West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: Don Rizzle on June 18, 2004, 02:24:39 PM
-
Bulldozers begin Ariel barrier
Clashes between Palestinian protesters and Israeli soldiers have halted work on the most controversial section of Israel's West Bank security barrier.
Protesters threw stones at bulldozers attempting to begin work levelling land near the Ariel settlement bloc, deep in the West Bank.
Israeli soldiers responded by firing tear gas.
Palestinians say the barrier is designed to grab their land, but Israel says it is to prevent suicide bombings.
Israel and the US had previously agreed to postpone work on the barrier around Ariel, near the village of Iskaka.
Hundreds of protesters were involved in the clashes, which saw a bulldozer's windscreen shattered but there were no reports of injuries.
The arrival of bulldozers came just hours after US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said late on Tuesday that the section of the barrier enclosing the Ariel enclave was problematic.
"It's a problem to the extent that it prejudges final borders, that it confiscates Palestinian property, or that it imposes further hardship on the Palestinian people," Mr Boucher said.
The Ariel settlement bloc is one of the largest of the Jewish settlements in the Palestinian territories.
Under international law all settlements in what is considered occupied territory are illegal.
A United Nations report has condemned the barrier as illegal and tantamount to "an unlawful act of annexation".
Part wall and part fence, the barrier, if completed, will run for 640km (397 miles) through the West Bank.
'Promise'
Israel's Haaretz newspaper has reported that the land seizures around Ariel uphold a promise given by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu which clinched the latter's support for the Gaza disengagement plan.
Mr Sharon, the newspaper said, promised that the separation fence in the Ariel area would be completed before the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip was finished.
Land seizure orders are reportedly expected for areas around two other settlements built deep in the northern West Bank, Emmanuel and Kedumin.
The US administration has not opposed the barrier in principle but has called for it to run close to the Green Line, the internationally accepted demarcation line between Israel and the West Bank.
The Israeli government is committed to building a barrier around Ariel and nearby settlements. No official decision has been made to link this to the parts of the barrier that run closer to the Green Line.
An Israeli military spokesperson told BBC News Online "the security fence around Ariel is being built in accordance with the understandings with the US government".
Palestinians say that Israel plans to link the Ariel barrier to larger West Bank barrier, effectively annexing large parts of territory - and some of its most fertile land - to Israel.
its disgusting israel continues to steal land and america still supports them, if they want to build a wall they can do it on their own land, palestinians wouldn't even have a problem with that but instead they get treated like animals
-
Yep. Isreal is biulding a large fence around the Palestinians to make what little land the Palestinians have left into a prison compound, with towers, electric wires, checkpoints, patrols, everything. Palestinian land is just a large prison.
-
not to mention they are taking the most fertile land and leaving palestinians with shit
-
:P
-
i take it your proud of what your country is doing then?
-
It just emuses me and enoyes me at the same time, How people eat up any radiculous Land grab theory the pro palestinian propoganda spreads, just to justefy their next suicide bombing...
-
why not build your security wall on your own land? then it wouldn't be a land grab, instead all your doing is making sure your illegal settlements stay jewish, demolishing palestinian towns in the process, there is absolutly no justification. why do u think they want to blow ur guys up look at what your doing to them! look at the death tolls who died more? certainly not israeli's! you turned what is left of palestine into a large prison and continue to take more and more.
-
why not build your security wall on your own land? then it wouldn't be a land grab, instead all your doing is making sure your illegal settlements stay jewish, demolishing palestinian towns in the process, there is absolutly no justification. why do u think they want to blow ur guys up look at what your doing to them! look at the death tolls who died more? certainly not israeli's! you turned what is left of palestine into a large prison and continue to take more and more.
a prison is 4 walls...not 1 or 2.....it's kind of easy to escape a 2 wall prison
-
America should build a dome around our land and lock it.
then build an artificial sun, and moon. That would be kinda cool. That way we would never get attacked because nobody could come in, because the door would be locked.
-
why not build your security wall on your own land? then it wouldn't be a land grab, instead all your doing is making sure your illegal settlements stay jewish, demolishing palestinian towns in the process, there is absolutly no justification. why do u think they want to blow ur guys up look at what your doing to them! look at the death tolls who died more? certainly not israeli's! you turned what is left of palestine into a large prison and continue to take more and more.
a prison is 4 walls...not 1 or 2.....it's kind of easy to escape a 2 wall prison
military check points where ever they go, not aloud to go onto their own land etc... they are also gonna build a mote on the palestinian boarder to egypt. you obviously think its so good why take your holiday there
-
It just emuses me and enoyes me at the same time, How people eat up any radiculous Land grab theory the pro palestinian propoganda spreads, just to justefy their next suicide bombing...
was reading this article and i thaught about your comment about pro palestinian propoganda spreads maybe you should take a read....
Mid-East coverage baffles Britons
UK television news coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is confusing viewers and favouring the Israeli position, a new report says.
The study, by the Media Group at Scotland's Glasgow University, found Israelis were quoted more than twice as much as Palestinians in reports.
It said that news programmes did not provide enough information about the conflict's history and origins.
Many viewers were also not even sure who was "occupying" whose territory.
Language differences
Researchers focused on the BBC One and ITV News channels' coverage from the beginning of the current Palestinian intifada, examining more than 200 programmes and interviewing more than 800 people, including several prominent BBC correspondents.
They found that, in addition to "a preponderance of official Israeli perspectives", US politicians who support Israel were "very strongly featured" in news programmes, appearing more than politicians from any other country and twice as much as those from Britain.
The report takes issue with a tendency in the media to present the problem as "starting" with Palestinian action, while Israelis were seen to be "responding" with actions that were explained and contextualised.
"There was very little discussion of the nature of the relationship between the two sides - that one [the Palestinians] was subject to military control by the other [Israel]," the report says.
Researchers also found a strong emphasis on Israeli casualties on the news despite the number of Palestinian deaths being considerably greater.
And the differences in language used by journalists for both sides were also noted.
"Words such as 'atrocity', 'brutal murder', 'mass murder', 'savage cold blooded killing', 'lynching' and 'slaughter' were used about Israeli deaths but not Palestinian," the report said.
"The word 'terrorist' was used to describe Palestinians by journalists but when an Israeli group was reported as trying to bomb a Palestinian school, they were referred to as 'extremists' or 'vigilantes'."
'Breaking news' culture
The survey also showed that the average British person knew little about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Many people in Britain think the Palestinians are occupying Israeli territory and not the other way round and some think Palestinians are refugees from Afghanistan, despite extensive media coverage of the conflict.
Sometimes the why and how of a story are more important than the story itself
BBC News Online reader Paul Serwinski
Several journalists interviewed for the report blamed lack of time and the difficulties of reporting such a controversial topic for the dearth of adequate background explanation, while others pointed to intimidation of journalists by both sides.
Many BBC News Online readers blamed the "breaking news" culture for reducing news to sound bites instead of offering comprehensive coverage of one of the world's most covered but least understood conflicts.
"The history is the missing aspect in all coverage today," said BBC News Online reader Rakesh Jain from the US.
"This results in the people being susceptible to 15-second television sound bites and they totally misread the reasons for the problems."
While UK reader Douglas Shaw picked up a point suggested in the report, that there is a tendency among journalists to present Israeli settlements in the occupied territories as vulnerable communities, rather than having a key military and strategic function.
"The BBC could choose to describe all Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza as being 'illegal'," Mr Shaw wrote.
"This would be a small step forward in helping public understanding."
History lessons
Senior BBC news executive Mark Damazer denies any suggestion of anti-Palestinian bias in the corporation's coverage of the conflict, but concedes that because of the "grammar" of TV news important context is often left out.
People watch the news night after night and at the end of the day they have no understanding what the conflict is all about
Greg Philo, Glasgow University
"Sometimes important points of history get lost amidst the welter of coverage," he told BBC World Service's Newshour programme.
But he said correspondents and editors were aware of the risks and take their responsibility "very seriously" to sketch in the missing context over time.
And as far as the language of news is concerned, he said there was no evidence that the BBC had been "cowed" into being pro-Israeli.
"When BBC correspondents have to describe the West Bank and Gaza Strip they don't say 'disputed' territory, they say the territories are 'occupied'."
But Glasgow University's Greg Philo that told the same programme that the facts speak for themselves.
"You can't have a history lesson each time you do the news, but the problem is 80% of the population rely on television news for their information about the world," he said.
"They watch the news night after night and at the end of the day they have no understanding what the conflict is all about."
I totally agree up until about a year or two ago i never even knew israel was was only 60 years old or how it was created, its only because i went out and searched for the infomation myself read history etc. i have a full picture of the situation. i ust to feel sorry for israelis thinking they were attacked for little reason....
-
why not build your security wall on your own land? then it wouldn't be a land grab, instead all your doing is making sure your illegal settlements stay jewish, demolishing palestinian towns in the process, there is absolutly no justification. why do u think they want to blow ur guys up look at what your doing to them! look at the death tolls who died more? certainly not israeli's! you turned what is left of palestine into a large prison and continue to take more and more.
let's start with this, settlers are Israeli citizents- we build the wall departing them from Israel, Israeli citizens die, simple as that, and as for these settlements being Illegal-we've already gone through this with u, I would agree to remove the settlements if every Palestinian living on Israeli territory was moved to the Palestinian authority....cause while our settlers may be the reason to the arival of Israeli soldiers into the authority(to protect the settlers), Arabs that live on Israel's territory also get all kinds of financial support from Israel and are treated as Ctizents while in fact are in complete support of millitant groups in the Paletinian authority- and tend to co-operate with them. Their strategic vallue is 10 times more important to the Paletinian millitants than the Israeli defence force portecting the settlers to Israel.
-
the truth of the matter is most Israelis want to kick the arabs out anyway plus keep the settlements which are continualy being built. my honest opinion israel should never of existed, if a jewish state should be anywhere we should have given you half of germany, we were wrong to give you part of palestine. but since we did israel should be confind to what we gave you.
-
the truth of the matter is most Israelis want to kick the arabs out anyway plus keep the settlements which are continualy being built. my honest opinion israel should never of existed, if a jewish state should be anywhere we should have given you half of germany, we were wrong to give you part of palestine. but since we did israel should be confind to what we gave you.
yea, the UN played an important part in the formal declaration of Israel, Although I doubt there was another option neither logiclly nor morally(Logic and Morals for some reason aren't very synonimous in reallity) , after the haulacaust it was clear to everybody Jews needed a state of their own, as for It's current geographical location being a wrong choice- I think u have a very twisted perception of the whole conflict, and trully I don't blame u, cause after all you're constantly being put to the very effective anti Israeli propoganda, but let's put it aside, U should know that basiclly on the first day of Israel's formal existance it was atacked, under those original boarders we were granted by the UN, we were atacked, and it certainly wasn't the last time Israel was atacked by it's neighbour states, that declined it's right to exist, The Palestinian's aren't diffrend in their viewes towards Israel, however what is diffrend is the fact they have a more urgent interest, cause while Egypt and Syria dreamt to unite and had a long term political plan Palestinians were more worried about the new neighbour that in their eyes endangered their everyday lives, and may I remind u this was more than 50 years ago, and situation was difffrend, be4 the settlments, be4 the Israeli deffence force having anything to do with them, be4 the refugee camps...they were anti Israeli way be4 Israel had any millitarry effect on them....
as for most Israeli's wanting to kick out all of the arabs out and keep the territory....well, I could say this with 200% of positivety about all- and underline the word-all of the Palestinians....the complexity of the situation lies in learning how to co-exist....
-
ok explain me this why wouldn't israel except the cease fire agreement? why did they take out all references to UN boarders in their declaration of independence? like i said before the media is very slaunted in support of israel even in britain I just feel for the palestinian people i hope they get a fair deal, they have already lost so much why should they lose more? and i agree both sides do need to co exist arfrat has recently shown alot more willingness to co oporate regretting not excepting clintons deal, putting pressure on militant groups, recognising israel should stay jewish etc. yet israel shows little willingness to cooporate and still does everything on their own terms even going against america who are extremely lienent towards israel. is we could sort out the whole conflict the whole middle east would be alot more stable.
-
ok explain me this why wouldn't israel except the cease fire agreement? why did they take out all references to UN boarders in their declaration of independence? like i said before the media is very slaunted in support of israel even in britain I just feel for the palestinian people i hope they get a fair deal, they have already lost so much why should they lose more? and i agree both sides do need to co exist arfrat has recently shown alot more willingness to co oporate regretting not excepting clintons deal, putting pressure on militant groups, recognising israel should stay jewish etc. yet israel shows little willingness to cooporate and still does everything on their own terms even going against america who are extremely lienent towards israel. is we could sort out the whole conflict the whole middle east would be alot more stable.
one sided cease fire- it's all it would soon become, why the hell camp david didn't work?!- doesn't that interest u?.....it's a metter of manipulation, Arafat brings instabillity, and than suddenly turns into this peace seeking creature(in the eyes of the world), Im surprised at how people don't notice the decieve, he'd like to continue suicide bombings without dealing with the consequenses, we lost hope in Arafat, we don't trust him, Israel doesn't have a terrtorial interest, we don't need any land, all we're looking for is security, any action of the Israeli deffence force is made to protect Israeli citizents....
-
you can't possibly think that back then taking out references to UN defined boarders had anything to do with security, but more to do with ambitions to enlarge the jewish state. understandably palestine were upset about losing half their country but maybe something could have been worked out at the time i remeber the king of jordan offering to step in, or even some other peace keeping force might have been worked out through the UN but after the british left but israel wasn't intersted.
you talk about past failings, why not try and work towards peace NOW its never too late and just remember who have been the net losers! it was earlier today you were talking about co-existence or did u just mean jewish control? if israel has no terrirtorial interest why does it continue to illegally build settlements on palestinian land? the fact of the matter is they wouldn't need securing if they wern't there.
-
lol....The original boarders the UN defined back than are those same boarders the Palestinians supposebly want Israel to withdraw to, in their perfect senario today(if we asume they do except the exisitance of the state of Israel at all)....no offence, but I doubt that u know what u're talking about, I quote: "understandably palestine were upset about losing half their country"
u should know that there has never existed such country, in fact, a creation of a Palestinian state is something they might strive to nowadays, but back than it was a Land where a number of tribes and peoples exsited on, besides Jews , some were mobile, did u know how the Palestinian declaration defines a Palestinian ? goes like this--" a person who lived on the land of Palestine since year so and so...", What Im saying is basiclly this, you're worshiping a fiction, as many alikes of u do,the Palestinian agenda was created only to overweight the Jewish people who somehow intimidated their contemporary's, such nation as Palestinians never even existed be4, they created themselves for this occasion, the history created much sympathy towards opressed people, even the Jews themselves may've been a part of this legacy, people sub-consiously tend to look for live examples of this easy to relate to fenomenon, what u guys don't understand is that the Palestinians are a slightly diffrened case, they could've learned to co-exist easilly, problem was they had power thirsty figures that would rather live in richess while their so called people are dieing, starving or comeeting suicide.....co-existance is very important, the people who run Israel know it, right wingers as much as left wingers, but on the way to co-existance certain barriers need to be taken down, not only physical but also psychological, Israel does not build settlements, in fact it even battles settlers who are trying to start new settlements, Israel recognises the fact new settlements are not healthy, and u need to realise that Israel has no territorial interest, anyone who sayes Israel has a territorial interest doesn't know what the conflict is about....
-
i know palestine still isn't officially a country but that still doesn't give any other country the right to take land they have owned for hundreds of years away from them. and yes b4 israel was born jews muslims and christians all lived at peace in palestine, go figure that one out.
-
i know palestine still isn't officially a country but that still doesn't give any other country the right to take land they have owned for hundreds of years away from them. and yes b4 israel was born jews muslims and christians all lived at peace in palestine, go figure that one out.
again, it's very important to understand that the actual percentage of Palestinian land owners was relatively low, many of the people who were defined as Palestinians later were for their most part mobile up untill a certain period of time, dwellers, just like Beduins, that small amount of Land owners even if they have ever been robbed of land were never robbed by Jews(Although during the yeshuv some of them sold their lands to Jewish investors through mutual agreements), The original boarders mapping took into consideration such isues, so to tell u the truth no territorial isue should've existed back than, unless there was something more than territory.
-
well from what i have read the person who lead to israel to independence didn't want to be confined by the UN boarders and had bigger ambitions for israel hence taking out references to UN boarders. then in 67 it was redefined and israel wants another redefinition now.
-
well from what i have read the person who lead to israel to independence didn't want to be confined by the UN boarders and had bigger ambitions for israel hence taking out references to UN boarders. then in 67 it was redefined and israel wants another redefinition now.
don't really know what is that you read, and who is that mysterious person you're talking about, but point is that Israel's original boarders back in 48 are the boarders they want us to retreat to nowadays(if you believe what they say) and under which we were atacked by the whole Arab world on the first day to our existance...
-
David Ben-Gurion learn the history of ur own country he was ur first prime minister
From the inception of Zionism, the Zionist leaders have fed their people false propaganda. Probably the picture above can tell you a bit of the real story. It is misleading and unfair to focus on what Palestinians might allegedly do in the future, while Palestinians' past and present are filled with Israeli war crimes. These types of accusations are meant to deflect and confuse the core issues of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The core issues of the conflict are the collective DISPOSSESSION and ETHNIC CLEANSING (compulsory population transfer) of the Palestinian people for the past five decades, and the conflict would have been on the same level of intensity, even if both warring parties were Muslims, Christians, or even Jewish.
From the start, the Zionist leaders were keen on creating a "Jewish State" based on "Jewish majority" by immigrating Jews to Palestine in mass numbers, which was primarily motivated by the fleeing European Jews from anti-Semitic Tsarist Russia and Nazi Germany. When it became increasingly clear to the Zionist leaders at the time (such as Ben-Gurion and Theodor Herzl) that it was impossible to achieve Jewish majority solely based on immigration and natural growth, they concluded that forcible "population transfer" (Ethnic Cleansing) was the only solution to the "Arab Problem." Year after year, the plan to ethnically cleanse Palestine of its indigenous people became known as the "transfer solution". David Ben-Gurion, the first Israeli Prime Minister, eloquently articulated the "transfer solution" as the following:
In a joint meeting between the Jewish Agency Executive and Zionist Action Committee on June 12th, 1938:
"With compulsory transfer we [would] have a vast area [for settlement] .... I support compulsory transfer. I don't see anything immoral in it." 1
In a speech addressing the Central Committee of the Histadrut on December 30, 1947:
"In the area allocated to the Jewish State there are not more than 520,000 Jews and about 350,000 non-Jews, mostly Arabs. Together with the Jews of Jerusalem, the total population of the Jewish State at the time of its establishment, will be about one million, including almost 40% non-Jews. such a [population] composition does not provide a stable basis for a Jewish State. This [demographic] fact must be viewed in all its clarity and acuteness. With such a [population] composition, there cannot even be absolute certainty that control will remain in the hands of the Jewish majority .... There can be no stable and strong Jewish state so long as it has a Jewish majority of only 60%." 2
And on February 8th, 1948 Ben-Gurion also stated to the Mapai Council:
"From your entry into Jerusalem, through Lifta, Romema [East Jerusalem Palestinian neighborhood]. . . there are no [Palestinian] Arabs. One hundred percent Jews. Since Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, it has not been Jewish as it is now. In many [Palestinian] Arab neighborhoods in the west one sees not a single [Palestinian] Arab. I do not assume that this will change. . . . What had happened in Jerusalem. . . . is likely to happen in many parts of the country. . . in the six, eight, or ten months of the campaign there will certainly be great changes in the composition of the population in the country." 3
In a speech addressing the Zionist Action Committee on April 6th, 1948:
"We will not be able to win the war if we do not, during the war, populate upper and lower, eastern and western Galilee, the Negev and Jerusalem area ..... I believe that war will also bring in its wake a great change in the distribution of Arab population." 4
For Israeli Zionists to excuse themselves from any war crimes, such as compulsory population transfer (Ethnic Cleansing) and dispossessing the Palestinian people, they've resorted to a myth that Palestinians left their homes, farms, businesses, banks, boats, cars, ..etc. based on their free will.5
There is no denying of the fact that some Palestinians think exactly like the Zionists (which is the Palestinian version of Zionism), and very possibly they do so because they were the victims of such treatment. Regardless of whether it is right or wrong, you have to agree that it is human nature to respond to terror with terror and to racism with racism, which are facts that all decent people must accept and deplore simultaneously. No matter what the circumstances are (such as the urge to seek vengeance, revenge, reprisals, ... etc.), targeting civilians to achieve political or military objectives, in either war or non-war situations, is terrorism. It is worth noting that the Palestinian people have been on the receiving end of Israeli terrorism, the chief of which are the collective DISPOSSESSION and ETHNIC CLEANSING of 8.5 million Palestinian for the past five decades.
Finally, the Palestinian mainstream does not and will not condone massive ethnic cleansing the way Israeli Zionists have done to the Palestinian people. Palestinians, as Muslim and Arabs, have their long history and track record to prove exactly the opposite. Omar Ibn al-Khatab's and Saladin’s conquest of Jerusalem are solid proof of how Arabs and Muslims fairly treated their defeated subjects, the Byzantines and the Crusades respectively. Ironically, many of today's Christian Palestinians trace their roots to the Crusades, such as the famous Rock family of Jaffa. In other words, if freeing Palestine shall imply perpetrating war crimes similar to the ones perpetrated against the Palestinian people, Palestinians shall wait for another Omar or Saladin to right the wrongs of the past. The Muslim Arabs have their history to prove their tolerance towards their subjects, however, the Israeli Zionists have their track record to speak for them.
Are you aware that in March 1948 the United States, along with China and France, was withdrawing from its earlier commitments to partition Palestine, and was pressing for "trusteeship" - an extension of Great Power rule- in Palestine beyond May 15th, 1948? 14 And on March 19th, 1948, Ben-Gurion responded to the idea of UN trusteeship in a press conference in Tel-Aviv with the following:
"It is we who will decide the fate of Palestine. We cannot agree to any sort of Trusteeship, permanent or temporary. The Jewish State exists because we defend it." 15
It should be noted that since November 1947 the UN GA failed to reaffirm the 1947 U.N. partition plan.
Are you aware that the 20th Zionist Congress, which convened in Zurich in August 1937, almost UNANIMOUSLY REJECTED the British proposed partition plan of Palestine (which became known as the Peel Commission Partition plan)? 16. Although the proposed Peel Commission's partition plan was rejected because the areas allocated to the "Jewish state" was "too small," the concept of partitioning the country was adopted by the 20th Zionist Congress. Consult the Peel Commission map (URL available at footnote 17) which was rejected by the 20th Zionist Congress, and the map proposed by the U.N. in 1947 (available at footnote 18). While inspecting both maps, note the following:
We call upon your sense of fairness while contemplating the following questions:
1) If the Peel Commission plan was accepted by the Zionists in 1937, how many Jews might have been saved from the Nazi holocaust? In that respect, it is worth quoting Ben-Gurion, who wrote twenty years later:
"Had partition [referring to the Peel Commission partition plan] been carried out, the history of our people would have been different and six million Jews in Europe would not have been killed---most of them would be in Israel."19
2) If the Zionist Jews rejected such an offer, which could have "saved" many Jews from the Nazi holocaust, why are the Palestinians often blamed for rejecting a plan which allocated them much less land in 1947?
3) Why is the same excuse accepted by Zionists for rejecting the 1937 Peel Partition plan, but not accepted when used by Arabs for rejecting the 1947 UN GA Partition plan?
Are you aware that the 1947 UN GA proposed partition in favor of creating a "Jewish State" in Palestine was outside the competence of the Assembly under the Charter of the United Nations? Nowhere in the UN's charter was there the power to partition any country, especially based on racial or religious grounds. Even if the UN had such power to partition a country, such a resolution is not binding since it was indorsed by General Assembly rather than Security Council.
Assuming in 1947 Israeli Jews constituted a 2/3 majority, and owned and operated 93% of Israeli lands, contributed 55%-60% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), would you accept a U.N. imposed partition of Israel in favor of an alien settler minority?
It should be NOTED that currently Palestinian-Israeli citizens make up 20-22% of the total population, so is it acceptable for the United Nations to partition Israel in a favorable way to its Palestinian minority? As an Israeli Jew, would you accept a UN GA proposed partition of Israel?
In 1938, Ben-Gurion made it clear of his support for "Jewish state" on part of Palestine only as a stepping ground for a complete conquest when he wrote:
"[I am] satisfied with part of the country, but on the basis of the assumption that after we build up a strong force following the establishment of the state--we will abolish the partition of the country and we will expand to the whole Land of Israel." 27
Ben-Gurion wrote in his dairy on November 30, 1947 after the UN's vote to partition Palestine into two states:
"In my heart, there was joy mixed with sadness: joy that the nations at last acknowledged that we are a nation with a state, and sadness that we lost half of the country, Judea and Samaria, and , in addition, that we [would] have [in our state] 400,000 Arabs."
sounds like co existance huh?
On February 7th, 1948, while addressing the Mapai Council he responded to a remark that the "Jews have no land in the Jerusalem corridor" with the following:
"The war will give us the land. The concept of 'ours' and 'not ours' are only concepts for peacetime, and during war they lose all their meaning." 34
Ben-Gurion addressing the Zionist Action Committee on April 6th 1948, just a few days before the implementation of Plan Dalet which signaled the official Zionist offensive against the Palestinians:
"We will not be able to win the war if we do not, during the war, populate upper and lower, eastern and western Galilee, the Negev and Jerusalem area ..... I believe that war will also bring in its wake a great change in the distribution of Arab population." 36
Note the premeditated plan to occupy and ethically cleanse areas, such as Galilee and Jerusalem, which were not allotted to the "Jewish State" by the 1947 U.N. Partition plan. 37
Finally, it seems often hypocritical when on one hand many Israeli Zionists use UN GA partition plan as a pretext to legitimize "Israel's" existence, and on the other hand they've rejected almost every other UN resolution since "Israel's" creation, chief among them U.N. GA resolution 194 which calls for the immediate Right of Return of all ethnically cleansed Palestinians to their homes, farms, plantations, businesses, banks, boats, buses, ... etc. To suit "Israel's" political agenda, Israeli Zionists have deliberately chosen to ignore most, if not all, UN resolutions, of course with the exception of withdrawing from occupied southern Lebanon in May 2000. Sadly, Israel has accepted the UN resolution to withdraw its occupation forces out of southern Lebanon not because it was influenced by the UN, U.S., or even European diplomatic pressure, but because it was compelled to do so by the heroic Lebanese resistance.
In 1936 (soon after the outbreak of the Intifada I), Ben-Gurion wrote in his diary:
"The Arabs fear of our power is intensifying, [Arabs] see exactly the opposite of what we see. It doesn't matter whether or not their view is correct.... They see [Jewish] immigration on a giant scale .... they see the Jews fortify themselves economically .. They see the best lands passing our hands. They see England identify with Zionism. ..... [Arabs are] fighting dispossession ... The fear is not of losing land, but of losing homeland of the Arab people, which others want to turn it into the homeland of the Jewish people. There is a fundamental conflict. We and they want the same thing: We both want Palestine ..... By our very presence and progress here, [we] have matured the [Arab] movement."100
In 1938, Ben-Gurion also stated against the backdrop of Intifada I:
"When we say that the Arabs are the aggressors and we defend ourselves ---- that is ONLY half the truth. As regards our security and life we defend ourselves. . . . But the fighting is only one aspect of the conflict, which is in its essence a political one. And politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves." 101
i can get a ton more quotes which will go into the arab attacking forces (almost totally in areas not allocated to jews by the UN)
on the note of the actual topic tho the ruling of israels court to change the route of parts of the barrier is a step in the right direction, but further construction shud cease until all cases have been heard, and i also believe it shud be an international body who shud have the final say who arn't going to have any bias to either palestinians or israelis to come up with a work able solution.
-
Actually the writer of the first article could've been more convincing if it wasn't for one thing that immediatly engages him with the anti-Jewish propoganda- defining Zionism as some kind of a Rasially hatefull philosophy. One of The few true things he notes however, is that it was based on creating a Jewish state based on a Jewish majority(at least it was one of it's directions- Zionism had many theories and viewes, it wasn't a single opinion ideology, just like today's Israel is-everyone wants peace but there are diffrences on how to achieve it), since it was the only way to make it democratic and Jewish at the same time(The Jewish state was declared to be a Democratic Jewish state), what is more interesting though is this, Ben Gurion, one of the first people to pioneer the Transfer idealogy is a prototype of today's left wingers, I'll run it by u again, he's the guy who created the ideology that lead Israel to Oslo a couple of decades later, Rabin and Perez as followers of Ben Gurion wanted to grant Palestinians with a state, their own state, striving to achieve Ben Gurions original goal, seperating Palestinians from Israel to support the idea of a Jewish majority on Israel's territory(including all territory under Israel's control), by preforming that exact" free willed transfer" . May I remind you that this was an idealogy widely excepted by the Palestinians on their side(to the public eye)? Of course that was not before they corrected the Palestinian Declaration by changing the paragraphs in which the Palestinian people dencline The Jewish State's right to exist at all. On the other hand the population of Israel that Objected this agreement all this time were of course the right wingers, whose idealogical forefathers at the times of Ben Gurion supported the Zionistic idea of a "bi-national state", and although this theoretical bi-national state would've been granted a much bigger slice of territory, it couldn't have been Jewish and Democratic at the same time, and why?- because the Arab population would overweight, So it could be a bi-national democratic state or a Jewish "not so democratic" state.
All in all though, this article has little to do with our isue, since it's main arguement concerns only the Arab Citizents of Israel itself and not the vast Palestinian majority in the Palestinian Authority or even the territorial isue, Israel as it started it's way in 48 was sitting on a very small territory, Ben Gurion's transfer policy concerned the Palestinians that were sitting on Israel's original territory, those who could effect it's national character- If a Palestinian state would start it's existance the Arabs that "occupy" legal Israeli territory would be pleasently asked to move their asses to their newfound state-this should sum it all up. The article you posted is pointless and is filled with arguemental propoganda, since some of the aspects the writer allegedly opposes are the basics to the concepts of Palestinian independence, and the democratical characteristics of both states. The main goal of your article is again to present Israel as a nazi-dectaroship inspired state (off topic statements like this one prove it: "which was primarily motivated by the fleeing European Jews from anti-Semitic Tsarist Russia and Nazi Germany"), and to moraly juestefy terroristic millitant actions by Palestinians, quotes:
"they do so because they were the victims of such treatment">>(Actual transfer never was preformed)
" it is human nature to respond to terror with terror and to racism with racism"
"The Muslim Arabs have their history to prove their tolerance towards their subjects">>(So now we're talking about history, The Jews have their history to prove Israel belonged to them from the times of the bible).
-
" it is human nature to respond to terror with terror and to racism with racism"
that statement is true its not their oppinion its just a fact. when applied to this conflict the mistreatment of palestinians have lead to a resistence of israeli occupation.
they are saying in the thousands of years it hasn't been a jewish state the arabs havn't mistreated the jews in the way the jews are to them today. and to base your who case on your ancestors with near untraceable family tree once owned that land do u really think they have a right to take it back now all these years later? we see the how the state of israel conducts its business maybe they had it right all those years ago, like i said before you should gotten part of germany.
-
Blowing up buses and clubs with women, children and adulessents is not mistreatment?! This article's poor atempt to justefy terrorism is not working.....
-
israel terrorists blow up schools, or do forget israelis can do that kind of thing too? whilst your government has taken land, put military check points everywhere, do lots of raids and strikes into all areas and bulldozer towns to the ground. after 50 years of occupation in palestine israel has created 4 million palestinian refugees and murdered thousands of the palestinian people including small children. israel has held palestinians in poverty while israel has prospered. These are reasons they should have grown to like israel?
the article wasn't trying to justify terrerism u took it that way, it was more about understanding their reactions showing israels intentions and actions how they have fuck over the palestinian people in nearly every way but because they have created a few terrorists we should ignore whats caused them to rise up?
-
Once again, there would be no checkpoints, no bulldozers, no raids and airstrikes, if Israel wasn't threatened- if Israeli citizents haven't been threatened.
There would've been no Refugees if Israel hasn't been threatened and atacked by it's neighbour states for an unprecedented number of times in the duration of such short existance, or If some of the support money that was given to the Palestinian Authority would've been used for actual causes(to help the Palestinian people) and not to provide more explossives for more bombings.
The suffering of The inocent people in the Palestinian authority is a known fact, This article isn't inventing anything new to us, however, the reasons to their suffring are also known to us, too bad their own leadership is completely oblivious to their suffring, I'll tell u this, if Arafat was concerned for at least a half of Israel's concern as for those poor people, situation may've been differend.
-
ok so by ur logic its ok to threaten palestinians and be an aggressive nation in general. but if palestinians resist the aggression or they show aggression back, israel has the right to take more away from them. basically israel treats them like dogs if they don't roll over u get mad at them and tighten their leesh giving them less freedom.
-
To tell you the truth I don't know why people keep saying there is some sort of an occupation, It may come as quite a shock to you, but a territorial interest is not one today's Israel pocesses(nor did it have one for the last 10 years at least), We don't need more territory,New settlements emerging- if that is what you adressed, are not supported by the Israeli government and are ambushed by the Israeli deffence force, but even an existing settlement of such calliber would be insignificant to the Palestinian Authority in any possible aspect(Even a big settlement wouldn't effect the Palestinians half the way Palestinians who occupy Israeli territory effect Israel)-Like I said they only use their anti-settlement resolution as a bagaining card ,The Israeli deffence force operating on Palestinian territory is there to provide Israel with the right amount of security(a reaction to terroristic atacks, a pre-emptive action or actual portection provided to Israeli Citizens at existing old-timer settlements), not for farther conquering of territory, most people who claim to support the Palestinian side by all means seems to ignore the fact no actual occupation occures, only retaliation and deffence...
What did you mean by "being an aggressive nation in general"?
-
israel doesn't act like a peaceful nation with peaceful sentiments.
so why has palestine had some of its bloodiest weeks recently when terrorists attacks have eased due to pressure put on them by the authority and eqypt, there is no correlation to your argument.
-
the facts are Israel didn't just move in and start attacking it's neighbors, it was attacked first....and if you morons will condone terrorist acts, bombing of schools and children by one country and not another you're a bigger fucking retard than i thought... it's shitty that they are both killing each other left and right and that they are both doing the same thing to one another
-
i do not condone terrorists acts but i can understand why palestinians have resorted to terror, they have been mistreated and face the israeli army but have no real army of their own to protect themselves from israel. also look at how successful they were in gettin israel out of lebenon. while terrirtoy may not be a concern of israel anymore the security barrier does increase israels already enlarged terrirtory (which has UN and international calls to dismatle its settlements for years) which is why its such an issue for palestine. what upsets me the most is that palestinian deaths tolls are WAY higher than israeli deaths, they have few prospects due to harsh israeli restrictions, which creates a breeding ground for hate and terrorists will step up, if israel starts respecting palestinians more things will get better on boths sides. israel also needs to stop actin unilaterally involve the palestinian authority in discussians use a country like Eqypt as as a mediator, america has proved itself to be a biased mediator with little interest in palestinian people and should not be used. bottom line is both sides need to put the past behind them and and work together to find a peaceful solution, unfortunatly this is unlikely to happen.
-
why should they have to respect palistine when it's them that started the whole thing in the first place?
you guys would be pretty pissed if you heard someone on the board say "well we'll stop killing iraqis and get out of iraq once they stop killing us"
-
why should they have to respect palistine when it's them that started the whole thing in the first place?
you guys would be pretty pissed if you heard someone on the board say "well we'll stop killing iraqis and get out of iraq once they stop killing us"
Do you also believe that the Native Americans were the evil ones killing those poor, innocent white "settlers", and that the white people TAKING OVER the continent were just more civilized and were just defending themselves?
-
why should they have to respect palistine when it's them that started the whole thing in the first place?
you guys would be pretty pissed if you heard someone on the board say "well we'll stop killing iraqis and get out of iraq once they stop killing us"
Do you also believe that the Native Americans were the evil ones killing those poor, innocent white "settlers", and that the white people TAKING OVER the continent were just more civilized and were just defending themselves?
a delegation of various nations (such as the U.N.) did not decide to give early american settlers the land they are in they took the land by force. mentioning something that happened so far ago in a world that had just found out the planet was round, is stupid.
i can easily say "is it ok for native americans to start boming places and killing people so that they can get their land back?"
-
So you mean to tell me that Palestinians started fighting back 500 years after the state of Israel was created? Good lord, you're an idiot.
-
So you mean to tell me that Palestinians started fighting back 500 years after the state of Israel was created? Good lord, you're an idiot.
no i'm saying your an idiot for impling that something that happened 500 years ago is the same thing as something that happens recently
-
so u think the land israel is on wasn't taken by force 50 years ago?
-
so u think the land israel is on wasn't taken by force 50 years ago?
are we speaking the same language here?
i know how israel got their land and you said it was the same thing as early settlers in america....which is retarded
-
it was Maradona who said that i never mentioned early american settlers
-
LOL....terrorist atacks eased, may be so, only proves the Israeli Deffence Force knowes what it's doing ;D btw, I live 20 minutes from Gaza and a town near by has been bombed by Kasams for the last coulpe of weeks, So either every ease is relative or you're simply misinformed as for what's going on(I ain't living at a settlement if that's what you're asking yourself, nor is that other town a settlement-pure Israeli territory).
And funny to hear we're the ones who have no sentiments?!....suplying a hostile nation with electricity, weapons, support money while being atacked by it, yea....we completely disgard the pressence of inocent lives in the Palestinian authority....your arguement DOES have a correlation... :P
-
i think thats ur duty when u took all those things away and thier ability to be independent so its ur responsibility. but why demolish their farms? buldozer uproot all their trees, when u think about how long that shit takes to grow u doin alot of damage eg. to get good olives u want the tree to be about 50 years old. this is the most recent 1 i seen
A local farmer told the BBC's Alan Johnston he watched Israeli army bulldozers uproot more than 3,000 of his orange and lemon trees in under three hours.
not only do yall take their homes and land u take their means of producing food and earning a living
-
So you mean to tell me that Palestinians started fighting back 500 years after the state of Israel was created? Good lord, you're an idiot.
no i'm saying your an idiot for impling that something that happened 500 years ago is the same thing as something that happens recently
Europeans settled the land in large numbers, killed off the Native Americans, created a nation.
Israelis settled the land in large numbers coming from Europe (Zionist movement), killed off the Palestinians or forced them to migrate, created a nation.
I'm sure you still can't see it, but just keep using your 24 brain cells and you might figure it out.
-
i think thats ur duty when u took all those things away and thier ability to be independent so its ur responsibility. but why demolish their farms? buldozer uproot all their trees, when u think about how long that shit takes to grow u doin alot of damage eg. to get good olives u want the tree to be about 50 years old. this is the most recent 1 i seen A local farmer told the BBC's Alan Johnston he watched Israeli army bulldozers uproot more than 3,000 of his orange and lemon trees in under three hours.
not only do yall take their homes and land u take their means of producing food and earning a living
why?! if this farm has hiding spots for wanted terrorists, if the farmer endorses terrorism by financing it, I can name 100's of reasons to why a farm could be demolished, Although many of these stories of "the poor inocent Palestinian farmer whose trees got uprooted and whose land was demolished" are mostly fictious and are used by the Pro-Palestinian propoganda to rase sympathy amongst misinformed Earopeans ;)...-Tell me u don't remember the cought on camera footage of a Shahid's funeral FAKING, again for pro-Palestinian propoganda purposes.....
And one more thing, We don't have any duties towards Authorities that seek our destruction....
-
oh i got an idea why not tarmac over what is left of palestine make make it all flat n that, and there won't be any places to hide any more so you'll be able to see all your black and white sheep run around in their pen, wouldn't that be lovelly.
-
So you mean to tell me that Palestinians started fighting back 500 years after the state of Israel was created? Good lord, you're an idiot.
no i'm saying your an idiot for impling that something that happened 500 years ago is the same thing as something that happens recently
Europeans settled the land in large numbers, killed off the Native Americans, created a nation.
Israelis settled the land in large numbers coming from Europe (Zionist movement), killed off the Palestinians or forced them to migrate, created a nation.
I'm sure you still can't see it, but just keep using your 24 brain cells and you might figure it out.
a nice broad summary of history but i like how you forgot facts to twist the arguement into your light... can you ever debate using actual facts? here have some facts:
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_independence_un_arabrejection.php
-
and that doesn't have any spin? all the additional reading are israeli or pro israeli. although the actual article was only written in a slightly pro israeli stance IMO
-
well it's kind of hard to paint a pretty picture of:
The Arabs not only rejected partition, but attacked Israel from all sides. The armies of Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon and Iraq invaded Israel on May 15, 1947, the day after Israel's Independence Day, with the clear intention of killing the infant state in its cradle.
On May 15, 1947 Azzam Pasha called for "jihad", saying:
This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades".
Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, agreed with Pasha:
I declare a holy war, my muslim brothers! Murder the Jews! Murder them all!
In a letter to the United Nations, the Transjordanian Prime Minister was quoted:
Our position is clear, and has been proclaimed on every occasion. It is never to allow the creation of a Jewish State in Palestine and to exclude partition. And our object is to cooperate with the other Arab States in her deliverance. Once this aim is attained, the determination of her future status is the right and concern of her own people. Theirs alone is the last word. We have no other object or aim in view.
-
1) jews were not entitled to the land
2) israel regected the partition and the cease fire agreement anyway because it was too small, and showed little interest in peace intiatives
3) israel got arabs off the land by any means
4) the arab nations generally attacked the expanded part of israel not included in the partition
5) look at israel on a map palestine is cut in 2, and israel is much bigger than the two halves put together.
6) year on year israels terrirtory has expanded
7) arabs and in particular palestinians have incured far more deaths and injuries since israel was started
8 ) israel pays little attention to international watchdogs and organisations like the UN or even international law
9) israel has one of the largest nuclear stock piles of weapons in the world and has not signed up to the non proliferication treaty so is not subject to sanctions and opporates on a "no show no tell policy" while they expect the rest of the middle east to be put under international pressure to not produce nuclear weapons (eg iran)
10) in whats left of palestine the israeli army enjoys shooting small children, buldozing farms and houses to the ground, firering missles and tank shells into the refugee camps especially when large crowds are present, have military check points everywhere.
11) in 1947 the area allocated to the jews by the UN had a jewish population of 520,000. there are now over 4 million palestinian refugees at the present day.
who do u think got a raw deal?
-
The implacability of the Arabs was evident when Jewish Agency representatives David Horowitz and Abba Eban made a last-ditch effort to reach a compromise in a meeting with Arab League Secretary-General Azzam Pasha on September 16, 1947. Pasha told them bluntly:
The Arab world is not in a compromising mood. It's likely, Mr. Horowitz, that your plan is rational and logical, but the fate of nations is not decided by rational logic. Nations never concede; they fight. You won't get anything by peaceful means or compromise. You can, perhaps, get something, but only by the force of your arms. We shall try to defeat you. I am not sure we'll succeed, but we'll try. We were able to drive out the Crusaders, but on the other hand we lost Spain and Persia. It may be that we shall lose Palestine. But it's too late to talk of peaceful solutions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
guess they should have compromised then
that right there shuts your whole arguement up "becareful what you wish for you just might get it"
-
Israel Snubs Mideast 'Quartet' Delegation
By JOSEF FEDERMAN, AP
JERUSALEM (July 7) - Israel snubbed a delegation of Mideast mediators that had come to discuss its planned withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, officials said Wednesday, further undermining efforts to promote an internationally backed peace plan for the region.
The representatives of the so-called Quartet - comprising the United States, the European Union, the United Nations and Russia - are in the region to promote the Gaza withdrawal.
The Quartet wants the withdrawal to be part of the "road map," its broader peace plan that envisions an independent Palestinian state by 2005.
Israeli officials, however, decided not to meet with the diplomats during a stop in Jerusalem on Tuesday - the latest sign that the Jewish state is attempting to exclude Europeans from Mideast peacemaking ahead of its planned Gaza withdrawal.
"We do not work with the Europeans on security issues. We don't want to work with the Europeans on security issues," said Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's spokesman, Asaf Shariv.
"We work with the Americans on these issues. There are a lot of other issues, like economic, that we would be happy to work on with the Europeans," Shariv said.
Shariv denied Israel had refused to meet the Quartet. He said Israel first wants to talk to a White House delegation arriving later this week before discussing the withdrawal plan with others.
Israel has often accused Europe of being biased toward the Palestinians, and preferred to deal directly with the United States.
The government has progressively distanced itself from the road map, which calls for a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians, since it signed on to the plan a year ago.
Sharon has refused to talk with the Palestinians as he prepares the Gaza pullout. Instead, he has asked Egypt, which borders Gaza, to help train Palestinian security forces and to ensure calm.
A diplomatic source expressed surprise at the Israeli snub. He said the EU has held a series of "very constructive" meetings with Israel on the Gaza plan.
"The message from the Israelis is that European contributions that help to make Gaza withdrawal a success will be very welcome," the source said, on condition of anonymity.
The Quartet envoys met Wednesday with Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia in the West Bank town of Ramallah. Later, Qureia met with David Satterfield, the American representative at the talks.
"If it is true that Israeli officials would not meet with the Quartet, it means that Israel is turning its back to the entire world," Qureia said.
At the meetings, Queria criticized Israeli settlements, the construction of a West Bank separation barrier and the targeted killings of Palestinian militants, Palestinian officials said. The officials said Satterfield emphasized that the United States continues to support President Bush's vision of a Palestinian state living peacefully alongside Israel, as set out in the road map plan.
While U.S. officials say they are committed to the plan, Washington has sent mixed signals over its implementation.
A set of letters that Sharon and Bush exchanged in Washington last April did not mention the Quartet.
In the letters, Israel presented its plans for a Gaza withdrawal, while the United States offered unprecedented backing for Israel on the sensitive issues of Jewish settlements and Palestinian refugees.
The assurances enraged Palestinians, and several European countries criticized Bush's support.
But this week, Secretary of State Colin Powell told Israel to pick up the pace of dismantling settlement outposts in the West Bank, as required by the road map.
Talk of uprooting settlements in Gaza and the West Bank has angered settlers and their hard-line supporters in Israel, raising concerns of a potential extremist threat. Sharon admitted earlier this week that he felt he could be at risk.
On Wednesday, Shin Bet chief Avi Dichter met with settler leaders to discuss the threats.
Dichter said he has no evidence of specific threats against Sharon or other officials, but that he remains concerned about growing extremism, security officials said.
Dichter and the settlers pledged to increase cooperation to isolate extremist elements.
The threat of violence strikes a deep chord in Israel. Many politicians and security officials still blame themselves for ignoring the warning signs ahead of the 1995 assassination of then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin by an ultranationalist Jew.
In new fighting Wednesday, Israeli troops shot and killed an armed Palestinian man in a refugee camp on the outskirts of the West Bank city of Nablus. Palestinians said the man belonged to the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, a Palestinian militant group.
07/07/04 15:57 EDT
Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published
-
so to further defame israel you pull up an article that says that they will work with the US to back out of the gaza strip and not the Europeans....good job...i really hate those jewish people now
-
Wow, you really are an idiot. Here let me show you something, if you can't do the math, tell me and I'll do it for you.
"Israel's foreign minister yesterday told the Bush administration that his nation will not abide by a World Court ruling on the legality of its West Bank barrier and pressed for U.S. support to block any U.N. action against the Jewish state.....
The White House also objects to intervention on the matter from the International Court of Justice, also known as the World Court. In a January filing with the World Court, the Bush administration said the top U.N. court does not have jurisdiction to mediate the dispute."
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040702-115949-9770r.htm
Now why in the hell would Israel want to deal with anyone but the U.S. when the U.S. basically lets Israel do whatever it pleases. Israel wants to disregard the U.N. court and the U.S. says that's okay. LOL. Seriously, if you can't put 2 and 2 together here, I feel sorry for you.
-
i'm glad they want to handle it themselves...when the palistinians declared war on the jewish people and said that they were going to wipe out every last one of them....they got what they deserved
-
Sigh...
Some people just don't get it.
Myth: "Israel enjoys the same rights as any other member of the United Nations."
Fact:
A breakthrough in Israel’s fifty-year exclusion from UN bodies occurred on May 30, 2000, when Israel accepted an invitation to become a temporary member of the Western European and Others (WEOG) regional group. While only temporary, this historic step could finally end the UN’s discrimination against Israel and open the door to Israeli participation in the Security Council.
Israel has been the only UN member excluded from a regional group. Geographically, it belongs in the Asian Group; however, the Arab states have barred its membership. Without membership in a regional group, Israel cannot sit on the Security Council or other key UN bodies.
The WEOG is the only regional group which is not purely geographical, but rather geopolitical, namely a group of states that share a Western-Democratic common denominator. WEOG comprises 27 members: all the West European states; and the "others" — Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States.
Israel’s membership in the WEOG is severely limited. Every four years Israel will have to reapply for membership, since its status is only temporary. Israel was not allowed to present candidacies for open seats in any UN body for two years and is not able to compete for major UN bodies, such as the Economic and Social Council, for a longer period. Also, for the first two years, Israeli representatives were not allowed to run for positions on the UN Council.
Besides these restrictions, Israel is only allowed to participate in WEOG activities in the New York office of the UN. Israel is excluded from WEOG discussion and consultations at the UN offices in Geneva, Nairobi, Rome and Vienna; therefore, Israel cannot participate in UN talks on human rights, racism and a number of other issues handled in these offices.
In February 2003, Israel was elected to serve on the UN General Assembly Working Group on Disarmament, its first committee posting since 1961 (after 1961, the UN split the membership into regional groups and that was when Israel became isolated). An Israeli representative was elected as one of the group's three vice-chairmen and received votes from Iran and several Arab states. On the other hand, during the same month, an Israeli candidate was defeated for a position on the UN Committee on the rights of the child. The year before Israeli candidates also lost votes for positions on the UN Human Rights Committee, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, and the UN Racial Discrimination Committee.
Myth: "The United Nations and its affiliate institutions are critical of Israeli policies, but never attack Jews or engage in anti-Semitic rhetoric."
Fact:
The UN has condemned virtually every conceivable form of racism. It has established programs to combat racism and its multiple facets — including xenophobia — but had consistently refused to do the same against anti-Semitism. It was only on November 24, 1998, mor than 50 years after the UN's founding, that the word "anti-Semitism" was first mentioned in a UN resolution, appearing near the end of GA Res. A/53/623, "Elimination of Racism and Racial Discrimination."
Since the early 1970s, the UN itself has become permeated with anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist sentiment. The following examples illustrate how ugly the atmosphere has become:
“Is it not the Jews who are exploiting the American people and trying to debase them?”— Libyan UN Representative Ali Treiki.
“The Talmud says that if a Jew does not drink every year the blood of a non-Jewish man, he will be damned for eternity.” —Saudi Arabian delegate Marouf al-Dawalibi before the 1984 UN Human Rights Commission conference on religious tolerance. A similar remark was made by the Syrian Ambassador at a 1991 meeting, who insisted Jews killed Christian children to use their blood to make matzos.
On March 11, 1997, the Palestinian representative to the UN Human Rights Commission claimed the Israeli government had injected 300 Palestinian children with the HIV virus. Despite the efforts of Israel, the United States and others, this blood libel remains on the UN record.
Myth: "The 1991 repeal of the resolution libeling Zionism proves that the UN is no longer biased against Israel."
Fact:
The vote did not signal an end to the UN's bias against Israel. The same month the General Assembly approved four new one-sided resolutions on the Middle East. On December 9, 1991, Israel's handling of the intifada was condemned by a vote of 150-2. On the 11th, it voted 104-2 for a resolution calling for a UN-sponsored peace conference that would include the PLO and voted 142-2 to condemn Israeli behavior toward Palestinians in the territories. On December 16 — the very day it repealed the Zionism measure — the UN voted 152-1, with the U.S. abstaining, to call on Israel to rescind a Knesset resolution declaring Jerusalem its capital, to demand Israel's withdrawal from “occupied territories,” including Jerusalem and to denounce Israeli administration of the Golan Heights. Another resolution expressed support for Palestinian self-determination and the right of return for Palestinian refugees.
The repeal vote was marred by the fact that 13 of the 19 Arab countries — including those engaged in negotiations with Israel — Syria, Lebanon and Jordan — voted to retain the resolution, as did Saudi Arabia. Six, including Egypt — which lobbied against repeal — were absent.
The Arabs “voted once again to impugn the very birthright of the Jewish State,” the New York Times noted. “That even now most Arab states cling to a demeaning and vicious doctrine mars an otherwise belated triumph for sense and conscience.”
Myth: "Even if the General Assembly is biased, the Security Council has always been balanced in its treatment of the Middle East."
Fact
A careful analysis of the Security Council's actions on the Middle East shows it has been little better than the General Assembly in its treatment of Israel.
Candidates for the Security Council are proposed by regional blocs. In the Middle East, this means the Arab League and its allies are usually included. Israel, which joined the UN in 1949, has never been elected to the Security Council whereas at least 16 Arab League members have. Syria, a nation on the U.S. list of countries that sponsor terrorism, began a two-year term as a member of the Security Council in 2002 and served as president of the body in June 2002.
Debates on Israel abound, and the Security Council has repeatedly condemned the Jewish State, but not once has it adopted a resolution critical of the PLO or of Arab attacks on Israel. Emergency special sessions of the General Assembly are rare. No such session has ever been convened with respect to the Chinese occupation of Tibet, the Indonesian occupation of East Timor, the Syrian occupation of Lebanon, the slaughters in Rwanda, the disappearances in Zaire or the horrors of Bosnia. For nearly two decades, these sessions have been called primarily to condemn Israel.
Myth: "Israel's failure to implement UN resolutions is a violation of international law."
Fact:
UN resolutions are documents issued by political bodies and need to be interpreted in light of the constitution of those bodies. They represent the political viewpoints of those who support them rather than embodying any particular legal rules or principles. Resolutions can have moral and political force when they are perceived as expressing the agreed view of the international community, or the views of leading, powerful and respected nations.
The UN Charter (Articles 10 and 14) specifically empowers the General Assembly to make only nonbinding "recommendations." Assembly resolutions are only considered binding in relation to budgetary and internal procedural matters.
The legality of Security Council resolutions is more ambiguous. It is not clear if all Security Council resolutions are binding or only those adopted under Chapter 7 of the Charter.15 Under Article 25 of the Charter, UN member states are obligated to carry out "decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter," but it is unclear which kinds of resolutions are covered by the term "decisions." Regardless, it would be difficult to show that Israel has violated any Security Council resolutions on their wording and the Council has never sanctioned Israel for noncompliance.
Myth: “The United Nations has demonstrated equal concern for the lives of Israelis and Palestinians.”
fact:
While the UN routinely adopts resolutions critical of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, it has never adopted a single resolution unequivocally condemning violence against Israeli citizens. One of the most dramatic examples of the institution’s double-standard came in 2003 when Israel offered a draft resolution in the General Assembly for the first time in 27 years.
The resolution called for the protection of Israeli children from terrorism, but it did not receive enough support from the members of the General Assembly to even come to a vote. Israel had introduced the resolution in response to the murder of dozens of Israeli children in terrorist attacks, and after a similar resolution had been adopted by a UN committee (later adopted by the full Assembly) calling for the protection of Palestinian children from “Israeli aggression.” Israel's ambassador withdrew the proposed draft after it became clear that members of the nonaligned movement were determined to revise it in such a way that it would have ultimately been critical of Israel.16
-
1) jews were not entitled to the land
2) israel regected the partition and the cease fire agreement anyway because it was too small, and showed little interest in peace intiatives
3) israel got arabs off the land by any means
4) the arab nations generally attacked the expanded part of israel not included in the partition
5) look at israel on a map palestine is cut in 2, and israel is much bigger than the two halves put together.
6) year on year israels terrirtory has expanded
7) arabs and in particular palestinians have incured far more deaths and injuries since israel was started
8 ) israel pays little attention to international watchdogs and organisations like the UN or even international law
9) israel has one of the largest nuclear stock piles of weapons in the world and has not signed up to the non proliferication treaty so is not subject to sanctions and opporates on a "no show no tell policy" while they expect the rest of the middle east to be put under international pressure to not produce nuclear weapons (eg iran)
10) in whats left of palestine the israeli army enjoys shooting small children, buldozing farms and houses to the ground, firering missles and tank shells into the refugee camps especially when large crowds are present, have military check points everywhere.
11) in 1947 the area allocated to the jews by the UN had a jewish population of 520,000. there are now over 4 million palestinian refugees at the present day.
who do u think got a raw deal?
1.never entitled to the Land?- So YOU'RE the authority on this metter?....
2.At What time exactly?-There was no fire untill Israel was atacked :-\....The closest time any side rejected a peace treaty, was the Last Camp david atempt when Arafat was granted 97% of the demand and declined.
3.Is this a joke?! Israel's original territory when the arab nations atacked was minimal, The only reason it was atacked was cause Egypt and Syria had long term egagement plans, to which a possible Jewish state in the middle was an obstacle....
4.yea, That's why all this time we've had Arabs that have been considered Israeli Citizents and had a great amount of support among them towards millitant groups in the authority, and to think these guys even have representation in our Parlament(the Kneset)....
5.And?- We were even bigger when we had the Sinai peninsula, and south lebanon-and we gave it up(for peace), how many territories of the same size of the Palestinian territories could feat in there?
6. oh really?!!....read this again^^^
7.As far as Palestinians go> possible, never counted, not sure u have, don't forget their natural reproduction figures are also much higher, and so is the amount of hostillity, add that up, I think it makes sence. ::)
8.Really, you could say the same as for the Palestinian Authority and the rest of the Arab Nations, throughout these 56 years. Since the primary decision was to grant Israel with a state and they have nagated it's existance throughout this time, Plus, I wasn't aware that supporting terrorism is one of the UN's newest resolutions. And how come u care for UN's resolutions suddenly, you disagree with the UN's decision just as much, I quote u:"1) jews were not entitled to the land"
9. So does the USA...And Israel expects nothing, we can only hope, it's a question of hostillity.
10. ENJOY'S?!!...yea, sure, that's our main mission to kill as many incocents as possible, we're the ones who proclaimed Jihad, And preached for KILLING and SLAUTERING as many people as possible cause it should prolly get us to heaven, so we coculd chill with 70 sumthin virgins....
11.And they could have a state already, if that was what their leadership really wanted....
A RAW DEAL?!...If they did get a raw deal it's only cause their own leadership was dealing....
-
Sigh...
Some people just don't get it.
Myth: "Israel enjoys the same rights as any other member of the United Nations."
Fact:
A breakthrough in Israel’s fifty-year exclusion from UN bodies occurred on May 30, 2000, when Israel accepted an invitation to become a temporary member of the Western European and Others (WEOG) regional group. While only temporary, this historic step could finally end the UN’s discrimination against Israel and open the door to Israeli participation in the Security Council.
Israel has been the only UN member excluded from a regional group. Geographically, it belongs in the Asian Group; however, the Arab states have barred its membership. Without membership in a regional group, Israel cannot sit on the Security Council or other key UN bodies.
The WEOG is the only regional group which is not purely geographical, but rather geopolitical, namely a group of states that share a Western-Democratic common denominator. WEOG comprises 27 members: all the West European states; and the "others" — Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States.
Israel’s membership in the WEOG is severely limited. Every four years Israel will have to reapply for membership, since its status is only temporary. Israel was not allowed to present candidacies for open seats in any UN body for two years and is not able to compete for major UN bodies, such as the Economic and Social Council, for a longer period. Also, for the first two years, Israeli representatives were not allowed to run for positions on the UN Council.
Besides these restrictions, Israel is only allowed to participate in WEOG activities in the New York office of the UN. Israel is excluded from WEOG discussion and consultations at the UN offices in Geneva, Nairobi, Rome and Vienna; therefore, Israel cannot participate in UN talks on human rights, racism and a number of other issues handled in these offices.
In February 2003, Israel was elected to serve on the UN General Assembly Working Group on Disarmament, its first committee posting since 1961 (after 1961, the UN split the membership into regional groups and that was when Israel became isolated). An Israeli representative was elected as one of the group's three vice-chairmen and received votes from Iran and several Arab states. On the other hand, during the same month, an Israeli candidate was defeated for a position on the UN Committee on the rights of the child. The year before Israeli candidates also lost votes for positions on the UN Human Rights Committee, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, and the UN Racial Discrimination Committee.
Myth: "The United Nations and its affiliate institutions are critical of Israeli policies, but never attack Jews or engage in anti-Semitic rhetoric."
Fact:
The UN has condemned virtually every conceivable form of racism. It has established programs to combat racism and its multiple facets — including xenophobia — but had consistently refused to do the same against anti-Semitism. It was only on November 24, 1998, mor than 50 years after the UN's founding, that the word "anti-Semitism" was first mentioned in a UN resolution, appearing near the end of GA Res. A/53/623, "Elimination of Racism and Racial Discrimination."
Since the early 1970s, the UN itself has become permeated with anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist sentiment. The following examples illustrate how ugly the atmosphere has become:
“Is it not the Jews who are exploiting the American people and trying to debase them?”— Libyan UN Representative Ali Treiki.
“The Talmud says that if a Jew does not drink every year the blood of a non-Jewish man, he will be damned for eternity.” —Saudi Arabian delegate Marouf al-Dawalibi before the 1984 UN Human Rights Commission conference on religious tolerance. A similar remark was made by the Syrian Ambassador at a 1991 meeting, who insisted Jews killed Christian children to use their blood to make matzos.
On March 11, 1997, the Palestinian representative to the UN Human Rights Commission claimed the Israeli government had injected 300 Palestinian children with the HIV virus. Despite the efforts of Israel, the United States and others, this blood libel remains on the UN record.
Myth: "The 1991 repeal of the resolution libeling Zionism proves that the UN is no longer biased against Israel."
Fact:
The vote did not signal an end to the UN's bias against Israel. The same month the General Assembly approved four new one-sided resolutions on the Middle East. On December 9, 1991, Israel's handling of the intifada was condemned by a vote of 150-2. On the 11th, it voted 104-2 for a resolution calling for a UN-sponsored peace conference that would include the PLO and voted 142-2 to condemn Israeli behavior toward Palestinians in the territories. On December 16 — the very day it repealed the Zionism measure — the UN voted 152-1, with the U.S. abstaining, to call on Israel to rescind a Knesset resolution declaring Jerusalem its capital, to demand Israel's withdrawal from “occupied territories,” including Jerusalem and to denounce Israeli administration of the Golan Heights. Another resolution expressed support for Palestinian self-determination and the right of return for Palestinian refugees.
The repeal vote was marred by the fact that 13 of the 19 Arab countries — including those engaged in negotiations with Israel — Syria, Lebanon and Jordan — voted to retain the resolution, as did Saudi Arabia. Six, including Egypt — which lobbied against repeal — were absent.
The Arabs “voted once again to impugn the very birthright of the Jewish State,” the New York Times noted. “That even now most Arab states cling to a demeaning and vicious doctrine mars an otherwise belated triumph for sense and conscience.”
Myth: "Even if the General Assembly is biased, the Security Council has always been balanced in its treatment of the Middle East."
Fact
A careful analysis of the Security Council's actions on the Middle East shows it has been little better than the General Assembly in its treatment of Israel.
Candidates for the Security Council are proposed by regional blocs. In the Middle East, this means the Arab League and its allies are usually included. Israel, which joined the UN in 1949, has never been elected to the Security Council whereas at least 16 Arab League members have. Syria, a nation on the U.S. list of countries that sponsor terrorism, began a two-year term as a member of the Security Council in 2002 and served as president of the body in June 2002.
Debates on Israel abound, and the Security Council has repeatedly condemned the Jewish State, but not once has it adopted a resolution critical of the PLO or of Arab attacks on Israel. Emergency special sessions of the General Assembly are rare. No such session has ever been convened with respect to the Chinese occupation of Tibet, the Indonesian occupation of East Timor, the Syrian occupation of Lebanon, the slaughters in Rwanda, the disappearances in Zaire or the horrors of Bosnia. For nearly two decades, these sessions have been called primarily to condemn Israel.
Myth: "Israel's failure to implement UN resolutions is a violation of international law."
Fact:
UN resolutions are documents issued by political bodies and need to be interpreted in light of the constitution of those bodies. They represent the political viewpoints of those who support them rather than embodying any particular legal rules or principles. Resolutions can have moral and political force when they are perceived as expressing the agreed view of the international community, or the views of leading, powerful and respected nations.
The UN Charter (Articles 10 and 14) specifically empowers the General Assembly to make only nonbinding "recommendations." Assembly resolutions are only considered binding in relation to budgetary and internal procedural matters.
The legality of Security Council resolutions is more ambiguous. It is not clear if all Security Council resolutions are binding or only those adopted under Chapter 7 of the Charter.15 Under Article 25 of the Charter, UN member states are obligated to carry out "decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter," but it is unclear which kinds of resolutions are covered by the term "decisions." Regardless, it would be difficult to show that Israel has violated any Security Council resolutions on their wording and the Council has never sanctioned Israel for noncompliance.
Myth: “The United Nations has demonstrated equal concern for the lives of Israelis and Palestinians.”
fact:
While the UN routinely adopts resolutions critical of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, it has never adopted a single resolution unequivocally condemning violence against Israeli citizens. One of the most dramatic examples of the institution’s double-standard came in 2003 when Israel offered a draft resolution in the General Assembly for the first time in 27 years.
The resolution called for the protection of Israeli children from terrorism, but it did not receive enough support from the members of the General Assembly to even come to a vote. Israel had introduced the resolution in response to the murder of dozens of Israeli children in terrorist attacks, and after a similar resolution had been adopted by a UN committee (later adopted by the full Assembly) calling for the protection of Palestinian children from “Israeli aggression.” Israel's ambassador withdrew the proposed draft after it became clear that members of the nonaligned movement were determined to revise it in such a way that it would have ultimately been critical of Israel.16
israeli propergander. please don't post in these threads if u can't think for youself, all you do is follow the republican line which is very generous to israelis and not a good mediator of peace in the current administration.
-
1) jews were not entitled to the land
2) israel regected the partition and the cease fire agreement anyway because it was too small, and showed little interest in peace intiatives
3) israel got arabs off the land by any means
4) the arab nations generally attacked the expanded part of israel not included in the partition
5) look at israel on a map palestine is cut in 2, and israel is much bigger than the two halves put together.
6) year on year israels terrirtory has expanded
7) arabs and in particular palestinians have incured far more deaths and injuries since israel was started
8 ) israel pays little attention to international watchdogs and organisations like the UN or even international law
9) israel has one of the largest nuclear stock piles of weapons in the world and has not signed up to the non proliferication treaty so is not subject to sanctions and opporates on a "no show no tell policy" while they expect the rest of the middle east to be put under international pressure to not produce nuclear weapons (eg iran)
10) in whats left of palestine the israeli army enjoys shooting small children, buldozing farms and houses to the ground, firering missles and tank shells into the refugee camps especially when large crowds are present, have military check points everywhere.
11) in 1947 the area allocated to the jews by the UN had a jewish population of 520,000. there are now over 4 million palestinian refugees at the present day.
who do u think got a raw deal?
1.never entitled to the Land?- So YOU'RE the authority on this metter?....
2.At What time exactly?-There was no fire untill Israel was atacked :-\....The closest time any side rejected a peace treaty, was the Last Camp david atempt when Arafat was granted 97% of the demand and declined.
3.Is this a joke?! Israel's original territory when the arab nations atacked was minimal, The only reason it was atacked was cause Egypt and Syria had long term egagement plans, to which a possible Jewish state in the middle was an obstacle....
4.yea, That's why all this time we've had Arabs that have been considered Israeli Citizents and had a great amount of support among them towards millitant groups in the authority, and to think these guys even have representation in our Parlament(the Kneset)....
5.And?- We were even bigger when we had the Sinai peninsula, and south lebanon-and we gave it up(for peace), how many territories of the same size of the Palestinian territories could feat in there?
6. oh really?!!....read this again^^^
7.As far as Palestinians go> possible, never counted, not sure u have, don't forget their natural reproduction figures are also much higher, and so is the amount of hostillity, add that up, I think it makes sence. ::)
8.Really, you could say the same as for the Palestinian Authority and the rest of the Arab Nations, throughout these 56 years. Since the primary decision was to grant Israel with a state and they have nagated it's existance throughout this time, Plus, I wasn't aware that supporting terrorism is one of the UN's newest resolutions. And how come u care for UN's resolutions suddenly, you disagree with the UN's decision just as much, I quote u:"1) jews were not entitled to the land"
9. So does the USA...And Israel expects nothing, we can only hope, it's a question of hostillity.
10. ENJOY'S?!!...yea, sure, that's our main mission to kill as many incocents as possible, we're the ones who proclaimed Jihad, And preached for KILLING and SLAUTERING as many people as possible cause it should prolly get us to heaven, so we coculd chill with 70 sumthin virgins....
11.And they could have a state already, if that was what their leadership really wanted....
A RAW DEAL?!...If they did get a raw deal it's only cause their own leadership was dealing....
you mean u were defeated in south lebanon it became to bloody for u.
and with reference to u not being entitled to the land in 1948 it wasn't in the juristiction of the UN to devide up countries.`
you would have thaught a newly formed country would have obide by what the internation community tells it then through the body which governs everyone and should be forced to comply. but instead isreal is usualy shielded by america and america needs to learn to be an honest and unbiased friend to both sides for equality peace to last in the region.
-
israeli propergander. please don't post in these threads if u can't think for youself, all you do is follow the republican line which is very generous to israelis and not a good mediator of peace in the current administration.
Listen up you little tool. You yourself said that you are new to this topic of study. How are you gonna dismiss this as "propaganda" when It can be backed up by facts?
You're biased, ignorant of history, and pitifully mistaken in your views. You don't have a moral leg to stand on, so you dismiss information that goes against your views as propaganda. YOU need to think for yourself and get your head out of your ass.
I Geezy LIVES in Israel and deals with this shit everyday. How are you gonna come in, with your new information you got off of biased websites, and tell him what his country needs to do?!
-
israeli propergander. please don't post in these threads if u can't think for youself, all you do is follow the republican line which is very generous to israelis and not a good mediator of peace in the current administration.
Listen up you little tool. You yourself said that you are new to this topic of study. How are you gonna dismiss this as "propaganda" when It can be backed up by facts?
You're biased, ignorant of history, and pitifully mistaken in your views. You don't have a moral leg to stand on, so you dismiss information that goes against your views as propaganda. YOU need to think for yourself and get your head out of your ass.
I Geezy LIVES in Israel and deals with this shit everyday. How are you gonna come in, with your new information you got off of biased websites, and tell him what his country needs to do?!
So if I posted something similar from a pro-Palestinian source, you wouldn't dismiss it as propaganda?
-
1) jews were not entitled to the land
2) israel regected the partition and the cease fire agreement anyway because it was too small, and showed little interest in peace intiatives
3) israel got arabs off the land by any means
4) the arab nations generally attacked the expanded part of israel not included in the partition
5) look at israel on a map palestine is cut in 2, and israel is much bigger than the two halves put together.
6) year on year israels terrirtory has expanded
7) arabs and in particular palestinians have incured far more deaths and injuries since israel was started
8 ) israel pays little attention to international watchdogs and organisations like the UN or even international law
9) israel has one of the largest nuclear stock piles of weapons in the world and has not signed up to the non proliferication treaty so is not subject to sanctions and opporates on a "no show no tell policy" while they expect the rest of the middle east to be put under international pressure to not produce nuclear weapons (eg iran)
10) in whats left of palestine the israeli army enjoys shooting small children, buldozing farms and houses to the ground, firering missles and tank shells into the refugee camps especially when large crowds are present, have military check points everywhere.
11) in 1947 the area allocated to the jews by the UN had a jewish population of 520,000. there are now over 4 million palestinian refugees at the present day.
who do u think got a raw deal?
1.never entitled to the Land?- So YOU'RE the authority on this metter?....
2.At What time exactly?-There was no fire untill Israel was atacked :-\....The closest time any side rejected a peace treaty, was the Last Camp david atempt when Arafat was granted 97% of the demand and declined.
3.Is this a joke?! Israel's original territory when the arab nations atacked was minimal, The only reason it was atacked was cause Egypt and Syria had long term egagement plans, to which a possible Jewish state in the middle was an obstacle....
4.yea, That's why all this time we've had Arabs that have been considered Israeli Citizents and had a great amount of support among them towards millitant groups in the authority, and to think these guys even have representation in our Parlament(the Kneset)....
5.And?- We were even bigger when we had the Sinai peninsula, and south lebanon-and we gave it up(for peace), how many territories of the same size of the Palestinian territories could feat in there?
6. oh really?!!....read this again^^^
7.As far as Palestinians go> possible, never counted, not sure u have, don't forget their natural reproduction figures are also much higher, and so is the amount of hostillity, add that up, I think it makes sence. ::)
8.Really, you could say the same as for the Palestinian Authority and the rest of the Arab Nations, throughout these 56 years. Since the primary decision was to grant Israel with a state and they have nagated it's existance throughout this time, Plus, I wasn't aware that supporting terrorism is one of the UN's newest resolutions. And how come u care for UN's resolutions suddenly, you disagree with the UN's decision just as much, I quote u:"1) jews were not entitled to the land"
9. So does the USA...And Israel expects nothing, we can only hope, it's a question of hostillity.
10. ENJOY'S?!!...yea, sure, that's our main mission to kill as many incocents as possible, we're the ones who proclaimed Jihad, And preached for KILLING and SLAUTERING as many people as possible cause it should prolly get us to heaven, so we coculd chill with 70 sumthin virgins....
11.And they could have a state already, if that was what their leadership really wanted....
A RAW DEAL?!...If they did get a raw deal it's only cause their own leadership was dealing....
you mean u were defeated in south lebanon it became to bloody for u.
and with reference to u not being entitled to the land in 1948 it wasn't in the juristiction of the UN to devide up countries.`
you would have thaught a newly formed country would have obide by what the internation community tells it then through the body which governs everyone and should be forced to comply. but instead isreal is usualy shielded by america and america needs to learn to be an honest and unbiased friend to both sides for equality peace to last in the region.
Trust me, the situation with Suicide Bombers is hundred times more bloody for us, we're still here though, we were getting singnals regarding some sort of a peace treaty that was conditioned with giving up south Lebanon....In retrospective ultimatley I don't think it was the best decision, just brought Hizbala closer to Israel...But that's just Ehud Barak- He was so determined to give up territory....even that didn't grant us with an agreement, Im really surprised you can't smell that something was rotten.
-
israeli propergander. please don't post in these threads if u can't think for youself, all you do is follow the republican line which is very generous to israelis and not a good mediator of peace in the current administration.
Listen up you little tool. You yourself said that you are new to this topic of study. How are you gonna dismiss this as "propaganda" when It can be backed up by facts?
You're biased, ignorant of history, and pitifully mistaken in your views. You don't have a moral leg to stand on, so you dismiss information that goes against your views as propaganda. YOU need to think for yourself and get your head out of your ass.
I Geezy LIVES in Israel and deals with this shit everyday. How are you gonna come in, with your new information you got off of biased websites, and tell him what his country needs to do?!
it was blatent properganda
i have read extensively in the area, from both pro palestinian and pro israeli sources and have made up my own mind on the situation and argue with i geezy in the areas i know about. but one thing is u don't think an israeli is gonna by biased to support thier own country? they may know more about the situation but it is a very one sided view which will be put across which doesn't necessarily mean its right. i'm english doesn't mean i'm right on everything concerning england. however having said that considering it was during the time of the british mandate on palestine we were very supportive of the state of israel i do feel kind of responsible for what we helped create and considering western powers let israel do pretty much what ever it wants to do i am gonna speak up for what i think is one of the biggest barriers to peace in the middle east.
finally most of the stuff i post comes from the bbc which is about one of the most independent sites on the net regarding this situation in my opinion.
-
Independent or not, Neither BBC nor CNN are objective, The feud in the middle east gains them constant rating, you can't deny they also have a great interest in the continuation of the instabillity in the Middle East.
-
cnn rarely post stuff about what israel is doing as if it puts israel in a bad light americans don't need to hear about.
but yes i aslo agree there is too much focus on the middle east why doesn't any else care that china has been occupying tibet for about 50 years. tibet had virtually no army and have led a peaceful protest to the occupation which lead to their monks and nuns being imprisned for many years. the problems in sudan why arn't their internation peace keepers there. what about all the other evil dictatorships in the world. what about aids spreading through eastern europe and asia so qickly and amoung our young genereation. but at the same time i also don't want to turn my back on what is going on with israel and palestine, iraq and afganistan becease we have troops there.
-
Well first off congrats to I TO DA GEEZY who lives in isreal...that means we cant tell him wut his country need to do or anything bout his country. i guess that means an American who as hard headed as to believe that USA had nothing to do with supporting 9/11 would mean...i told thme USA has a lieing government but id be wrong cuz he lives theres and watches the news and is there evrryday. Fuck him and his exuse of bieng there. that would jus make him as biased as the next isreali he said palestians propagnda just a way to "justify" there next suicide bombing. u kno the average Age of suicide bombers? under 18. kno why? cuz they cant find any otha way to defende themselves...there family or there land..if there gunna die fighting they gunna do it in a way they can attempt to hurt ISreali soldiers. who r the real terrorists. unless people defending there homes throwin rocks r terrorist and Isreali' shooting a 9 yr old standing inside his house for laughs is justice then sorry i wuz wrong. Justify stealing Palestine of their land. Justify Isreal claiming to be a nation when it wuz never official. Justify innocent children whoz the number 1 victim of the Isreali Soldiers. and dont sya its strays or there in wrong places. read the articles...Isreali's come up with the saddest exuses ive ever seen. Palestine wuz robbed of their land from the British first and foremost after being promised the land after helping them defeat Turkey. then to be assholes thye left USA to deal with it..and USA does wut they do best...fuck up and cause drama....they r consisten with placing Osoma in power...givin al quieda money...training terrorists...putting Sudaam in power...giving him the chemical weapons to use against Iran. Isreal is always attacking cuz they r scared. not cuz of the bombing and suck. if u look back isreali's takin land destroying homes n such came first. so yea the kids who r called terroists for fighting back...and killin like 2 people injuring one...doesnt amount to the 400 kids isrealis killed 2 months. and u wunna get all mad about justifying the suicide bombing..but Palestenians cant get upset bout inocent men n children beign treatded n abused in different ways and innocent killings...where the fuck is the sense in that. wuts with americans and isreali's and such bieng stuck of the CNN n shyt...stop watching TV n read..theres thing called Real life out there. u should try it. dumb fucks honestly. Government planned to get the people to this point and thats why they r so good at lieing. thats why 9/11 wuz set up by the CIA and Rumsfield. cuz without it america wouldnt support wa in iraq an they wouldnt have such a hate towards middle east and support isrealis. R u guys really that stuck on ur bull shyt news articles...and yes i said read but no Articles from those news sites are the same shyt as watching them. theres other ways out there u people wouldnt probly kno bout.
-
It's your right to believe whatever you wanna believe BUT it's our duty as citizents of this country(some of us as Soldiers of the Israeli Deffence force) not to surrendor to blood thirsty terrorists who are supported by an anti-Israeli propoganda, and whose actions are condoned through fairy tail excuses and fabricated facts. Israel doesn't have territorial ambitions^it's a fact(that's one of the reasons to why Barak was so willing to give up territory), Israeli soldiers do everything for this country's safety, everything to prevent infiltration of terrorists to Israeli territory and hurting Cevillians, Israeli Soldiers are not the ones for whom killing children and women are the highest values, All of those underraged suicide bombers are brainwashed and set against Israelis from an early age (Look at their text books in elementry school),imagine yourself being fed the idea that you can get to heaven with 70 virgins waiting for you by your teachers in school(who are authority figures) from the first grade. And their lives ain't easy cause uncle Arafat keeps all the support money on his bank acount and let's your familly remain in poverty, there's your glorious way out....fighting back?! If they wanted to fight back they would've fought their own crooked leadership, what they do is tragic and pathetic, there's no glory in this cowardly irresponsible act...And when you see the family being all "PROUD" after that, well if you know a bit of Psychology that's called "rationalization"....
-
thats why 9/11 wuz set up by the CIA and Rumsfield.
(http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/pictures/2003/07/12/mn_circles.jpg)
buddenz nassir and his friends enjoy a walk in the park.
-
wow thats a way to reply to the truth bout ur ameican government fuill of lies. think bout in 1989 Al Quieda wuz givin bout 6 million dollars from USA. u think USA neva sponsored terrorists? wtf is patriotism?...yall niggaz is jus all fuckin blind believin full hearted Slogan USA comes up with "land of the free home the brave" "Were fighting for our freedom"...realli Considerin Tony Blair jus admitted USA wuz wrong Sudaam had no destruction weapons wut soever. If Rumsfield didnt have 9/11 he couldnt go to war with Iraq cuz without that reason and blaming Iraq for havin connection to Al Quieda they have no support of the people to go to war. which all u fuckaz who say lets go to war would be pussy nuff to draft dodge and people dont even have family in the infantry but there quick to vote for some1 else to go die for them in their lost cause. ask the CIA who trained terorists how to fight, sneak box cutters on a plane and shyt. dont be hard headed its given facts. everywun but americans kno america did it. everything since the Iran-Iraq war has been scripted by the US secratary of war over the years. and if jewish people arent ones to kill children and women...then lemme pull up a good amount of Articles of every under 18 yr old killed innocent mothers n father. Isreal is like US...they brain wash the people in the country and in the army tellin them lies to make them believe they r fighting real terrorists. only way Isreal worked with USA ever wuz when USA paid off sum isreali's to train Al Quieda soldiers in Pakistan. And for the education of Palestenine teachin kids wrong....i kno these things considering im from round the area =D my history book taught me USA helped Sudaam with Chemical weapons..did it lie? no....they teach u things they kno is a FACT...other cultures like south american middle east n africa..kno the turth about everything...its the ties between isreal and USA that keep there people hard headed for their own benefits and reasons. id explain further more but ur beliefs r to strong to really break into and prove it to you. so theres no point.
-
I understand that you have a tendency to look for conpiracies, U just seem to forget that corruption and greed didn't just slip by the Palestinian Headquarters, it's deeply rooted within the Leadership of the Palestinian authority. And it's one corruption that can be actually proven unlike that half-way fairy tail shit u're trying to decipher.
-
fairy tale isnt quotes from FBI n CIA and governemtn officials. dont defend the corrupted untied states government. but i will admit i think Arafat is kinda dirty and has sum people brain washed but then again...them fiighting back...i see no loss in their cause...cuz its jus gunna get worse.
-
Hopefully it won't, but reallity is harsh you know, and there's no cause to tell you the truth , there's just ONE purpose- to maintain instabillity, and at that the terrorists sucseed completely...If they were aiming to create a state of their own, it would've already existed....They have already been given many great chances...The failiour of Oslo and even Camp David only served as proofs of the fact the dominant leading force in the authority are the millitants and the radicals.
-
they may have failed but why gave up on the road map? considering america is the mediator i'm sure israel will get a very good deal out of it especially as its a republican government in an election year bending over backwards to please the jews. for lasting peace palestinians need to be included and israel needs to leave occupied territories what needs to be worked out is how it is to be carried out and how security can be maintained. i-geezy one thing u fail to mention whenever you say its not about terrirtory who assigninated you pm in the oslo peace process and why. also the current fears of a repeat if jewish settlements are removed the jewish people have no interest in giving up occupied land there is too much opposition against it.
-
'Gang rule' in Palestine: Jericho only city with functioning police
SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
Palestinian Authority police are not on the beat in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
A United Nations briefing on the estimated 45,000 PA police and security forces in the West Bank and Gaza Strip informed the Security Council that PA police operate in only one city.
UN Middle East envoy Terje Roed-Larsen said the PA police are on the job in Jericho in the West Bank. Jericho has been the scene of training of PA police by Britain and Jordan, according to reports by Middle East Newsline.
"Jericho is actually becoming the only Palestinian city with a functioning police," Roed-Larsen said.
The failure of the police has led to chaos throughout the PA areas, the council was told. Roed-Larsen warned of a collapse of the PA and said the worst-hit areas was Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip and Nablus in the northern West Bank.
"Clashes and showdowns between branches of Palestinian security forces are now common in the Gaza Strip, where Palestinian Authority legal authority is receding fast in the face of the mounting power of arms, money and intimidation," Roed-Larsen said.
"Lawlessness and gang rule are becoming common in [the northern West Bank city of] Nablus."
The UN envoy said the PA "has made no progress on its core obligation to take immediate action on the ground to end violence and combat terror."
Roed-Larsen also criticized what he called Israel's failure to remove unauthorized Israeli outposts in the West Bank.
"Despite a well-intended prime minister, the paralysis of the Palestinian Authority has become abundantly clear and the deterioration of law and order in Palestinian areas is steadily worsening," Roed-Larsen said. "The PA is in deep distress and is in real danger of collapse."
In an unrelated issue, Israeli AH-64A Apache attack helicopters fired missiles toward a suspected Kassam missile facility in the Gaza Strip. An Israeli military statement did not report damage assessment from the missile strike on late Tuesday.
On Wednesday, the UN reported that a food convoy came under fire in the northern Gaza Strip town of Beit Hanoun. Israeli military sources said the UN convoy entered Beit Hanoun as Palestinian insurgents opened fire on military forces.
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_4.html
-
they may have failed but why gave up on the road map? considering america is the mediator i'm sure israel will get a very good deal out of it especially as its a republican government in an election year bending over backwards to please the jews. for lasting peace palestinians need to be included and israel needs to leave occupied territories what needs to be worked out is how it is to be carried out and how security can be maintained. i-geezy one thing u fail to mention whenever you say its not about terrirtory who assigninated you pm in the oslo peace process and why. also the current fears of a repeat if jewish settlements are removed the jewish people have no interest in giving up occupied land there is too much opposition against it.
What I meant was the fact Israel had no territorial ambitions....