Israeli soldiers speak out

[clarky003]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=37MFa7ZKQWo

Veteran Israeli defence force soldiers speak out about abuse of powers and corrupt military policy.

[CptStern]

just starting to watch, will have to save it for later ..we need a political documentary sticky .. I have a few I could post ..like this great david attenborough doc on global warming

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzBG7Ey4a4U

[Mechagodzilla]

BREAKING NEWS: NOT EVERYONE RETARDED

FILM AT 11

Seriously though, I'm getting pretty tired of treating Israelis and Palestinians as these homogenous groups.
No shit that not everyone agrees with the policies of their governments. I'm not one to drop the R-Bomb (although I do, constantly) but why on Earth would this surprise anyone who isn't retarded?

Like I'm going to make a thread right now with a Youtube video and the title "SWISS MAN DISLIKES CHOCOLATE, CHEESE".


That being said, I'm glad this isn't an extremely blurry .jpeg with a red arrow pointing to one of the pixels and JEW? underlined beside it.

[clarky003]

Ah the obligatory poke fun post. But yes this is legit and they are part of a wider group of Israeli's speaking out on some very disturbing behaviour within the Israeli government. I'm not saying that the Palestinians havn't done some horrible stuff but I watch this and it is particularly indicting testimony.

[Raziaar]

Ah the obligatory poke fun post. But yes this is legit and they are part of a wider group of Israeli's speaking out on some very disturbing behaviour within the Israeli government. I'm not saying that the Palestinians havn't done some horrible stuff but I watch this and it is particularly indicting testimony.

The difference between the Palestinians and the Israeli's in this conflict, is that the Israeli soldiers are doing their job, what they are told to do by being a member of their military forces. In such a situation, you are undoubtedly going to find protestors within that don't want to do what they're doing.

With the Palestinians... you're talking about a group of pure volunteers here, that only take things as far as they want to go with them in their violence. Thus... you're not going to have any complaints of lack of morality coming from the bombers themselves... just the innocent non militant civilians that might speak out against what they're doing. In a sense, not the actual people doing the warfare on the part of the palestinian side.

[Solaris]

Nice to see some Israeli soldiers speak out against what's happening because it's horrific, I just wish these soldiers had the courage to refuse to follow orders because what Israel is doing is indefensible. Sure, I don't condone suicide bombings but I am not surprised that so many people are driven to it given the hell hole Israel have made of palestine.

[repiV]

Cowardice counts as courage in your world?

[Raziaar]

Nice to see some Israeli soldiers speak out against what's happening because it's horrific, I just wish these soldiers had the courage to refuse to follow orders because what Israel is doing is indefensible. Sure, I don't condone suicide bombings but I am not surprised that so many people are driven to it given the hell hole Israel have made of palestine.

Although you have in the past said suicide bombing is a legitimate tactic.

[Solaris]

Although you have in the past said suicide bombing is a legitimate tactic.
I have NEVER said military action against civilians, people have again and again accused me of it, yet I've never said it because its a despicable thing. Innocent civilians are not a legitimate target.

[repiV]

Yet Hezbollah routinely used human shields in the Lebanon conflict, which is the primary reason for the civilian casualties in that war.
Furthermore, they continually fired rockets indiscriminately into Israeli population centres.
They are directly responsible for the majority of the civilian casualties, and actively set out to murder innocents, and yet you champion them as heroes. Hypocritical, ignorant or both?

[Solaris]

Yet Hezbollah routinely used human shields in the Lebanon conflict, which is the primary reason for the civilian casualties in that war.
They are directly responsible for the majority of the civilian casualties, and yet you champion them as heroes.
Yes, because I support Hezbullah... not.

Stop throwing your damn lies onto me, I have never supported Hizbullah or Suicide bombings or any murder of civilians. I have sympathized with them, explained how I believe the blame lies with Isreal, defended their right to to fight back, but I do not condone there targeting of civilians.

[repiV]

Yes, because I support Hezbullah... not.

Stop throwing your damn lies onto me, I have never supported Hizbullah or Suicide bombings or any murder of civilians. I have sympathized with them, explained how I believe the blame lies with Isreal, defended their right to to fight back, but I do not condone there targeting of civilians.

You think Israel is the aggressor?
Nemesis6 quite soundly destroyed you on that topic with indisputable factual evidence, and yet you still cling to your fantasies. Why even bother discussing anything if you ignore facts?

[Raziaar]

I have NEVER said military action against civilians, people have again and again accused me of it, yet I've never said it because its a despicable thing. Innocent civilians are not a legitimate target.

This is all I said... It can't be disputed. I didn't say the other thing. Though in the past I have questioned your moralities by saying it's a legitimate tactic to bomb soldiers like that... when those very bombers prefer to target civilians indiscriminately. At least... their record speaks for themselves anyways.

Although you have in the past said suicide bombing is a legitimate tactic.

[Nemesis6]

Wouldn't surprise me if he was a member of Yesh Ha'Gvul or something. Anyway, these kinds of things do happen. That there's a minority of people who abuse that power is not uncommon anywhere. However, in the majority of the cases, like this here - http://onlyinisrael.blogspot.com/2005/07/story-of-phone.html
, the matters are handled sensibly. Well, as sensibly as a possible suicide bomber can be handled. I can't help but remember the boy that was sent to an Israeli checkpoint to blow himself and others up. He surrendered, and the Israeli troops disarmed the bomb, wrapped him in a blanket, and took him away. Why do I mention this you might be asking, well, those are the cases we do not hear about unless a photographer and/or a reporter just happens to be on the set when checkpoints are attacked.

[Solaris]

You think Israel is the aggressor?
Nemesis6 quite soundly destroyed you on that topic with indisputable factual evidence, and yet you still cling to your fantasies. Why even bother discussing anything if you ignore facts?No he didn't. I remember that thread, he did terribly.

[Mechagodzilla]

Who in the name of babyback Jesus gives a goddamn about who the initial agressor was anymore.

The Israeli government with its huge military is taking over the land in immoral ways. Palestinian people with pretty much shit for military are immorally suicide bombing against it. If Israel had no military, they're suicide themselves to shit. If Palestine had nukes, unlimited American support and cutting-edge technology they'd be throwing their weight around colonializing people's shit too.

Who cares who started it in the past when they're both tremendous douchelands here in this magical place I call the present day?

Nemesis et al, if there were no suicide bombers, would you still be so gung-ho about Israel illegally taking over chunks of other people's countries? Is this really your idea of a fun time? "Oh those dumb palestinians are killing themselves for no reason. They are so dumb and evil let's nuke Lebanon so that they won't hate us anymore, DURRRRR."
Oh what's that you say Raziaar? "They're just doing their job"?
Well shit you are right, no-one just doing their job has ever done anything evil. Ever.

Then Solaris & His Talking Car, when the hell is suicide bombing ever a bright strategy? It makes your freedom fighters look like the bunch of indefensible retards they are, because no scrap of land is worth over half a century of bloodshed, no matter how many angels shat their pixie dust on it. You want victory in Palestine? MOVE YOUR SELF OUT OF THAT HELLHOLE. There's a victory for you.

Israel too. Move the hell out and give the smouldering remains to Belgium because BELGIUM MAKES SENSE. They very well deserve it, which is more than I can say for either of your lost causes.

You're both cheerleading the losing team, when even the Special Goddamn Olympics manages to make everyone a winner.

Seriously.

[Absinthe]

Damn. :O

[Solaris]

Mecha,

I agree with you, whoever 'started it' is not really relevant seen as that was 40-50years ago. What is important is what's happening now.

Right now, Israel is effectively raping Palestine and the Palestinian people, the Palestinian economy is destroyed, people are living in poverty, Israel is grabbing land everywhere, creating settlements, setting up checkpoints splitting up family's, preventing access to hospitals, firing on ambulances. If I had my way the whole Israeli government would be tried for crimes against humanity. It's unforgivable what Israel have done, and continues to do.

And with regards to suicide bombing, what else can the Palestinian resistance do? Isreal gets an absolute fortune to spend on choppers, troops, all sorts of killing machines. They use these weapons to kill indiscriminately, many Palestinians fight back with whatever they get their hands on. Some of them, through religious extremism and living in such horrific circumstances choose to suicide bomb military and civilian targets. I don't condone the killing of civilians, but I support all those who would take up arms against the state of Israel. All people have a right to live freely, Israel deny Palestinians this right on a daily basis and I call those who fight such a brutal occupation just.

[Raziaar]

And with regards to suicide bombing, what else can the Palestinian resistance do? Isreal gets an absolute fortune to spend on choppers, troops, all sorts of killing machines. They use these weapons to kill indiscriminately, many Palestinians fight back with whatever they get their hands on. Some of them, through religious extremism and living in such horrific circumstances choose to suicide bomb military and civilian targets. I don't condone the killing of civilians, but I support all those who would take up arms against the state of Israel. All people have a right to live freely, Israel deny Palestinians this right on a daily basis and I call those who fight such a brutal occupation just.

I dunno... adopt a life of peace, show your intentions for good will and living peacefully in cooperation... and hmm... maybe focus primarily on peaceful negotiations with the Israeli government? Every time there is a suicide bombing, it throws any possible favorable outcomes out the window.

[Solaris]

I dunno... adopt a life of peace, show your intentions for good will and living peacefully in cooperation... and hmm... maybe focus primarily on peaceful negotiations with the Israeli government? Every time there is a suicide bombing, it throws any possible favorable outcomes out the window.
A life on peace? How?

How do you negotiate with somebody whose expanding onto your land and shoots unarmed people without hesitation. Israel don't want peace.

[Raziaar]

A life on peace? How?

How do you negotiate with somebody whose expanding onto your land and shoots unarmed people without hesitation. Israel don't want peace.

Israel is not out there shooting unarmed people intentionally.

"Oh look... it's an unarmed woman and her child... it's happy trigger time! Wooo weee!" <fires up into the air, then at woman and child>


That's an example of what you describe basically, that doesn't happen. Accidents do happen... when you have two groups conflicting with each other, citizens WILL get hurt, and it is a very unfortunate thing. However, it is unavoidable if both sides won't work together completely peacefully.

It's obvious that the Israel soldiers, when a civilian is killed... it is a grave misunderstanding or genuine accident, rather than the intentional bombings that kill themselves and as many civilians around them, such as the palestinian suicide bombers do.

If Israel really did not want peace, and just loved to kill palestinian citizens willy nilly, you would hear of grave massacres constantly on the media. Israel has already shown they don't care what the world thinks, when they went and invaded Lebanon... what makes you think they would suddenly stay on the low side to avoid bad publicity? If the Israeli intent was really to just slaughter palestinians... there wouldn't BE any issue there, because all the palestinians would be long dead.

Very few people on this planet, all things considered... enjoy killing human beings, or go out of their way to do so. To believe that Israel somehow has an unprecedented percentage of wanton murderers, is insane. You have soldiers there that are doing their job, and are having to deal with unconventional warfare in urban environments. That is a RECIPE for disasters... and thus the reason you see accidental shootings and bombings of civilian targets. If the Israeli military set down all their weapons and just stood completely passive, it's not like the bombers would cease their aggressions. No matter what you think about the overall intentions of the Israeli Government, they at least deserve the ability to protect their citizens from unlawful attackers, but should also strive to keep down as much collateral civilian casualties as possible.

Using violence will NOT make Israel think about giving land back. if they stopped using violence completely, Israel would probably consider it. They'd rather have their civilians safe than continuing their defensive/aggressive campaign against the palestinian militants.

[Mechagodzilla]

Raz, there you go again.

"It's not their fault that civilians die. They're just constantly throwing themselves into situations where civilian deaths are inevitable."
It's not our fault the areas we bomb are populated DRUUURRR.

And solaris, do you really give a shit about the holy land? It's a religious conflict, pretty much 100%. You can't in all honesty support the fundamentalist motivation and ignore the inevitable results. That's the same shit Raz is doing.
"I support the batshit fundamentalist Muslim holy war but not the constant suicide bombings which are pretty much their only (Quran-approved) tactics. Also we will keep clinging civilians to the area because we love martyrdom so much"

Seriously, give up. If Palestine just leaves the goddamn place and never fights again, Israel will be revealed for the land-grabbing nutzo-land it is. Not only that, but they'll lose american support when the rapture doesn't come.
Being equally nutzo helps abso****inglutely no-one.

Honestly now, who here supporting either side is actually a jew or muslim?

So then why the hell are you taking sides in what is quite possibly the biggest retarded religious fiasco the world has ever known?

[Raziaar]

"It's not their fault that civilians die. They're just constantly throwing themselves into situations where civilian deaths are inevitable."
It's not our fault the areas we bomb are populated DRUUURRR.

Did I say it's not their fault, or that they shouldn't be held accountable? No... I said it's not their intent to actually kill the civilians.

Why do you think I've been saying that both sides should work together peacefully? I don't like all the deaths that happen, on either side of the conflict. They can be avoided, if both sides stop their endless cycle of aggression.

[Solaris]

Palestine is not a side, it is a group of people too poor to move out.

What do you want the people to do? I'm sure if they had the money they would try and move for a better life, but they don't. Their homeland is under occupation, their freinds and family are killed, homes demolished and ambulances blown up.

What can they do? Why shouldn't they fight back?

[Raziaar]

Palestine is not a side, it is a group of people too poor to move out.

What do you want the people to do? I'm sure if they had the money they would try and move for a better life, but they don't. Their homeland is under occupation, their freinds and family are killed, homes demolished and ambulances blown up.

What can they do? Why shouldn't they fight back?

See... that sort of mentality creates an ENDLESS cycle of violence. One group blows something up, or kills some people... then the other does the same, perhaps even at a greater level. This spurs the first group to do it again, and it just goes back and forth, back and forth.

The losers in all this? Innocent civilians. Israel should cease their aggression and seek to rebuild up their lands so that everybody can live peacefully together, with proper amenities all around. And Palestinian militants should stop blowing themselves up and as many innocents as they can take with them for some cushy seat in heaven surrounded by virgins. Spend that energy helping your family build a better life for themselves here, on earth.

[Mechagodzilla]

I know what you meant Raz, but your point was that they were only intentionally creating accidents. That's pretty much criminal negligence.


Nobody is too poor to move. Surely they've got enough supporters around the world to just back that junk up. They aren't staying because they're poor. They are staying because this bloodstained wonderland is holy.

Why shouldn't they fight back? Because fighting back has failed, consistently, for well over 50 years now and has made them pretty much synonymous with "oppressed minority that goes way too far in defending itself."

Aw boo hoo their homeland. You know, I have a sentimental attachment to the teddy bear I had when I was six, but I'd still toss it into a wheat thresher if it would stop MASS-GODDAMN-MURDERINESS.

[Solaris]

See... that sort of mentality creates an ENDLESS cycle of violence. One group blows something up, or kills some people... then the other does the same, perhaps even at a greater level. This spurs the first group to do it again, and it just goes back and forth, back and forth.

There's no endless cycle of violence. Israel are not reacting in this conflict, they are seeking to expand their terrortories and are slowly building more and more settlements in Palestinian lands.

[CptStern]

Did I say it's not their fault, or that they shouldn't be held accountable? No... I said it's not their intent to actually kill the civilians.

yes it is, why else would they fire in heavily populated areas? they cant all be mistakes

[Raziaar]

yes it is, why else would they fire in heavily populated areas? they cant all be mistakes

Solaris is talking about the WHOLE of the Israeli arms forces.

We already know not all Israeli soldiers are the demons that certain people make them out to be, as this thread indicates. But those who don't speak out, aren't monsters either. They might just not have the courage to do so.

But with any large group, you're going to have nut jobs and just crazed people, as we have seen many times with the American military in Iraq and their treatment of prisoners, etc.

No doubt the Israeli armed forces have their own such people. But that doesn't make them all monsters seeking to accrue experience points by slaying that next biggest group of Palestinian civilians.

[Solaris]

Solaris is talking about the WHOLE of the Israeli arms forces.
I didn't say they were evil, I do however hold them responsible for helping maintain the Israeli occupation.

But with any large group, you're going to have nut jobs and just crazed people, as we have seen many times with the American military in Iraq and their treatment of prisoners, etc.

No doubt the Israeli armed forces have their own such people. But that doesn't make them all monsters seeking to accrue experience points by slaying that next biggest group of Palestinian civilians.It's not 'just a few' its the whole damn policy, have you seen the video?

[CptStern]

Solaris is talking about the WHOLE of the Israeli arms forces.

We already know not all Israeli soldiers are the demons that certain people make them out to be, as this thread indicates. But those who don't speak out, aren't monsters either. They might just not have the courage to do so.

But with any large group, you're going to have nut jobs and just crazed people, as we have seen many times with the American military in Iraq and their treatment of prisoners, etc.

No doubt the Israeli armed forces have their own such people. But that doesn't make them all monsters seeking to accrue experience points by slaying that next biggest group of Palestinian civilians.



artillery isnt fired by one person ...it takes more than one person to fly a gunship. Coordinates always come from central command

[Nemesis6]

You shouldn't open your mouth, Solaris. You have stated that you believe ALL Israelis are "bastards" and that they have killed thousands of Palestinian children, which, of course, is a lie. So you're both a liar and an antiSemite. Plus you're a pinko which explains why you're oblivious to your own mistakes and stonewall all attempts to reason with you and anything that might prove you wrong, like RepiV's post.


Mecha, you do not know the law, so you can't tell what's illegal. But I'll tell you this much - Taking territory from an aggressor after defeating him is not illegal.

[jverne]

i think probably all the suicide bombers, got nothing else to lose, so why not go bomb yourself.

the leaders say this is holy ground and we have to fight for it, while they sit miles away from the conflict.

[CptStern]

Taking territory from an aggressor after defeating him is not illegal.

nonsense


before UN mandate

http://z.about.com/f/wiki/e/en/7/70/Map_of_Jewish_settlements_in_Palestine_in_1947.png


devision of Israel

http://z.about.com/f/wiki/e/en/9/97/UN_Partition_Plan_For_Palestine_1947.png


current jewish settlements

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/conflict/images/israel_map.gif

notice there's next to nothing left of the arab state?

[Nabobalis]

nonsense


before UN mandate

http://z.about.com/f/wiki/e/en/7/70/Map_of_Jewish_settlements_in_Palestine_in_1947.png


devision of Israel

http://z.about.com/f/wiki/e/en/9/97/UN_Partition_Plan_For_Palestine_1947.png


current jewish settlements

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/conflict/images/israel_map.gif

notice there's next to nothing left of the arab state?

Got a bigger copy of the last map? Also didn't Israel take most of that land in the 6 day war?

[CptStern]

look it up (http://www.google.com)

[Nemesis6]

Ok, Stern, the reason there's nothing left is because the state has already been created. Here's a crash course -

Orignally, Israel was to be much larger, including what is now Jordan. But this was cut off, and Trans-Jordan was created. Trans-Jordan implies that it's on the other side of the Jordan river. When Jordan took East-Jerusalem, the name was changed to Jordan because it was no longer on the other side, but on both sides. But anyway, Trans-Jordan was created on the majority of the landmass referred to as Palestine. Israel had lost over 50% of the proposed size. After that, the plan came to devide the rest of Palestine(the 25% that hadn't been given to Jordan.). This was during the late 40s. The Arabs launched their attacks against Israel from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. They were then beaten back. And what happened after that was that the territory that was originally supposed to have been an Arab-Palestinian state, the West Bank and Gaza, were gobbled up by Egypt and Jordan. You wanna talk about illegal, talk about that. The Palestinians already have a state. They want one more. Their fellow Arabs could have created it for them. Yet, they didn't mind that Jordan stole the West Bank and Egypt the Gaza Strip.

[CptStern]

Ok, Stern, the reason there's nothing left is because the state has already been created. Here's a crash course -

Orignally, Israel was to be much larger, including what is now Jordan. But this was cut off, and Trans-Jordan was created. Trans-Jordan implies that it's on the other side of the Jordan river. When Jordan took East-Jerusalem, the name was changed to Jordan because it was no longer on the other side, but on both sides. But anyway, Trans-Jordan was created on the majority of the landmass referred to as Palestine. Israel had lost over 50% of the proposed size. After that, the plan came to devide the rest of Palestine(the 25% that hadn't been given to Jordan.). This was during the late 40s. The Arabs launched their attacks against Israel from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. They were then beaten back. And what happened after that was that the territory that was originally supposed to have been an Arab-Palestinian state, the West Bank and Gaza, were gobbled up by Egypt and Jordan. You wanna talk about illegal, talk about that. The Palestinians already have a state. They want one more. Their fellow Arabs could have created it for them. Yet, they didn't mind that Jordan stole the West Bank and Egypt the Gaza Strip.



the maps dont support a word of what you just said, just compare the land mass from the original UN partition to the current one

UN partition:

http://z.about.com/f/wiki/e/en/9/97/UN_Partition_Plan_For_Palestine_1947.png


current map:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/conflict/images/israel_map.gif


all the land that was formerly arab state is now in the hands of israel

[Mechagodzilla]

I does understand this "law" phenomenemon. What Stern said, basically.


People have yet to provide a single reason why their particular cause deserves the area more than Belgium does.
(Remember: Belgium makes sense.)

[FieryGoose]

Uh oh, Israel is going to try and takeover the entire world starting with their neighbors (who coincidently hated them as a race), and the palistinians are trying to annialate all the jews living in the small chunk of land that was designated for them called israel. Now which one sounds realistic honestly, israel is not on the offensive, they are unquestionably in a state of war, a war where the opposing side uses guerilla tactics and suicide bombings. How do you defend against that. In my opinion you have to strike fear into the opposers and in order to do that: "Big unit action may sometimes be necessary. If police action is not sufficient to stop insurgents, military sweeps may be necessary. Such "big battalion" operations may be needed to break up significant guerrilla concentrations and split them into small groups where combined civic-military action can control them."(wikipedia)
Sound familiar? Obviously some civilian casualties are inevitable, do you honestly think that Israel is competing with the palistinians, seeing if they can kill more civilians? I think we all know who the biggest contributer is...I understand was everyone is upset about and i think it's just due to the fact that in general people are not looking at the conflict as a whole, instead people are focusing on the stories that sell, like, "hashem killed the palistinian boy in the middle of a firefight." I hate to say this but amidst war some civilian casualties are somewhat inevitable, it's very sad but cannot be stopped, a treaty might temporarily solve this problem but how many middle-eastern treaties have lasted, I believe the eye for and eye mentality will never be broken in between Israel and the Palistinians, so what does it really come down to. Well, in my opinion one of the only things that sways my support either way is who is intentionally targeting civilians and who isn't? And the answer is, Israel isn't and the Palistinians are.

Absinthe: I'll admit I was, due to the fact that I said some hateful words; however i'm doing my best to abide by the rules now.:angel:

[Absinthe]

Weren't you banned?

[Nemesis6]

Stern, the maps DO support what I said. The map you posted was accurate. The British, and the U.N, failed to implement it, however. The result of the 1948 war was this:

http://www.masada2000.org/1949mapa.gif

What I said stands. After the war of Independance, Jordan and Egypt took the West Bank -- Including East-Jerusalem of course -- and the Gaza Strip, making it harder for the U.N to do anything. In other words, they stole land that wasn't theirs.

[CptStern]

Stern, the maps DO support what I said. The map you posted was accurate. The British, and the U.N, failed to implement it, however. The result of the 1948 war was this:

http://www.masada2000.org/1949mapa.gif

What I said stands. After the war of Independance, Jordan and Egypt took the West Bank -- Including East-Jerusalem of course -- and the Gaza Strip, making it harder for the U.N to do anything. In other words, they stole land that wasn't theirs.


so when israel took it from the egyptians/jordinians they gave it back to the arabs that made up that part of the arab state right?

"In other words, they stole land that wasn't theirs" ...seems about right dont ya think?

[Nemesis6]

They've gotten the Gaza Strip back. Wow, that was a success story. Isn't it time to give back the West Bank?

Their fellow Arabs could have made an Arab-Palestinian state on both of these areas on so many occasions. They didn't. Why should the Israelis be burdened with these people that their fellow Arabs don't even care for, these people who have monopoly on global terrorism? In your opinion, would it be a good idea to give them the West Bank? Would that solve this thing?

[CptStern]

They've gotten the Gaza Strip back. Wow, that was a success story.

it only took 38 years

Isn't it time to give back the West Bank?

perhaps by the year 2045

Their fellow Arabs could have made an Arab-Palestinian state on both of these areas on so many occasions. They didn't.

they could have made a state in an occupied territory? how does that work?

Why should the Israelis be burdened with these people that their fellow Arabs don't even care for, these people who have monopoly on global terrorism?

boy that reminds me of that old "white man's burden" excuse for imperialism ..because they're savages and savages need to be taken care of lest they hurt themselves

In your opinion, would it be a good idea to give them the West Bank? Would that solve this thing?


what difference does my opinion make? I posed a question you ignore it by posing another question?

[Mechagodzilla]

Why should the Israelis be burdened with these people that their fellow Arabs don't even care for, these people who have monopoly on global terrorism?

Wow, I had no idea that Palestine has "a monopoly on global terrorism". Or are you just refering to the entire Arab race in general?
I guess by that standard you've got a monopoly on trolling and hate speech - neither of which are allowed here.

Watch yourself.

[Raziaar]

Wow, I had no idea that Palestine has "a monopoly on global terrorism". Or are you just refering to the entire Arab race in general?
I guess by that standard you've got a monopoly on trolling and hate speech - neither of which are allowed here.

Watch yourself.

To be fair... that comment and some of the comments I have seen on Israel are equally unfair.

[Mechagodzilla]

People can criticise Israel all they want, but if someone starts trying to pin this on "The Jew" they'll also get it.

That hasn't happened.

Please note the difference between "country" and "race".

[Nemesis6]

I was talking about the very same people who supported the nazis during WW2 and before - The Islamists. So don't try to paint me a racist, Mecha. And don't try to intimidate me.

Ok... The Arabs could have kept this territory and instead of 'grabbing' it, create a Palestinian state. Did they ever take time off to even consider this? No. The fact that the Arabs living there had nothing against it doesn't help, either. Stern, do you have any idea WHY Israel occupied these areas to begin with? That's the fault of the Arabs, and the Palestinian Arabs themselves. For example: The reason there are as many Palestinians living like rats in refugee camps under Hamas and Fatah is because they fled when the Arabs initially attacked Israel, hoping that it would be destroyed. They couldn't get back in, that's what started the whole lie of the "refugees" driven out by the bloodthirsty, matza-made-with-Arab-and-Christian-blood-making Jews. In other words, they ran from yahud and now they're in denial about it. Yahud... You know, the ones that the radical San Francisco lefty loonies like to portray as such (http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/Zionist_Pigs_Jew_devil.jpg).

[Solaris]

I was talking about the very same people who supported the nazis during WW2 and before - The Islamists. So don't try to paint me a racist, Mecha. And don't try to intimidate me.

Ok... The Arabs could have kept this territory and instead of 'grabbing' it, create a Palestinian state. Did they ever take time off to even consider this? No. The fact that the Arabs living there had nothing against it doesn't help, either. Stern, do you have any idea WHY Israel occupied these areas to begin with? That's the fault of the Arabs, and the Palestinian Arabs themselves. For example: The reason there are as many Palestinians living like rats in refugee camps under Hamas and Fatah is because they fled when the Arabs initially attacked Israel, hoping that it would be destroyed. They couldn't get back in, that's what started the whole lie of the "refugees" driven out by the bloodthirsty, matza-made-with-Arab-and-Christian-blood-making Jews. In other words, they ran from yahud and now they're in denial about it. Yahud... You know, the ones that the radical San Francisco lefty loonies like to portray as such (http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/Zionist_Pigs_Jew_devil.jpg).
Thats a lie and you know it. Sterns already posted pictures showing just how far they have expanded SINCE the war.

[Nemesis6]

What's a lie? Disprove the so-called lie you found.

[repiV]

People can criticise Israel all they want, but if someone starts trying to pin this on "The Jew" they'll also get it.

That hasn't happened.

Please note the difference between "country" and "race".

Islamic terrorism is transnational and does not belong to any one group or faction. That should be obvious. It also has widespread support amongst "moderate" Muslims and even some Westerners...such as Solaris.

[Solaris]

Islamic terrorism is transnational and does not belong to any one group or faction. That should be obvious. It also has widespread support amongst "moderate" Muslims and even some Westerners...such as Solaris.
I don't support Islamic Terrorism.

I support the right of people to self-determination, freedom and the right to exist. Any reasonable national liberation movement has my support, be it the minute men of America, the IRA, the Iraqi resistance, Palestinian resistance.

[repiV]

I don't support Islamic Terrorism.

I support the right of people to self-determination, freedom and the right to exist. Any reasonable national liberation movement has my support, be it the minute men of America, the IRA, the Iraqi resistance, Palestinian resistance.

So I needn't quote you saying "I'm a terrorist sympathiser", then?

How can you support self-determination and freedom and be a communist at the same time? That's mind-bendingly hypocritical and illogical. There is no bigger enemy to self-determination and freedom than communism.
What "Iraqi resistance" is that? You call a bunch of factions ****ing each other over a national resistance movement?
The more you post, the more I realise that you just have no idea what the **** you're talking about. Your interpretations are entirely wrong virtually all the time. Just ignorance.
Your view of the world is not based on any kind of rational extrapolation from the facts - you just support any weakened minority because you still have the infantile teenage rebel-against-everything mindset. Completely senseless.

[Solaris]

So I needn't quote you saying "I'm a terrorist sympathiser", then?

How can you support self-determination and freedom and be a communist at the same time? That's mind-bendingly hypocritical and illogical. There is no bigger enemy to self-determination and freedom than communism.
Not at all, communism would have democracy at almost every level of life, bosses would be particially elected, groups of workers would run the tools of production, people would be free to live however they want within reason. People would work less and get more for it. Freedom would be greatly enhanced.

What "Iraqi resistance" is that? You call a bunch of factions ****ing each other over a national resistance movement?
The more you post, the more I realise that you just have no idea what the **** you're talking about. Your interpretations are entirely wrong virtually all the time. Just ignorance.
Your view of the world is not based on any kind of rational extrapolation from the facts - you just support any weakened minority because you still have the infantile teenage rebel-against-everything mindset. Completely senseless.
Not all the people who fight back are religious extremists, I support the fighting back, I don't support all the people who do it.

[kirovman]

Work less and get more?

I'm sure that breaks some thermodynamic law.

[repiV]

Not at all, communism would have democracy at almost every level of life, bosses would be particially elected, groups of workers would run the tools of production, people would be free to live however they want within reason. People would work less and get more for it. Freedom would be greatly enhanced.

What do you mean "communism would have democracy"?
What if the capitalist party got elected? It wouldn't be communism anymore, would it?
Self-determination is directly tied to free enterprise. A system where everyone is handed the same is the complete opposite of self-determination.
How exactly do you figure people would work less and get more for it? Where would this money come from, money trees?
Perhaps you should get even a very rudimentary understanding of economics before you say something so utterly stupid.
**** your poor oppressed factory workers too. I work 10-12 hours a day without lunch breaks, and do extra work at home. I deserve to earn three to five times as much as them.


Not all the people who fight back are religious extremists, I support the fighting back, I don't support all the people who do it.

Fight back against WHAT? We weren't fighting ordinary Iraqis to begin with, in fact in case you hadn't noticed, we are allied with the Iraqi government.
Now they're fighting each other, and we're caught in the middle. You have a very strange definition of "resistance movement".

[Solaris]

What do you mean "communism would have democracy"?
What if the capitalist party got elected? It wouldn't be communism anymore, would it?
Self-determination is directly tied to free enterprise. A system where everyone is handed the same is the complete opposite of self-determination.
How exactly do you figure people would work less and get more for it? Where would this money come from, money trees?
**** your poor oppressed factory workers too. I work 10-12 hours a day without lunch breaks, and do extra work at home. I deserve to earn three to five times as much as them.
Well, if after seeing the benefits and people still voted capitalism then capitalism would come back. Self -determination has nothing to do with private enterprise, it's about a peoples right to choose who they want to rule them, to be free and live free of occupation and oppression.

Perhaps you should get even a very rudimentary understanding of economics before you say something so utterly stupid.
Marx said it, you saying Marx doesn't understand the basic of economics. The fact that you don't understand this shows how little you know of communism.


Fight back against WHAT? We weren't fighting ordinary Iraqis to begin with, in fact in case you hadn't noticed, we are allied with the Iraqi government.
Now they're fighting each other, and we're caught in the middle. You have a very strange definition of "resistance movement".
Against the forces who slaughtered so many Iraqis in Fallujah, the government that supports the death squads that torture thousands. It's a violent occupation and the people have every right to resist.

[repiV]

Well, if after seeing the benefits and people still voted capitalism then capitalism would come back. Self -determination has nothing to do with private enterprise, it's about a peoples right to choose who they want to rule them, to be free and live free of occupation and oppression.


Self-determination has everything to do with private enterprise. Without it, you can't pull yourself up and make your own way in life. If you can't understand that concept, you have no place in discussing economics.


Marx said it, you saying Marx doesn't understand the basic of economics. The fact that you don't understand this shows how little you know of communism.


That's your argument? "Marx said it"? Tell me, how would your fantasy where people work less and earn more actually operate? It wouldn't.


Against the forces who slaughtered so many Iraqis in Fallujah, the government that supports the death squads that torture thousands. It's a violent occupation and the people have every right to resist.

Right. Again, you conviniently ignore the fact that it's not a resistance movement of any kind whatsoever. Multiple factions are fighting EACH OTHER.
Any sensible Iraqi who wanted the best for their country would lend their support to the Americans. Just because people get angry and decide to blame the powerful, doesn't make them correct.
Iraq is not a united nation, and there is no group of "decent, ordinary, hardworkng Iraqis" that are working together to "liberate Iraq". The very notion is complete bullshit.

[Solaris]

Self-determination has everything to do with private enterprise. Without it, you can't pull yourself up and make your own way in life. If you can't understand that concept, you have no place in discussing economics.
That's what being free is? Having to pull yourself up and really work hard to make a living? Rather than knowing whatever you do you will get a decent wage. Under communism you can still do any job you want and are qualified for. Do you even understand what self-determination means?
Self-determination or the right to self-determination is a concept of principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle), wherein a people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People) or nation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation), have a human right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights) to statehood, and that such a state has an equal right to sovereignty.
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_determination)

That's your argument? "Marx said it"? Tell me, how would your fantasy where people work less and earn more actually operate? It wouldn't.
The fact is, Marx was a leading economics thinker that was what he did. I doubt that he didn't have a clue as to basic economic principle. I'm not going to explain communism to you here, I simply can't be bothered when all you have to do is read any Marxist writings that are available online for free.


Right. Again, you conviniently ignore the fact that it's not a resistance movement of any kind whatsoever. Multiple factions are fighting EACH OTHER.
Any sensible Iraqi who wanted the best for their country would lend their support to the Americans. Just because people get angry and decide to blame the powerful, doesn't make them correct.
Iraq is not a united nation, and there is no group of "decent, ordinary, hardworkng Iraqis" that are working together to "liberate Iraq". The very notion is complete bullshit.There fighting each other? The thousands of American troops just shot themselves then?

[repiV]

That's what being free is? Having to pull yourself up and really work hard to make a living? Rather than knowing whatever you do you will get a decent wage.

What, you're a lazy bastard and don't want to work hard? Why should you get something for nothing? Having everyone else carry your lazy selfish arse isn't freedom, it's theft. True freedom involves having to take responsibility for your actions.
Why should you get a decent wage for doing nothing? Why should lazy ****s get paid the same as I do even though I've made my company over ?3000 in my first week on the job through talent, drive and a lot of hard work?
OMG, that's about the most outrageous, offensive belief I've ever heard voiced here. Spoilt little brat. You want what other people have without having to work for it. If you can't be bothered to work, you deserve to suffer for it.


Under communism you can still do any job you want and are qualified for.


I wouldn't be able to do my job, since under communism there would be no need for it. And even if there was, it would be rather futile since MONEY is what drives the industry and the vast majority of people who work in it. Why would you work yourself to the bone if it carried no rewards?
I deserve to be wealthy, and you do not. If you take exception to that statement, tough shit. To me, you present yourself as a well-spoken, civilised chav. Idolising the lowest common denominator.


Do you even understand what self-determination means?

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_determination)


Yes, I do.

Main Entry: self-de?ter?mi?na?tion
Pronunciation: -di-"t&r-m&-'nA-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : free choice of one's own acts or states without external compulsion
2 : determination by the people of a territorial unit of their own future political status

Capitalism offers this. Communism denies it. Simple, really.


The fact is, Marx was a leading economics thinker that was what he did. I doubt that he didn't have a clue as to basic economic principle. I'm not going to explain communism to you here, I simply can't be bothered when all you have to do is read any Marxist writings that are available online for free.


I don't care. It is impossible that people would "work less and get more", particularly when the centrally planned economy would leave the country penniless. Your constant defence of "Marx said it, Marx said it!" clearly indicates that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You don't understand communism, and you don't understand capitalism. Get back to me when you do.


There fighting each other? The thousands of American troops just shot themselves then?

So because American troops are involved also, that means the factions aren't battling each other?

[15357]

There fighting each other? The thousands of American troops just shot themselves then?

Uh, they are fighting each other, the sunnis and whatever they call themselves. Of course, they fight it out with the US as well.

[Solaris]

What, you're a lazy bastard and don't want to work hard? Why should you get something for nothing? Having everyone else carry your lazy selfish arse isn't freedom, it's theft. True freedom involves having to take responsibility for your actions.
Why should you get a decent wage for doing nothing? Why should lazy ****s get paid the same as I do even though I've made my company over ?3000 in my first week on the job through talent, drive and a lot of hard work?
OMG, that's about the most outrageous, offensive belief I've ever heard voiced here. Spoilt little brat. You want what other people have without having to work for it. If you can't be bothered to work, you deserve to suffer for it.
Where the hell did I say people who don't work should get paid?
Where did I say that? No-where, I didn't say it. You taking what I say, twisting it and then flaming it.
You know damn well when I said 'whatever you do' I meant as a term of profession.

I wouldn't be able to do my job, since under communism there would be no need for it. And even if there was, it would be rather futile since MONEY is what drives the industry and the vast majority of people who work in it. Why would you work yourself to the bone if it carried no rewards?
I deserve to be wealthy, and you do not. If you take exception to that statement, tough shit. To me, you present yourself as a well-spoken, civilised chav. Idolising the lowest common denominator.
Great! Thats exactly why we will be able to do more, because the majority of the people in this country produce absolutely nothing. Who needs advertisers when things are made not to be sold, but to be used? Who needs financial advisers when nobody has any money? Who needs stockbrokers when theres no stock market?
Nobody, at least half the 'work' people do could be eliminated under communism, so people could all do useful jobs but less of it as theres more people doing it.




Yes, I do.

Main Entry: self-de?ter?mi?na?tion
Pronunciation: -di-"t&r-m&-'nA-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : free choice of one's own acts or states without external compulsion
2 : determination by the people of a territorial unit of their own future political status

Capitalism offers this. Communism denies it. Simple, really.

How? It's still got nothing to do with private enterprise.


I don't care. It is impossible that people would "work less and get more", particularly when the centrally planned economy would leave the country penniless. Your constant defence of "Marx said it, Marx said it!" clearly indicates that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You don't understand communism, and you don't understand capitalism. Get back to me when you do.
This is pathetic. You say my Marxist rhetoric shows that I have no understanding of economics, but when I explain Marx was a far better economist than you or I are, so what gives you the authority to declare his ideas idiotic and showing a complete lack of economic understanding I do not know. You twist that into your attack. You do not understand communism at all, yet you passionately hate it, it seems you are as brainwashed as numbers.

[Absinthe]

This is pathetic. You say my Marxist rhetoric shows that I have no understanding of economics, but when I explain Marx was a far better economist than you or I are, so what gives you the authority to declare his ideas idiotic and showing a complete lack of economic understanding I do not know.

That's a logical fallacy. Arguments from Authority still need arguments. With that logic, if Stephen Hawking said grass was made from ice cream, we'd all have to accept it as fact. Being educated in economics doesn't suddenly make you perfect in the field. Marx was a fallible man just like everybody else.

Besides, if you understand Marx so well, then surely you could form an actual rebuttal?

[repiV]

Where the hell did I say people who don't work should get paid?
Where did I say that? No-where, I didn't say it. You taking what I say, twisting it and then flaming it.
You know damn well when I said 'whatever you do' I meant as a term of profession.


Ok, so why should everyone get paid the same amount regardless of what profession they do?
In simplest terms, my job is to generate wealth. If I'm bringing in ?25,000 a month for the company in a year's time, why should I not see any of that? Why should a cleaner, who is purely a burden on resources, and who does a skilless job, quite unlike mine which has left me feeling quite overwhelmed and stressed at times due to the steep learning curve, get the same amount of money?


Great! Thats exactly why we will be able to do more, because the majority of the people in this country produce absolutely nothing. Who needs advertisers when things are made not to be sold, but to be used? Who needs financial advisers when nobody has any money? Who needs stockbrokers when theres no stock market?
Nobody, at least half the 'work' people do could be eliminated under communism, so people could all do useful jobs but less of it as theres more people doing it.


Who cares? You've said yourself that working in a factory would be really horrible on a number of occassions, so why do you want everybody to be doing it? That makes no sense at all. Thank GOD most of us work in the service sector, anything else would be immeasurably dull and routine.
My job is useful. I provide an invaluable service to businesses and, on occassion, the public sector aswell.


How? It's still got nothing to do with private enterprise.


Of course it has. Capitalism gives you the freedom to do what you want, whereas in communism you are completely reliant on someone else dictating what you're going to receive. It's like being on welfare. Being on welfare and having self-determination is impossible.


This is pathetic. You say my Marxist rhetoric shows that I have no understanding of economics, but when I explain Marx was a far better economist than you or I are, so what gives you the authority to declare his ideas idiotic and showing a complete lack of economic understanding I do not know. You twist that into your attack. You do not understand communism at all, yet you passionately hate it, it seems you are as brainwashed as numbers.

I'm brainwashed because I call you on your complete lack of understanding of what it is that you're incessantly preaching?

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

That's hilarious!

If all you can do is recite rhetoric, you do not know what you're talking about. If you are yourself unable to argue your case, you cannot possibly understand. If anyone's brainwashed, it's you.

[Solaris]

That's a logical fallacy. Arguments from Authority still need arguments. With that logic, if Stephen Hawking said grass was made from ice cream, we'd all have to accept it as fact. Being educated in economics doesn't suddenly make you perfect in the field. Marx was a fallible man just like everybody else.

Besides, if you understand Marx so well, then surely you could form an actual rebuttal?
I could yes. But thats not the thing.
I stated a Marxist principle, repirv said 'anyone who believes that couldnt have the most basic understanding of economics' or something like that. The point I'm making is that Marx was an economic genius his ad homein attack was direly misplaced.

[repiV]

I could yes. But thats not the thing.
I stated a Marxist principle, repirv said 'anyone who believes that couldnt have the most basic understanding of economics' or something like that. The point I'm making is that Marx was an economic genius his ad homein attack was direly misplaced.

Anyone who believes that indeed could not have a basic understanding of economics. However, the bigger issue is that you just regurgitate talking points. You don't have any ideas of your own at all, and when trying to defend your ideas, you either make lots of ill-thought out, illogical statements or yell "but Marx said it!"
And nothing anyone says to you appears to ever sink in. You just ignore the evidence and carry on. Typical behaviour of a stubborn teenager who is convinced he knows it all.
The only reason you love communism so much is that you simply do not understand it. In fact, you seem to make an extra effort to avoid understanding it. Maybe because you don't want to have to let go of your fantasy.

By the way, just for the daily dose of Solaris hypocricy - Thatcher is also a far better economist than you or I, but it doesn't stop you from dissing her.

[Solaris]

Please read the attached document, its an extract from a book "The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists" and it explains socialism pretty damn well. I don't think you understand exactly what socialism is, reading this would really help.

[repiV]

Please read the attached document, its an extract from a book "The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists" and it explains socialism pretty damn well. I don't think you understand exactly what socialism is, reading this would really help.

`These statements are lies that have been invented for the purpose of
creating in us a feeling of resignation to the evils of our condition.
They are lies which have been fostered by those who imagine that it is
to their interest that we should be content to see our children
condemned to the same poverty and degradation that we have endured
ourselves.

I've read enough, thanks. Typical envy, reverse snobbery and prejudice.
People are not "condemned" to poverty and degradation because they're born into the wrong class or with the wrong accent. It's bullshit.
And even if they were, your utterly un-brilliant solution would be to condemn EVERYONE to poverty and degradation.
No doubt this book is at least a hundred years old and completely irrelevant to modern times.
You've probably never experienced poverty. I spent most of my life in desperate poverty. Yet, interestingly enough, I'm not poor now, am I? No, in fact, I'm quite well off and my potential earnings are limited only by my drive.
I never needed people like you to patronise me, and I never wanted your charity either. Losers stay poor. Winners get rich.

[Solaris]

I've read enough, thanks. Typical envy, reverse snobbery and prejudice.
People are not "condemned" to poverty and degradation because they're born into the wrong class or with the wrong accent. It's bullshit.
And even if they were, your utterly un-brilliant solution would be to condemn EVERYONE to poverty and degradation.
No doubt this book is at least a hundred years old and completely irrelevant to modern times.
You've probably never experienced poverty. I spent most of my life in desperate poverty. Yet, interestingly enough, I'm not poor now, am I? No, in fact, I'm quite well off and my potential earnings are limited only by my drive.
I never needed people like you to patronise me, and I never wanted your charity either. Losers stay poor. Winners get rich.The book was written in 1910, a time when millions were living in poverty.

[repiV]

The book was written in 1910, a time when millions were living in poverty.

Well, in case you hadn't noticed, the year is now 2007.

[Solaris]

Well, in case you hadn't noticed, the year is now 2007.
Socialism can still be applied.

[repiV]

Socialism can still be applied.

Then run the D.P.R of your bedroom as a socialist democracy, if you wish. If you promise not to leave the borders of your small country, I'll even use my evil capitalist riches to buy you some big iron gates.

[Nemesis6]

Socialism can still be applied, yes. But I think Sir Winston Churchill has something to say:

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.

[repiV]

Socialism can still be applied, yes. But I think Mr. Winston Churchill has something to say:

Good tactic. After his "Marx is God" speech, by denouncing Winston Churchill, commonly understood to be one of the greatest men in history, he will be showing himself up as a hypocrite of the highest order.
Can I have you on my sales force? Pleeeease?

[Nemesis6]

:-)

Anyway, Solaris, I think you'll find that the reason people will not accept Socialism, "revolutionary socialism(see Communism)" or any other sort of "The people will rise" type of Government where everyone is supposed to be equal, is because where ideologies like that rule, someone people (http://news.softpedia.com/images/news2/Hugo-Chavez-and-Fidel-Castro-have-signed-an-energy-pact-with-Caribbean-states-leaders-2.jpg) will always be a little more equal than others.

[repiV]

:-)

Anyway, Solaris, I think you'll find that the reason people will not accept Socialism, "revolutionary socialism(see Communism)" or any other sort of "The people will rise" type of Government where everyone is supposed to be equal, is because where ideologies like that rule, someone people (http://news.softpedia.com/images/news2/Hugo-Chavez-and-Fidel-Castro-have-signed-an-energy-pact-with-Caribbean-states-leaders-2.jpg) will always be a little more equal than others.

I fixed your picture for you. Too bad you changed the one you were using.

BAM! (http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b316/Vajper/fidel_castro_mugged_3.jpg)

Damn, I must be bored.

[Mechagodzilla]

Look, everyone knows that Solaris' economic theories are shakey at best, but at the same time just about every country on Earth is socialist to some signifigant degree - including America. Socialism makes sense.
Communism does not, because it is not the same thing.


Now, can we keep this on the actual topic of the thread, or do I have to start cracking skulls?

[repiV]

Look, everyone knows that Solaris' economic theories are shakey at best, but at the same time just about every country on Earth is socialist to some signifigant degree - including America. Socialism makes sense.
Communism does not, because it is not the same thing.


Now, can we keep this on the actual topic of the thread, or do I have to start cracking skulls?

You must acknowledge the distinction between degrees of socialism.
To a certain point, it makes sense, but beyond that it's communism-lite.

[Mechagodzilla]

Make a thread about it then.

[repiV]

Make a thread about it then.

You made the point, not me. I was merely replying to it. You can start a new thread if you want to.

[Kadayi]

You think Israel is the aggressor?


If someone invades your land, puts your people under a military occupation for 40 years an action that was universally condemed by the UN, you don't consider that an act of aggression?

I hate to burst your Pro-Israeli bubble here, but Israel has absolutely no right under any pretext to still be in the land designated to the Palestinians, let alone the right to build Jewish only settlements and roads on that land or to strip it of it's mineral assets.

The Zionists have turned Palestine into the New South Africa.

[Nemesis6]

Even though the State of Israel was given to the Jews, and the Arabs got Jordan, which is actually the majority of ancient Palestine. The Palestinian-Arabs that still lived in Israel were to get their own state created on the West Bank, Gaza, and some land in the North, but this was kind of botched by the attack the Arab armies made when the State of Israel was declared.

[repiV]

If someone invades your land, puts your people under a military occupation for 40 years an action that was universally condemed by the UN, you don't consider that an act of aggression?

I hate to burst your Pro-Israeli bubble here, but Israel has absolutely no right under any pretext to still be in the land designated to the Palestinians, let alone the right to build Jewish only settlements and roads on that land or to strip it of it's mineral assets.

The Zionists have turned Palestine into the New South Africa.

Oh dear.
I'll let Nemesis smack you around on this one - he's good at that when it comes to dealing with this particular falsehood.

[Kadayi]

Even though the State of Israel was given to the Jews, and the Arabs got Jordan, which is actually the majority of ancient Palestine. The Palestinian-Arabs that still lived in Israel were to get their own state created on the West Bank, Gaza, and some land in the North, but this was kind of botched by the attack the Arab armies made when the State of Israel was declared.

That land is still outside the decreed Borders of Israel. It does not belong to the state of Israel, or ever has been internationally recognised as belonging to Israel. Yet it is still under military occupation by the Israeli military 40 years on from the 6 days war. If it did belong to Israel why would it continue to be referred to by the international community as the occupied territories? If the land is as you are claiming in fact part of Israel why is it that the Palestinians are allowed their own government? why aren't they represented within the larger state, or allowed to vote in it? Why more so aren't the Palestinians made to undertake military service like all Israeli Citizens?

Please free to answer each and every question at length. In fact I'm moist with anticipation for the answers ;)

[Kadayi]

Oh dear.I'll let Nemesis smack you around on this one - he's good at that when it comes to dealing with this particular falsehood.

Indulge me.

[Nemesis6]

That land is still outside the decreed Borders of Israel. It does not belong to the state of Israel, or ever has been internationally recognised as belonging to Israel. Yet it is still under military occupation by the Israeli military 40 years on from the 6 days war. If it did belong to Israel why would it continue to be referred to by the international community as the occupied territories? If the land is as you are claiming in fact part of Israel why is it that the Palestinians are allowed their own government? why aren't they represented within the larger state, or allowed to vote in it? Why more so aren't the Palestinians made to undertake military service like all Israeli Citizens?

Please free to answer each and every question at length. In fact I'm moist with anticipation for the answers ;)

First, borders 1 on 1: When you use territory to attack your enemy, you risk the following: If you lose the war you start from this area, the enemy might take this land away from you as a security precaution. That is what's happened each time Israel has been attacked - It has taken land from the enemy that sought to destroy it.

The reason the International community refers to these areas as occupied... Wait, hold on, they have Gaza now, so there's only one area left and that's the West Bank. The interesting thing about this area is that this area and the East-Jerusalem were actually Israeli untill Jordan invaded and 'grabbed' it. That's the point when Trans-Jordan became Jordan, as it was now on both sides of the Jordan River. On the subject of these occupied areas once more - The PLO was formed in 1964. This was the time when Egypt and Jordan had stolen the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the two main pillars of an Arab-Palestinian state. Yet, there were no complaints lodged at these two countries. Yet, when Israel occupied these areas after they were used to attack Israel from, the PLO suddenly started caring about who had their precious territory. By the way, the International community also gave Arafat a nobel Peace Price. Enough said.

Palestinians are excepted from military service within Israel not as discrimination, but because it would pit them against the people who many of them see as their own people. Palestinians are still able to volounteer for the IDF, as the Druze Arabs do. Contrary to popular belief, the Israeli army consists of more than just Jews; There are Druze, Bedouins, and Arabs within it, too. To suggest that the Arabs of Israel are discriminated against because they're not obliged to do military duty is kind of ignorant I think. They're actually damn lucky to be excerpt by default.

The Palestinian government... That's something of a misnomer. The thing that we today refer to as the "Palestinian government" used to be the PLO, the Palestine Liberation Organization, another terrorist group. Now they're just the PA, the Palestinian Authority. You do raise an interesting question: Why do they have a government? Well, that's a difficult question. But this quote explains it pretty well:

The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism. It is also been a "conceptual" war for ownership of the term "Palestinian" which has been transferred over to the Arabs whereas, before 1967, "Palestine" has always been synonymous with Eretz Israel and the Land of Israel.-PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein, 1977

Why aren't they represented within Israel? They are. Why aren't they allowed to vote? They are. Ta'al, Hadash, and Balad are the main Arab parties. They even have politicians screeaming the same "Itbach al yahud!"/"Slaughter the Jews!" rhetoric within Israel as they do in the Palestinian territories. And this is shouted by Arab-Israeli "politicians". Trust me, they get their say in Israeli politics.

[Kadayi]

Nemiesis

I'm not entirely sure what rule of international war your opening statement comes from? Perhaps you might be so kind as to state the nature of the document your drawing that from? After WWII the US, UK and French all had bases in West Germany and Berlin for sure, but none of them started building Towns and settlements on the land.

Also with respect to the west bank, you seem to have conviently forgotten the 1949 Armistice Agreement, the one where in Israeli Government legally acknowledged Jordans annexation of the West Bank. So you weren't recapturing it in 1967, you were invading (big difference that). I guess that's why the rest of the world deems the area to be part of the 'occupied territories' and still refers to it in that manner. Shame I had to answer my own question, but I guess it was too much to hope for that you'd come clean on that particular issue.

With regard to military service, if it's a draft I'm uncertain why it is that any form of racial discrimination is set down, even to the extent that it is a voluntary decision. Perhaps you might point towards some figures regarding the numbers of Palestinians eligible for military service and the number who chose to undertake it, maybe copy in the figures for the Druze, Bedouins, and Arabs as well.

The quote outlines that the term Palestininan is an encompassing phrase for regional arabs, but it still doesn't explain why if as you say these arabs peoples are represented and given a voice in the Israeli Parliament, there exists this seperate Palestininan Government?

Also for the record I care nothing about what particular people may or may not do with their political freedoms, all I'm interested in are facts, don't bore me with painting pictures of evil arabs hell bent on the destruction of the good Jewish people. Certainly there will always be fanatics (look at Northern Irelands history), but the vast majority of people in this world are peaceable and Israel and the occupied territories are no different.

[Nemesis6]

International rule of war... Problem is there are none that apply internationally. Gaza and the West Bank were part of Israel, Israel had every right to completely take over these areas and and crush the PA/PLO, yet it didn't. But still, Israel chose to evacuate the Gaza Strip.

Whether Israel acknowledged it or not is ultimately irrelevant since the Jordanians had no right to take it and Arab forces were lining up on Israel's borders.

I would imagine that the problem with drafting the Arabs within Israel would create a debacle over the usual "blah blah occupation army" stuff.

They have a say in the Israeli Parliament because Israel is a democracy. I don't know what you're trying to get at. The Palestinian government has nothing to do with Israel, other than the fact it wants to destroy it.

And plase, don't be hostile. You said that Arabs weren't allowed to vote and I corrected you. And you should know that I don't paint Arabs as evil. The ones who are do a pretty good job of doing that themselves. By the way, did you know that the the majority of Palestinians are fanatics? This is according to a test performed by Dr. Khalil Shikaki. Just to put things into perspective. The majority of Palestinians actually support terror, which, I think, is actually quite frightening considering that we know that not all Muslims are terrorists, but almost all terrorists are Muslim. Yet, the majority of all Palestinians support terror.

[Kadayi]

Whether Israel acknowledged it or not is ultimately irrelevant

So basically your government signs a treaty, but doesn't hold to it because it doesn't suit their needs? Did they have their fingers crossed when they signed it or something? Or do you just hold that it's perfectly acceptable to lie at a diplomatic level? If so, when is it unacceptable to lie?

Also I told you not to bore me with any more of your evil arab stories, and lo and behold your start painting another one. Resist the urge (I know it's difficult), I don't care what DR Suess or Professor X have to say in their reports. For the record though I'm pretty sure not all Terrorists are Muslims. I mean the IRA aren't Muslims, neither are ETA, and I'm pretty sure the Stern Gang weren't Muslims either.

[Nemesis6]

I find it strange that you only want to debate curtain points. I chose to let your stupid loony leftist bullshit rhetoric like "The Zionists have turned Palestine into the New South Africa", yet when I pass similar judgement which is, contrary to your bullcrap, based on fact, you turn the other cheek and say that you don't want to hear stories about "evil" Arabs. You talk of fanatics yet you only recognize non-Muslim ones. I think you have to realize that criticizing Arabs doesn't exactly mean that one believes that they're all evil. That's pure assumption on your part.

[Kadayi]

What part of 'The Zionists have turned Palestine into the New South Africa ' don't you agree with? I mean you have Israeli only settlements, Israeli only Roads, you have military Checkpoints throughout the land to stop the free movement of the Palestinian people, hell you even have control of their water supplies. Are you saying that the situation in Palestine doesn't resemble in any way at all the conditions the native South Africans experienced during Apartheid? What's different save the colour of peoples skin and the location. How is the oppression of the Palestinians any more justified?

Also you forgot to answer the question in my previous post. Here it is again :-

'So basically your government signs a treaty, but doesn't hold to it because it doesn't suit their needs? Did they have their fingers crossed when they signed it or something? Or do you just hold that it's perfectly acceptable to lie at a diplomatic level? If so, when is it unacceptable to lie?'

As for terrorists, I was just pointing out that there are and have been more than Muslim Terrorists in the world. Personally I don't hold with terrorism as a means towards political change. I mean acts like the ones the Stern Gang (Lehi) carried out are as reprehensible in my mind as 9/11 or black September. I'd certainly never regard such people as 'freedom fighters' or national heroes, or even remotely consider electing such people to parliament, because their methods regardless of the result show a complete disregard for the value of human life and they, and whoever support and stand by them are lost and damned for all eternity.

[Ome_Vince]

What part of 'The Zionists have turned Palestine into the New South Africa ' don't you agree with? I mean you have Israeli only settlements, Israeli only Roads, you have military Checkpoints throughout the land to stop the free movement of the Palestinian people, hell you even have control of their water supplies. Are you saying that the situation in Palestine doesn't resemble in any way at all the conditions the native South Africans experienced during Apartheid? What's different save the colour of peoples skin and the location. How is the oppression of the Palestinians any more justified?

Also you forgot to answer the question in my previous post. Here it is again :-

'So basically your government signs a treaty, but doesn't hold to it because it doesn't suit their needs? Did they have their fingers crossed when they signed it or something? Or do you just hold that it's perfectly acceptable to lie at a diplomatic level? If so, when is it unacceptable to lie?'

As for terrorists, I was just pointing out that there are and have been more than Muslim Terrorists in the world. Personally I don't hold with terrorism as a means towards political change. I mean acts like the ones the Stern Gang (Lehi) carried out are as reprehensible in my mind as 9/11 or black September. I'd certainly never regard such people as 'freedom fighters' or national heroes, or even remotely consider electing such people to parliament, because their methods regardless of the result show a complete disregard for the value of human life and they, and whoever support and stand by them are lost and damned for all eternity.

Uhm, the Apartheid was blacks fighting for Equal rights in South Africa = racism.
Palestine is not being occupied because of racism. According to Israel, its to protect its civilians, and trade land-for-peace as they've done successfully in the past with Egypt and Jordan (and would have worked with Lebanon if it wasn't for our Syrian friends).
The Palestinians have their own government and police.
I despise the comparison because Apartheid is an emotionally loaded word which has nothing to do with this military occupation. Following that comparison, the allies also imposed Apartheid on the Germans after WW2 because they occupied that land until peace was restored...
Now, in this case, peace won't be restored this way, occupation isn't working to enforce peace, though withdrawal like the one last year in Gaza hasn't decreased violence either. According to Hamas, "Israel only listens to the voice of blood, today Gaza, tomorrow Haifa"...
Note: a cessation of violence is the key towards peace. And with Hamas ruling the country, denouncing Israel's right to exist, i doubt even Israel's complete withdrawal will decrease violence.
But indeed, Israel should withdraw, but there should be natural conditions attached to this: stop violence and recognize Israel.
Perhaps an enormous peacekeeping force should be placed in the Palestinians territories until that country stabilizes.

Last i read, Israel is withdrawing from certain areas, removal a good bunch of checkpoints and lightening its presence. Hopefully this will be met with a decrease in violence, slowly fading Israel's presence away.

[Kadayi]

Ome_Vince

A half rational post. However the point about Aparteid relates to the conditions.

As regards Palestine, we share the same views regarding it's future. I likewise believe an Israeli withdrawl is necessary to secure long term peace in the middle east, with an interim UN peace keeping force in place until such time that all parties are prepared to acknowledge each others right to exist (even if that means decades). Though it may seem an insurmountable obstacle to get over, one has only to look at Northern Ireland to see that a peaceful solution is possible.

[Nemesis6]

The fact that you think Israel practices Apartheid leads me to two possible conclusions:

1 - You're Jimmy Carter, or a supporter of his.

2 - You're blind to the fact that there's a reason for the checkpoints and the security measures set in place.

You know, the thing I find most disgusting abouttpeople who complain about the security barrier, the checkpoints, etc, is that they think the convenience of the Palestinians is more important than the lives of the Israelis. Somewhere, some place in Israel, a terrorist won't be able to cross and another, if not scores of lives will be saved because the Palestinians do like to send their kids among other people to blow up Jews. I'm not trying to flame here, but I truly find it disgusting. And by setting up checkpoints, the soldiers are even bigger targets, especially for suicide bombers and snipers. Remember the old lady with the metal hip? Metal detector goes beep, the woman pleads with the soldiers to examine it to verify it. The soldiers approach, the soldiers are blown apart, and it's time for Zaka to work once again.

And yes, I do believe the deal you speak of was pretty void when these same guys whose new territory they recognized piled up all along the borders to attack Israel. The fact that it was already Israeli doesn't help, either.

[Kadayi]

Nemesis

Well if the Palestininans are such a danger to the Israeli people why not withdraw from the occupied territories and hand control over to the UN? I mean 40 years of occupation by the IDF (regardless of how you care to view it) has achieved nothing in terms of bringing peace to the region.

[Walter]

Are you joking?!?! they'll make nuclear weapons (out of bones) and launch at Jerusalem! omg!!! :D

[Nemesis6]

You can't give the area to the U.N. As witnessed in Lebanon, well, let me point out one example: U.N peacekeepers actually get "days off" when they feel that the area is "dangerous". If it's the U.N, they need to be a combat force, and they need to get their heads out of their asses. But the Palestinians already have a government, and do you think that they would agree to a force that should work for peace, the exact opposite of what they themselves want?

[Kadayi]

Ok Nemesis what is your solution? After 40 years the IDF have achieved nothing, so perpetuation of the existing approach clearly isn't going to work.

[Ome_Vince]

I think its great your trying to steer this discussion more into a "how could this be solved" direction, rather than the usual finger-point discussions on which side is "to blame".
Because of this, even though our views differ on the situation, I feel its worth discussing with you what the options theoretically could be.
I think each side has his/her history and pov, and solving this is not going to be easy, though I'd have to agree the occupation is clearly not working in the case of Palestine.
On the other hand, what we shouldn't forget is, its Syria and Iran that will have to be included as key-players, since many of the destabilizations originate from their religious greed.
If I'd be president, and allowed to setup a meeting, I'd not only include Palestinian and Israeli delegates, but also Syrian and Iranian. Any peace talks without these players consent are pretty much void, as we've seen in the past with not only Palestine, but also Lebanon.
In short, i feel the only way this situation could ever "stabilize" is if Syria, and Iran recognize and sign peace with Israel, and Israel withdraws from Palestine back to the '67 borders.
Imo peace negotiations between Lebanon, Palestine and Israel would then be quickly solved if this is done, and without popular support and weapons+funds from Syria and Iran, many hostile organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah will fade away.

[Nemesis6]

Well, you don't have to include Lebanon, since you already have Iran.

[Kadayi]

I think its great your trying to steer this discussion more into a "how could this be solved" direction, rather than the usual finger-point discussions on which side is "to blame".Because of this, even though our views differ on the situation, I feel its worth discussing with you what the options theoretically could be.

Thank you. I tire pretty rapidly of apologists (from either side) and their 'he said, she said' approach which ultimately goes nowhere in terms of constructive debate, and is used more as a platform to reinforce their predjudices. I'm a designer by profession, so my approach to a problematic situation is always with a view as to how it can be overcome or resolved. It's only through constructive discourse that the truly great ideas are generated.

Further to what you say I agree that both Syria and Iran should definitely have some form of representation at any sort of negotiation table because of their influence. Maybe even Egypt as well (for reasons that I will become clear).

A withdrawl by the Israel to the original 67 border line would have to be considered a long term goal for sure. Despite some criticisms, the first step to achieving that would I believe, have to be the passing over of control of the policing of these areas from the IDF to the UN. There is a strong need to reduce the day in day out, level of palestinian/Israeli aggression, and this simply isn't going to happen whilst the IDF continue to oversee the occupied Territories.

Once the UN are in place I think the big issue for discussion is whether the occupied territories realistically are able to form an autonomous palestininan nation or not. Given their geographic remoteness from each other I'd actually say it's pretty unfeasible. An alternative approach might be to consider reliquishing those territories to their nearest arab neighbours, namely Jordan and Egypt. This relinquishment to the arab states of these territories could be used as the lynchpin for concrete negotiations within the wider arab world, to gain an acknowledgement of Israels right to exist and it's borders.

Anyhows that's a fair amount to talk about, so I'll stop there for now.