List of resolutions that never came to pass due to vetoes by the U.S. many of these were backed by no one other than the US and Israel, and some with only one or two other minor players

Quote :

" 1. "...condemned Israel's attack against Southern against southern Lebanon and Syria..." 2. "...affirmed the rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, statehood and equal protections..." 3. "...condemned Israel's air strikes and attacks in southern Lebanon and its murder of innocent civilians..." 4. "...called for self-determination of Palestinian people..." 5. "...deplored Israel's altering of the status of Jerusalem, which is recognized as an international city by most world nations and the United Nations..." 6. "...affirmed the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people..." 7. "...endorsed self-determination for the Palestinian people..." 8. "...demanded Israel's withdrawal from the Golan Heights..." 9. "...condemned Israel's mistreatment of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip and its refusal to abide by the Geneva convention protocols of civilized nations..." 10. "...condemned an Israeli soldier who shot eleven Moslem worshippers at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount near Al-Aqsa Mosque in the Old City of Jerusalem..." 11. "...urged sanctions against Israel if it did not withdraw from its invasion of Lebanon..." 12. "...urged sanctions against Israel if it did not withdraw from its invasion of Beirut..." 13. "...urged cutoff of economic aid to Israel if it refused to withdraw from its occupation of Lebanon..." 14. "...condemned continued Israeli settlements in occupied territories in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, denouncing them as an obstacle to peace..." 15. "...deplores Israel's brutal massacre of Arabs in Lebanon and urges its withdrawal..." 16. "...condemned Israeli brutality in southern Lebanon and denounced the Israeli 'Iron Fist' policy of repression..." 17. "...denounced Israel's violation of human rights in the occupied territories..." 18. "...deplored Israel's violence in southern Lebanon..." 19. "...deplored Israel's activities in occupied Arab East Jerusalem that threatened the sanctity of Muslim holy sites..." 20. "...condemned Israel's hijacking of a Libyan passenger airplane..." 21. "...deplored Israel's attacks against Lebanon and its measures and practices against the civilian population of Lebanon..." 22. "...called on Israel to abandon its policies against the Palestinian intifada that violated the rights of occupied Palestinians, to abide by the Fourth Geneva Conventions, and to formalize a leading role for the United Nations in future peace negotiations..." 23. "...urged Israel to accept back deported Palestinians, condemned Israel's shooting of civilians, called on Israel to uphold the Fourth Geneva Convention, and called for a peace settlement under UN auspices..." 24. "...condemned Israel's... incursion into Lebanon..." 25. "...deplored Israel's... commando raids on Lebanon..." 26. "...deplored Israel's repression of the Palestinian intifada and called on Israel to respect the human rights of the Palestinians..." 27. "...deplored Israel's violation of the human rights of the Palestinians..." 28. "...demanded that Israel return property confiscated from Palestinians during a tax protest and allow a fact-finding mission to observe Israel's crackdown on the Palestinian intifada..." 29. "...called for a fact-finding mission on abuses against Palestinians in Israeli-occupied lands..." "

I believe this highlights my claims regarding the support and their behavior by the world's largest economy (US) as well as Israels failure to adhere to many of the resolutions by a council the US and Israel uses as a basis for justification to take action on other nations who fail to comply (the UN.)

If you need other facts you could always read into the Taba peace talks or any other non-violent resolution where israel backed out last minute

9/24/2009 1:39:37 PM

since no one reads the 49th post.

For page 2

U.N. resolutions against Israel

Quote :

" UN Resolutions Against Israel, 1955-1992. Note that Israel is in VIOLATION of many of these Resolutions. 1. Resolution 106: "...condemns Israel for Gaza raid" 2. Resolution 111: "...condemns Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people" 3. Resolution 127: "...recommends Israel suspend its 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem" 4. Resolution 162: "...urges Israel to comply with UN decisions" 5. Resolution 171: "...determines flagrant violations by Israel in its attack on Syria" 6. Resolution 228: "...censures Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control" 7. Resolution 237: "...urges Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees" 8. Resolution 248: "...condemns Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan" 9. Resolution 250: "...calls on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem" 10. Resolution 251: "...deeply deplores Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250" 11. Resolution 252: "...declares invalid Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital" 12. Resolution 256: "...condemns Israeli raids on Jordan as flagrant violation" 13. Resolution 259: "...deplores Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation" 14. Resolution 262: "...condemns Israel for attack on Beirut airport" 15. Resolution 265: "...condemns Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan" 16. Resolution 267: "...censures Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem" 17. Resolution 270: "...condemns Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon" 18. Resolution 271: "...condemns Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem" 19. Resolution 279: "...demands withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon" 20. Resolution 280: "...condemns Israeli's attacks against Lebanon" 21. Resolution 285: "...demands immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon" 22. Resolution 298: "...deplores Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem" 23. Resolution 313: "...demands that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon" 24. Resolution 316: "...condemns Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon" 25. Resolution 317: "...deplores Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon" 26. Resolution 332: "...condemns Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon" 27. Resolution 337: "...condemns Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty" 28. Resolution 347: "...condemns Israeli attacks on Lebanon" 29. Resolution 425: "...calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon" 30. Resolution 427: "...calls on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon" 31. Resolution 444: "...deplores Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces" 32. Resolution 446: "...determines that Israeli settlements are a serious obstruction to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention" 33. Resolution 450: "...calls on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon" 34. Resolution 452: "...calls on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories" 35. Resolution 465: "...deplores Israel's settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel's settlements program" 36. Resolution 467: "...strongly deplores Israel's military intervention in Lebanon" 37. Resolution 468: "...calls on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return" 38. Resolution 469: "...strongly deplores Israel's failure to observe the council's order not to deport Palestinians" 39. Resolution 471: "...expresses deep concern at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention" 40. Resolution 476: "...reiterates that Israel's claims to Jerusalem are null and void" 41. Resolution 478: "...censures (Israel) in the strongest terms for its claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'" 42. Resolution 484: "...declares it imperative that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors" 43. Resolution 487: "...strongly condemns Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility" 44. Resolution 497: "...decides that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan Heights is null and void and demands that Israel rescind its decision forthwith" 45. Resolution 498: "...calls on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon" 46. Resolution 501: "...calls on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops" 47. Resolution 509: "...demands that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon" 48. Resolution 515: "...demands that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in" 49. Resolution 517: "...censures Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon" 50. Resolution 518: "...demands that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon" 51. Resolution 520: "...condemns Israel's attack into West Beirut" 52. Resolution 573: "...condemns Israel vigorously for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters" 53. Resolution 587: "...takes note of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw" 54. Resolution 592: "...strongly deplores the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops" 55. Resolution 605: "...strongly deplores Israel's policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians" 56. Resolution 607: "...calls on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention" 57. Resolution 608: "...deeply regrets that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians" 58. Resolution 636: "...deeply regrets Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians" 59. Resolution 641: "...deplores Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians" 60. Resolution 672: "...condemns Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount" 61. Resolution 673: "...deplores Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United Nations" 62. Resolution 681: "...deplores Israel's resumption of the deportation of Palestinians" 63. Resolution 694: "...deplores Israel's deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return" 64. Resolution 726: "...strongly condemns Israel's deportation of Palestinians" 65. Resolution 799: "...strongly condemns Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return." "

9/24/2009 1:41:01 PM

Quote :

"they are willing to commit to the ultimate sacrifice"

Ultimate sacrifice? No. It is cowardice. Killing people and not living to see the suffering they caused.

And you can't call it a personal sacrifice when Yasser Arafat was paying large sums of money to families who convinced their sons to be "martyrs" and there are Palestinian TV shows for CHILDREN telling them that the best career you can have when you grow up is killing Jews...not just Israelis.

9/24/2009 2:20:24 PM

bdmazur

To the post above you act as if such a belief is an aberration to palestinian culture, or if it is promoted by all Palestinians. There is equal amount of (i'll call it what it is for both sides) propaganda coming from the Israelis on how to treat the Palestinians. There is nothing uniquely outrageous about this behavior, although both are in the wrong.

Despite the money given to the families it is still the ultimate sacrifice. These people are giving up their lives and will never personally see any reward from it. The sums of money given by Arafat in most cases does not compensate for the loss of potential earnings nor the loss of the that person. Its a subsidy out of understanding for their condition, not a pay check for services rendered.

If you want to discuss political backing of disgusting behavior perhaps we should focus on the IDF news black outs or the quotes attributed to the Prime minsters of Israel.

In addition could you please reply to the information provided on the previous page by myself in regards to your OP. I would like to hear your thoughts there, or you could again lean on cognitive dissonance and fail to discuss the two sides of an issue so that you can continue to herald your pro-Israeli mantra with good conscience.

9/24/2009 3:07:03 PM

IRSeriousCat, nice reference to the UN, which is becoming more anti-semitic by the day it seems.

For example:

Quote :

"The U.N.'s Anti-Antiterror Report A biased 'finding' on Gaza could also apply to Afghanistan. When it comes to the U.N. and Israel, our thoughts often turn to those East German Olympic judges during the Cold War: Their bias was so transparent it could almost pass without notice. But a new report from a U.N. "fact finding mission" about January's war in the Gaza Strip marks a new low, employing logic and arguments that will be felt wherever the West confronts terrorism. The Goldstone report—named after principal author, South African jurist Richard Goldstone—is a creature of the U.N.'s Human Rights Council, which in its three short years has condemned Israel more often than the U.N.'s other 191 member states combined, according to Hudson Institute scholar Anne Bayefsky. Mr. Goldstone's report devotes the bulk of its 575 pages to denouncing Israel for what it calls "a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population." For this, it adds, Israeli soldiers could be individually liable for criminal prosecution in international courts, while Israel itself is held guilty of "a crime against humanity." To arrive at these conclusions, Mr. Goldstone and his fellow panelists were forced to make some astonishing claims of fact. For example, they assert that the Gaza police force was a "civilian" agency, though it merged with Hamas's own paramilitary "Executive Force" after Hamas took over Gaza in 2007. The report also says it could not "establish the use of mosques for military purposes or to shield military activity," despite widely available real-time video evidence to the contrary. The argument seems to be that Hamas can surround its combatants with civilians, and for Israel to strike back is a war crime. The report holds Israel culpable for pursuing a strategy essential in war, which is to break the enemy's will to fight. By this logic, FDR and Churchill could have been charged because the bombing of German industries and cities killed civilians in World War II. The U.N. also holds Israel accountable as Gaza's "occupying power," never mind that former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon uprooted all of Gaza's Jewish settlements in 2005. As for the "blockade" it accuses Israel of inflicting on the Strip, one wonders why Egypt, which has also sealed its border with Gaza, doesn't come in for similar condemnation. The report treats Israel as the aggressor in the conflict, though the Israeli government sat still for more than three years as Hamas transformed Gaza into a terrorist enclave while firing rockets at Israeli towns and cities. At exactly what point, if any, does Mr. Goldstone believe Israel is entitled to self defense? His co-panelist, international law professor Christine Chinkin, offered a clue in January when she wrote that Hamas's rocket attacks on Israeli civilians did not "amount to an armed attack entitling Israel to rely on self defense." The Goldstone report includes some pro forma condemnation of Hamas's behavior, but Hamas leaders quickly endorsed the findings because they know they have nothing to fear from the International Criminal Court or any other special tribunal. Hamas violates the laws of war as a matter of daily routine, not least in the murder of Palestinian dissenters. The U.N. report can only hurt a Western nation like Israel that cares about world, or at least American, opinion. If it is taken seriously, the Goldstone logic could (and eventually will) be applied to NATO tactics in Afghanistan, where civilians are also sometimes killed in the course of anti-Taliban operations. This may well be a U.N. goal—the preamble in a process that could lead to, say, Director Leon Panetta in the dock at the Hague. As for the Obama Administration, it has rightly made it clear that it will not allow the report to reach the level of the Security Council, much less the International Criminal Court. But having now joined the Human Rights Council—a point the President underscored, to applause, in his speech yesterday at the U.N.—it now has an obligation to police that body and call it out on its charades, lest it become complicit"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204518504574423652321177372.html

9/24/2009 4:32:34 PM

TKE-Teg did you even read the article or did you just bold parts that gave you the impression you had a supporting argument.

The article presented is an opinion piece that could be written by any source. The bias of the author cannot be confirmed one way or the other. Additionally to claim based on one solitary report that the U.N. is becoming more anti-semitic by the day is hardly supported by the article in question. Furthermore, the U.N. resolutions are those which have seen support by many nations over an extensive period and would thus not be an accurate indication of any rising trend of UN anti-semitism .

Quote :

"a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population." For this, it adds, Israeli soldiers could be individually liable for criminal prosecution in international courts, while Israel itself is held guilty of "a crime against humanity.""

This finding by the report is a disagreement with the policies of Israel as a nation and does not reflect an issue with the collective Jewish people. Disagreement with Israeli policy is not anti-semitism.

I noticed how you failed to bold this part of your article.

Quote :

"The Goldstone report includes some pro forma condemnation of Hamas's behavior, "

To me this indicates the report utilizes some aspect of balance. Without reading the entire report it is impossible to understanding the delicacies of the balance and once again the motives of the author for this opinion piece must be in question.

9/24/2009 4:56:50 PM

You just quoted an article that compares Gaza to Germany in World War 2.

9/24/2009 5:00:20 PM

I doubt any body watched this video I linked to on the first page. So, just to make sure people watch it, I will link to it 3 times here.

This is what will destroy the world one day:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tW1-_JmXQt0 (that's the tip of the iceberg... imagine how many civilians have been intentionally shot in cold blood and the murders covered up by the "most moral army in the world")

This is what will destroy the world one day:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tW1-_JmXQt0 (that's the tip of the iceberg... imagine how many civilians have been intentionally shot in cold blood and the murders covered up by the "most moral army in the world")

This is what will destroy the world one day:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tW1-_JmXQt0 (that's the tip of the iceberg... imagine how many civilians have been intentionally shot in cold blood and the murders covered up by the "most moral army in the world")

9/24/2009 7:52:09 PM

I'm confused by your statements attached tot hat video.

The army tried to cover up embarassing footage, go figure. I've never heard of any military do that ever

Unless I heard wrong, no one was shot. It is to my understanding of the video that the guy's wife was hurt by a nearby blast. I'm trying to figure out who in this situation was "shot in cold blood."

No one has ever called the IDF a moral army...there really isn't any army to ever call itself moral, except maybe the Salvation Army. Every government and military does shitty things, yet everyone seems to hate on Israel and ignore the rest of the world.

The video shows soldiers, newspapers, and officials all saying they disagree with things that are happening. Don't blame an entire nation for poor decisions made by the few.

I don't want anyone in this thread thinking I am forgiving the government and military for horrible things that have happened. There also seems to be this idea floating around that pro-Israel automatically means anti-Palestine, but that is not the case. I want there to be peace, safety, and freedom for everyone.

9/24/2009 11:52:24 PM

Quote :

"No one has ever called the IDF a moral army"

This is actually a common term used by Israel, and others, to describe the IDF. I'm not sure if you're just being coy, or if you actually haven't heard it. Most likely you can google "most moral army in the world" and find many links referring directly to the IDF.

Actually i just now did this for you. Here is one quote for one of the many articles.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak told Army Radio Thursday that "Israel has the most moral army in the world"

Quote :

"yet everyone seems to hate on Israel and ignore the rest of the world"

This is part of the Israel victim complex. The fact of the matter is that no one ever seems to hate on Israel and in large part the general public has been indoctrinated in such a way that in any conflict the counterpart to Israel is automatically viewed as the bad guy in the situation. AIPAC and especially the ADL are very good at making this continue to be the case by labeling anyone who questions the policies of Israel as an Anti-Semite, even jews.

Quote :

"The video shows soldiers, newspapers, and officials all saying they disagree with things that are happening. Don't blame an entire nation for poor decisions made by the few."

The video also shows soldiers and policy officials defending the attacks and suggesting they didn't go far enough. Don't let an entire nation off the hook for a few public statements made during a PR blitz.

Quote :

"I don't want anyone in this thread thinking I am forgiving the government and military for horrible things that have happened. There also seems to be this idea floating around that pro-Israel automatically means anti-Palestine, but that is not the case. I want there to be peace, safety, and freedom for everyone."

Some people may have arrived at that conclusion but that is primarily from your relentless defense of anything Israel, indications of victimization, and continuous condemnation and opposition to any Palestinian action. Even in your OP you state that you believe Palestine is who is responsible for tearing themselves apart.

You want peace, safety, and freedom for everyone, but at what cost and whose terms?

9/25/2009 9:16:59 AM

Some peaceful Israelis for you guys.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/10/11/israel.settlers/index.html

Quote :

"JERUSALEM (CNN) -- Israeli settlers on Sunday set Palestinian fields and olive groves on fire after their illegal outpost in the West Bank was dismantled, Israeli military sources told CNN."

Sad thing is, horrible human beings like this exist on both sides, and perhaps in similar proportions, but it is always the Palestinian extremists/terrorists who are regularly maligned in the media and by the US public.

Israeli extremists/terrorist do acts similar to the one I posted ALL THE TIME, and beat up Palestinian farmers and their families, and have killed Palestinians as well, but sadly, cases such as those are not reported widely, and so the US public is unaware of the ugliness of the other side.

And what's more terrible is that these fucking animals get away with even murder. These beastly settlers LAND THIEVES are not prosecuted by their government when they beat up and destroy the property of Palestinians, or even kill them. Of course, Palestinians who commit terrorist acts have their houses blown up, sometimes with people inside.

Furthermore, "Palestinian terrorist" and "Muslim terrorist" are commonly used phrases all over the world in most media. How come "Israeli terrorist" and "Jewish terrorist" are not used to describe those 'settlers'? They are fucking called as 'settlers' even when they commit assaults and murder of Palestinian farmers and children

THIS IS WHAT WILL BRING THE WORLD TO AN END ONE DAY.

10/11/2009 5:51:47 PM

Most of the world knows about this stuff and they also know about how Americans are spoon-fed the most biased/slanted information when it comes to American and British outlets.

10/14/2009 12:14:08 PM

Quote :

"There's a question we Israelis won't ask ourselves about the Palestinians, especially not about Gaza. The question is taboo. Not only won't anyone ask it out loud, but very, very few people will dare ask it in the privacy of their own minds. However, I think it's time we start asking it, privately and in public. If we don't, I think there's going to be Operation Cast Lead II, then Operation Cast Lead III, and each one is going to be worse than the last, and the consequences for Palestinians and Israelis are going to be unimaginable. The question we have to ask ourselves is this: If anybody treated us like we're treating the people in Gaza, what would we do? We don't want to go there, do we? And because we don't, we make it our business not to see, hear or think about how, indeed, we are treating the people in Gaza. "

- http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1261364551818&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

From the jerusalem post

12/30/2009 8:17:07 PM

maybe i missed it in another thread - is anybody talking about the revival of the peace talks in TSB

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11199709

settlement freeze extension gonna be blocked

9/6/2010 4:16:16 PM

^Thanks for bumping the thread.

I'm very nervous about these talks. Obama is throwing everything he's got into this, which makes me feel that if it doesn't happen now, then it might take another 60 years.

9/6/2010 4:55:34 PM

It WILL take another 60 years, actually, 600 years more like it.

Quote :

"I do not believe that a comprehensive agreement with the Palestinians is possible within a year, nor even during the next generation” Avigdor Lieberman Israeli Foreign Minister"

Even if there is some agreement and 2-state solution within the next few years, and they live in 2 states peacefully, it will only be for a [relatively] short time, maybe a few years, maybe a couple of decades. Bloodshed will return, fighting will return.

9/6/2010 5:42:31 PM

I'm more optimistic than that. The younger Israeli generation is sick of all the violence and wants to see it end. Netenyahu and Lieberman are not their leaders and as soon as fresh blood gets into office, things can change.

I'm just worried that once that new leadership becomes a reality and they are ready for peace, the US won't want to be involved anymore because of all the failed attempts.

Honestly, I want to see Shimon Peres back in the PM spot, but his term as President will not end until 2014. He cannot run for re-election of that position so he very may well run for PM again.

(Although Peres is not new blood, he is a very moderate politician and the best shot we have until enough of the older generation has passed and younger politicians start stepping up to replace them)

[Edited on September 6, 2010 at 5:56 PM. Reason : -]

9/6/2010 5:55:36 PM

Quote :

"the US won't want to be involved anymore"

i'd be perfectly ok with the US extricating themselves from Israeli affairs

9/6/2010 6:07:27 PM

I'm talking about a US involvement that would mean helping both sides achieve peace. There needs to be a mediator, otherwise I don't think there's any chance at all.

And there is no way I would accept the British in that role, its their fault things started off the way they did.

The US, the UN, or this isn't happening.

9/6/2010 7:16:28 PM

Quote :

"I'm just worried that once that new leadership becomes a reality and they are ready for peace, the US won't want to be involved anymore because of all the failed attempts."

I'm not sure about this. These "Middle East peace talks" are a great way for administrations to look like they're doing something important in foreign policy. More importantly, by the time they've clearly failed you're probably already out of office. You get the photo op of the opposing leaders shaking hands in front of you, everyone lauds your devotion to peace, good times. Even if things break down into major violence during your term, are the American people really going to blame you for a conflict that's been going on for sixty years?

No, I don't think any amount of failure will keep successive American administrations from pursuing this sort of thing. Nobody opposes peace in the Middle East, so there's no resistance. The price for failure is low. Succeed, and you've got the biggest foreign policy coup since the commies threw in the towel. It's like a casino game where the worst you can do is break even.

Quote :

"Even if there is some agreement and 2-state solution within the next few years, and they live in 2 states peacefully, it will only be for a [relatively] short time, maybe a few years, maybe a couple of decades."

Well with this cheery outlook I suppose nobody should bother. Shall I take it you think that the only solution is for the Jews to pack up and move out?

9/6/2010 7:44:44 PM

Quote :

"Every government and military does shitty things, yet everyone seems to hate on Israel and ignore the rest of the world."

Israel is committing genocide. Do you expect people to ignore it? It seems like the politicians over there think the Palestinians will just evaporate.

What I'm saying isn't even considered controversial to many Israelis.

Quote :

"Shall I take it you think that the only solution is for the Jews to pack up and move out?"

A better option would be to stop shitting on everybody else in the region. The government there is ridiculously incompetent at the moment, and in being so, is endangering their country's future needlessly. Very reckless and stupid, especially given that Syria is increasingly a viable military threat.

Quote :

"Ultimate sacrifice? No. It is cowardice. Killing people and not living to see the suffering they caused."

What do you think IDF soldiers that return to a peaceful life of clubbing and fucking easy Americans on birthright tours in Tel Aviv are doing?

Quote :

"The question we have to ask ourselves is this: If anybody treated us like we're treating the people in Gaza, what would we do?"

Probably use it as pretext to kick people out of a region, impoverish them, and then commit genocide against them. Remember kids, "there is no such thing as a Palestinian". Repeat it until you revise.

[Edited on September 7, 2010 at 8:07 AM. Reason : .]

9/7/2010 7:58:32 AM

Quote :

"Israel is committing genocide."

This is a hard sell. I assume we can go with the UN definition of the term of "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

There's no doubt that Israel commits several of those actions but the evidence that they intend to destroy the Palestinians as a group isn't really there. The Israelis want the land and the lion's share of the political power, which may make them horrible assholes, but it doesn't make them genocidal.

Quote :

"A better option would be to stop shitting on everybody else in the region."

On this we are in agreement. I was asking 0EP, who seems convinced that as long as the two groups both inhabit the region they will fight for ever.

[Edited on September 7, 2010 at 4:27 PM. Reason : ]

9/7/2010 4:27:03 PM

Quote :

"This is a hard sell."

No it's not, it's true by definition. You even point that out.

Quote :

"There's no doubt that Israel commits several of those actions but the evidence that they intend to destroy the Palestinians as a group isn't really there. "

Forcing them to be absorbed into other Arab regions is certainly ending them as a group/nationality/whatever. They're trying to displace an entire people. Why else would they keep Gaza in such miserable filth? (Edit: I should really point out what god-awful, wretched, utter, complete filth Gaza is in. What a terrible situation. The fact it's not reported on more often and more visibly is practically a human rights violation.)

Quote :

"The Israelis want the land and the lion's share of the political power, which may make them horrible assholes, but it doesn't make them genocidal."

See how much they want to share this power as the native Israeli Arab population continues to skyrocket. We will probably see more "relocation" as Arab numbers in the Knesset threaten to rise.

Quote :

"I was asking 0EP, who seems convinced that as long as the two groups both inhabit the region they will fight for ever."

Palestinians want what any group of humans want. They want prosperity, peace, and the right to self-determination. The Israeli government denies all three of these, and so long as they do, people will fight.

[Edited on September 7, 2010 at 5:34 PM. Reason : .]

9/7/2010 5:33:22 PM

Quote :

"This is a hard sell."

Really? The results are the same right? It seems very similar to what I hear refereed to as the american genocide of the native americans. I don't think america wanted to kill all the native americans, they just wanted their land, killing them was a byproduct.

9/7/2010 6:24:51 PM

"The results are the same"? Really? A booming Palestinian population with a birthrate several times that of Israel's? No, the results aren't the same.

Displacing people isn't genocide. Economic warfare against Gaza isn't genocide. Stop with the hyperbole.

9/7/2010 7:49:16 PM

Quote :

"Well with this cheery outlook I suppose nobody should bother. Shall I take it you think that the only solution is for the Jews to pack up and move out?"

Well, that IS a solution, but is too radical, and is not fair to people who without their choice or participation (because they were babies/unborn) had their roots planted in the land due to the actions of their grandfathers some 60 years ago.

See, I am even saying that people who got there just 60 years ago have a right to stay now. So what about people who have had an unbroken presence in the land for 1,000+ years?

That brings us to the other solution, which sadly, will never be accepted by Israel: Open the doors to Arabs who were thrown out in the last 60 years and who are currently living in wretched refugee camps in several countries. And needless to say, uproot the illegal 'settlements'.

Now see, that a THE solution.

But, as we all know, Israel will never agree to that (they will probably uproot the settlements, but never the right of return) because it is a viciously racist country which argues that it will change the character of their country. Yes, it *will* change the demographics... back to the way it would have been had the Israeli terrorist leaders and organizations not committed ethnic cleansing back in the day. But they can't have that now.

And so, yes, the fighting will continue forever.

9/7/2010 8:07:11 PM

Quote :

""The results are the same"? Really? A booming Palestinian population with a birthrate several times that of Israel's? No, the results aren't the same."

How does birthrate factor into genocide? If I kill someone, it's still murder, even if someone the same race as them has another kid afterwords.

Honestly your line of thought here is nothing less than literally comical. Using this idea the jews are responsible for the holocaust, apparently it wouldn't have been genocide if they had more children.

It's actually laugh out loud funny for how logically inconsistent yet obliviously ignorant it is.

Quote :

"Displacing people isn't genocide. Economic warfare against Gaza isn't genocide. Stop with the hyperbole."

People have been killed by both, racially targeted attacks in an effort to remove them from an area. Any of you would easily call the US displacement of native americans genocide, yet this is somehow different?

9/7/2010 8:47:25 PM

They want the Palestinians land? I'm pretty sure that Israel wants nothing to do with Gaza, where all these ridiculous "genocide" claims get thrown about. On the West Bank, it's a little bit different, but then again "genocide" is a pretty ridiculous term to describe the bulldozing of some houses and the razing of some farmland.

[Edited on September 7, 2010 at 8:58 PM. Reason : 2]

9/7/2010 8:56:25 PM

Quote :

"bulldozing of some houses and the razing of some farmland."

if you think that's all that takes place, you are so sadly ignorant of the reality, like the vast majority of americans unfortunately.

9/7/2010 8:58:11 PM

what, exactly, do you think is happening in the West Bank right now? The evil Israelis rounding up people to shoot?

The IDF can be heavy-handed, but they don't kill indiscriminately like the terrorists in the region. They are trying to keep some semblence of peace by the only method that means anything to the palestinian leadership: by force.

9/7/2010 9:08:55 PM

Its certainly more than bulldozing, but it is not a genocide.

A wall was built between Israel and Gaza and they called it a new apartheid. But the number of rockets fired annually out of Gaza into Israeli homes decreased by 70% the next year. Israel is doing what it feels is necessary to protect its own people. Yes, they take it too far way too often and I am not happy about it. But what I (and most Israelis of our generation) want to see is an end to violence, not an end to Palestine.

9/7/2010 9:36:31 PM

Quote :

"Israel is doing what it feels is necessary to protect its own people."

The Israeli government actually is acting in blatant disregard of its people's long-term interests/safety.

Also: Prawn Star you need to read more and opine less because (putting this lightly) you are fucking clueless.

[Edited on September 7, 2010 at 9:49 PM. Reason : When you read this, channel your anger into a book and not into "ra ra" on the post message]

9/7/2010 9:47:36 PM

Quote :

"They want the Palestinians land?"

Why do they bulldoze the houses and destroy palestinian settlements?

Quote :

"The IDF can be heavy-handed, but they don't kill indiscriminately like the terrorists in the region"

Not all of those terrorists are arab. And yes, they do kill indiscriminately, all they have to do is say that a terrorist leader is there.

9/7/2010 10:03:01 PM

^and 9 times out of 10, they have video/photo evidence to prove it.

that's much better certainty than the US ever has.

9/7/2010 10:13:56 PM

what's the acceptable cost to benefit ratio there?

clearly Israel is willing to kill several innocent people to get one terrorist, as long as those people are palestinian, their lives are worth less than Israelis

9/7/2010 10:30:53 PM

^ Is it crazy to think that the Israeli government values the lives of it's citizens higher than those of the Palestinians? Besides, it is pretty clear that the number of "innocent casualties" of the IDF and it's operations is greatly exaggerated by the Palestinians and correspondingly, the very pro-Palestinian media. It would be nice to get some honest reporting from the region, but as we have seen over the past few decades, reporters in the region are very keen to put their own spin on things. Israel knows that it cannot get a fair shake from the media.

If the Palestinians could govern themselves and stop with the indiscriminate attacks, we might see some peace in the region.

9/7/2010 11:13:48 PM

Quote :

"Is it crazy to think that the Israeli government values the lives of it's citizens higher than those of the Palestinians?"

No, but it's crazy to think that they value them so little.

Quote :

"Israel knows that it cannot get a fair shake from the media."

Attacks by palestinians are always done by "terrorists" attacks by israelis are always done by "settlers". I agree that it's not fair.

Quote :

"If the Palestinians could govern themselves and stop with the indiscriminate attacks, we might see some peace in the region."

They're not allowed to govern themselves. They're still completely blockaded, and their houses are constantly destroyed by either bulldozers or missles.

9/8/2010 12:12:33 AM

Quote :

"Attacks by palestinians are always done by "terrorists" attacks by israelis are always done by "settlers". I agree that it's not fair."

To be fair, there are many, many more attacks by Palestinians, and they are more organized, with the express intent to inflict terror among the settlers. According to the human rights group B'Tselem, 357 settlers, tourists and security forces personnel have been killed by the Palestinians in the West Bank over the last 10 years, while 43 Palestinians in the West Bank have been killed by settlers.

Quote :

"They're not allowed to govern themselves. They're still completely blockaded, and their houses are constantly destroyed by either bulldozers or missles."

They are not allowed to govern themselves? Then what the hell is the Palestinian Authority, and why do we pay them almost a Billion dollars in aid every year? The West Bank is not 'completely blockaded'. That's just not true. Besides, what does this have to do with the fact that they cannot govern themselves?

9/8/2010 1:52:11 AM

Quote :

"Forcing them to be absorbed into other Arab regions is certainly ending them as a group/nationality/whatever."

So far a Palestinian national political entity is kept as intact as it can be under present circumstances (not the least being the divided government) in the Gaza Strip and West Bank. And I'll point out that it's not a given that the Palestinians are a "national group" in any meaningful sense. They did not exist as such prior to 1949 when the whole problem came about.

Quote :

"Why else would they keep Gaza in such miserable filth?"

Gaza is miserable. I won't deny that. I will deny that Israel's role in that is not demonstrably tied to a deliberate effort to exterminate anybody. It is common during warfare for each side to try to make conditions for the other miserable. Such action is a tactic of warfare -- perhaps even an illegal and deplorable one -- but it is not genocide. In WWI we weren't working with the British to blockade Germany in order to exterminate the Germans as a national group.

Quote :

"We will probably see more "relocation" as Arab numbers in the Knesset threaten to rise."

The possibility of future action is not evidence of current action. The prospects for peace as the Jews lose control over what was intended to be a primarily Jewish state are worrisome but they're not germane to a discussion of whether or not the government of Israel is guilty of genocide.

Quote :

"The Israeli government denies all three of these, and so long as they do, people will fight."

This need not be the case. Other groups denied prosperity, peace, and self-determination have used nonviolent means, and often with success. Certainly a billion and a half Indians, Pakistanis, and Bangledeshis would be inclined to agree.

At present, the fastest course to peace seems to me to be a cessation of violence on the part of Palestinian groups. Israel would be much harder pressed to continue its current course if it faced a nonviolent foe. Hamas, I fear, would not be subject to the same pressures, especially not when there are a number of people and governments around the world who benefit immensely from supporting the destruction of Israel, especially in terms of their own domestic support.

Quote :

"Really? The results are the same right?"

The results of manslaughter and first degree murder are the same, too, but I don't think we're foolish to differentiate between them.

Quote :

"they will probably uproot the settlements, but never the right of return"

I don't see why this should be inadequate. Plenty of people have claims to ancestral lands and don't go slaughtering each other over it. If the Israelis quit encroaching and retreat to boundaries that exclude the settlements they will have abandoned the biggest remaining roadblock on their part to meaningful peace talks.

I also think it's interesting that you ignore one of the possible outcomes to the right of return, which will be a suddenly overwhelmed Jewish population once again at the mercy of its neighbors. It may not just be about self-determination, it may become something about revanchism.

Quote :

"The Israeli government actually is acting in blatant disregard of its people's long-term interests/safety. "

Possibly this is true, but certainly it's true that you won't have any long-term interests if you ignore your short-term ones.

9/8/2010 2:43:08 AM

Quote :

"Plenty of people have claims to ancestral lands and don't go slaughtering each other over it."

Ummm... how do you think Israel came about? Jewish leaders and terrorist groups threw out Arabs, killed a lot, and then defaced the whole region by erasing Arab names of cities and streets and replacing them with Jewish names.

Dude, did you just indirectly say that Jews have the right to be in a land where they haven't been for 1,000s of years, but people who have been in the land for a 1,000+ years (unbroken presence) shouldn't be allowed to return now since they were thrown out 60 years ago by the former group?

So you think that the Jews' 'right' to live as a majority on the land is infinitely heavier than the Arabs' right to even be on the same land?

Group A was on the land 60 years ago, 1000+ years unbroken presence.

Group B came and Group A out 60 years ago, and they hadn't been on the land for 2,000+ years.

Now I am saying let Group B stay, but also let Group A return, to be fair to both sides.

But you (and millions others) are saying NO, Group B HAS to be in the majority, so Group A should not be allowed to return.

WTH?

9/8/2010 7:29:20 AM

Quote :

"This need not be the case. Other groups denied prosperity, peace, and self-determination have used nonviolent means, and often with success. Certainly a billion and a half Indians, Pakistanis, and Bangledeshis would be inclined to agree. "

The overwhelming majority of Palestinians are nonviolent. Does every single Palestinian have to be nonviolent in order for Palestinians to be "using nonviolent means"? What do they do in the mean time, as fringe extremists perpetrate violence (just as they did in India)?

Quote :

" At present, the fastest course to peace seems to me to be a cessation of violence on the part of Palestinian groups. Israel would be much harder pressed to continue its current course if it faced a nonviolent foe. Hamas, I fear, would not be subject to the same pressures, especially not when there are a number of people and governments around the world who benefit immensely from supporting the destruction of Israel, especially in terms of their own domestic support."

The only reason Palestinians support Hamas to the extent they do is because it's the best option. Israel could solve this.

Quote :

"The prospects for peace as the Jews lose control over what was intended to be a primarily Jewish state are worrisome but they're not germane to a discussion of whether or not the government of Israel is guilty of genocide."

None of my arguments really amount to something because the fact that Israel is committing genocide is definitional. I accept the UN definition. If you don't, we're arguing semantics.

Quote :

"Gaza is miserable. I won't deny that. I will deny that Israel's role in that is not demonstrably tied to a deliberate effort to exterminate anybody. It is common during warfare for each side to try to make conditions for the other miserable. Such action is a tactic of warfare -- perhaps even an illegal and deplorable one -- but it is not genocide. In WWI we weren't working with the British to blockade Germany in order to exterminate the Germans as a national group."

Sounds like you don't know just how bad Gaza is.

Quote :

"And I'll point out that it's not a given that the Palestinians are a "national group" in any meaningful sense. They did not exist as such prior to 1949 when the whole problem came about."

Then Israelis are not a "national group" either, by the same criterion.

Quote :

"Is it crazy to think that the Israeli government values the lives of it's citizens higher than those of the Palestinians?"

That people pander to their tribes for the sake of political expediency proves what? What's your exchange rate for Israelis to Palestinians?

9/8/2010 11:22:26 AM

Quote :

"Dude, did you just indirectly say that Jews have the right to be in a land where they haven't been for 1,000s of years, but people who have been in the land for a 1,000+ years (unbroken presence) shouldn't be allowed to return now since they were thrown out 60 years ago by the former group?"

No, but I am willing to accept certain realities of the situation.

1) How exactly does one go about returning millions of people to a densely populated territory? It's not as though all the residences the Palestinians were driven out of still exist, and may be replaced by buildings or families who obtained the place through so many purchases that it's not reasonable to hold the accountable for the original eviction.

2) If an overwhelming number of Palestinians show up, they will not be kind to the Israelis. Maybe the Israelis deserve it, but I can damn well see why they want to avoid it.

3) In relation to the statement of mine that you quoted, I said that a nonviolent approach now will reduce the oppression of Palestinians now, and I stand by that statement.

---

Quote :

"What do they do in the mean time, as fringe extremists perpetrate violence"

They could turn down the vocal support for such extremists, and even -- gasp! -- start actively opposing them. You'll notice the West Bank doesn't let Hamas be in charge, and their lives aren't nearly as shitty as their cousins in Gaza.

Quote :

"None of my arguments really amount to something because the fact that Israel is committing genocide is definitional. I accept the UN definition."

I accept it as well, and you are a long ways off from showing that Israel meets the standard for genocide.

Quote :

"Sounds like you don't know just how bad Gaza is."

Based on what?

Quote :

"Then Israelis are not a "national group" either, by the same criterion."

Maybe not. I think they qualify because they actually have been a nation for the decades since, which is more than I can say for Palestine. Overall though it's irrelevant, because I'm not accusing the Palestinians of trying to commit genocide.

9/8/2010 1:58:36 PM

Quote :

"Based on what?"

Your willingness to shy away from calling it what it is, how it is. If you don't think this is an attempt to crush their will to resist Israel's agenda then I don't know what to tell you. Maybe the Israelis are just exceedingly cruel for no reason? I don't think so.

Quote :

"Maybe not. I think they qualify because they actually have been a nation for the decades since, which is more than I can say for Palestine. Overall though it's irrelevant, because I'm not accusing the Palestinians of trying to commit genocide."

The Palestinians are a group that are meaningfully removed from the Arab world at large. Trying to remove them from the region (via violence, crushing their economy, keeping them in poverty, filthy, and misery) is trying to erase them as a group.

9/8/2010 2:22:33 PM

Quote :

"Group A was on the land 60 years ago, 1000+ years unbroken presence. Group B came and Group A out 60 years ago, and they hadn't been on the land for 2,000+ years."

This is incorrect.

Although the current diaspora officially began in 72AD, Jews have been in and out of the territory since then. Never with enough numbers to be a noticeable group, but they have been there. And it isn't as if the Israelites were gone one day and BOOM there were all the Palestinians the next. There was never such thing as a Palestinian until there was such thing as an Israeli, they just used to be Arabs who happened to have stayed there (in fact, it was the Romans who called it Palestine just to piss off the Jews, who's biggest rival was the Philistines).

Mass immigration of Jews back to the land really began in the 1880s, when they LEGALLY and NON-VIOLENTLY purchased many homes and began to build up cities. The Arab residents welcomed it, because the Jews brought with them European industry. Tel-Aviv and the new side of Jerusalem were built up by the Jews/Israelis, they didn't just take away a city that belonged to someone else (please note that Old City Jerusalem which is often under dispute is a very different kind of place socially than the new side).

When Israel declared independence, it was willing to accept the Arabs living there as equal citizens. However, the enighboring Arab nations fucked it up for everyone else by attacking. Many Arabs in the area left to avoid the fight and were going to come back after Israel had been blasted apart...except that Israel defended itself. Those who never left were allowed to stay, and although there are social issues with how Arab-Israelis are treated, they are still equal citizens. The ones who left were not allowed to come back, and they became the Palestinians.

9/8/2010 3:09:24 PM

Quote :

"Never with enough numbers to be a noticeable group, but they have been there."

Surely this justifies a massive wave of European immigration to the region.

Quote :

"When Israel declared independence, it was willing to accept the Arabs living there as equal citizens. However, the enighboring Arab nations fucked it up for everyone else by attacking. Many Arabs in the area left to avoid the fight and were going to come back after Israel had been blasted apart...except that Israel defended itself. Those who never left were allowed to stay, and although there are social issues with how Arab-Israelis are treated, they are still equal citizens. The ones who left were not allowed to come back, and they became the Palestinians. "

History books. Not sure what to tell you here. Not even an Israeli Zionist would agree with this depiction of the events; they're at least honest that the Palestinians suffer unfairly, but that it is just because a Jewish state is just (and relocation/expulsion is their opinion of the only way this is possible).

[Edited on September 8, 2010 at 3:57 PM. Reason : Not buying any historical account of the situation that doesn't mention forced expulsion]

Edit: It's worth pointing out that many people at the time, including the King of Transjordan, suggested that Jerusalem be split so that Jews could consider it "theirs" in the same sense that the Vatican is every Catholic's. Of course, this didn't work. I wonder why?

[Edited on September 8, 2010 at 3:58 PM. Reason : .]

9/8/2010 3:56:07 PM

History is pretty much irrelevant at this point. That was their grandparents' war. Now all both sides know is that the other side keeps killing their friends.

9/8/2010 4:00:05 PM

Quote :

"History is pretty much irrelevant at this point. That was their grandparents' war. Now all both sides know is that the other side keeps killing their friends."

Person A: Historical claim X.
Person B: Check your facts, X is at best misleading.
Person A: Well, history doesn't matter anyway.

How do you think we're in the situation we're in now? History is completely relevant. We can't change it, but we can understand it to help us understand the present. There's a reason Palestinians live in a festering prison currently. It's not pretty. It doesn't have to be this way, though. It just takes people with the courage to acknowledge and challenge that system.

[Edited on September 8, 2010 at 5:18 PM. Reason : .]

9/8/2010 5:13:47 PM

Quote :

"Mass immigration of Jews back to the land really began in the 1880s, when they LEGALLY and NON-VIOLENTLY purchased many homes and began to build up cities. The Arab residents welcomed it, because the Jews brought with them European industry."

It started in the 1880s because the Ottoman empire closely regulated the number of immigrants, which generally kept peace there. The Turks knew the people and how to keep peace in the area. It wasn't until the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and subsequent attempted rule by the british a continent away that the confusion really started to set in. The jews began immigrating in mass and terrorizing and pushing away the local population. The jews just started building a massive terrorist army aimed at attacking innocent people and just general terrorism against the british rulers there. They started importing guns and bombs, bombing government buildings and assassinating the british there. Not only were they terrorists, but far more effective and violent ones than the palestinians have become.

Quote :

"When Israel declared independence, it was willing to accept the Arabs living there as equal citizens."

Sure, thus the "Rock Of Israel", right?

Quote :

"Many Arabs in the area left to avoid the fight and were going to come back after Israel had been blasted apart...except that Israel defended itself. Those who never left were allowed to stay, and although there are social issues with how Arab-Israelis are treated, they are still equal citizens. The ones who left were not allowed to come back, and they became the Palestinians."

You've failed to mention how many of these, who were not forced out, still became "present absentees" and STILL had thier homes stolen from them.

9/8/2010 5:55:50 PM

^ Don't spoil the surprise

[Edited on September 8, 2010 at 6:03 PM. Reason : .]

9/8/2010 6:03:48 PM

Expelled? Nah....

9/8/2010 7:00:38 PM