Human rights and Freedom (Of knowledge) are main components of democracy, because without them civilians cannot make fair decisions.

Then Italy isn't a democracy (with freedom of knowledge), because almost all of the media, both private and state-controlled, are in the hands of Berlusconi. Which, accordingly, caused the Freedom House organisation to remove Italy from the list of countries with a free press.

But Italy could have a free press, if the voters simply voted to oust Berlusconi. So they are still a democracy in my book. If voters can vote unrestricted, without fear of consequences resulting from their vote, then it's democracy. Because the people (demos) then have the power (kratos) to change their government. That's why Iran isn'a democracy, and countries like Morocco are neither (monarchy). In Palestine, however, voter intimidation was not reported by international watchdogs to be at an extent where I wouldn't call the poll victory of Hamas democratic.

A lot of freedoms, on the other hand, fall under the category of Liberalism. If you want to assert that that's a positive value, be precise and don't assume that I agree with you redefining the meaning of the word "democracy". I'm sick enough already of people throwing that word around. Democracy in Egypt would most likely mean a government led by the Muslim Brotherhood, and that would be detrimental to the interests of the West.

Democracy has long time ago lost it's literal meaning of "Democracy". Today country that has elections isn't a democracy. You say that people could have freedom of speech and knowledge if they wanted. But their media is already control. They don't have the knowledge and they can't have the right decision of having rights, because they don't have enough rights.
Freedom of speech, freedom of knowledge and human rights are definitely basic components of democracy and aren't choice features of liberal democracy...

You say elections are fair? Then Palestinians are responsible for the rockets on the Israel cities.

I agree to some extent. A majority of the Palestinians is indeed responsible for the rockets on the Israel cities. A few sidenotes however, which I'm sure you'll have fun with:

1) Israel, due to its past actions, is also indirectly partially responsible for the rockets on Israeli cities. In a way (I'm not drawing complete parallels here, mind you) like France was also partially responsible for the outbreak of WW2.
2) Democracy per se doesn't justify collective punishment, because a sizeble minority didn't vote for Hamas.

Possibly.
1) Or i could just as well say that The Westerns nations are indirectly responsible because they were too libral with the Palestinians and backed them after horrible acts they committed, just because they are poor, and showed them they could do what ever they want, ruining peace, and still be supported. Right?
2) Collective punishment is punishment. No one is punishing, Israel is just defending itself from the rockets it's getting. The civilians killed are not killed by collective punishment, but by Hamas using them as human shields by launching rockets from civilian areas.

And just for some perspective , look at what Israel has to deal with in the images below, and compare it to reality, compare it to the points discussed. That's injustice. These protest are in western countries, and you don't see anyone objecting. Because it's not fashionable to support Israel. Democracy = Out

Oh, go cry me a river. And doesn't the right to protest fall under your very definition of democracy? So, by your logic, people protesting while holding signs that say Peres = Hitler then that = democracy. I don't agree with what's in those pictures, but what you're saying is not only irrelevant to the discussion but you're shooting yourself in the foot considering the paragraph preceding this bit.

That's not democracy. Freedom of speech ends in incitement. And i didn't say anything about silencing them, they could march until tomorrow as much as i care. I just wanted to point out which direction the wind blows. In Europe the default opinion of a person is pro-Palestinian, because of the media. Then if he goes and honestly investigates the conflict people get more and more neutral. And i have British friends who admit it, before i argued with them they said Israel is like Iran and North Korea, and now all of them are at minimum neutral.

You do know the Oslo accords continued as long as 7 years?

Let me explain it for you because this is indeed VERY complicated material: first there's a summit. Then, if the parties attending said summit reach agreement, the agreement(s) that they reached are called (an) accord(s), and those are usually written down on paper. For instance, in 1993, there was a summit in Oslo and the agreements reached during that summit are now refered to as "the Oslo accords". In 1978, the Camp David summit of that year produced the "Camp David accords". There is no confusion with the accords of the Camp David summit of 2000, because those negotiations broke down and no substantial agreements were reached to be called accords.

Do you understand now?

Usually when people discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict they call the '1993-2000 era' Oslo accords. Because there were Oslo accords A' and B', and because following agreements such as Hebron agreement in 1997 and the 1998 the Wye River Memorandum were literal carrying out of the bigger Oslo Accords. Including the Camp David summit that was supposed to be the final agreements.

In 2000 in Camp David Summit Ehud Barrack offered Arafat 97% of the land the Palestinians claimed, not including East Jerusalem designated to be the capital of the future Palestinian state.

This is complete comic gold. Holy fuck. I wouldn't have believed that these were actual quotes if I hadn't been one of the two parties.

Me: The modern outskirts of East Jerusalem could easily also be considered settlements and I'm sure they weren't offered to be returned.
You: LOL? You are sure?
Me: LOL. Yeah.
You: Don't you think you should read before you come and argue? (...) In 2000 in Camp David Summit Ehud Barrack offered Arafat 97% of the land the Palestinians claimed, not including East Jerusalem

You're right in a way though. In the words of Barak: I will not agree to give up the strengthening of Israel and the bolstering of greater Jerusalem, with a solid Jewish majority, for future generations.

(...)

You know what's killing me? I wonder how deep you had to dig in the internet and how selective with the facts you read you had to be, all just not to admit you had it wrong with your East-Jerusalem assumption.

Familiar with the word conclusion? You know what Conclusion Of Camp David summit means? It means after the summit failed. It was more of a failure speech or even trying to pressure Arafat to come back.

During the talks Israel DID offer East-Jerusalem, not the Americans, not the Israelis and not even the Palestinians deny it. It's ridiculous how disgustingly arrogant you act (Comic gold), not knowing what bullshit you say, i unlike you actually remember the summit. The reason the talks failed was simple - Arafat didn't have the guts to sign the agreement.

For you :
"both sides blamed the other for the failure of the talks: the Palestinians claiming they were not offered enough, and the Israelis claiming that they could not reasonably offer more. According to The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East, "most of the criticism for [the] failure [of the 2000 Camp David Summit] was leveled at Arafat."

Ehud Barak offered Arafat an eventual 91% of the West Bank, and all of the Gaza Strip, with Palestinian control over Eastern Jerusalem as the capital of the new Palestinian state; in addition, all refugees could apply for compensation of property from an international fund to which Israel would contribute along with other countries. The Palestinians wanted the immediate withdrawal of the Israelis from the occupied territories, and only subsequently the Palestinian authority would crush all Palestinian terror organizations. The Israeli response as stated by Shlomo Ben-Ami was "we can't accept the demand for a return to the borders of June 1967 as a pre-condition for the negotiation.

Clinton blamed Arafat after the failure of the talks, stating, "I regret that in 2000 Arafat missed the opportunity to bring that nation into being and pray for the day when the dreams of the Palestinian people for a state and a better life will be realized in a just and lasting peace." The failure to come to an agreement was widely attributed to Yasser Arafat, as he walked away from the table without making a concrete counter-offer and because Arafat did little to quell the series of Palestinian riots that began shortly after the summit. Arafat was also accused of scuttling the talks by Nabil Amr, a former minister in the Palestinian Authority."

Arabs were the ones raising the claims (To continue the struggle. They did well honestly), and Human Rights agencies tend to adapt any claim by raised by the Arabs. Even though the Arabs declared 1948 war, and the refugees were their fault and responsibility completely.

This is very a bad attempt at playing the blame game. If Israel hadn't been founded, there wouldn't have been a reason to declare a 1948 war.

If Arabs didn't exist, the whole conflict wouldn't have happened. Typical biased thought.
ISRAEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN CREATED. ARABS SHOULDN'T HAVE DECLARED THE WAR. Again you in every possible way is trying to put the blame on Israel.

But okay, let's assume that the refugees were the sole fault of the Arabs. Then, still, article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights maintains that they need to be able to return to their homes afterward. So this assertion is irrelevant. The Palestinian claim to a right to return is unrealistic, but solid.

Solid as it is, don't blame Israel. Blame the Arabs.

no expanding settlements. Just building in the settlements.

That is what I call "expanding settlements". The fact that they are not expanding territorially is only minor solace. Once, those settlements will need to be evacuated and expanding them only makes this step harder.

I agree with you. Still has nothing to do with the peace process. Israel is just making stuff harder for itself in the future, nothing more.

Netanyahu doesn't officially says he stopped building because he wants to keep his coalition together.

Or he's saying he's restricting building because he wants to avoid a further blow to the credibility of the US government as a mediator. A term as vague as "natural growth" is just waiting to be abused.

Or that. But no. He wants his coalition together. I'm convinced he wants to officially say he stopped but he can't.

Add to that, he said he would begin talking with the Palestinian authority any time they want, Abbas is the one stalling the talks...

And then refuse to concede. Stalling or not is just a political choice that represents what the respective politician thinks will go down best with his electorate.

Alright. He is still the one stalling the talks.

At 11/17/09 01:44 PM, lapis wrote: That you're pretending that Israel made a huge sacrifice for the sake of peace by withdrawing from the Gaza Strip, while if you look at the big picture you can see that the amount of settlers that was evicted was negligible.

The amount of civilians who were evicted isn't the point and it's not what made it a huge sacrifice, that's superficial thinking.
What made it a huge sacrifice was the major opposition to the act within Israel, the act itself of unilaterally disengaging was the issue. People claimed it would only make the situation worse. I supported the plan but sadly i was wrong.

And that number never recovered. Take a guess as to why. Maybe because, after the disengagement, the five border crossings (of which one was added around the time of the disengagement, basically for show) were so strictly monitored that many more labourers that wanted to work in Israel or merchants that wanted to export to Israel were denied entry, before being completely shut down after Hamas gained power.

Or maybe because the Israeli trust in Palestinian was smashed? It will take a long time until the situation will come back to how it was before the intifada, if ever. It was previously pointed out that the amount of laborers was so small before and after the disengagement that it had no influence on the political decisions. The Palestinians could always work in Egypt, a country that didn't get thousands of rockets into it while it spending million

When you have no job and no prospects, that means little. Maybe if those quantities were so large that a significant portion of the Strip's inhabitants could live comfortably off them, but I strongly doubt that. Let me reiterate: 1.5 million people living on 360 square kilometers cannot form a functioning economy if trade and export of labour to the outside world are severely restricted. When you have no prospects, you will have a lot of pissed off people. And when you have a lot of pissed off people, you'll see support for extremists such as Hamas surge.

First of all they lived in a shitty conditions either way. But you would think that after a unilateral Israeli peace act the Palestinians (Or people who supposedly want peace) would respond with an equal peace act - Such as not electing Hamas.
Add to that, even if all of the Gazans together would vote to Hamas it still wouldn't be enough to get Hamas elected. At least one third of the West Bankers had to vote to Hamas. Wait, how are you going to blame Israel now?

Then again, even though this approach was doomed to fail, I have no easy solution ready either. The reason why so many people are crammed unto this tiny piece of land is because Palestinian refugees were not allowed to return to Israel after 1948 and 1967. If you ever want to have a chance of the Strip becoming stable, you'll have to either let most of its inhabitants "back" into Israel, let them freely trade with and work in Israel or make it so that a lot of the people "go away". Otherwise, get used to the rocket fire - sorry for saying it so bluntly.

"Bringing" them back would destroy Israel.
And why would they come back? They were people who fought against Israel in 1948. Palestinians who didn't fight are called Israeli-Arabs and they are equal civilians in Israel. A proper solution would be if you realized that your opinion and your pressure has influence on the situation. And if instead of just saying "They are poor and stupid it's Israel fault" every time the Palestinians fuck up any attempt of promoting peace, you would show them that their acts have consequences, they wouldn't do them and we probably had peace right now.

Others said it way back in 2004, in articles prophetically titled Plans to pull out of Gaza Strip will fail.

There would always be people who claim that. In that case they were insignificant. And the Westerns, Arabs and many Israelis all together supported it and were sure there is going to be peace. (Based on a simple but flawed hypothesis - 'Palestinians want peace")
Did you even read the article? You saw what the

If being trapped in a big, overcrowded prison with no prospects of future improvement is what you call "peace", then I can imagine why a lot of Palestinians don't want it.

Pointed above -
For over 70 seats in the parliament there had to be many voters in the West-Bank.
They lived the all the time. You would expect that after a peace act they would promote peace themselves, and not try to harm Israel where it hurts.

United Nations

Withdrawing per se. Find me a quote were the UN calls isolating the Gaza Strip "courageous".

ROFL. They backed the Israeli disengagement plan, it was all there and simple. The UN supported it, everyone did. Where did you even bring that isolating position from? That is a proof that you would always find a way to blame Israel.
Israel withdrew.
Gaza has Egypt in the border.
Israel supplied Gaza with materials, even that it shouldn't have after disengaging.
Israel was backed by the world.
West Bankers voted for Hamas.
Even the UN supported the Israeli blockade after the Hamas takeover.
Of course Israel was betrayed later.

You can lie to yourself as much as you want but Hamas was elected for the simple feature of vowing to fight Israel and claiming they would never recognize the Israeli state.

That's the difference, simple.

You're doing a shit job at defending the drivel you posted eariler and you know it. You said: "the difference is that the Palestine is not a country and never was a country, it was just an area until the last decades". IRAQ was just an area and not a nation until the last decades. Find me one instance of a point in time in which the area that now comprises Iraq was considered an Iraqi nation before the 1930s. And, once again, the same goes for almost all of sub-Saharan Africa, except maybe Ethiopia and Liberia (maybe also Mali, but that one is arguable). Certainly not the CAR or Chad.

Because, somehow, this has to do with being able to settle in someone else's land. Apparently it's totally cool to plant people of your nation into an area strictly against the will of the natives, but only if those natives have never been a nation until a few decades earlier. Now I personally think this is bullshit, but I want you to at least try to apply this "principle" consistently, to areas like Iraq.

In the end, you posit this argument as if it's natural, but you only find it convincing because it helps you in this specific instance. Consistently applied, it's nonsensical, excuse me for pointing out that it is.

The area was just a land until the beginning of Palestinian nationalism that followed the Israeli formation of The Palestinian Authority. Doubtfully you remember how the issue came up, but you claimed that the situation would be comparable if NATO forces built settlements in Iraq in Afghanistan.

The point was that the settlements began before there was even such a thing as Palestinian. And after there was such a thing, Israel went to agreement pretty fast and agreed to sacrifice alot for a Palestinian state.

You see? The fact that the Iraq was just an area isn't important. What's important is when the acts (Or invasion) occurred. Before it was a country or after.
NATO forces invaded an independent countries.
Israel conquered the areas in legitimate wars.

And that's why i think the situations are perfectly comparable, and because of the NATO forces military acts i said that i even think Iraq/Afghanistan is worse.

At 11/14/09 04:00 PM, lapis wrote: Less than a mere 10,000 settlers lived in the Gaza strip before the withdrawal

Point? You are only proving that Israel shouldn't take bigger chances for peace, because they fail.

most importantly, the withdrawal was accompanied with shutting the borders for most Palestinian workers in the roughly the same period of time. Of course, since it's an area of 360 square kilometers with 1.5 million inhabitants, it needs to rely on at least free trade or hinterlands belonging to the same country to maintain itself. Having neither, the disengagement was bound to make the living situation in the strip worse than before the pull-out, and the aggrevated instability was not much of a surprise.

First of in and since the second intifada the amount of Palestinian and especially Gazan workers reduced immensely, i've never heard that border shutting argument before so i really doubt it, but either way, the amount of workers was few thousands and insignificant, add to that, after the Israeli disengagement plan Israel made sure to transfer large quantities of fuels, cash, foods etc, even after Hamas was elected in 2006, and even after the Palestinian attack on the Israeli border that resulted in kidnapped Israeli soldier.
All of that after unilateral Israeli peace act.

You can't just point to this event and say "because this pull-out didn't work, no other pull-out will". It was poorly executed and bound to result in chaos. The best part of the withdrawal seemed to be that Israeli citizens were further away from the Qassam launching areas.

NOW you say it was bound to result in chaos? You'd say that no matter why. But the reason it was bound to fail is because the Palestinians are brainwashed and do not want peace.

At first the world and your kind claimed there is no peace because of the Israeli occupation, Israel claimed the occupation is defensive. Israel claimed a pull out will not work unless there's a prior agreement, which cannot be reached due to refusal to compromise. Your such claimed Israeli occupation is the reason. Israel claimed that even when it erased most of it's military from the West-Bank in the Oslo accords, and offered 97% of the requested lands, including East-Jerusalem (See later.) The intifada was declared.
Eventually, Israel did erase it's occupation, and the result was Hamas getting elected just few months after the disengagement. Everyone expected that after the disengagement PLO would be elected, since you were so convinced on the Palestinian innocence. But that was the only reason it failed. Because Hamas was elected. You somehow found a way to blame Israel on that as well.

But should i remind you?

US:

"I strongly support [Prime Minister Sharon's] courageous initiative to disengage from Gaza and part of the West Bank. The Prime Minister is willing to coordinate the implementation of the disengagement plan with the Palestinians. I urge the Palestinian leadership to accept his offer. By working together, Israelis and Palestinians can lay the groundwork for a peaceful transition"

United Nations

"Israel has demonstrated that it has the requisite maturity to do what would be required to achieve lasting peace, and the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) has demonstrated their ability to discharge their mission with carefully calibrated restraint. Prime Minister Sharon should be commended for his determination and courage to carry out the disengagement in the face of forceful and strident internal opposition." They Israel is courageous, where were they after it came as a backslash to Israel?

Unilateral Israeli pullouts will never work. Never. So stop blaming Israel.

At 11/14/09 03:15 PM, zoolrule wrote: No it doesn't. There's a different between an area that has been occupied by Jordan and Egypt before, than an independent state.

What? Oh yeah, sorry, of course, an area that has been occupied by Jordan and Egypt is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from an area that has been occupied by France and/or Great Britain. What state of Iraq was there before the British created it? And this goes to a lot stronger extent for countries like the CAR, Chad and even Ghana.

Hurr America was occupied by Britain hurr. Stop jamming head on wall.

The West Bank and Gaza were areas conquered by Israel from Jordan and Egypt.
Afghanistan and Iraq were independent countries invaded by the NATO forces.

That's the difference, simple.

"According to Israeli journalist David Makovsky, the issue of Jerusalem had been included in a draft declaration of principles, known as the Sarpsborg Accord, concluded in the early stages of the Oslo negotiations, before the Israeli Government took an official role in the proceedings. In fact, in that early draft, there was a vague suggestion that East Jerusalem might be included in the Palestinian self-rule areas. In June 1993, when the Oslo talks were upgraded, Israel attempted to remove Jerusalem entirely from the final status issues. However, Palestinian negotiators refused to concede, and Jerusalem remained an issue for negotiation."

You do know the Oslo accords continued as long as 7 years? In 1993 they began until the Palestinians declared the second intifada in 2000. Don't you think you should read before you come and argue? It seems like you choose sides and then look for arguments, instead of simply seeking justice.
In 2000 in Camp David Summit Ehud Barrack offered Arafat 97% of the land the Palestinians claimed, not including East Jerusalem designated to be the capital of the future Palestinian state. Instead of accepting that generous offer or at least giving a contra offer, Arafat left the talks, basically starting the bloody intifada.

You're fucking kidding me. Yeah, the Arabs wrote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Arabs were the ones raising the claims (To continue the struggle. They did well honestly), and Human Rights agencies tend to adapt any claim by raised by the Arabs. Even though the Arabs declared 1948 war, and the refugees were their fault and responsibility completely.

And this is different, how? The size of the settlements will keep increasing in either case.

Again, i already agreed with you that Israel should stop building in the settlements, just for own interests. And basically it did. No new settlements, no expanding settlements. Just building in the settlements. Netanyahu doesn't officially says he stopped building because he wants to keep his coalition together.
Add to that, he said he would begin talking with the Palestinian authority any time they want, Abbas is the one stalling the talks...

Well, no, not necessarily. Democracy means that the people, through voting, choose their representatives who in turn form a government through majority rule. I'm sure that's what happened here.
then Western government that seek to talk to the representatives of the Palestinian people should talk to Hamas. Look, what struck me is the fact that you chose democracy not just as the biggest reason why people should support Israel but as the biggest two. Hamas rule is the direct consequence of democracy in practice. I feel you nitpick your morals to fit your case, and the rest of what you wrote in your post is hardly relevant here.

First of all they should talk with Abbas, because he was chosen president.

Second, Democracy is not just majority rule are you kidding me? Is Iran a democracy? Human rights and Freedom (Of knowledge) are main components of democracy, because without them civilians cannot make fair decisions. You say elections are fair? Then Palestinians are responsible for the rockets on the Israel cities.

And just for some perspective , look at what Israel has to deal with in the images below, and compare it to reality, compare it to the points discussed. That's injustice. These protest are in western countries, and you don't see anyone objecting. Because it's not fashionable to support Israel. Democracy = Out

At 11/14/09 02:47 PM, lapis wrote:

At 11/14/09 02:29 PM, zoolrule wrote:

That holds for not just every sub-Saharan African country except perhaps Ethiopia and Liberia, but also for Iraq. The country of Iraq is just a bunch of lines drawn on a map by colonial powers a few decades ago, why is the situation so different?

No it doesn't. There's a different between an area that has been occupied by Jordan and Egypt before, than an independent state.

The modern outskirts of East Jerusalem could easily also be considered settlements and I'm sure they weren't offered to be returned.

LOL? You are sure? I'm glad to know you are sure because East Jerusalem was actually part of the offer, it was the main part of the offer actually, East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine.
It's just hilarious, again the attempt remove any responsibility from the Palestinians. Israel reaches it hand, and it's being blamed for not reaching it's hand further, instead of blaming the Palestinians for cutting the hand.
The offer should have been accepted. And even if the offer is not good enough for you. You offer a contra offer. You don't restart the war and you don't take advantage of the unilateral Israeli military withdrawals, and later be surprised Israel doesn't trust you.

And, of course, the right of return in contentious, but you do realise that it is not something the Palestinians came up with, but that it is enshrined in article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Even though it is unrealistic to demand the return of all descendants of the Palestinian refugees to Israel, it of course hurts the universality of the Hman Rights declaration if exceptions are allowed to be made.

It is something the Arabs came up with in order to continue the struggle with Israel. Of course now many Arab countries normalized ties with Israel, and Israel biggest enemies now have peace with it, but their past acts screwed up the Palestinians and for some reason the Israelis are to be blamed.

Hmm, I doubt it. For all I know it has been renamed to "natural growth".

Natural growth is building inside existing communities, but building settlements have stopped.

Unfortunately, it's the democatrically elected organisation of Hamas. You just named these observations as things that speak in favour of Israel a few posts ago:
A. It's a democracy
b. It's the only democracy in the middle east.

If democracy is such a great value, then I feel that this hurts your opposition to talking to Hamas.

It's majority rule elected organization, not democratically elected organization. Democracy is a little bit more than just majority elections as i'm sure you know.
And of course, if Hamas is democratically elected, under international law the Palestinians are responsible for their election and Hamas are responsible for the Palestinians, and therefor Israel (And the international community) not only could, but was obligated to launch a military operation against democratically elected organization that shoots rockets into it's territory and uses it's own population as human shields.
You see?
If they are really elected democratically they bare responsibility for their rocket attacks and should be fully blamed for the war.
If they were not elected democratically they are illegitimate.

Oh and most importantly, we saw how much unilaterally removing all of the settlements from Gaza in 2005 helped us. And we saw that even after removing all of the settlements Israel is still not allowed to defend itself.

At 11/14/09 02:02 PM, lapis wrote:

At 11/14/09 12:52 PM, zoolrule wrote: even though in my opinion what Americans and British are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan is worse.

Maybe if the Americans and British moved 400,000 settlers into those countries then the situations would start to become comparable.

But the difference is that the Palestine is not a country and never was a country, it was just an area until the last decades. And when the settlements began Palestinians state realistic at all. Never mind that i agree that the settlements are unjustified and stupid nowadays, but in the Oslo accords (After Israel created the first Palestinian autonomy in history - The Palestinian authority) Israel offered to remove all settlements but the Palestinian claimed they refused because they didn't get the right to return (AKA into Israel). Looks like it's not the core problem. Plus the building in the settlements stopped de facto, plus everyone knows that removing settlements would be part of the future agreement. But future agreement is far from close when the global community can't even stand against terror organizations like Hamas.

At 11/14/09 11:40 AM, AapoJoki wrote: You might have made a decent point with your post, but you let yourself get carried away with unnecessary emotion and flaming, effectively destroying any real attempt at communication. And how the hell did you get the impression that JohnnyWang is British? Your accusation of hypocrisy is stupid and misses it mark, because generally people who are critical of Israel also condemn other acts of war, especially those undertaken by western nations like UK or USA. Nor do the atrocities of other countries make the excessive use of Israeli force any more acceptable.

I don't know, i argued with plenty of people who justify the NATO acts in Iraq and Afghanistan (Well not really justify, it looks like they never put their thought into it) and at the same time heavily criticize Israel, even though in my opinion what Americans and British are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan is worse. I'm not saying it must be wrong, i just say their are much more harsh than the acts of Israel. Whether the acts are wrong or not is to be discussed, but trying criticizing the one and not the other, that's hypocrisy.
And for the point, he actually said that Israel is the bigger jerk comparing to Hezbollah and Hamas. How can you not get carried away with emotions when you keep seeing these shocking accusations. Never mind that it's not rare to see people claiming Israeli genocide. That just shows which way the wind is blowing - the massive exaggerations always seem to go against Israel, proving that no matter how some people just claim to support peace, you can always see the bias.

It's all fine and dandy to talk about the respect for Palestinian civilians, but it's things like this that make me wonder whether Israel has any more consideration and respect for the lives of Palestinian civilians than the Hamas has. I can see why the gruesomeness of war makes some soldiers fight dirty, especially in a region where the Hamas and Hezbollah are just the thin edge of a wedge of groups that want to wipe Israel off the map. But the state of Israel is without excuse if it doesn't court martial these soldiers and just tries to sweep these kinds of things under the rug. Instead, as gumOnShoe pointed out, it punishes soldiers that actually try to protect the civilians.

Wait, does this video make you doubt whether Britain has any more consideration and respect for the lives of the Iraqi civilians than Shia militants? I'm sure your answer is no.
You have to realize that there are rotten soldiers everywhere, especially in Israel where Israelis were fighting those people for decades, the other side doesn't even deny these acts, the Palestinians see terrorists who suicide bombed in Israeli coffees and buses as national heroes. You have to look at the fundamental difference between the two sides. The women talking in your video? She is an Israeli. The organization she belongs to? It's an Israeli organization. I heavily disagree with her and with the organization, but do you think you would see these kind of people on the other side? They would be hanged or shot on the spot.
But what happens on reality? Israeli got dehumanized by the western media, and then people see these Israeli leftists as heroes who sacrifice their life for justice and are sure they are right, instead of just realizing that Israel has freedom of speech and people can show their views.

I really can't understand how these random videos make you doubt Israel caring of civilians, while things like the fact that it took Israel 8 years to launch an attack at Gaza, after it's civilians were living under fire of thousand of rockets. Instead of going to attack, it disengaged from Gaza trying to avoid confrontation because Israel knows civilians would be killed, it only made the situation worse. What other country would wait so long defending it's civilians?
And even after the offensive began, dropping leaflets warning civilians? Phoning the neighbors of a terrorist who uses them as human shields, knowing that they will most likely warn him? Spending half of the military expenditure of the war on small thrust high accuracy weapons? Unilaterally halts of fire to let aid in? IN THE MIDDLE OF COMBATS. I mean, what does country have to do more to show it tries to avoid civilian casualties.
When your own military commanders (Richard Kemp, Head of British forces in Afghanistan) say that no army in history have tried to avoid civilian casualties more than Israel? :

"of course innocent civilians were killed. War is chaos and full of mistakes. There have been mistakes by the British, American and other forces in Afghanistan and in Iraq, many of which can be put down to human error. But mistakes are not war crimes. Kemp concludes that from his "knowledge of the IDF and from the extent to which I have been following the current operation, I don't think there has ever been a time in the history of warfare when any army has made more efforts to reduce civilian casualties and deaths of innocent people than the IDF is doing today in Gaza"

How does these just pass through your mind as insignificant even though they are mentioned constantly? The Western media is biased, simple as that. Supporting the poor just because they are poor, high-five to intellectuality.

At 11/13/09 05:40 PM, JohnnyWang wrote: No, but it means that Israel loses its moral high ground.

Oh my god. What the hell? What does it have to do with moral high ground? Should Israel apologize for being stronger? In WW2 the US and Britain killed two times more soldiers and civilians than the Germans did to them. Did they lose the moral high ground? No ffs.
Israel has the moral high ground because :
A. It's a democracy
b. It's the only democracy in the middle east.
c. It fought for it's survival in the last 60 years, unlike the Arabs who fought to destroy it.
d. It respects human rights and it does not target civilians like it's enemies.
e. It's enemies are the exact opposite of everything pointed above.

? The Israeli goverment is the one breaking the UN resolutions. Well, them, and the homesteaders.

The UN is not biased. The majority of the countries who vote against Israel in the UN resolutions are countries like: Saudi Arabia, known for it amazing respect of human rights. Iran, known in it's freedoms and chase of peace, countries who represent a majority. Plus it's in fashionable to criticize Israel. In almost all of the vote the Western countries vote for Israel or abstain. But it's not enough, the resolutions are passed, and eventually America vetoes them.

And the Gaza coflict was the first exchange of violence in the conflict? Hamas didn't start bombing Israel for the hell of it. First of all, they found suicidie bombings to be inneffective, second, they've been kept down their whole lives, people have been arrested for frivilous reasons and any attempts to peace has failed, leaving the militant groups as the only option.

What a pile of lies. You forgot to mention the key event in the decade? - The Israeli Disengagement Plan. You always seem to forget it. I wonder why.
Yea, plenty of British hypocrites resembling you continued the attacks against Israel, continue the ridiculous argument that the Palestinians want peace and Israel is the fault. So what did Israel do after continuous pressure from the west?
It completely unilaterally disengaged from Gaza, act of peace, all the Palestinians needed to do was not to elect Hamas, a terror organization vowed to combat Israel until it's destruction.

We all know what was the result, rockets from Gaza, Hamas elected, Hamas takeover. Iran 50 KM from Tel-Aviv. Instead of going towards peace, every time Israel does unilateral peace acts, the Palestinians take advantage of it to harm Israel.
And what did you British and French coward hypocrites did after all of the pressure? You fucking stabbed Israel in the back. Going back to that comfortable neutral position. "We just want justice and peace"
Why would Israel keep trying to achieve peace when every time it tries it get backslashed and the so called allies abandon it? Just like 1948, just like in the second intifada, and just like in the Gaza war.

less deaths just show that we care more about our civilians and not using them as a human shield

Or you know, Palestinains don't have planes to carpetbomb Tel Aviv, or haven't forced millions of people into a shantytown the size of a small suburb.

Israel doesn't carpet bomb, please desist with the lies.
But what Palestinians do get is using their civilians as human shields to launch rockets, and when certain people want to defend themselves and stop the rockets, they are being blamed for the dead civilians.
Would be funny to see a cop going to jail for accidentally killing a civilian, while he tried to eliminate a robber that sprayed a mall with an m16 while holding that civilian in front of him.

Wait, forced millions of people? NOW ISRAEL DECLARED 1948 WAR?

What do you expect the Palestinians to do when they've been kicked around for sixty years? Israel had upper had from day one, and it's been downhill for Palestine from there.

I would except them to accept peace when it's served to them on a silver plate. And not to continue with the goal of destroying Israel that they simply fail to get off their minds since 1933.

>They've been forcibly removed from their land. Sent to hostile neighbouring countries to prmitive reffugee cammps, where they've more than once been the target of pogroms by the local populace (Isreal even prevent more sympathetic neighbours from stopping one Palestinian purge in Jordania).

It's not "they've", it's "some of them were". Because as you know, the Palestinians who weren't hostile and didn't cooperate with the Arabs in 1948 war, stayed in Israel and today they constitute 20% of the Israeli population, called Israeli-Arabs.
Hostile countries? Weren't these the countries who declared the war the eventually screwed them over, for the 'Palestinian cause'?

>They are not allowed to have a governemnt (the parliamentary house is abandoned because it's impossible to use). Political leaders tend to get assassinated or put on house arrest. The West Bank is divided into "Isalnds", preventing people from moving pretty much anywhere from their neighbourhood. They are deprived gas, electricity, clean water. Their areas are being polluted. They were used as cheap labour until the Russian Jews filled the quota, so they've been robbed of the last of their income.

Beside the few general lies i noticed there, all i have to say is that they somehow have plenty of time and money to buy arms. And that they brought it on themselves.
Why again are you blaming Israel for the shit they put on themselves? Did Israel declare the intifada? Did Israel refuse the two state solution in 2000 and 1948?
Either way, as you see today, Israel strengthens it's occupation of the West-Bank, and the GDP and standards of living rise significantly. Israel leave Gaza, they elect a terror organization and somehow Israel gets blamed for it.

This, and then Israel bombs them with palnes and tanks and helicopters, and bulldozes houses, wallls off neighbourhoods. Shoots people on the streets. Send people to prison camps where they are dehumanized, deprived the right to bathe and put on show for newcomers in the military to indoctrinate them against them.

Again, you blame Israel? Did Israel elect Hamas?
Isn't it what you do in Iraq and Afghanistan anyway? Even your own military generals say that there haven't been a army in military that tried to avoid civilian casualties like Israel.
But seriously, what a bunch of self-righteous irrational arguments that their only point is to convince the emotional ignorants.
Prison camps where they are dehumanized? The conditions in Israeli prisons for Palestinians are very good. You just made most of it up. All of it, pile of lies resulting from reading British left-wing newspapers. You form an opinion, and just throw accusations out of your imagination, defaming a whole country.

I'm not saying hamas is right in its acions. I don't say Hizbollah is right. however, there's a simple thing called "being the bigger jerk".

Yes, and it's you. You do realize you are unjustifiably defaming a democratic nation? It kills me that people like you actually think they support justice. You actually think you are chasing peace. You don't realize what you are doing. When the Palestinians see they get support even from European people no matter what shit they do, just because they are poor, it effects them. Just for the cause. YOU ACTUALLY COMPARE ISRAEL TO THESE ISLAMOFASCIST TERROR ORGANIZATION? WHAT IS FUCKING GOING ON WITH YOU? ISRAEL IS A BIGGER JERK? WHAT THE HELL.

Finally, i thought you might like to see this. Just wonder what would you do if that was in Israel. ISRAELI SOLDIERS COMMIT GENOCIDE AND MURDER INNOCENT CHILDREN.
Hypocrites.

At 10/15/09 10:31 AM, AapoJoki wrote: Here's the thing. If Hamas was firing those rockets from an area inhabited by Israeli civilians, would the Israeli army still use such amount of force? If you're ready to accept civilian casualties as a collateral damage, it shouldn't matter what nationality they are, but I have a feeling that if the situation was as I described, the Israeli army would treat such an area with silk gloves rather than just demolish it like they're doing now.

In order for this situation to happen, there has to be some acceptance from the "civilians" in order to do such a thing, and that's literally impossible that it will happen. But if in theory somehow it happens, i honestly can't tell you. I don't know, i really think it's possible and makes sense that if they are shooting rockets from Israeli civilians for 8 years, the same amount of force would be used.

Also, even though i really can't tell what would have happened in that situation, i can tell you what did happen - Israel did more than any country in history to minimize Palestinian civilian casualties, and for sure more than the NATO forces did in Iraq and Afghanistan. And i'll even be perfectly honest with you, it wasn't because Israel loves the Palestinians, and it wasn't because Israel is a perfectly moral nation (It's more moral than many of Western nations, but not perfectly), it was because minimizing civilian casualties is Israel's interest. Israel is aware against the mass, mostly unjustified, ramming it gets from many countries and groups in the world, but at the same time Israel must defend itself.

I mean seriously, where in history have we seen a situation where one side is trying to maximize it's own civilian casualties, sacrificing it's own people, just to create propaganda, and it's enemy is trying to minimize the casualties of the side it's fighting against. It's fucking ridiculous.

At 10/16/09 12:49 AM, bcdemon wrote: The IDF bombed those two UN schools killing a pile of people. Which was 3 days after IDF air strikes hit another UN school.

-Gaza is small.
-It was proven that Hamas operated near.
-Two Islamic Jihad millitants were among the killed
-Israel said it was a stray mortar.
-What does Israel achieve from bombing UN school FFS?
-The amount of the deaths was elevated, which proves the interest of creating propaganda.
-Really? linking to The Guardian as a proof? Would you take me seriously if i linked you to Fox News?

Why, so there can be more stories like Captain R. Guy empties his clip into a 13 year old school girl, and gets promoted to Major for it.

There you go lying directly without blinking to achieve your goals - "Promoted to major for it"
Secondly, it really was a sick crazy event of a sick soldier. (Of course you ignore the fact that Palestinian suicide bombers who kill babies and women sitting in a coffee are achieving hero position in the Arab society. But that's ok they are only doing that cuz they are poor, it's Israel's fault)

But i thought you might like to know that interesting fact, Captain R is an Israeli-Arab soldier who volunteered to the IDF, he claimed the accusations were false and unprovable and that the other soldiers fabricated the event and harassed him because he wasn't Jewish like them. You're in a dilemma now, aren't you?

That's odd, I have never heard of Ahmadinejad building walls to keep Palestinians penned in. Nor have I heard of any other Islamic power blowing up Palestinian schools. Oddly enough, the only people I ever hear about building illegal walls and settlements on Palestinian lands and killing Palestinians by the hundreds are the Israelis.
But you say it's the Islamic leaders fault, so it must be so....

You never hear that because you don't want to hear that. You probably wont hear about the mass slaughter that Ahmadinejad is going to commit on the sunnis. That's because Israel is everything bad in the world. Walls to keep Palestinians penned in, right? It's not like the suicide bombings in Israel decreased to 0 and in a precise matching to the building of the wall.
And Israel didn't disengage from Gaza? RIGHT? You just love ignoring it. But Israel proved, when it goes to peace it gets fucked up. You'll just keep on lying. You also somehow always miss the Palestinian militants fighting from these exact schools. And making mosques, zoos, schools a nice weapon stocks, somehow you always miss that.

But i'll agree with on that, oddly enough, i haven't heard about anyone else killing Palestinians. It's weird, i really expected the Brazilians to do that, since they are in a major conflict with the Palestinians, and the Palestinians are shooting rockets into Rio for 8 years with no response. I also expected the Japanese to do it, since the Palestinians have suicide bombed in Tokyo for dozens of times.
I also expected the Arabs to kill them bu... Oh wait. Jordan killed in one month more Palestinian civilians than the total amount of Palestinians killed in the conflict with Israel.
Let me guess, you haven't heard of that? Surprise surprise.

At 10/15/09 08:35 AM, bcdemon wrote: I'm still confused, how can you target civilians when your weapons don't have a targeting system and you launch them in the direction of a city (with military installations) from miles and miles away. Yet, using a GPS/Laser guided missile and killing a handful of civilians at a time isn't targeting civilians.

Like you said, targeting cities. Their rockets can't be targeted in matter of meters, but they can easily target them to small towns and that's what they do. This is targeting civilians.
And at the same time, they are launching these rockets from populated areas in purpose, in order to shield themselves or even better - achieve propaganda. And when Israel wants to defend itself from the rockets, as much as it tries to separate between combatants and civilians, it can't. Either way Hamas is to be blamed.
What do you expect Israel to do? "Emm, damn, they are shooting rockets at us, but damn we can't shoot back, they are human shielding. Killing them would be a crime, we already evacuated Gaza. Alright, we got one thing to do - Give up and give them our country. At least no civilians are getting killed." HIGH FIVE TERROR TACTICS.
Everything would be better if people were sympathetic with the Palestinians but blaming Hamas for the shit they are doing, and not Israel.

At 10/15/09 06:35 AM, AapoJoki wrote: No one who uses timescales like that to justify violence in the present day can honestly claim to have justice on their side. The justification must come from present threats and present concerns. No one can be held responsible for what their great grandfather did 60 years ago. Israel has the right to defend itself, to the extent that it can be reasonably called "defense", but any acts that can be only justified by appealing to events that happened in the distant past, can't possibly be "defense". History can always be spun in favor of either side. This line of thinking will only lead (as it has) to a vicious circle of vicarious revenge.

How come? Today's occupation and violence is a direct result of the Palestinian intifada that began 9 years ago. Today's Israeli-Arab conflict is a result of the Arab refusal of accepting Israels right to exist 60 years ago. Today's Israeli fear of unilateral peaceful acts, or peace promoting in general - is a direct result of the trauma it has from the Oslo Accords and the Gaza Disengagement plan. It's just stupid trying to separate the history. That i mean in terms of who has justice on it's side.
Of course it's false to use it in order to do acts just because of things happened in the past, but if Israel knows that unilateral peace acts don't work - for previous events. If Israel knows that restraining for a long period just makes the situation worse. Israel has the right to use power in order to defend itself.

People say Israel used disproportionate force in Gaza. What would be a proportionate force? Shooting rockets back at their civilians? Shooting the same amount of rockets? I don't think so. Proportionate would be the minimum amount of force needed to eliminate the threat, and that would be showing the Palestinians that shooting rockets only harms them, restraint only does the opposite effect. Israel didn't use 1% of it's military strength in Gaza, and Israel did use the minimum force needed to eliminate the threat, and even less - while trying to separate between combatants and civilians as much as possible with using expensive high-accuracy small-thrust missiles instead of just taking down the whole building with the militants and civilians, like NATO does/did many times in Iraq and Afghanistan, while Hamas work as hard as possible to blur the line. All that after 8 years of total restraint and trying to solve it in a peaceful ways.
Is history irrelevant here?

At 10/14/09 04:43 PM, Jon-86 wrote: No your thinking of Iraq I'm talking about buildings "designated by the UN and Red-Cross as theirs" so Israel know these buildings were civilian buildings. These organisations tell the Israeli government where they are so they can avoid them. Are you going to claim the UN and the Red-Cross now support Hezbollah and let them use their buildings?

ROFL? Thinking of Iraq? Gaza is far more dense than Baghdad not to talk about the open ares. The militants there are much more "guerilla" and constantly use civilian buildings as shields.
I will not claim that, what i claim is that the IDF admitted it was a mistake and a stray mortar, it was proven that Hamas militants operated very near the UN, and the proof that these "neutral news" are simply Hamas spinning the news to create propaganda because it's their only goal, is that the deaths numbers were actually much lower, and that 2 of the killed were Islamic Jihad militants. Also, interesting article: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/sto ry/0,,26152548-7583,00.html

Exactly I know the capabilities of the Israelis that is why I said yet! I know if they wanted to they could carpet bomb the place for days as well as shell it from all directions, but you missed the point and went on a wee mini self-righteous rant!

By saying yet you imply that somehow you know the Israelis have any intentions of doing a genocide or any crimes against humanity, showing that you don't care about the facts but about the intentions you prematurely decided.

They haven't done it yet because if they did they would lose the support they get from the US and other countries. What exactly is your point here? Drop the sarcasm or whatever it is and be clear about what your trying to say!

Oh alright. That's why Israel haven't done that.
My point is that the European media minus Germany is biased. That what you are doing and saying about Israel is unfair and immoral. And that you are were conquered by the Arab propaganda. "Israel doesn't do a genocide yet", Sting in the heart when i read that.

Aye NATO were the cunts behind Yugoslavia apparently! Again what is your point?

My point is that no one says anything about NATO, that NATO represents the free world, and it's justified they do. But when NATO bombs a militant group that uses civilian infrastructure and unintentionally harm civilians, people understand that it's an unwanted part of fighting terror. When Israel does that, it's a complete unjustified breach of human rights and a war crime.

If you actually read what I wrote I didn't say that was conventional I said they do fight conventionally, with the exception of these rocket attacks and the suicide bombings. You must have got caught up in the moment their or something who knows.

With the exception of rocket attacks and suicide bombers? Why are you excepting them exactly? That's all they do, rocket attacks, suicide bombers.. oh and shooting the rockets from schools and civilian buildings, and fighting from civilian buildings as well. Mmm. Moral people there alright.

At 10/13/09 07:39 PM, Jon-86 wrote:

I'm evil and I approve of this when I say "I have no sympathy for either armed force here" are you sure you can read and understand what I wrote?

You are evil by backing up the Arab propaganda, buy approving the reasons they claim they attack Israel. Israel doesn't fucking attack civilians, doesn't want to attack civilians and people like you cause lack of justice.

At 10/14/09 04:58 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

You've admitted several times in prior threads you are an Israeli nationalist. You are a citizen of Israel that believes in the rightness of Israel. That to me is a bias, a situation where you are predisposed to always side with the israelis. Calling them "saints" when I don't believe that term applies to either side in this conflict also helped me draw that conclusion also.

I've never admitted that and it's not true. I'm not a nationalist, of anything, being a nationalist is just stupid. I support justice and freedom. People in the world look at the conflict just as it is in a certain moment and what is it's result, Israel killed Palestinians, Palestinians killed Israelis, conclusion -> Both sides aren't innocent. People don't look behind the deaths, people don't bother looking backwards 10 years, 20 years, 60 years - and if you do that you can see that justice is unquestionably in the Israeli side, the only democracy in the middle east.

Thank you for explaining the one part. But you completely ignored the aspect where I asked why you felt the need to put the label of "lies" into this. Also I think you absolutely implied right of ownership, how do you even talk about ownership without talking about right to own? That's what ownership means. If I own something, it's mine, and I have the right to do with it as I please.

Because his statement wasn't true. I just showed that every single argument in his post was a lie. If you mean that he didn't lie because it's impossible to tell who really ever "owns" a land, i would say the same thing about Europe, America, etc.

This to me seems central to the conflict. Both sides seem (to me) to want to claim an ownership over the total, or at least want to be the dominant party and be "allowing" the other side to hang around. This to me is an untennable solution and why I favor the "two state" solution. Where you divide the land and have to distinct and recognized nations that are now bound by international laws and also afforded the protections of such. That's my opinion.

How can you even say that? That just proves my point above that people don't bother looking back. In Camp David Summit Israel offered the Palestinians an independent country with Jerusalem as it's capital. They couldn't do it, Arafat couldn't accept it, and that along with the Gaza disengagement plan proves which side prevents achieving peace. And It's impossible achieve an agreement after demonizing a whole country for decades, brainwashing since youth that every problem in the world is because of Israel, hell, they the many Arabs can't even call Israel Israel yet, they call it the Zionist entity. That is the problem, that for decades they simply didn't accept the Israeli existence. Why are everyone suddenly so in favor of the two states solution? in 1948 the two state solution was accepted in the UN, Israel acepted it, the Arabs and the Palestinians declare war at Israel because they did not accept it's existence. That's the core of the conflict.

How did you conclude that?

Because it seemed like your argument is that no matter what Israel does or offers, Palestine will never be satisfied and will always go back to fighting with Israel. If this is the case, what could possibly the solution? I probably shouldn't have added the last bit.

I believe it's true. When you let them bring their heads up, they wont be satisfied with anything - they always return to their old hopes and belief that the Zionist entity would be destroyed, they don't have freedom of press and speech, they are not intellectual, they are not logical. As long as the world doesn't let Israel defend itself no matter how fucked up the things the Palestinians do, they will keep on going a bit further believing justice and Allah is in their side, shooting rockets to Tel-Aviv eventually (I want you to remember i said it, it will happen). I'm not being racist against them or anything, that's simply the human nature.

Ah...see, I don't buy that there's a "rightness" to this, that one side is implicitly more right then the other. I don't buy that "tit for tat" is going to solve all the problems. I don't agree with my government when they do it either, just so we can understand that I'm pretty consistent on the issue. If someone attacks you, you do have a right to defend yourself within certain parameters, you should be able to remove your attackers by the force of the law.

There is rightness and it's with Israel, sorry, don't buy it but it's true, and i am convinced that history will show it.
You should be able to remove your attackers by the force of the law? The law is not fit, it fits wars like world war two, but it's not updated to guerilla warfare. The world somehow understand it when it comes to the US, to NATO and the shit happening in Iraq. But Israel? No, Israel is everything evil in this world.

So the solution is to back Israel and give Israel whatever it demands in a peace treaty? Oh yes, that'll surely solve the problem and make a lasting peace stick....yep.

No, the solution is do not only fucking support Israel when it does unilateral peace acts. When Israel does them everyone are so supporting and loving, but when these acts come as a backslash right into Israels face, suddenly Israel is and oppressive warmongering country, suddenly you all back away. Hypocrites.

You argued your opinions on the matter yes, you also called people liers, ignorant, and sons of bitches. Those are insults that do not a reasonable argument make.

Liars year, ignorants, yea. And it's not insult for the sake of insulting, that is simply what i think about them. Sonofabitch, alright that was just stupid i admit.

I only responded to the points I am equipped to respond to, as I am not well versed on the topic. But I have seen you debate this over and over across many topics and the essential message never seems to change "Israel is always right, Palestine is always wrong. Anyone who disagrees with me is a lier, biased, ignorant, or evil in some way". It's not a baseless personal attack if it happens to be true.

The Allies were always right, the Nazis were always wrong... That's true? No, the Allies did tons of bad things things. But when you go back in perspective, you can see the fundamental difference between the two, the complete different goals and ethics. Same thing.

Oh hey, how about that argument below me? That's opinion, not fact, you can't back up 100% what you said here:

Huh?

You can try to spin that all you want but it doesn't change the fact that while you have some points in here that can be debated, you don't play the game correctly because you either punctuate them with character attacks against the person you're responding to, or you make blanket attacks against sources that don't agree with you. That's wrong, and you have a long history of doing it when it comes to this subject, not just in this thread but in every other thread on the matter you've posted in. (deleted some, no characters left)

That's simply not true Again, i barely do that, i don't even notice when i do that. But ok, few times. Why do you keep trying to make it look like all i do is insult - "Some points that can be debated" - delegitimization . Seriously go and read my first message, i do talk personally towards the writer ("You obviously forgot"), but that's simply how i write, i don't insult and i don't curse and my post has plenty of arguments people never really answer, but people feel being neutral makes them better and morally superior. You automatically disregard me and focus on finding flaws in the way i type (A thing you can successfully do on anyone), instead of focusing on the essence, that's just small mindedness.

At 10/14/09 02:57 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: I wondered when you'd show up. You're bias on this matter continues to stagger and screw up any valid points you make.

Bias? Do i gain any profit from "this matter"? I first study the situation and it's history and then establish an opinion, not otherwise.

How is it a lie? A lie implies the person making it has not told the truth. Could you explain to me how it's proven the israelites "owned" that land in biblical times without use of the bible? Because to my mind, the problem with "ownership" when you get right down to it is that ownership is determined by one side planting their flag and beating the fucking crap out of anybody who would knock it down. That is the central problem for me with claiming any sort of real "right" to be on a piece of property back in those days (we've made the system a bit more "civilized" now).

It's perfectly proven, from Roman documentation, to the Hebrew language and as far as various archeological evidences found in many places in the middle east. And what you said is exactly when ownership, i wasn't talking about right to own at all, i was just pointing out who owned the and land as it is in facts.

Americans only started selling and providing arms to Israel in the 70's, until then Israel stood alone and was considered inferior to the Arabs, that's why they declared tons of wars against Israel - because they thought they are stronger, that what happens when Israel isn't stronger, people try to destroy it. - Lie.

Wha? America was one of the FIRST NATIONS to recognize Israel and pledge itself as an ally to them. Maybe it took us awhile to give you munitions, but America has ALWAYS been pro-Israel, it continues to be pro-Israel, which is why peace talks brokered by America will most likely never work, because Palestinians see America as something like a big brother for Israel that is walking into any negotiation looking to what's best for Israel. Perhaps that isn't accurate to this president, but it seemed valid with the last. While not condoning acts of terrorism or wanton violence against anyone, I can see where the Palestinians are mistrustful of meetings and talks that are organized, or sometimes demanded, by countries that are openly allied with a nation they are in off and on conflict with.

One of the first to recognize Israel? Yes, along with Iran. Pledge itself as an ally? Not at all, they didn't even agree to sell arms to Israel until the 70's, and there were plenty of presidents who were completely pro-Arab like Jimmy Carter for example. The Palestinians didn't see the US as pro-Israel until George Bush, which i hate anyway. During the peace talks Bill Clinton was the president, perfectly neutral, an amazing offer from Israel - Resulting in Palestinian violence. Major important keystone that shaped todays conflict, and still people ignore it.

Wow, another thing you forgot. (Or never knew, again?) Israel completely disengaged from Gaza 4 years ago, trying to promote peace (The Europeans promised Israel they would back it if anything goes wrong in Gaza after that, because you were so sure about the Palestinians intention and you knew they just want to live happily and peacefully. Whoops, apparently you were wrong. Whoops, apparently you broke your promise). The result as we all know was the Hamas election and takeover. That what happens when you show them restraint.

So what's the solution? Kill them all?

How did you conclude that? Where did i even hint such a thing? I was just explaining in which side the rightness is, and how false and unjustified the "criticism" against Israel is.
The solution? Stop backing the Palestinians and the shit they are doing just because they are poor, and start backing the Israeli pursue to peace, because it's obvious to everyone what happens when the ball is in the Palestinian side:
Get peace offer -> Declare intifada
Disengagement from Gaza -> Elect Hamas

You ignorant sonofabitch.

Yes, because insults help make your case so well. Seriously, argue facts and stop resorting to childish name calling if you want to be taken seriously.

I concisely argued and answered to every single point and "facts" people claimed. You are the one constantly attacking me personally in your whole message, barely responding to any point i made, and forgive me if i don't assume you accept them.

AND BELIEVE ME ISRAEL IS TRYING TO DO SO MORE THAN ANY COUNTRY EVER IN HISTORY.

SURE I'LL BELIEVE YOU SIR!!! YOU TYPE IN ALL CAPS AND YOU'RE SO CREDIBLE SO FAR!!!

OH I WASN'T CREDIBLE? SHOW ME ONE ARGUMENT I MADE THAT WASN'T CORRECT FROM MY FIRST MESSAGE HERE.

As shown above, bullshit, lies. You are an evil person approving evil tactics.

More insults...lovely.

That wasn't an insult. What the hell, in my giant post i said sonofabitch and it wasn't that serious anyway, and for some reason you focus on it making it look like my message was insults from A to Z, trying to delegitimize it.

Just once I'd like to have an Israel debate without you coming in with the same old rants and insults. I guess it's partially my fault because I reply to you.

Above, that's just fucking ridiculous and petty.

At 10/12/09 11:46 PM, TheThing wrote: Actually, I remember last year a mortor or 2 (could have been 2 rockets) landed in Israel from Palestine, killing 13. Israel responded by storming Palestine and killing 600.

A mortar or two ah? Good thing you remember them, because you obviously forgot to other 8,000 rockets shot into Israel the last 8 years with Israel showing a complete restraint. But that doesn't reach your superficial news, does it? It's not important enough, not interesting, because it's not poor innocent Palestinians are getting attacked.
Any other country with the superiority of Israel would have already flattened the shit out them. Israel is saint.

There's a difference between an attack and all out war.

Yea there is. sup.

It's impossible to tell who owned that land in biblical times. Muslims think it was them, Jews think it was them. At times the Jews owned it, other times Muslims did. The only reason Israel was set up was because Britain controlled that area, and set up a Jewish state for the Jews that had their entire families wiped out. Of course, that kicked out the Muslims living there, so they were a bit mad about it. But with Israel getting superior weapons from the US, they couldn't do anything to stop it.

It's perfectly possible to tell that, the Jews owned it in the biblical times, the Muslims in around year 600. - Argument failed/lie.
Israel was set by secular Jews immigrating into an almost empty territory (Causing the Arab contra immigration), buying lands , forming a national system - and finally by a UN decision to split the land violated by the Arabs, who declared war that caused all the shit we have today. - Argument failed/lie
Kicked them? 20% of the Israelis today are Arabs who stayed under Israeli rule because they didn't participate in the war against the newborn state, only hostiles were kicked, and plenty others simply fled from the war. Also, at the same time 1 million Arab-Jews were kicked from the Arab states. But like we said earlier, it's not important and not interesting because these aren't poor Palestinians. - Argument failed/lie.
Americans only started selling and providing arms to Israel in the 70's, until then Israel stood alone and was considered inferior to the Arabs, that's why they declared tons of wars against Israel - because they thought they are stronger, that what happens when Israel isn't stronger, people try to destroy it. - Lie.

Currently, Israelis are slowly pushing into the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (both are part of Palestine). They are building settlements and walls inside of Palestine in order to claim that land. Meanwhile, there are nearly twice as many Muslims living in Palestine as there are Jews in Israel, yet Israel controls 80% of the land, give or take on all figures.
So no, there is no genocide. But the Jews are slowly pushing the Muslims out of the land they should be sharing.

Wow, another thing you forgot. (Or never knew, again?) Israel completely disengaged from Gaza 4 years ago, trying to promote peace (The Europeans promised Israel they would back it if anything goes wrong in Gaza after that, because you were so sure about the Palestinians intention and you knew they just want to live happily and peacefully. Whoops, apparently you were wrong. Whoops, apparently you broke your promise). The result as we all know was the Hamas election and takeover. That what happens when you show them restraint.
Oh, and that peace offer from Israel 9 years ago that came after a major unilateral Israeli military withdrawal, that included a country with 99% of the lands the Palestinians claimed and Jerusalem as capital. And 'surprisingly' instead of the Palestinians accepting or at least giving another offer - declared the bloody second intifada. Good job sharing the land, Arabs.

You ignorant sonofabitch.

At 10/13/09 07:39 PM, Jon-86 wrote: The Israelis have modern weapons. They can pick and choose their target. They can fire from a long range and be accurate enough to hit bridges and other infrastructure. So they have NO excuses for taking our civilian buildings and warehouses that store food, water, medicine and other aid. They have even hit designated UN buildings and compounds. They are recognised by the UN and so have to follow the Geneva convention!

What about Palestinian militants using them as military points in a mask of civilian infrastructures. It's hilarious how you people somehow ignore or miss these facts in a systematic way.
THAT'S THE FUCKING REASON THEY ARE GETTING BOMBED, BECAUSE THE PALESTINIAN AND PALESTINIAN SUPPORTED MILLITANTS ARE USING GUERILLA WARFARE TRYING TO BLUR THE LINE BETWEEN COMBATENTS AND CIVILIANS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE TO AVOID HITTING "INNOCENT CIVILIANS". AND BELIEVE ME ISRAEL IS TRYING TO DO SO MORE THAN ANY COUNTRY EVER IN HISTORY.

While it may not be genocide 'yet' they are committing war crimes and that before you get to what their troops on the ground are doing.

Yet? Are you fucking joking? Yet? If Israel wanted to do genocide all of the 300 million Arabs would be dead right now. Your line is a proof of how you fanatic pseudo-liberals are being brainwashed. The Israeli intentions are already known to you, the facts don't matter, the facts are selected. But you know the Israelis want to do genocide, of course the Israelis aren't really doing it. Of course the Israelis are a democracy, the only one in the middle east. Of course Israel signed peace with 2 enemy countries after completely defeating them in wars. Of course the Israelis made numerous amount of giant one sided leaps toward peace (That failed many times as well). Of course that the total number of Palestinians killed since 1948 is less than 8,000 people. Jordan killed more in one month. Of course the NATO forces killed at least 200,000 people in 7 years. But Israel, it may not be a genocide YET.

And if what Israel is doing is bad, then NATO are ten times worse. But it's ok, laws are only relevant on Israel. Because it's a democracy, and it's small, and weak. It's a tool by the hypocritical Europeans to convince themselves they are moral and lawful.

Hezbollah fire unguided rockets at indiscriminately at civilians, again no excuses their and another war crime because while attacking their enemy they don't make much allowances for the civilians who mainly get caught in that fire. On the other hand the rockets they launch are only one part of it (the part which started the invasion of Gaza) but they do fight in more conventional ways with the exception of suicide bombers.

Mmm. Aggressive shooting rockets into populous areas from populous areas causing civilian damage in both sides. So conventional.

I have no sympathy for either armed force here. But the Israeli force are targeting civilians and their supplies with heavier fire-power on purpose.

As shown above, bullshit, lies. You are an evil person approving evil tactics.

At 10/14/09 12:24 PM, hansari wrote: SHUT THE FUCK UP, YOU DOLT.

Turkey not in the middle east
Jordan constitutional monarchy
Yemen Ali Abdullah Saleh president since 1978
Kuwait constitutional monarchy
Azarbeijan not in middle east
Lebanon closest to be a democracy and still far far away, confessionalism.

...?

At 9/12/09 10:17 AM, Warforger wrote: Actually prior to the creation of Israel the area was called Palestine, that name goes way back.

Anyway touche.

An Area, that had Christians, Muslims and Jews in it. therefor, you lied in your previous statement. Just like you said that they lived in harmony prior to the creation of Israel, while on reality Jews were slaughtered on a regular basis by Arab gangs.

So just to expand your knowledge, the Romans changed the name of the area from Israel to "Provinka Palestina (Province Palestine) after expelling the Jews. The name was derived from the old enemies of the Jews - The Philistines, who disappeared from earth centuries ago. "The Palestinian people" only appeared as a group after the creation of Israel as a tool of propaganda by the Arabs. And you can easily prove that by showing that the Arabs who stayed in Israel after it's creation in 1948 aren't called Palestinians, but Israeli-Arabs. (20% of the Israeli population)

Atheist and Antireligion.

The answer is yes.
Ritalin, on biological level is a Speed drug, and not relaxing drug. It simply raises the dopamine quantity of people with ADHD/ADD, and if you don't have a low quantity of dopamine in your brain it works like Cocaine.

Either way, i have ADD and my advice would be don't take Ritalin because it fucks up your brain and it changes your personality.

Man, this is fucking sad.

I really hope you just made that story up.

At 7/26/09 03:01 PM, shini-gami wrote:

could you please explain to me why people can't be anti-semetic? (though in my personal opinion as i said before it's just evidence of ignorance), why are people not allowed to have a negative opinion on Jews?

Sure thing, i promise i will just after you answer that question:

Do you think having "a negative opinion" on Black/White people, Asians, Muslims, Females is a bad thing? Why?

At 7/26/09 02:40 PM, Tancrisism wrote: Seeing bcdemon and zoolrule clash could be viewed as a privilege: here are two obscenely bigoted humans, both on opposing sides.

I don't see it as a privilege though.

Good to know you see fighting antisemitism as obscenely bigoted. Opposing sides ah? One side of hate and stereotypes, another side against them. Trying to be neutral on that issue really isn't a good thing.

At 7/26/09 12:14 PM, bcdemon wrote: So like normal, you have absolutely NOTHING to contribute to the topic but your own clouded opinion of responders. You see Zool, it's your kind that makes people hate the Jews/Israelis. Someone offers some information that puts the Jews/Israelis in a light you don't agree with, and you go off on a tirade on how much this person hates jews, or how big of an anti-semite they are.
You call me anti-semitic, I call you zionist, the world still goes round...

People like me ah? You mean people who put present the truth right on your face? Yea it arouses antagonism, too fucking bad. I'm not the kind who makes people hate Jews/Israelis, i'm the kind that makes you hate them. You are one motherfucking Jew hater, whether you admit it or not. (You don't see it as a bad thing anyway)

Someone asks who was the first terrorist ever, you are there to somehow claim the Jews were.
Someone wonders about the "Jews own everything" stereotype, you'll be there to support it.
Obama has a Jew in his office, you wont miss the chance to say he is a Zionist terrorist.
Ahmadinejad is a cool guy isn't he? He just want Israel to be dismantled, not destroyed. By your words.

You'll be there, in a disguise of a liberal.

Why not try to disprove the information in the links I provided? Or is that too large a task for you?

YOU ARE A FUCKING JOKE.

At 7/26/09 10:39 AM, bcdemon wrote: This topic got off track fast, here are some links to help get it back on track..

The last two guys to run the Federal Reserve have been Jews. But the guy before them was named Adolph so it probably means nothing.

Jews and money.

6 Jewish Companies Own 96% of the media.

Jews own most video gaming companies.

Jews and Hollywood

I understand that some of the sites posted might be a little bias, but is their information wrong?

You just couldn't stand it could you? Your hate, your antisemitism, the hate simply flows in your blood. Now for the 5th time we know exactly who we are talking with. Go educate yourself in jewatch a little bit more..

Haha, Liberal my ass.

Simple, they believe in Jesus and they only believe in small parts of the New Testament - Not the parts saying he was god.

Oh and Masterzakk, i agree with you "holocaust revisionism" as you call it should be allowed, but just thought i'd mention some point about the holocaust.

The world Jewish population before the holocaust was 18 million.
The Jewish population in Europe before the holocaust was 9.5-10 million.

The world Jewish population after the holocaust was 12 million~
The Jewish population in Europe after the holocaust was 3.5 million.

So here's a revision:
It's either that group who really hated Jews and by chance conquered whole Europe who killed them, or it's that damn ground who swallowed them. Feel free to decide man :}

At 7/22/09 03:57 PM, Mr-Money wrote: An example is during the recent conflict between Israel and Palestine, where the Palestinians were firing those rockets in retaliation to Israel.

Firing rockets in retaliation to Israel?
Retaliating what? The Israeli disengagement from Gaza? That the world promised Israel it would back Israel of rockets would be fired at it after it would withdraw, and that's exactly what happened? Retaliating Israeli civilians?

Mmmmmm, wow, i wonder why the Palestinians aren't "retaliating" rockets from the West-Bank, and only from Gaza. Maybe it's because Israel, once again, tried to go for peace, and was once again stabbed in the back by the Palestinians and by the Western liberals?

You despicable liar.

Then, it was found out that Israel broke international law by using white phosphorous.

It was not found out, stop lying mate.
White phosphorus is a legal weapon (used as a smoke shield) and it is being used on a regular basis by the NATO forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not only it is legal against military targets, it is even legal in urban areas, if trying to minimize contact uninvolved civilians.

And that tiny hole in the international law is what the biased anti-Israeli NGO's used to once again to unjustifiably ram into Israel, a country that is fighting an enemy using it's own civilians as human shields, an enemy not even obligated to the international law, the same one that Israel must and does follow. Hamas (A terror organization democratically elected by the Palestinian people after Israel disconnected from Gaza) cynically take advantage of that, trying to slander Israel's name even more - Their only weapon against Israel, propaganda.

White phosphorus? It's fucking hilarious, suddenly war is all about white phosphorus, all of the wars in history were decided on whether one country used the LEGAL SUBSTANCE OF WHITE PHOSPHORUS, RIGHT? Are you fucking kidding me? Be honest, before the Israeli operation, who even heard of white-phosphorus? When was it even fucking mentioned before that?

But all of a sudden, a small probability that Israel might have broke an insignificant part of the international law, made it the worse war crime of all times. OHHH EVIL ISRAEL.

You just have to watch US media coverage, and it is always completely biased in favour of Israel. It doesn't matter how many innocent people Israel kills, or how many expansions they erect. They always play the sop story of what happened decades ago.

The American media is not biased towards Israel (CNN? Tons of American newspapers?). it's, unlike many European medias, is fair. It is not trying to be neutral no matter what, it is bringing the truth. Because when a media is trying to be neutral no matter what, the weaker appears right. But another fact is that the Palestinians declared the Intifada after Israel offered them a state, and completely withdrew from Gaza, West bank in 2000, after Israel unilaterally chased peace.

But the easiest thing is to attack the only democracy in the Middle-East, isn't it?
Fuck
Off.

At 7/18/09 05:53 PM, Slinging-Blood wrote: Israel shouldn't exist. Period. I hope they do attack just so Iran can finally wipe that stain away.

Wow, that "Period" definitely proved your sophisticated argument. So please fuck off, and do that thing of trying to pathetically impress people on the internet by saying you take drugs. BRO. Oh and i wish Native Americans would rape you and take their land back. You shouldn't exist.

Your actual problem is that you actually care what people say about you.
Don't give a fuck, it's just gay and it's probably why people make fun of you anyway.

The Beatles actually did new, sophisticated music. Their songs and albums were revolutionary, and sounded like nothing before - and at the same time their music was accessible to everyone - even people who weren't really into music, that was their greatness.

The Jonas Brothers are simply a pathetic pop band, that is doing the same old thing we heard for the last 20 years in the mainstream. Their special quality is that they are OMG CHRISTIAN AND PURE, which is why they are only successful in the motherfucking USA.

To sum it up, a small sting in the heart when i read your theory.