an offer so unexpected even Bill Clinton was shocked (he described it as Barak commiting political suicide in return for peace). Arafat didn't even bother with a counter offer, he didn't negotiate, he just walked out and started the intifada."
Under international law and numerous UN resolutions:
- the West Bank and Gaza Strip are Palestinian territories illegally occupied by Israel
- furthermore the settlements in the West Bank are illegal
- Jerusalem (the whole of) belongs to the Palestinians
- refugees have the right of return
What Israel offered was far short of what international law requires and what Palestinians wanted, and indeed entitled to:
- Israel wanted to keep major settlements and obviously the requisite roads to link them back to Israel, meaning the settlements will remain a cancer in the West Bank
- Israel wanted to keep half of Jerusalem
- Israel denied the right of ALL refugees to return, instead proposed that some will be allowed to return, not to their place of origin as is their right, but to some place of Israel's choosing.
Former Israeli foreign minister Shlomo Ben who was involved in the Camp David talks puts in his book "Scars of War, Wounds of Peace: The Israeli-Arab Tragedy", "if I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David as well"
'The latest example was Abbas walking out of talks claiming Israel was making "settlement expansion", despite Israel having frozen expansion for the period of the talks.'
Abbas wanted all settlement building to be stopped, period. Under international moving settlers into occupied land is illegal, period. Obama via Clinton made that position clear to Netanyahu.
But just before the talks were due to resume, in a gesture to show that the Jewish lobby in the US is stronger the President of the United States, Netanyahu announces more settlement building.
"No-one insisted on the Fakeistininas not building in contested lands in the West Bank."
They are not contested lands, they are occupied lands. The occupied should have every right to build on their own land, except that the Israelis require them to apply for permits which they regularly deny, furthermore they regularly demolish building which they say did not have the requisite permits
"The simple fact is neither of the current Fakeistinian factions want peace,"
Abbas has been acting as Israel's henchman in the West Bank, clamping down on militants and arresting people at Israel's behest, in the hope that this shows he is serious about keeping the peace and resume the "peace process". For this, he is rewarded with the scorn of his people and the derision of the Israelis who continue to build illegal settlements and continue to grab land in building their separation barrier.
"Abbas deliberately picks so-called discussion topics he already knows Israel cannot agree to so he can avoid real talks."
If it's suicide for the Israeli side return illegally occupied territories then how much more suicidal would it be for the Palestinian side to accept that Israel can keep the illegally occupied territories?
"Even if Abbas was really willing to talk peace he has no mandate as the Fakeistinians elected Hamas"
Abbas was elected president by all the people in the Gaza Strip AND the West Bank, although his mandate has long since run out because overdue elections were not held. It is the local elections in which Hamas won the majority in the Gaza Strip - which promptly resulted in a tightening of sanctions by Israel and the US because they did not like the result of an election in which Hamas won fair and square.
"Whilst the rest of the World cluelessly bankrolls Hamas and Fatah there is no reason for them to make even a pretence of wanting peace."
Whilst the US blindly supports Israel - shielding it from political, economic and military repercussions of its heinous actions in the occupied Palestinian territories - there is no reason for them to make even a pretence of wanting peace.
"The majority of Afghanistan is peaceful, it is largely the border area with Pakistan that is violent."
The world's only superpower, spending almost as much as the rest of the world put together on war, cannot beat a rag-tag army armed with kalashnikovs and primitive explosives. Maybe if they stopped killing so many civilians then their "hearts and minds" campaign might work out better.
"Indeed, the annual rate of murders in Afghanistan as a whole is less than the US's"
If indeed those figures are true then it probably says more about the US itself than the success of the US military in Afghanistan. However, given the situation in Afghanistan I would take those figures with a bucketful of salt. In any case those figures would not include those civilians killed as "collateral damage" - or worse, those civilians killed as "collateral damage" but labelled as "insurgents" (because it looks better on the reports and for future career prospects).
"If the majority of Israelis ever get tired of the war then they can vote in an appeasist government that will surrender to the Fakeistinian claims."
That implies the Israelis voted in these governments of occupation and hence are responsible for the slaughter in Gaza.
"The Fakeistinians and Lebanese have no choice - neither Hamas or Hezbollah will allow true debate and Fatah are fast becoming an irrellevance. If Arabs disagree with the stance of their rulers they usually end up dying."
If they have no choice then that implies they're not responsible, so why is Israel imposing collective punishment in Gaza? (again, illegal in international law, but again, unsurprisingly Israel flouts it)
"Which bit are you arguing with - that the Fakeistinians shoot rockets out of Gaza into Israel? That they do so at random? That they do so with the express intention of killing ISraeli civillians?"
Seeing as most Israelis have to serve in the army, these civilians are temporarily out of uniform military personnel. Israel doesn't have any qualms bombing the houses where Hamas members are living with their families knowing full well that there will be civilian casualties.
"This is more amusing seeing as the Mulsims Arabs arrived in the area with the drive of Mohammed's cult out of the Saudi peninsula long after his death, and thousands of years after Jews and Christians (and other faiths) had been living in the area."
If you believe in fairy tales then the Book of Numbers says that the land of Canaan was populated by giants and the Jews coming from the Sinai were initially afraid and refused to enter Canaan. Does it mean these giants have a stronger claim to Israel/West Bank/Gaza Strip?
Re: @Matt Bryant
"....Under international law....." Which International Law? If that were true then Israel would already have been taken to an international court by the massive number of apologist lawfare activists.
".....and numerous UN resolutions...." ANY member state can raise a resolution in the general chamber of the UN for anything they like. The Germans could raise a resolution saying only sausages with 90% meat content can be called a sausage, if they convince/bribe enough countries to vote with them then it gets passed. Big whoop. In practical terms it means nothing, it does not have any legal backing, and no enforceable powers. The ONLY resolutions out of the UN that do are those from the Security Council. The dozens of resolutions passed against Israel by the Muslim-dominated Non-Alligned group (almost all despotic dictatorships with shocking civil rights abuses) sullies the name of the UN. But it is also a predictable whine from the pro-Fakeistinians, easily debunkable.
"....the West Bank and Gaza Strip are Palestinian territories illegally occupied by Israel..." For international law to apply, there would have to be a country that Israel was infringing upon. Seeing as the greedy Arabs turned down the UN Partition Plan in 1947, which would have the Palestinian Arab state, there is no such state, therefore the territory is not covered by the international laws you want to apply. This is the reason for the Fakeistinians' attempts to get themselves declared a state in the UN. Just so you may finally get it, there is no such state as Palestine, there never has been, and without the UN Security Council's agreement there probably never will be. The UN SC has called for a comprehensive peace treaty, as mentioned in UNSC Resolution 242, which Israel accepted, which states peace must be negotiated, and not imposed by Fakeistinian demands backed up by rockets and suicide bombers.
"....furthermore the settlements in the West Bank are illegal...." See above.
".....- Jerusalem (the whole of) belongs to the Palestinians...." It was a Jewish city long before the Fakeistinians started calling themselves "Palestinians". Oh, you're going by Sharia law where a piece of land conquered by the Islamic hordes is always Muslim land, right? Did you tell Spain, they seem to have spent time with their lands under Islamic rule, I suppose you'll be saying Barcalona belongs to the Morrocans next.
"....- refugees have the right of return...." Which ones? The Jewish ones that were forced to leave Arab lands to go to Israel? I don't think they'd want to be ethnicly cleansed again. After WW2 no-one said the millions of European refugees in Europe had the right to return to where they had come from. What the Fakeistinian refugees did have was rights as refugees which their Arab neighbours have refused them. Maybe you should ask the Arabs why? The right to return is just an attempt to breed Israel into demographic destruction.
"....What Israel offered was far short of what international law requires...." Again, what international law, and how does it apply? Simply parroting the usual pro-Fakeistinian twaddle is making you look like just another unquestioning sheep.
"....and what Palestinians wanted..." But the crux of the problem is too many Fakeistinians want to eradicate Israel. And why is it all about just what the Fakeistinians want, doesn't anyone else's opinion matter?
".....Abbas wanted all settlement building to be stopped, period. Under international moving settlers into occupied land is illegal, period...." Correct, Abbas did want all settlement building to stop. Incorrect in that the international law applies to territory of one state occupied by another, and there is no legal state that Israel is infringing upon. All your whining will not change that until the Fakeistinians can get themselves declared a state at the UN, and that will not happen until they sit down and negotiate a solution with Israel becasue the UN Security Council have said that's the way it must be.
".....They are not contested lands, they are occupied lands..." If land for peace swaps are to be made then in theory chunks of what the Fakeistinians say is theirs and they are building on now could in theory end up as Israeli territory, which means any Fakeistinian building on them would constitute exactly the illegal settlement activity you said applied to Israel. Darn, doesn't it suck when your own arguments get used against you?
"....except that the Israelis require them to apply for permits...." Authorities all over the World require you to get permits to build. It's called bureaucracy, it tends to come with that whole peaceful statehood thing. You know, living like normal people in peace, without wanting to eradicate your neighbours just because your skyfairy beliefs tell you to?
"....the settlements will remain a cancer in the West Bank...." Lovely language! I can see you're all for reconciliation and living in peace when you describe Jews as "cancer"! But it betrays EXACTLY the Fakeistinian mindset - Israel and the Jews are a cancer to be eradicated. And where have we heard that before? Gee, I sense a call of "Godwin" soon.
".....Abbas has been acting as Israel's henchman in the West Bank, clamping down on militants and arresting people...." So you're pro-Hamas then. So you also agree with their charter, including the destruction of Israel? Abbas has commitments to reducing terrorism under the Roadmap. I agree with you that his attempts to stop terrorist have mainly been removing his political opponents, but the way he dresses them up is so as to garner funding from the EU, US and Russia. He has not done so as "Israel's henchman", his sole motivation is prolonging the corrupt rule of his Fatah cronies.
"....how much more suicidal would it be for the Palestinian side to accept that Israel can keep the illegally occupied territories?..." Firstly, there are no "illegally occupied territories". Until there are negotiations and a final deal there is no "Palestinian" state. Secondly, there is one Jewish state in the World, and since it's inception it has been fighting off continual attempts to destroy it by the much more numerous number of Arab countries surrounding it. Israel wants peaceful relations with all its neighbours but the Arabs have shown repeated intent to destroy Israel. Israel would be in a militarily unfavourable position should they accept the Fakeistinian demands, whereas the Fakeistinians are under no military threat should they accept Israel's, quie the opposite as it should bring about peace. Therefore it would not be suicidal for the Fakeistinians to accept the Israeli proposals, just against their nature.
"..... which promptly resulted in a tightening of sanctions by Israel and the US because they did not like the result of an election in which Hamas won..." The reason the US and EU placed sanctions on Hamas was because they are a designated terrorist group.
".....Whilst the US blindly supports Israel...." Obambi's and several previous Prezs have been anything but blind supporters of Israel. It was very predictable that as soon as Hamas ran out of rockets that the US would put pressure on Israel to accept a truce rather than mount a ground operation. If the US was blindly supporting Israel then Clinton would not have been calling for " a proportionate response", she would have been waving the Israeli tanks on. Bibi knew it was coming, the Egyptians knew it was coming, and no doubt Hamas knew it was coming. The US was the ONLY thing that could stop Bibi launching a repeat of the Cast Lead ground op. To believe otherwise is to be blind to the facts.
"....cannot beat a rag-tag army armed with kalashnikovs and primitive explosives...." What army? There is no Taleban army, it does not put on a uniform and follow the rules of war. Instead, just like Hamas, it hides behind civillians and kills opponents amongst their own that disagree with them. If you think the Taleban are so wonderful please explain their shooting of schoolgirl Malala Yousafzai? Real brave Islamic warriors, shooting an unarmed schoolgirl and running away. Almost as brave as the Hamas ones that shoot rockets as Israeli schools and then hide behind women and kids.
"....That implies the Israelis voted in these governments of occupation and hence are responsible for the slaughter in Gaza...." There is no occupation of Gaza and there was no slaughter in Gaza. The Israelis did vote in their government, they do so regularly to internationally-accepted standards of democracy, something that is very rare in the surrounding Islamic countries. Plenty of Israelis do believe in all types of approaches to the Fakeistinian problem, they are openly discussed. Trying to air views contrary to those of Hamas in Gaza will get you labeled an "Israeli collaborator" and executed.
"....so why is Israel imposing collective punishment in Gaza...." LOL! Hamas is uspet by targeted killings because it threatens the Hamas leadership, they couldn't give a damn about "martyrs" amongst their civillians! And what "collective punishment"? Israel is not randomly shooting or bombing. However, every Hamas rocket is a war crime as they are deliberately and randomly targeted at civillians.
".....Seeing as most Israelis have to serve in the army, these civilians are temporarily out of uniform military...." So Israeli kids on the way to school are FUTURE soldiers too, yes? Actually, that gives you an excuse to kill all Israelis, right, seeing as they may have been or could well be Israeli soldiers at some point. That's called ethnic cleansing and is an international crime, moron.
".....If you believe in fairy tales...." Predictable rant - I don't believe in any skyfairytales. I do believe in science and histroy, and together they show the existance of a Jewish people and their state in the area for thousands of years before Mo got his cult going. Maybe you should try that reading thing sometime.
Re: @Matt Bryant
A few more factoids you probably missed in Apologist 101.
"....the Old City has been divided into four uneven quarters, although the current designations were introduced only in the 19th century. Today, the Old City is roughly divided into the Muslim Quarter, the Christian Quarter, the Jewish Quarter and the Armenian Quarter. Following the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the Old City was occupied by Jordan and the Jewish residents were evicted...." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_City_%28Jerusalem%29
"....In the 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine the [Jewish] Yemenite community was removed from Silwan by the Welfare Bureau into the Jewish Quarter as security conditions for Jews worsened. And in 1938, the remaining Yemenite Jews in Silwan were evacuated by the British authorities. According to documents in the custodian office and real estate and project advancement expert Edmund Levy, the homes of the Yemenite Jews were occupied by Arab families without compensation...." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silwan
So, does right of return mean the Arabs will have to leave Silwan, a suburb of Jerusalem? Has anyone imposed a settlement freeze on the Fakeistinians in Silwan? How about the Old City's Jewish Quarter, will the Fakeistinians or the Jordanians be paying compensation? And the winner - what about Jews that used to live in Gaza before 1948?
"...Gaza's Jewish community was roughly 3,000 years old, and in 1481 there were sixty Jewish households. Most of them left Gaza after the 1929 Palestine riots, when they consisted of fifty families. In Sami Hadawi's land and population survey, Gaza had a population of 34,250, including 80 Jews in 1945. Most of them left the city after the 1948 War, due to mutual distrust between them and the Arab majority...." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza
"Which International Law?"
The Geneva Conventions to which Israel is a signatory. It forbids many things which Israel is guilty of, some of which includes:
1) The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
* The illegal settlements in the West Bank
2) Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.
Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited. Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions collective punishments are a war crime. Protocol II of the Geneva Conventions makes that even more specific, however out of the signatories to the Geneva Conventions there are a few rogue nations who have not signed or ratified Protocol II, including: Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Pakistan, United States.
* Palestinians who have carried out attacks against Israel/Israelis can be certain that their homes would be demolished.
* The whole population of the Gaza Strip is being punished by Israel's blockade which prohibits the free movement of people and goods.
3) Prohibits the taking of hostages
* Palestinians detained without charge is state sponsored hostage taking
"If that were true then Israel would already have been taken to an international court by the massive number of apologist lawfare activists."
I'm glad you asked. To bring a case to the World Court (International Court of Justice), you need:
1) both parties need to be a UN member state
Surely that can't be the reason why the US (and to a lesser extent it's poodles in the EU), and Israel are vehemently opposed to Abbas' bids for more recognition in the UN?
2) for most practical purposes both parties would have to consent.
I don't think Israel would consent anytime soon.
Furthermore any judgement would require the losing party to "voluntary" enforce, else the Security Council would, in theory, be obliged to step in. But with one guaranteed veto (USA) and two near certain vetoes (UK, France) the chances of forcing Israel to comply, in the event a verdict should go against them, is zero.
As for the International Criminal Court, although the Palestinian National Authority has formally accepted the jurisdiction of the court, ICC itself is not able to determine whether the PNA qualifies as a state for the purpose of the ICC. In any case this avenue of justice has been closed to the Palestinians because although Israel signed up to the ICC it has not ratified it and has since declared that it will not ratify it and hence no longer party to the ICC. Two other rogue countries which have signed but not ratified and declared they will not ratify and hence no longer party to the ICC is the USA and Sudan, so Israel is in good company.
"if they convince/bribe enough countries to vote with them then it gets passed. Big whoop."
And you think the friends of Israel are not doing their utmost to turn the votes in favour of Israel? If richest and most powerful nations of the world (US, EU and sundry others) cannot bully enough of the small and poor nations to vote in favour of Israel, what does that tell you?
The US is forever threatening to withhold funding from the UN if it doesn't get their way.
"The dozens of resolutions passed against Israel by the Muslim-dominated Non-Alligned group (almost all despotic dictatorships with shocking civil rights abuses) sullies the name of the UN."
What sullies the name of the UN Security Council is mandatory use of their veto by the US, and to a lesser extent the UK and France, on any resolution which is, in any way, critical of Israel.
As a democracy Israel should know that however a vote turns out the losers should accept the result gracefully. The UN isn't perfect by any means but it's the only thing in town. The fact Israel has not renounced its membership must mean that it believes it's better to be in than out.
It is thanks to these "despotic dictatorships" in the Middle East that Israel is able to enjoy relative peace. And that's why the US keeps propping up these despots (the cheap oil doesn't hurt either). Let's see what happens in Egypt now that they've overthrown their "despotic dictatorship". And if the Wahhabis overthrow their despotic dictatorship in Saudi Arabia there would be even bloodshed in the middle east.
"But it is also a predictable whine from the pro-Fakeistinians, easily debunkable."
Any report, vote, ruling, finding which is unfavourable to Israel is always dismissed with contempt by Israel as "biased". How predictable.
"In practical terms it means nothing, it does not have any legal backing, and no enforceable powers. The ONLY resolutions out of the UN that do are those from the Security Council."
Even an idiot knows that that's not going to happen so long as the US has a veto. That's why as a general consensus of *world* opinion GA Resolutions are for more representative. Western media have for too long corrupted the meaning of "international", which to them means "some of North America, most of Western Europe, sometimes Japan, and sometimes a little of Australasia.
"For international law to apply, there would have to be a country that Israel was infringing upon. Seeing as the greedy Arabs turned down the UN Partition Plan in 1947, which would have the Palestinian Arab state, there is no such state, therefore the territory is not covered by the international laws you want to apply."
No country, not even the US poodle, has recognised Israel's annexation of Gaza and the West Bank. The international laws with regards to the treatment of people as set out in the Geneva Conventions certainly do apply. As for a Palestinian state, since the PLO's declaration of independence, 131 countries out of the 193 in the UN have recognised the State of Palestine. Unsurprisingly, it is mainly the "international" community, aka the old colonial powers, that have not yet extended recognition.
Anyway, UN Security Council Resolution 465 states:
'that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East'
Seems quite clear to me. And a Security Council Resolution no less, passed unanimously to boot - although "the Carter administration later explained that it had intended to abstain and that its “yes” vote was due to a “breakdown in communication” between the White House and the U.S. mission to the UN." - hilarious!
"This is the reason for the Fakeistinians' attempts to get themselves declared a state in the UN. Just so you may finally get it, there is no such state as Palestine, there never has been,"
They already are a state, and have recognition from the majority of UN members. However they are a state without a land, because Israel is occupying it. What they are trying achieve in the UN is to ideally become a member state (which is not the same as "get themselves declared a state in the UN"), but as you quite rightly point out ...
"and without the UN Security Council's agreement"
their application for full membership will not pass the bully boy vetoes of the US/UK/France and hence they are going for a more limited "non-member state" status.
"....The Geneva Conventions...." LOL! Nothing like starting with a big dose of FAIL! The Geneva Conventions only apply to war between two states - there is no state of Palestine because the Palestinian Arabs and the neighbouring Arab states decided they would rather eradicate the legal state of Israel and did not agree to the UN Partition Plan which would have created the Palestinian Arab state. No state, no legal war, no application of the Geneva Conevntions. The Israelis were smarter - though they suspected the Arabs would try to kill them, they realised the advantages of having a legitimate state. Jews 1, Arabs 0. SInce then the Arabs have scored nothing either, losing every war they have started with Israel.
"....except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations...." So shooting rockets out of Gaza at unarmed civillians is a crime. Yes, we knew that already. So is suicide bombing pizza resteraunts, shopping malls and buses. In short, Hamas is a terrorist organistaon because they regularly break the law and try to kill Israeli civillians. Thanks for clearing that up.
".....Palestinians detained without charge is state sponsored hostage taking...." Great, so you want to use the Geneva Conventions when it suits your arguments, but don't want to admit they allow for the unlimited locking up of both uniformed and non-uniformed fighters during hostilities. Which means Israel has the right to keep all suspected terrorists locked up for the duration. You may want to do sme reading, you'll find the Allies locked up plenty of "innocent" civillians from Germany, Italy and Japan during the War.
"......I don't think Israel would consent anytime soon...." Israel is not on the UN Security Council. If the Fakeistinians had such a perfect case then the Security Council would support them.
"....Even an idiot knows that that's not going to happen so long as the US has a veto...." So you blithely dribbled on about UN resoltuions knowign that the only ones that matter are the UNSC ones, and then state only an idiot would expect the UNSC to pass any such resolution? No need to say anything more, your argument is conclusive, I'm sure we all accept that you are truly an idiot.
"....If richest and most powerful nations of the world ....what does that tell you?....." That there are many dicatatorships just happy to thumb their nose at the States? That Islamic countries put Islam first before international law, sensibility or even self-preservation? Strangely enough, when they need help they're all fast to go begging to the States.
"......It is thanks to these "despotic dictatorships" in the Middle East that Israel is able to enjoy relative peace....." No, it is thanks to the women and men of the IDF that Israel has managed to defeat all the attempts of those despotic dictators to destroy Israel. How many of those despots have made peace with Israel? Two, Jordan and Egypt. Jordan because the Hasemites realised the Fakeistinians posed an even greater threat to their own country, the PLO having tried bloody coups twice. And as for Egypt, it was only US bribery and the realisation they could never defeat Israel that persuaded Anwar Sadat to make peace. How long that will last with "Pharaoh" Mursi in charge is debateable. But it gets better - the reason the Arab despots are not currently fighting Israel is because they need the US's help in fighting Shite uprisings at home.
"....has recognised Israel's annexation of Gaza...." Israel did not annexe the Gaza Strip, and they withdrew all settlers in 2005 despite there having been a continuous Jewish presence in the Strip for thousands of years. It would be a lot more convincing (OK, maybe just slightly convincing) if you could get basic facts right.
"......As for a Palestinian state, since the PLO's declaration of independence, 131 countries out of the 193 in the UN have recognised the State of Palestine...." Means nothing since the UN alrady has UNSC Resolution 181, the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, which lays out the terms for the recognition of the states of Israel and the Palestinian Arab state. Subsequent rejection of that Resolution means the Fakeistinians don't get their state until the UNSC says they do. In 1988 the PLO tried to argue that Res 181 actually meant a "Palestinian" state could be declared, only for it to be pointed out to them that they had not ratified Res 181 and now couldn't. Oh, was that UN resolutions shooting big holes in your blathyer? Try again!
"....UN Security Council Resolution 465 states...." There are quite a few other "obstacles", such as continued Arab terrorist attacks on Israel, and that the Fakeistinians have to recognise the state of Israel. United Nations Security Council resolution 1397 of 2002 requires them to recognise Israel in order to gain a two-state solution. Yet in 2006, Hamas were elected as the representatives of the Fakeistinians on the statement that they would never recognise Israel, so they shot themselves in their own feet with both barrels. Oh, is that another UNSC resolution that the Fakeistinians are not in compliance with, to their own cost?
"....Seems quite clear to me...." Try taking off the ideological blinkers.
"....They already are a state...." Guess again! They have no member status and are not a real country at all. You can keep repeating your self-deluding mantra until you go blue in the face, the fact is until they sit down and accept proper negotiations they will never be a state.
"which states peace must be negotiated, and not imposed by Fakeistinian demands backed up by rockets and suicide bombers."
Since the PNA has renounced violence and in the absence of a partner for peace from the Israeli side, it is pursuing its aims in an entirely peaceful but different "from what the US and Israel wants" manner. It is trying to prove that once again the actions of Israel and the US are against world opinion. And again the threats from the US and Israel have started flying. This time Israel has gone further and deliberately leaked that it plans to dispose of Abbas if he goes through with his UN plans.
'It was a Jewish city long before the Fakeistinians started calling themselves "Palestinians".'
Same old argument - "thousands of years ago it was occupied by ...".
The state of Israel was brought into existence by the UN Partition Plan in 1947, so any disputes/legalities/illegalities with regards to the territories covered by that plan begins there. Not from some book proclaiming a promised land.
Anyway UN Security Council Resolution 476 states:
'Reiterates that all such measures which have altered the geographic, demographic and historical character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council;'
"....- refugees have the right of return...." Which ones?
All, on both sides.
"The Jewish ones that were forced to leave Arab lands to go to Israel? I don't think they'd want to be ethnicly cleansed again."
If they don't want to return, then under UN General Assembly Resolution 194, they have the right to fair compensation for their properties/land/etc.
"The right to return is just an attempt to breed Israel into demographic destruction."
And the creation of Israel did not have a devastating demographic effect on the Arabs already living there? Why should they be made to suffer for the crimes of the Europeans?
"But the crux of the problem is too many Fakeistinians want to eradicate Israel."
Stop changing the argument, the "wants" I listed are perfectly reasonable and consistent with UN resolutions, and did not include "eradicate Israel".
"And why is it all about just what the Fakeistinians want, doesn't anyone else's opinion matter?"
It seems not. Israel and its poodle the US and in turn its poodles the EU always harp on about the right of Israel to "self defence", it doesn't matter that it's the Palestinians who are being occupied, detained, beaten, tortured, killed on a daily basis. They don't deserve the right to self defence, they are expected to take what's given to them, smile and stay quiet.
"If land for peace swaps are to be made then in theory chunks of what the Fakeistinians say is theirs and they are building on now could in theory end up as Israeli territory, which means any Fakeistinian building on them would constitute exactly the illegal settlement activity you said applied to Israel."
Let me reiterate, they are occupied lands not disputed lands. The fact that the Palestinians are willing to accept the Clinton Parameters and do land swaps as part of a final settlement (no pun intended) does not suddenly make the land disputed. It shows that the Palestinians are flexible and pragmatic and not the fanatics that most western media makes them out to be.
"Darn, doesn't it suck when your own arguments get used against you?"
It would, only if the counter argument was based on facts and not opinions.
"Authorities all over the World require you to get permits to build. It's called bureaucracy,"
When permits are freely given to settlers and indeed encouraged to build through grants, tax relief, infrastructure, and routinely denied to Palestinians it's called apartheid. Palestinian buildings constructed without permits are promptly demolished. Illegal settlements (yes illegal even in the opinion of the Israeli government) are overwhelmingly left alone and even provided with supporting infrastructure. Yes, there may be a token demolition of illegal settlements once in a while but the pace of illegal (ie no permit) settlement building far exceeds the token demolitions.
'Lovely language! I can see you're all for reconciliation and living in peace when you describe Jews as "cancer"!'
I haven't insulted you (yet) so please don't insult me. Read and understand what I wrote. Settlements != Jews.
The bits that Israel wants to keep in the West Bank effectively cuts it up into 2 or more physically separate chunks. Passage from one chunk to another would rely on Israeli goodwill. Water, being the precious resource that it is in the middle east, Israel wants "temporary" control of all the West Bank territory adjacent to the River Jordan as a "security" zone.
So the "two states living in peace side by side", would be in reality more like several Palestinian states surrounded by Israel. And yet the Palestinians assenting to it, in theory - so what more concessions does Israel want to wring out of them?
"So you're pro-Hamas then. So you also agree with their charter, including the destruction of Israel?"
Please stick to facts and do not assume.
"Abbas has commitments to reducing terrorism under the Roadmap."
And under the same Roadmap, Israel has a commitment to freeze settlement expansion (no "natural outgrowth", no nothing). So while Abbas has been trying to clamp down on the violence, Israel is busy building new settlements, and each time it announces new building works the violence spikes and Abbas has to kill some more Palestinians - it's a win win situation for Israel.
"Israel wants peaceful relations with all its neighbours"
If Israel was serious about peace then all it has to do is stop settlement activity as Abbas has requested and then peace talks can resume immediately. Abbas has made that point many times.
Israel has come to the conclusion that with unconditional US support the pros of keeping the occupied territories far outweighs the cons. That is why any time there is a danger of the resumption of the "peace process" Israel will engineer some provocation to derail it.
"whereas the Fakeistinians are under no military threat should they accept Israel's,"
I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Once upon a time they actually used ground troops and armour to wade into Palestinian areas to arrest or kill whoever they deemed required arresting or killing. But this involved risking their soldiers lives because despite what Israel would have you believe, Palestinians also have a right to defend themselves.
Nowadays Israel just use fighter jets and helicopter gunships to bomb and destroy targets in Gaza and the West Bank with total impunity. Why should Israel sue for peace when they can just bomb anybody who objects to the occupation?
"The reason the US and EU placed sanctions on Hamas was because they are a designated terrorist group."
Said the colonial powers who used terror to obtain their colonies, used terror to rule their colonies, and used terror in desperate attempts to keep their colonies. I don't care what the US or EU do with their "aid", but given their own atrocious record, to label Hamas as a terrorist organisation, but to those that matters, is considered a resistance movement, is just hypocritical in the extreme.
"....Since the PNA has renounced violence...." Rubbish! Naming squares after and making "heroines" of mass-murderers is not renouncing violence or terror. The barrier and copious handouts from the US and EU stopped the PLO terror attacks from the West Bank. That and the fact Iran sent rockets to Hamas and not the PLO.
"....and in the absence of a partner for peace from the Israeli side...." Abbas and Arafat have always been the ones to walk out of negotiations or make impossible demands in order to refuse negotiations.
"....This time Israel has gone further and deliberately leaked that it plans to dispose of Abbas....." Yes, such a partner for peace he likes maps that show all of Palestine without Israel (http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=3467). Indeed, Abbas has been exposed as quite happy to prolong the current state of play as he and his family have been siphoning off aid money. It's an old Fakeistinian staple, corruption, but Abbas's sons got really upset and tried to sue when the Abbas family's dealings were exposed (http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2012/09/palestinian-presidents-son-sues-magazine-for-libel.html). Real peace would mean both the removal of the aid money the PLO cronies leech off, and also open up the Fakeistinian economy to real competition, meaning the end of their corrupt franchises. No wonder he keeps running away from negotiations. You were wrong to accuse Abbas of being an Israeli henchman, he is just a crook.
".....If Israel was serious about peace then all it has to do is stop settlement activity...." Israel did for ten months and Abbas made no attempt at real negotiations, despite no building ban being imposed on Fakeistinian-occupied areas like Silwan. Bibi made the offer as he knew it would expose Abbas as just looking for excuses not to negotiate. After Abbas walked even Obambi's eyes were opened.
"....to wade into Palestinian areas to arrest or kill whoever they deemed required arresting or killing..." You mean arrest or kill the terrorists that sent suicide-bombers into Israel? Get a clue! When the Fakeistinians stop sending suicide bombers and rockets there won't be a need for Israel to go searching for terrorists.
".....Said the colonial powers who used terror to obtain their colonies...." The US is not a colonial power. Try not just parroting the usual leftie, anti-US male bovine manure as it just makes you look even stupider. Which is quite an achievement given the readiness with which you already repeat inaccuracies and downright lies.
'Obambi's and several previous Prezs have been anything but blind supporters of Israel.'
Please learn to spell.
What was the harshest critical comment that the US has made of Israel? Seriously, I am curious to know, if you know please tell.
Every time the conflict flares up the first thing the US says is "we fully support the right of Israel to self defence" and most invariably followed by "we call on the Palestinians to stop the rockets/bombs/violence". Regardless of who/how/why the current incident in question started.
If any other country had used weapons of war (tanks, artillery, cluster bombs, missiles, mortar shells, fighter jets, helicopter gunships, white phosphorous) against civilians with the regularity and intensity that Israel has, then the US would have at the very least stopped selling them weapons and most likely would have campaigned to get a prosecution in the ICC (even though the US itself is too scared to be a member).
If any other country had ignored UN Resolutions with the frequency that Israel has the US would have regime changed them already.
As for Obama, when he tried to "step out of line" over the settlement issue, Netanyahu showed him who is boss. The Whitehouse no longer insists on a settlement freeze as a pre-condition to "peace talks".
Clinton famously said "who the fuck is the superpower here?" in frustration when he found out that he cannot not fully support Israel.
"It was very predictable that as soon as Hamas ran out of rockets that the US would put pressure on Israel to accept a truce rather than mount a ground operation."
Israel knows full well a ground operation would seriously put the Camp David Accords at risk. The truce is a welcome face-saving move for both Israel and Hamas.
'If the US was blindly supporting Israel then Clinton would not have been calling for " a proportionate response"'
If the US was not blindly supporting Israel they would've called for and worked for regime change as they're doing in Syria right now. Somehow the US deems the Syrian people have a right to self determination but the Palestinians do not. Israel has a continuous right to kill Palestinians but Assad doesn't have the same right to kill Syrians.
You know full well that Clinton's call for "a proportionate response" is for the consumption of the parts of the world not usually regarded by the western media as the "international community".
Israel knows full well even if their actions are grossly disproportionate the US will turn a blind eye and probably applaud them in private, such is their support for Israel and distaste for the Palestinians.
"What army? There is no Taleban army, it does not put on a uniform and follow the rules of war."
It's certainly less embarrassing for the US military to admit they are beaten by an "army" than a "bunch of whatever you want to call them".
Like Israel, flouting the rules of war is part of the US military's modus operandi. Some of the atrocities include nightly raids on villages, breaking into homes, deliberately provoking a reaction from the villagers, shooting dead those who dare to protect their dignity and honour, then label them as insurgents.
Let me make this clear before you jump to one of your many assumptions. War is a dirty business, all sides commits atrocities. My objections are that some sides think that they are morally superior to the others.
"If you think the Taleban are so wonderful please explain their shooting of schoolgirl Malala Yousafzai?"
There you go again jumping to conclusions. FYI I think the shooting was a cowardly and disgusting act. The bigger tragedy is that despite initial outpouring of outrage across most of Pakistani society it lost the momentum to lead to a nationwide will to purge the extremists elements in Pakistan.
"Almost as brave as the Hamas ones that shoot rockets as Israeli schools and then hide behind women and kids."
No braver than using weapons of war against stone throwing children.
No braver than slamming a missile into a building where you think a militant /might/ be hiding, but where you know full well that there are civilians as well.
"There is no occupation of Gaza and there was no slaughter in Gaza."
'Nuff said, if you had it your way you would probably wish there was no Gaza.
"Hamas is uspet by targeted killings because it threatens the Hamas leadership, they couldn't give a damn about "martyrs" amongst their civillians!"
To say that they don't give a damn is disingenuous. You ought to know that much of their popular support comes from their charity and social work. Oh, and their courage to stand up to the Israeli occupation counts in their favour too.
'And what "collective punishment"?'
The blockade of Gaza. On the pretense of preventing Hamas from acquiring weapons Israel is: denying the people of the Gaza Strip the right to export goods; limiting the amount and types of goods that can be imported; denying the freedom of travel; among other measures.
As the just concluded conflict shows, the blackade has not succeeded in preventing Hamas acquire long range rockets. The only beneficiaries of the blockade are the tunnel operators and Hamas, whilst the rest of the people suffers. In a few years Hamas would have replenished their supplies of rockets, Israel would be nearing an election and will again kill some more Palestinians.
"Israel is not randomly shooting or bombing."
That means the killing of civilians is deliberate.
"However, every Hamas rocket is a war crime as they are deliberately and randomly targeted at civillians."
The rockets are primitive and highly inaccurate, their target is the State of Israel. Since Israeli logic dictates that the whole of Gaza must suffer for Hamas' actions then by extension the whole Israel can also suffer for the Israeli military's actions.
".....Seeing as most Israelis have to serve in the army, these civilians are temporarily out of uniform military...." So Israeli kids on the way to school are FUTURE soldiers too, yes?
First of all I was referring to the "civilians" who have already served and are still eligible to serve. Israeli logic deems that kids are threats. During the intifadas, Israeli soldiers routinely kill kids whether "armed" with stones or not. And the Israelis defended their policy of shooting kids by asserting that "stones can kill" (it's that fairy tale book again with that David and Goliath thing), and "they may be throwing stones now but when they grow up they may be throwing bombs".
FYI I don't care whether the Palestinians exterminate the Israelis or vice versa. All sides have committed atrocities and are terrorists. I'm just peeved at the one-sided reporting by most mainstream western media and the blatant unconditional support of Israel by the US when if the actions committed by Israel had been done by any other country it would have been bombed back to the Stone Age by the US already (twice in the case of Iraq).
Re: crayon up his nose
"...."we fully support the right of Israel to self defence"....." Compare that to the supporters of the Fakeistinians that call for the destruction of Israel.
"....Regardless of who/how/why the current incident in question started...." Nicely cherrypicked, ignoring that rockets have been fired DAILY into Israel from Gaza since they withdrew in 2005. The rockets didn't even stop during the days when Hamas was slaughtering and ejecting all the members of Fatah they could find in 2007. The "current incident" was a response to the CONSTANT rocket attacks from Gaza.
".....If any other country had used weapons of war...." What do you expect them to use, waterpistols? Thankfully Hamas simply does not have access to fighter jets, helicopters and tanks, as so far they have used any and every weapon they can get their hands on, including massive bombs, Iranian rockets, and sophisticated Russian anti-tank and anit-aircraft missiles. And that's not including their use of suicide bombers. Trying to pretend the brave jihadis are fighting the Israelis with slings is beyond self-deulsion.
"....The Whitehouse no longer insists on a settlement freeze as a pre-condition...." Because Israel freezed it for ten months and the Fakeistinians made no effort at real talks. Bibi was smarter than Abbas, he called Abbas's bluff and even Obambi finally saw the truth - settlement expansion is just an excuse used by Abbas to avoid negotiations.
"....Like Israel, flouting the rules of war is part of the US military's modus operandi. Some of the atrocities include nightly raids on villages, breaking into homes, deliberately provoking a reaction from the villagers, shooting dead those who dare to protect their dignity and honour, then label them as insurgents...." And your proof of this is what? I can show you cases where US servicemen have been prosecuted when they broke US military law in Afghanistan, but I bet you can't provide anything to back up your wild allegations.
"....No braver than using weapons of war against stone throwing children...." A Grad rocket fired by adult militants is not "stone throwing children" and you know it. Well, I hope you can tell the difference between a 9ft 5in rocket and a stone, but then again I'm beginning to doubt it going by the level of idiocy you are displaying.
"....their courage to stand up to the Israeli occupation...." There is no Israeli occupation of Gaza, they withdrew in 2005. And it is very "brave" to place a rocket launcher in a civillian district on timer and then run away to hide behind women and kids. Indeed, when setting up their launchers, the brave jihadis like to encourage local kids to come and stand near them in the hope it will stop any Israeli strike should they be spotted. Your idea of "brave" is quite strange to me, I'd think it a lot "braver" of the Fakeistinians to renounce violence, recognise and make peace with Israel, and get on with building an economy. But then I suppose playing at jihadi warriors and shooting rockets at Israeli civillians is much easier than being real men.
"....The rockets are primitive and highly inaccurate, their target is the State of Israel. Since Israeli logic dictates that the whole of Gaza must suffer for Hamas' actions then by extension the whole Israel can also suffer for the Israeli military's actions....." Wow! What a twisted way of justifying random murder attempts! You fail because Israel uses targeted killings of known terrorists, whereas Hamas CHOOSES terror attacks on random civillians. You really are so twisted up by hatred of the US (what have they done to you, did Fox cancel your fave TV show?) that you would justify the random killing of civillians as "tit-for-tat". You are a monumnetal example of fail - failure by your parents, failure by your teachers, and failure by your peers. Enjoy your life of bitterness, you are unlikely to get your wishes soon.
Re: "And your proof of this is what?"
"Before Galileo, people took the apparent motion of the Sun across the sky as proof that the Sun went round the Earth."
Some truths are self evident, dude, and don't need signed affidavits or Wikileaks videos. But nice try. :o)
Re: Re: "And your proof of this is what?"
"......Some truths are self evident, dude, and don't need signed affidavits....." But Local Dupe you know they do, otherwise they are just libel. It's exactly the same as if I were to post some wild and unsupported statement, such as saying that crayon-up-his-nose likes to molest goats - without proof to substantiate such a statement it would be libel. Therefore, for crayon-up-his-nose or yourself to make such allegations about Allied forces is exactly the same unless he or you can provide proof. Not that I am encouraging anyone to think that crayon-up-his-nose does molest goats, I wouldn't want anyone to think that he gets his kicks from a bit of billy, and no-one should take my suggested example of a libelous statement as proof that crayon-up-his-nose actually likes to play hide the sausage with the Brothers Gruff. After all, it's just an hypothetical case and there is no proof that crayon-up-his-nose likes a bit more than mint sauce on his kleftiko. So, I hope we're clear on the fact that just suggesting that Allied forces commit such atrocities as a norm, without providing any proof, just because you dislike the US forces and "The Man" without question, is just as silly as my hypothetical suggestion that crayon-up-his-nose has sexual intercourse with Capra aegagrus hircus just because he regurgitates Fakeistinian propaganda and myths.
Or are you saying you would also unquestioningly believe that crayon-up-his-nose shags goats if someone were to suggest it? Please don't ask for a video as that kinda implies some problems of your own.....
So now you think you're a libel expert.
Matt, don't quit your day job (if you have one). Libel law is nothing you'd excel at. Just another manic experience like the time you wanted to write a text book in braille for blind gynecology students.
"If a defendant successfully argues that a plaintiff is a public figure, the plaintiff's burden of proof in a defamation lawsuit becomes heavier than it would be in a claim against a private person." It would be much more difficult for the IDF to sue crayon than it would be for crayon to sue you.
And you can't hide your defamation of crayon behind an insincere apology or a tasteless joke. You'd still end up in Oscar Wilde's old cell in Reading Gaol.
"Can humour be defamatory?
Yes. Humour, satire, sarcasm, cartoons and spoofs that make fun of people can be defamatory, by holding people up to ridicule unfairly. But it can be difficult to predict whether a court will say “although dressed up as a joke, the barb is defamatory and damaging” or “no-one would take this seriously, it’s obviously just a bit of fun”. Decisions have gone both ways."
"Decisions have gone both ways', but your jokes, with respect, only go one way. They aren't funny and probably couldn't be entered as evidence as jokes, but rather as nervous laughter. "Laughter evoked from an audience's expression of embarrassment, alarm, discomfort or confusion, rather than amusement."
And Borat beat you to that.
"Compare that to the supporters of the Fakeistinians that call for the destruction of Israel."
No Arab states are currently (or as policy) calling for the destruction of Israel. As for non-state supporters, I'm sure there are plenty of private citizens and loony rabbis in Israel who call for the destruction of the Palestinians and the establishment of a "Greater Israel" along the lines of the "promised land" rubbish.
Regardless, no friend of Israel seems prepared to admit that the Palestinians also have a right to defend themselves.
"Nicely cherrypicked, ignoring that rockets have been fired DAILY into Israel from Gaza since they withdrew in 2005."
They withdrew from Gaza because they had hoped to pass the problem onto Egypt, but Egypt didn't play ball. And the withdrawal is an empty gesture, given that there is a total sea and air blockade, and near total land blockade.
'The "current incident" was a response to the CONSTANT rocket attacks from Gaza.'
And as long as Gaza is blockaded and the West Bank is occupied there will always be the threat of rockets. Did any Israeli seriously think that the Palestinian problem could be solved by turning Gaza into the world's biggest prison?
'".....If any other country had used weapons of war...." What do you expect them to use, waterpistols?'
No civilised country is expected to use deadly military force in response to civil disturbances. When China used deadly military force to end the Tiananmen Square protests, there was worldwide condemnation and the EU and US implemented a ban on the sales of arms to China, which to date is still in force.
"During the first intifada, the IDF distributed truncheons to its troops and encouraged them to break the bones of Palestinian protesters. The Swedish branch of Save the Children estimated that ‘23,600 to 29,900 children required medical treatment for their beating injuries in the first two years of the intifada.’ Nearly a third of them were aged ten or under."
"Trying to pretend the brave jihadis are fighting the Israelis with slings is beyond self-deulsion."
The rise of Hamas' military wing is largely owing to the brutal methods used by Israel to put down the First Intifada.
"Because Israel freezed it for ten months and the Fakeistinians made no effort at real talks."
When? You mean from Dec 2009, when "the Israeli government announced a 10-month lull in permits for new settlement homes in the West Bank", but which "works in progress" continued unabated. And when a few months later in Mar 2010, Israel tells Joe Biden that they will build some more new homes in East Jerusalem?
Abbas wants Israel to commit to a total stop to the building of settlements. Not a "freeze" which implies it could unfreeze at any time of Israel's choosing to further its aims. Just like Arafat was obliged to renounce violence so that threats of violence from the Palestinian side could not be used as a negotiating tactic.
"Bibi was smarter than Abbas, he called Abbas's bluff"
Since Israel never stopped settlement building, even official settlements, much less the illegal (in Israeli law) settlements, there was no bluff to be called.
"And your proof of this is what?"
Here is just one of many:
"Afghan Leader Says Attack Killed Civilians, but NATO Says the Victims Were Taliban"
Excerpts from that article shows how Nato statements are wildly contradictory:
"A senior NATO official with knowledge of the operation said that the raid had been carried out by a joint Afghan-American force and that its target was a group of men who were known Taliban members and smugglers of homemade bombs, which the American and NATO forces call improvised explosive devices, or I.E.D.'s. According to the NATO official, nine men were killed."
When the Afghan side insisted that those killed were civilians:
"but that elders in the district and a delegation sent to the remote area had found that ''10 people were killed and all of them were civilians.'' "
Nato backpedals and denies responsibility:
"A NATO spokesman had no comment on the killings and said that no NATO forces were operating in the area."
Executive summary: NATO announces the killing of a number of insurgents, subsequent events proved otherwise, NATO denies operation took place.
Here is another incident:
Afghans: U.S. Troops "Covered-Up" Civilian Deaths
Executive summary: NATO operation kills 5 civilians, including two pregnant women, and a teenage girl. US troops removed evidence implicating that they killed them, then reports back to base that the women were already dead when they arrived at the scene. Later NATO admits that they indeed did kill those 3 women. US Special Forces commander offers a sheep in compensation.
There are many more reports of these kinds of incidents if you care to look for news beyond what Fox offers. And these are just the reported incidents, $deity knows how many more NATO/US has successfully covered up.
"Wow! What a twisted way of justifying random murder attempts!"
"Neither Islamic ethics nor Islamic tradition can disqualify terrorism as a means of combat."
No, sorry that's wrong: replace Islamic with Jewish and you'll have the ideology of Lehi (aka the Stern Gang), of which Yitzhak Shamir was a member. This member of a self-professed terrorist organisation went on to become an Israeli prime minister, not once, but twice.
In 1975 Israel gave two members of that terrorist organisation a state funeral.
In 1980 Israel started to reward former members of that terrorist group with the Lehi Ribbon in recognition of "security engagements up till the establishment of the State in 1948"
To call other freedom fighters terrorists when Israel was founded on terrorism is kettle meets pot.
"No Arab states are currently (or as policy) calling for the destruction of Israel...." Iran supports Hamas and calls for the destruction of Israel. I suppose you will try and weasel out by claiming Iran is Persian and not Arab. Whatever. It won't help the Fakeistinians, they have a habit of siding with losers, just like when Haj Amin al-Husseini (Arafat's uncle) sided with Hitler. Gee, I wonder which one of Hitler's policies appealed to the Muslims that joined the SS?
".... the Palestinians also have a right to defend themselves....." How is the Fakeistinians shooting rockets out of Gaza at Israeli civillians a defensive act? How is sending suicide bombers onto Israeli buses and to shopping malls a defensive act? They are acts of aggression, definitie war crimes, and murder when they succeed.
"....They withdrew from Gaza...." So you finally admit they withdrew from Gaza. Nice to see something got through the blinkers.
"....there is a total sea and air blockade, and near total land blockade...." You fail to ask why. The blockade was set up to stop Hamas and Fatah smuggling arms into Gaza. If Hamas and Fatah had both refrained from attacking Israel out of Gaza the blockade would have been long gone. Instead, Hamas seized power and set about turning Gaza into a war base to attack Israel. Do you seriously think the Israelis were going to stand by and let Hamas arm up as much as they like? Monumental fail. It is not only completely legal, there are endless numbers of precedents where countries restrict the flow of weapons and war material to those attacking them. In both World Wars, the Allies mounted a blockade of Germany to stop war materials being shipped to German armaments factories.
".....And as long as Gaza is blockaded and the West Bank is occupied there will always be the threat of rockets....." So you actively support the use of murderous and criminal violence rather than negotiation to solve the problem? Then you get what you ask for - Israel will respond in kind. Every time the rockets get too bothersome - like when Iran is trying to hide news of their upping their uranium refinement efforts - Israel will mount a larger operation to reduce the Fakeistinians' ability to attack. As Hamas hides behind women and kids, this will unfortunately mean those women and kids will probably also die, but then that it the fault ofHamas and the idiots like you that think they can win through violence.
"....Abbas wants Israel to commit to a total stop to the building of settlements....." As already pointed out, not only is this a stupidly biased idea when there are no pre-reqs on the Fakeistinians to do likewise, but Abbas also moves the goalposts every time he needs to. Meanwhile he has completely failed to implement the pre-reqs of the Oslo Accord, including holding free and fair elections (he has usurped Hamas, the elected government party, overstayed his term as President, and eliminated his political opponents in the West Bank). Yet Israel doesn't ask for pre-reqs to every round of talks, because Israel is willing to negotiate. The Fakeistinians are not.
"....When the Afghan side insisted that those killed were civilians...." What, you mean the probably Taleban-sympathetic Afghans? You also seem to have skated over the fact this was a JOINT-operation, so it could have been Afghan forces doing any killings, even if you did prove they were civillians which you have not. And that is beside the point that the Taleban are very adept at claiming any fighters killed are "civillians", just for numpties like you that want to believe.
".....the ideology of Lehi (aka the Stern Gang)....." Which has nothing to do with modern war crimes commited by Hamas or Fatah. Trying to excuse the massive and continued practice of war crimes by refering back to a previous event is self-delusion. You didn't even manage to accuse Yitzhak Shamir of any crimes, just said "he was in this group, it had an ideology, therefore it justifies war crimes." Frankly, that's pathetic. Just admit it, you're an anti-semite and see Hamas's war crimes as justified because they are trying to kill Jews.
"..... Israel was founded on terrorism....." Israel was founded by an act of the UN Security Council, unanimously approved. The Fakeistinians could have also have founded their own state but instead chose terror and murder. They lost then and will continue to lose until they abandon violence and make a real go of negotiations. Until they realise that, morons like you will unquestioningly support their acts and swallow whatever twisted reasoning they give you. Enjoy your stupidity, it will probably last all your lifetime as there is SFA chance of the Fakeistinians wising up.
Kadosh Kadosh Kadosh was the Security Council's decree establishing Israel.
And every Security Council resolution about Israel since has been politely referred to by Jews and Israelis alike as "chazerai", i.e.
UN Security Council resolutions contravened by Israel:
Resolution 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968
Legal status of Jerusalem UN website page
Resolution 262 (1968) of 31 December 1968
Israeli attack on Beirut International Airport UN website page
Resolution 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969
Legal status of Jerusalem UN website page
Resolution 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969
Desecration of the Holy Al-Aqsa Mosque UN website page
Resolution 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971
Legal status of Jerusalem UN website page
Resolution 446 (1979) of 22 March 1979
Settlements in Occupied Palestinian Territory UN website page
Resolution 452 (1979) of 20 July 1979
Settlements in Occupied Palestinian Territory UN website page
Resolution 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980
Settlements in Occupied Palestinian Territory UN website page
Resolution 471 (1980)of 5 June 1980
Assassination attempts on Palestinian city Mayors UN website page
Resolution 484 (1980) of 19 December 1980
Arrest and expulsion of Mayors: Geneva Convention UN website page
Resolution 487 (1981) of 19 June 1981
Bombing of Iraqi nuclear installations: UN Charter UN website page
Resolution 497 (1981) of 17 December 1981
Israeli occupation of Golan Heights UN website page
Resolution 573 (1985)of 4 October 1985
Israeli attack on Tunisia UN website page
Resolution 592 (1986) of 8 December 1986
Israeli army killing students at Bir Zeit University UN website page
Resolution 605 (1987) of 22 December 1987
Killing of Palestinians by Israeli army: Fourth Geneva Convention UN website page
Resolution 607 (1988) of 5 January 1988
Deportation of Palestinians from Occupied Palestinian Territories UN website page
Resolution 608 (1988) of 14 January 1988
Deportation of Palestinians from Occupied Palestinian Territories UN website page
Resolution 636 (1989)of 6 July 1989
Deportation of Palestinians from Occupied Palestinian Territories UN website page
Resolution 641 (1989) of 30 August 1989
Deportation of Palestinians from Occupied Palestinian Territories UN website page
Resolution 672 (1990) of 12 October 1990
Israeli army killing and wounding Palestinians in Jerusalem UN website page
Resolution 673 (1990) of 24 October 1990
Israeli rejection of resolution 672 UN website page
Resolution 681 (1990) of 20 December 1990
Deportations of Palestinians and Fourth Geneva Convention UN website page
Resolution 694 (1991) of 24 May 1991
Deportations of Palestinians and Fourth Geneva Convention UN website page
Resolution 726 (1992) of 6 January 1992
Deportations of Palestinians and Fourth Geneva Convention UN website page
Resolution 799 (1992) of 18 December 1992
Deportations of undreds of Palestinians to Lebanon UN website page
Resolution 904 (1994) of 18 March 1994
Massacre at Mosque of Ibrahim in Hebron UN website page
Resolution 1073 (1996) of 28 September 1996
Killing of Palestinians in Nablus, Ramallah, Bethlehem, Gaza Strip
UN website page
Resolution 1322 (2000) of 7 October 2000
Palestinian deaths: Israel and Fourth Geneva Convention UN website page
Resolution 1402 (2002) of 30 March 2002
Ceasefire and withdrawal of Israeli troops from Palestinian cities UN website page
Resolution 1403 (2002) of 4 April 2002
Demands implementation of Resolution 1402 UN website page
Resolution 1405 (2002) of 19 April 2002
Killing of Palestinians in Jenin and the 'dire situation' there. UN website page
Resolution 1435 (2002) of 24 September 2002
Demands withdrawal of the Israeli forces from Palestinian cities UN website page
Not as overwhelming as it looks. Feel free to discuss each resolution individually. :o)
" just like when Haj Amin al-Husseini (Arafat's uncle) sided with Hitler." Queen Elizabeth's uncle sided with Hitler too. And he went to public school. Are you going to slander the Queen to make some points for Israel?
Oh, check this out MB and learn a little more about your people.
Re: Kadosh Kadosh Kadosh was the Security Council's decree establishing Israel.
"And every Security Council resolution about Israel....." Like the cherrypicked list of Resolutions you quoted! Shall we take a closer look at 242, notably absent from your list, and issued after the Six Day War? Maybe you forgot to mention it seeing as it is part of the basis of the Oslo Accord which the Fakeistinians signed up to but have not adhered to. The second of the key principles of 242 is as follows:
"Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."
Now, consider that of the Arab states directly involved in that War - Syria, Egypt and Jordan - Syria has not signed a peace treaty with Israel and still openly aids Hezbollah in attacking Israel. Hardly letting Israelis "live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force". Of the other Arab states that did involve in direct combat with Israel, did send expeditionary forces and/or material support to Egypt, Syria, Jordan and the PLO - Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Kuwait, Tunisia, Sudan - none have signed a peace treaty with Israel, and all have been guilty of funding directly or indirectly terrorist attacks on Israeli civillians. So, to try and claim only Israel is in breach of UN SC Resolutions is self-delusion of the highest order.
"....Queen Elizabeth's uncle sided with Hitler too....." I don't recall Edward VII taking up arms and joing the SS or working in the deathcamps. Maybe you should have a quick peek here (http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Images:Islamic_Nazism).
Matt, you said "Haj Amin al-Husseini (Arafat's uncle) sided with Hitler."
You didn't say that he sat knee to knee with Hitler or that he shook hands with Himmler. If you had, I'd have kept my mouth shut. This may be apocryphal, but wasn't Edward VII heard whistling the Horst Wessel tune in the gents at Covent Garden?
The creation of Israel was immoral and unjust. It was tantamount to a repugnant spoliation and an iniquitous deprivation of property, repulsive to the common sense of man.
ENGLAND'S MALADMINISTRATION OF THE MIDDLE EAST SINCE THE 19TH CENTURY
"In 1878, as the result of the Cyprus Convention, the United Kingdom took over the government of Cyprus as a protectorate from the Ottoman Empire. While the Cypriots at first welcomed British rule, hoping that they would gradually achieve prosperity, democracy and national liberation, they soon became disillusioned. The British imposed heavy taxes to cover the compensation they paid to the Sultan for conceding Cyprus to them. Moreover, the people were not given the right to participate in the administration of the island, since all powers were reserved to the High Commissioner and to London."
"Another turning point in the history of the Middle East came when oil was discovered, first in Persia in 1908 and later in Saudi Arabia (in 1938) and the other Persian Gulf states, and also in Libya and Algeria. The Middle East, it turned out, possessed the world's largest easily accessible reserves of crude oil, the most important commodity in the 20th century industrial world. Although western oil companies pumped and exported nearly all of the oil to fuel the rapidly expanding automobile industry and other western industrial developments, the kings and emirs of the oil states became immensely rich, enabling them to consolidate their hold on power and giving them a stake in preserving western hegemony over the region. A Western dependence on Middle Eastern oil and the decline of British influence led to a growing American interest in the region. Initially, the Western oil companies established a predominance over oil production and extraction. However, indigenous movements towards nationalising oil assets, oil sharing and the advent of OPEC ensured a shift in the balance of power towards the Arab oil producing nations. Oil wealth also had the effect of stultifying whatever movement towards economic, political or social reform might have emerged in the Arab world under the influence of the Kemalist revolution in Turkey."
"But when the Ottoman Empire was defeated by British Empire forces after the Sinai and Palestine Campaign in 1918, the Arab population was met with what it perceived as betrayal by the British. The British and French governments concluded a secret treaty (the Sykes-Picot Agreement) to partition the Middle East between them and, additionally, the British promised via the Balfour Declaration the international Zionist movement their support in creating a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Historically known as the site of the ancient Jewish Kingdom of Israel and successor Jewish nations for 1,200 years between approximately 1100BC-100AD, the region now had a large Arab population also from the 7th century."
"In Palestine, conflicting forces of Arab nationalism and Zionism created a situation the British could neither resolve nor extricate themselves from. The rise to power of German dictator Adolf Hitler in Germany had created a new urgency in the Zionist quest to immigrate to Palestine and create a Jewish state there. A Palestinian state was also an attractive alternative for Arab and Persian leaders to British, French, and perceived Jewish colonialism and imperialism under the logic of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" (Lewis, 348–350)."
"The struggle between the Arabs and the Jews in Palestine culminated in the 1947 United Nations plan to partition Palestine. This plan attempted to create an Arab state and a Jewish state in the narrow space between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. While the Jewish leaders accepted it, the Arab leaders rejected this plan."
"On 14 May 1948, when the British Mandate expired, the Zionist leadership declared the State of Israel. In the 1948 Arab-Israeli War that immediately followed, the armies of Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia intervened and were defeated by Israel. About 800,000 Palestinians fled from areas annexed by Israel and became refugees in neighbouring countries, thus creating the "Palestinian problem," which has bedevilled the region ever since. Approximately two-thirds of 758,000—866,000 of the Jews expelled or who fled from Arab lands after 1948 were absorbed and naturalized by the State of Israel."
"I was shaped in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." Britain and Israel, respectively.
So, Matt, the bitter truth is that even with your superior ability to argue and your vast wealth of facts and information, I can not ever be convinced that England and the upstart (3 year old) United Nations had the moral right to give land that did not belong to them to refugees from Europe, victims of Holocaust.
If the unspeakable in England wanted to provide a home for the war ravished Jews, move them into Mayfair. Or Long Island from the American anti-Semites. Wouldn't the Jewish refugees have been as unwelcome in England as they would have been in Palestine?
Still that would have been the moral thing to do. But morality had nothing to do with anything. More likely it was here's an acceptable (except for the Palestinians) way to get the Jews out of Europe. Then M. King Hubbert came along and provided another reason.
"Hubbert became the world's best known geologist when he worked for Houston-based Shell Oil Company from 1943 to 1964. His theory goes something like this. Oil is a finite resource. Peak oil, or Hubbert's peak, is the point at which maximum world production is reached, after which its rate terminally declines. Hubbert first presented his theory in a February 4, 1949 Science magazine article called "Energy from Fossil Fuels."
So a year after the foundation of Israel, Hubbert was theorizing about the prospective decline in production of crude oil. (Bitumen oil: you scoop up tons of rocks, dump em in a truck, drive the truck to a tailing pond, dump the rocks into the tailing pond, etc etc. vs. Crude oil, you turn a valve , the oil comes out.)
After 1950, Israel provided the West with insurance that the the kings and emirs of the oil states who had consolidated their hold on power through their allegiance to the West, wouldn't lose their power because all the anarchy and revolution in hearts of their citizens was forever directed at the state of Israel. Thus no new populist, anti-Western leader would get control of their oil fields and cut off the West.
Forget about the rockets from Gaza, the suicide bombers on Dizengoff, and your litany of Palestinian outrages. They are nothing compared to the immorality of the first cause. The Mother of all outrages. Take a Palestinian man who lived on some strategic piece of land (say where Ben Gurion airport was to be). As the fighting draws near, he takes his wife and children out of harm's way. After the dust settles they are refugees, never again permitted to return to their home and their land.
This not moral, not fair, not just.
The laws which the rich, white nations used to plop down hundreds of thousands of one people onto to the land of another people, in spite of their animosities and antipathies, are responsible for not only the trouble between the Arabs and the Israelis, but the hatred and terrorism in the West. As ye sow, so shall ye reap.
If my property, and the property of my neighbors, were taken away, why would I not spend the rest of my days trying to regain it or die trying? Not caring a whit for the destruction I caused the usurpers?
Re: Matt, you said "Haj Amin al-Husseini (Arafat's uncle) sided with Hitler."
"....The creation of Israel was immoral and unjust...." So then I presume you also disagree with the creation of Pakistan or Jordan or any other country created/split due to ethnic differences and war? Want to suggest the UN/NATO should have just kept out of the former Yugoslavia and left the Serbs to slaughtering whomever they liked? Oh, and before you start on your next "The Man hates Muslims" schpiel, please do recall that the US-led NATO activity in Bosnia was largely to protect Muslims being ignored by the handwringing UN. The UN passed plenty of resolutions then too, but it took US military action to save the Bosnian Muslims.
".....as the result of the Cyprus Convention...." SCHWING! Did you just evade off into another and completely unrelated topic? Why, yes you did! Did I expect that? Why, yes I did! Come on, try and stay on-subject for just once, I dare you.
".....Another turning point in the history of the Middle East came when oil was discovered...." <Yawn> There is virtually no oil in Israel or the West Bank, and certainly not enough to effect the old Empire's decisions.
".....culminated in the 1947 United Nations plan to partition Palestine...." Gosh! And there I was convinced you were just going to blame the whole mess on us nasty, imperial Brits.
".... While the Jewish leaders accepted it, the Arab leaders rejected this plan...." Key point - acceptance led to the right to declare the State of Israel and UN entry, whilst rejection left the Palestinian Arabs effectively without a country (ignoring the 76% of the original Palestine Mandate that had been created as Arab-only Transjordan, now called Jordan). Unfortunately you forgot to mention the Arab reasoning behind their decision - it wasn't because they denied Jews had lived there for centuries or were living there at the time; it wasn't because the Jews had threatened to expand and invade neighbouring Arab countries; it was becuase the Arabs' religious leaders could not stand the idea of a Jewish homeland and their political leaders saw the chance to grab more land for themselves.
"......About 800,000 Palestinians fled from areas annexed by Israel and became refugees in neighbouring countries, thus creating the "Palestinian problem," which has bedevilled the region ever since. Approximately two-thirds of 758,000—866,000 of the Jews expelled or who fled from Arab lands after 1948 were absorbed and naturalized by the State of Israel...." So the Israelis welcomed their Jewish cousins whilst the Arabs herded their Muslim bretheren into refugee camps and refused them even basic rights.
"....upstart (3 year old) United Nations...." Built on the League of Nations, instituted by US Prez Wilson as a means of castrating the European Empires after the Great War. If you want to denigrate the UN then, why do you insist it is incapable of error now? Surely by dissing it you remove any value in arguing about UN resolutions? Would you like to borrow a gun to shoot yourself in the other foot too?
"....As the fighting draws near, he takes his wife and children out of harm's way....." Ah, you were doing reasonably well up until you repeated that myth. Arab leaders and their religious leaders ordered the majority of Arab "refugees" to get out of the way so they could set about murdering the Jews and stealing their lands and goods. The U.S. Consul-General in Haifa, Aubrey Lippincott, wrote on April 22nd 1948 that "local mufti-dominated Arab leaders" were urging "all Arabs to leave the city, and large numbers did so." The Arabs complied because they thought they would get a slice of the rewards at the cost of their Jewish neighbours. Indeed, many were threatened that if they stayed they would be in turn attacked when the Jews had been driven out (The Economist, a frequent critic of the Zionists, reported on October 2, 1948: "Of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained. Various factors influenced their decision to seek safety in flight. There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to leave... it was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades."). When the promised "divine Islamic victory" didn't happen they didn't think to say to their leaders "Hey, you were wrong", instead they let themselves be directed by the same failed leaders into more fighting with the Eeeevul Joooooos. The Arabs that stayed became Israeli citizens whilst the Arabs neighbours set about ethnicly-cleansing their countries of any Jews.
".....not fair...." Fair is a word for children and plays no part in real World politics. Using "fair" is the admission that your argument is emotional rather than rational. Is it "fair" that some kids go hungry whilst others don't? Is it any less "fair" that some get better education than others? Is it "fair" that some kids don't get help with either because their leaders spend their money on weapons? How "fair" is it when they also divert foreign aid to buying more weapons (or just lining their private bank accounts)? Which is less "fair" and deserves more action? The Fakeistinians are the most subsidised people on Earth - more than the Sudanese, more than the Bosnians, more than the Bangladeshis, more than any people in the Americas, Africa, Asia or Europe - with more money spent on them than even the Live Aid events raised for the starving in Ethiopia. You think such a much smaller amount of people with such a vast amount of money thrown at them might have managed to build an economy and be prosperous by now, but instead they have thrown it all away on trying to kill Jews (and Westerners that they convinced themselves were the root of all their problems). Is that "fair"?
".....The laws which the rich, white nations used to plop down hundreds of thousands of one people onto to the land of another people...." You yourself posted earlier in the same post that Jews were already living there and had been living there for thousands of years. The whole UN Partition Plan was about dividing the 24% of the Mandate left after Arab-only Transjordan by looking at existing Arab and Jewish areas. The ones that wanted to "plop down...people onto the land of another people" were the Arabs that tried to drive ALL Jews from Palestine, regardless of how long they had been there. Damn, I think you've run out of your own feet to shoot, you'll have to start on caryon-up-his-nose's.
Once again, you are very adept at regurgitating quotes and passages without understanding either the real issue or the events in question. You seek re-inforcement of your own political dogma through selective reading and do not examine either history or modern day facts. Fail!
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
Usually because that's the road the English PMs have taken time and time again.
"The Creation of Pakistan was a Great Mistake of the 20th Century"
Monday, 11.21.2011, 02:57am (GMT) The Weekly Standard Magazine
"The post-World War Two partition of British India was a blood-drenched mess. Since partition, India has prospered. Bangladesh, the 1971 Indo-Pakistani war’s bastard child, remains wretched. For three decades a low-grade civil war has afflicted Pakistan, pitting urban-based modernizers against Islamist extremists reinforced by militant hill tribes. The Taliban attack on Pakistan’s Karachi naval base in May 2011 reprised the hill versus urban paradigm. Pakistan’s civil war divides its intelligence and security services, which is one reason the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff can argue (with confidence) that an element within Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency supported the September 2011 Taliban assault on America’s embassy in Kabul.
In retrospect, splitting British India into East and West Pakistan and India may have been one of the 20th century’s greatest geostrategic errors." Conservative publication.
"Want to suggest the UN/NATO should have just kept out of the former Yugoslavia and left the Serbs to slaughtering whomever they liked?" Another conservative Republican wish.
"Did you just evade off into another and completely unrelated topic? Aw, Matt, didn't you read this?:
"While the Cypriots at first welcomed British rule, hoping that they would gradually achieve prosperity, democracy and national liberation, they soon became disillusioned. The British imposed heavy taxes to cover the compensation they paid to the Sultan for conceding Cyprus to them. Moreover, the people were not given the right to participate in the administration of the island, since all powers were reserved to the High Commissioner and to London." I was pointing out to you that England hasn't had a decent Foreign Policy since Ethelred the Unready.
"Surely by dissing it you remove any value in arguing about UN resolutions?" Oh, did I say there was any value in arguing about UN resolutions? You and crayon have that covered. I thought my point was that after the UN granted Israel statehood they pissed on more resolutions than they've respected. I really don't care if the UN traces its roots back to Runnymede, it is still, as you like to say, odoriferous male bovine poo. A ruse to get smaller nations to put their soldiers under the command of NATO.
"Ah, you were doing reasonably well up until you repeated that myth." Aw shucks, Matt. Do you have any citations showing that Arabs who fled the fighting were allowed back in? What's the statute of limitations on that? Never?
"Fair is a word for children and plays no part in real World politics." Occasionally, you state an opinion about a topic that is incontrovertible and belies your prejudice about most other subjects. Very good.
"In 1920, the League of Nations' Interim Report on the Civil Administration of Palestine stated that there were 700,000 people living in Palestine:
The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. Prior to 1850, there were in the country only a handful of Jews. In the following 30 years, a few hundreds came to Palestine."
"Once again, you are very adept at regurgitating quotes and passages without understanding either the real issue or the events in question." Did you used to be a teacher? :-)
- Review Is it an iPad? Is it a MacBook Air? No, it's a Surface Pro 3
- Microsoft refuses to nip 'Windows 9' unzip lip slip
- Tesla: YES – We'll build a network of free Superchargers in Oz
- US Copyright Office rules that monkeys CAN'T claim copyright over their selfies
- True fact: 1 in 4 Brits are now TERRORISTS