Invading Israel

i guess reading all these coming from the inks of your own country man's narrative of the Israeli brutality and hid slaughtering of the people, makes you have nothing to say, don't you judah.

[edit on 21-3-2006 by EarthUnificationFrontier]

Originally posted by EarthUnificationFrontier
i guess reading all these coming from the inks of your own country man's narrative of the Israeli brutality and hid slaughtering of the people, makes you have nothing to say, don't you judah.

[edit on 21-3-2006 by EarthUnificationFrontier]

Naaaa, just when out to eat - Didn't get a chance to read the link you provided just an initial search on the matter does not turn out much. Doesn't seem like John Rose is an Israeli citizen as you stated - Doesn't even seem like he is Jewish.
Utilize some patience and I will respond.

well just need to give you guys another insight:
while having discussions with my lebanese friends an interesting theory came up.

- 1st every year Israel get X amount of billions of dollars and military aid each year.
- 2nd Hisbollah gets about 200-300 mills form IRAN ($ and guns)
- 3rd syria gets X amount of millions of dollars from the Saudi
- etc....

it seems all parties involved have a big interest that the palestinian situation will not be resolved.

what do you both or others say bout that?

Peace LeManifique

Regarding article you posted:
It is publicized on expreme LEFTIST websites and 'of-course' anti-Israel websites. John Rose is NOT Israeli and is a Guardian reporter who reports many anti-Israel articles. I think the agenda is clear. It is now clear to me were your points of views comes from and in what political spectrum you are in. I call it lalaland politics.

Now to the knitty gritty. I cannot find anywhere independent confirmation of the bombing attacks or the beatings listed in the article. The article does not even state that the beatings were performed by the Israelis and in what context it occured.
Assuming Israel did strike those building and going even farther assuming it was by purpose, I can would like to provide the following. The war in Lebanon was not against the Lebanese but the PLO who highjacked the country to their cause. The PLO is an organization who do not fight according to any rules of ethics

The Israelis bombed buildings, innocent looking on the outside, where their intelligence told them that PLO offices were hidden," wrote Middle East analyst Joshua Muravchik ("Misreporting Lebanon," Policy Review, Winter 1983). "Their intelligence also told them of the huge network of underground PLO storage facilities for arms and munitions that was later uncovered by the Lebanese Army. No doubt the Israelis dropped some bombs hoping to penetrate those facilities and detonate the dumps. The PLO had both artillery and anti­aircraft [equipment] truck mounted. These would fire at the Israelis and then move." The Israelis would fire back and sometimes miss, inadvertently hitting civilian targets.

External Source

The same type of tactics are employed in the current conflict where bombs and combatants were transported in Ambulances, Firing from hospitals on soldiers and in Lebanon placed artillery around Hospitals and civilian infrastructure building (Hey they can't loose, if Israel fears hitting the hospital their war toys can survive, if Israel attacks the war-toys then they can yell to high hell).

Do I approve of Israeli action in Lebanon? I don't know - I was 12 and living in the States. Maybe we can ask a Lebanese what their thoughts are.
I can offer a plethora of articles that lists Syrian and Palestinian attrocities that, as you said "Words simply could not describe all those horrid and tragic imageries that defies the very fundamental moral principles of humanity."
Should we go on a tit for tat?

LeMagnifique,
The Hizbullah are getting money to look after Iran's Interest, Israel receives money to look after the US's interest in the middle east and Syria to look after Saudi Interests. Palestinians receive money and aid from just about everyone INCLUDING Israel. I think that there is an interest to resolve the Palestinian issue since this bring quiet to the region. The only problem is that the Palestinian leadership wants Palestine instead of Israel and not side-by-side in peace with Israel. That is why the issue is not being resolved.

Is denying the factual nationality of the source author and the excuses for discredit the realiability of it the best you can do for a responce?

The "Lebanon view" was perspected from a woman of Christian background, which has been in war with the Muslims in the Middle East region for decades. Do i even need to spell out the word "Bias" for you?

The bibiography from John Rose article clearly stated them all. Online news archieves are unlikely to store articles with more than 20 years of age, you will have better luck proving their non-existence from the actual store room.

If denying is the best you can do for a responce, i am dearly disappointed.

I`ve heard somewhere that Egypt have threatened to go back into sinnai - with Abrams this time.


it would take a nuke to push them out.

A friend of mine found this a while ago and only kept it as a gruesome and downright sick pictures to show to girls.



Let me guess what Judah's gonna say this time if it's not a PLO propganda site or an Israeli extreme leftist site, hmmm, maybe a site made by the Marsians wanting Israel to be destroyed?

Edit: Link with graphic gore removed.

[edit on 22-3-2006 by intrepid]

Originally posted by EarthUnificationFrontier
Is denying the factual nationality of the source author and the excuses for discredit the realiability of it the best you can do for a responce?

Factual nationality????? my dear friend read up on John Rose - He is a UK trotskyist politician NOT Israeli.
It says he is of Jewish heritage which generally means that he had somekind of Jewish blood in his family like Madeline Albright. It seems you cannot differentiate between Jewish (which he is not) and Israeli.
UK Politician - I guess that answers the second part of what you said regarding reliability.

Next you will tell me that Noam Chomsky is reliable.

The "Lebanon view" was perspected from a woman of Christian background, which has been in war with the Muslims in the Middle East region for decades. Do i even need to spell out the word "Bias" for you?

Of course she is biased but so is John Rose. Read her article read how she praises Israel and the handling of her and her family by Israel. Then visit this little site then visit Shaykh Abdul Hadi Palazzi who will tell you about the evil Israelis.

If denying is the best you can do for a responce, i am dearly disappointed.

Now that hurts! NOT!!!
You misunderstand I am not denying the fact that Israel attacked and demolished PLO occupied Beirut. I am applauding it - and so are the Lebanese. As I said, when Palestinians place artillery adjacent to hospitals, in violation of international law, they are responsible for the damage. This is the Palestinian way which has been repeated time and time again as I showed you already.

I know you will never see the light. Just one question? Are you a left-wing marxist? or is that trotskyist or is that a fanatical communist? If you are come visit a Kibbutz in Israel.

Originally posted by EarthUnificationFrontier
A friend of mine found this a while ago and only kept it as a gruesome and downright sick pictures to show to girls.



Let me guess what Judah's gonna say this time if it's not a PLO propganda site or an Israeli extreme leftist site, hmmm, maybe a site made by the Marsians wanting Israel to be destroyed?

Thank you for falling into my trap. You could not resist as I knew you would. Half those pictures are taken out of context, the rest are blatant lies. What I love about them is that the picture depict dead bodies but not who shot them. Just because they say Israelis did it does not mean its true.
The pictures of the bodies ripped to shreds during the Jenin operation (2002 ) was most probably from Palesinian booby traps as described by a peace activist in the movie 'The Road to Jenin' by Pierre Rehov. The picture of Israeli Police shooting a bound terrorist on the floor was favorite of mine since even Fatah's Al-Aqtza brigades named him as a suicide bomber and the Palestinian Human Rights Organization did as well and fingered him as an attempted suicide bomber - He was shot because he tried to detonate his belt by pressing the detonator on the floor - Just look at number 70 on the list in the link I provided.
So as you can see that source is full of propaganda lies!!!!
Should I continue with the story of mohamed dura? or will you wake up in time to save yourself from the errors of your ways?

[edit on 21/3/06 by JudahMaccabbi]

Edit: Link with graphic gore removed.

[edit on 22-3-2006 by intrepid]

So you said my sources first were provided by a PLO propaganda, second an Israeli Extreme Left Wing within, and third a British politician, which their one-sided perspectives all discredit the liability of the sources.

You made it almost seem it is now Israel VS. The World instead of Israel VS. Arab States.

No, Israel is not against the whole world. There are countries that support Israel as well as organizations (some of which I referenced in my earlier post) and many many people (not necessarily Jews).
Israel has a problem with the Arabs because of Pan-Arabism which is facist by definition (look up the meaning of facist before responding).
Israel cannot have a problem with the Israeli left because the Israeli Left is still Israeli. Our democracy gives them an opportunity to speak even if what they say is wrong, lies and inaccurate. The far Israeli left is a small fringe group. I personally know some of them but they do not do justice to their movement since they are insane. Makes me wonder if all the rest are insane as well.
The UK politican is just that a politician with an agenda. He is fed by lies that Arabs feed him and he uses information that is slanted, inaccurate, out-of-context and just plain wrong.
I am not saying Israel is clean of blame. There are things that Israel does which I am against, but when you compare Israel to the Arab countries, Israel is FAR cleaner in all aspects.

"Clean" is quite an easily mis-understood term, if you meant the ammount of blood stained that is a downright false statement. Care to define it in a more specific clarity?

You seem to have a simplistic view of things and that is generally the case with people who criticize sides in a conflict. As an example, lets take the Jenin operation in 2002. The entire world was up in arms over what was going on in Jenin. The Palestinians Leadership was hysterically claiming that Israel has killed over 500 innocent civilians and the world came screaming to Israel. In the end approximately 50 Palestinians were killed (mostly combatants) and 30 Israelis. In the meanwhile Palestinians were staging funerals (Israel has filmed a Palestinian funeral where the 'dead' where taken on stretchers to be buried and people joined in out of respect. Suddenly the stretcher fell and the 'dead' got up and got back on the stretcher - this happened twice- You can see it here) and outwardly lying about what went on there.

Now back to your question: What do I mean by clean? On an ethical level -clean. This too is quite unclear - ethics can vary from culture to culture so it is very hard to define. The definition of clean is not a strict body count - looking at it is this manner is both simplistic and foolish.
Lets go into a debate on ethics - In your view:
1- Is it ethical to target militants who plan and provide active support for terrorist activities - when terrorism is defined as the stategy of actively targeting civilians for political gain?
2- Is it ethical to actively target civilians as a strategy for political gain?
3- Is it ethical to use children in combat situations and therefore endangering their lives?
4- Is it ethical to go into an enemy state to preempt attacks when there is concrete information regarding an imminent attack?
5- Is it ethical to violate signed peace agreements?

JudahMaccabi:

Next you will tell me that Noam Chomsky is reliable.

Yeah, I suppose his credentials probably pale in comparison to your own, which I have pasted below from the MIT site.

Professor Chomsky has received honorary degrees from University of London, University of Chicago, Loyola University of Chicago, Swarthmore College, Delhi University, Bard College, University of Massachusetts, University of Pennsylvania, Georgetown University, Amherst College, Cambridge University, University of Buenos Aires, McGill University, Universitat Rovira I Virgili, Tarragona, Columbia University, University of Connecticut, Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa, University of Western Ontario, University of Toronto, Harvard University, University of Calcutta, and Universidad Nacional De Colombia. He is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the National Academy of Science. In addition, he is a member of other professional and learned societies in the United States and abroad, and is a recipient of the Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award of the American Psychological Association, the Kyoto Prize in Basic Sciences, the Helmholtz Medal, the Dorothy Eldridge Peacemaker Award, the Ben Franklin Medal in Computer and Cognitive Science, and others.

Chomsky has written and lectured widely on linguistics, philosophy, intellectual history, contemporary issues, international affairs and U.S. foreign policy. His works include: Aspects of the Theory of Syntax; Cartesian Linguistics; Sound Pattern of English (with Morris Halle); Language and Mind; American Power and the New Mandarins; At War with Asia; For Reasons of State; Peace in the Middle East?; Reflections on Language; The Political Economy of Human Rights, Vol. I and II (with E.S. Herman); Rules and Representations; Lectures on Government and Binding; Towards a New Cold War; Radical Priorities; Fateful Triangle; Knowledge of Language; Turning the Tide; Pirates and Emperors; On Power and Ideology; Language and Problems of Knowledge; The Culture of Terrorism; Manufacturing Consent (with E.S. Herman); Necessary Illusions; Deterring Democracy; Year 501; Rethinking Camelot: JFK, the Vietnam War and US Political Culture; Letters from Lexington; World Orders, Old and New; The Minimalist Program; Powers and Prospects; The Common Good; Profit Over People; The New Military Humanism; New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind; Rogue States; A New Generation Draws the Line; 9-11; and Understanding Power.

Clearly just a marginalized rabid anti-Semite with a political axe to grind. And he's been working for the very same institution of higher learning since 1955, which also seems a little shifty.

And pardon me for calling you out on something, but you stated to EUF, a little condescendingly:

You seem to have a simplistic view of things and that is generally the case with people who criticize sides in a conflict.

His links have been pretty solid. His arguments pretty clear and well thought out. You continue to serve up such lame ducks as :

Half those pictures are taken out of context, the rest are blatant lies. What I love about them is that the picture depict dead bodies but not who shot them. Just because they say Israelis did it does not mean its true. [Does it mean then that it is automatically untrue? What's your argument here?]

UK Politician - I guess that answers the second part of what you said regarding reliability. [Wow, all UK politicians are absolutely 100% unreliable? Do you have a link?]

John Rose is NOT Israeli and is a Guardian reporter who reports many anti-Israel articles. I think the agenda is clear. It is now clear to me were your points of views comes from and in what political spectrum you are in. I call it lalaland politics.

That last one is the kicker. Do you actually plan on refuting, say, one single solitary piece of information from that article (with references to articles in the Post, the Times, the Boston Globe, the Guardian, the Financial Times, Ha'aretz, Ma'ariv, etc), or do you just denounce it all in one wave of your hand as the work of an anti-Israeli?

And you don't even seem to realize your own slant.

The entire world was up in arms over what was going on in Jenin. The Palestinians Leadership was hysterically claiming that Israel has killed over 500 innocent civilians and the world came screaming to Israel. In the end approximately 50 Palestinians were killed (mostly combatants) and 30 Israelis.

With one single parentheses, those civilian deaths are totally reduced. I don't know if you're referencing the UN report on Jenin but they actually claim "By the time of the IDF withdrawal and the lifting of the curfew on 18 April, at least 52 Palestinians, of whom up to half may have been civilians, and 23 Israeli soldiers were dead." (my underline)

So let's say 25 civilians. Is there some chart somewhere that references what it takes to make something an official "massacre"? Can you cross-reference if the military operation takes place in a refugee camp, what weapons are used, how many people in wheelchairs are run over by tanks, etc?

Do you actually defend any of this or just rail at the sources and then claim some sort of knowledge of the "truth of it" all to yourself, totally unsubstantiated to the rest of us.

Wanna start another thread on it maybe? Taking articles from various news agencies and putting them together into a clear version of your side of the argument, based on eyewitness accounts, wire service news reports, various human rights group reports from around the world, etc? Hmm?

Jakomo,

Noam Chopsky's credentials do not make him reliable just educated. Read up on the criticisms of his realiability
I do not have a problem with any truthful arguement. Once you lie or distort in order to make a point to suit your needs or to make you a quick buck you become unreliable and no amount of education can reverse that. ergo Noam Chopsky is a chump!

Regarding the link with the gruesome pictures - I rebutted the issues of the pictures on this thread and in other threads. Namely the Mahmud Salah pictures and the Mohamed Dura incident. There were many pictures there of which no names, dates, background is given for review and cross reference. The pictures are there to horrify and produce a reaction of anger and outrage. I provided proof that the pictures with the given captions were LIES and therefore it renders the link as unreliable.

OK the UK politician crack was in bad taste - granted he could be reliable although a reliable politician would give both sides of the arguements. All of John Rose's arguements are one sided biased material. That is the problem with that.
All the sources cannot be checked since it is unavailable on the net. I therefore cannot read the actual articles and crossreference dates and context. Therefore I cannot check the content of the Rose article. I do know that Palestinians are notorious cowards in their warefare patterns in that they hide behind children, civilians and use schools, hospitals, UN services, international assistance and Israeli goodwill to launch attacks on civilians.
Regarding the Jenin 'massacre' the UN also pointed out, as well that the Palestinians used hundered of bombs. It was reported in TIME magazine that around of 1000 bombs were used which caused much of the destruction. Palestinians also admitted that their own bombs where probably responsible for the civilian deaths

Time Magazine also wrote about the heavily wired (booby-trapped) refugee camp. It stated, for example, that on the outskirts of Jenin, an IDF armoured Caterpillar D9 detonated 124 explosive charges. Time also reported that an unnamed "senior Palestinian military officer" told them that it was probably the gunmen's own booby traps that [had] buried some civilians and fighters alive. [21]

External Source

If you want information on the Jenin battle 2002 read it on the link I provided. It is not slanted - It is public domain and balanced.

1 Is it ethical to actively target civilians for political gain?

2. Is it ethical to actively target civilians as a strategy for political gain?

4. Is it ethical to go into an enemy state to preempt attacks when there is concrete information regarding an imminent attack?

5. Is it ethical to violate signed peace agreements?

Actually Israel is actively violating four of the five ehtical laws you set up yourself as we are speaking. Well, specifically for number 5, Israel just doesn't sign many peace agreements anyways even prompt with the Arab states encouragement, so it can't really break them, can't it.

As for number 3, Israeli army doesn't use children for tools of war, now why would it need to when USA grants Israel 2 billion every year (BTW for the americans that don't know this, the 2 billion dollars that go to Israel every year comes from YOUR TAX MONEY) for financial and military aids? Which Israeli army is more than happy to use those army to stock up more on M16s, M1 Tanks, Apaches, F17, missiles and of course more nukes.

Israel doesn't use young Jewish hebrew speaking children for war silly, it just shoot the palestinian ones that go protest on streets.



[edit on 22-3-2006 by EarthUnificationFrontier]

EarthUnificationFrontier,
You obviously have no clue!

I posted 5 points of which the ethics of those items I wished to discuss. The answer was supposed to be Yes or No. I know that Israel goes into an enemy state to preempt attacks when there is concrete information regarding an imminent attack. That is why I put it there - so that we can discuss the issue.
1 and 2 in your post are identical.

Now back to the substance:
Are the situations I posted ethical or not. Go through them and tell me Yes or no.

FYI, Israel does NOT actively target civilians as a strategy for political gain that is strictly a Palestinian thing.

Judah:

Noam Chopsky's credentials do not make him reliable just educated.

No, being EDUCATED on a subject makes you a RELIABLE source of information on that subject.

Would you say a PhD in Microbiology is a RELIABLE source on microbiology? Would you say someone who is a decades-long trained academic is a RELIABLE source of information in how he does his research?

If you want information on the Jenin battle 2002 read it on the link I provided. It is not slanted - It is public domain and balanced.

Your link is full of links to reports on the human rights violations and the denial by the UN itself that their report was accurate.

news.bbc.co.uk...

The UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, said the report's aim of finding out exactly what happened in Jenin had been blocked by Israel's decision to refuse access to UN investigators.

From the wiki link itself :

The HRW report found "no evidence to sustain claims of massacres or large-scale extrajudicial executions by the IDF". The report agreed with the total casualty figures provided by the IDF but documented a higher proportion of civilian casualties. Amnesty International concurred. The HRW report documented instances of unlawful or willful killing by the IDF, some of which could have been avoided if proper procedures were followed, as well as instances of summary executions. It also documented use of Palestinians as 'human shields', by the IDF, and prevention of humanitarian organizations from accessing the camp despite the great need....

...The presence of armed Palestinian militants inside Jenin refugee camp, and the preparations made by those armed Palestinian militants in anticipation of the IDF incursion, does not detract from the IDF's obligation under international humanitarian law to take all feasible precautions to avoid harm to civilians ... Unfortunately, these obligations were not met.

Is "not meeting your obligations under international humanitarian law" the same as "willfully committing a war crime"?

Again from your link:

To settle the contradictory claims, a fact finding mission was proposed by the United Nations on April 19, 2002. Israel initially agreed to co-operate with the inquiry, but demanded a set of conditions to do so. Among the conditions, Israel demanded that the mission should include anti-terrorism experts (this was supported by one Amnesty International advisor[39]), that the UN agree not to prosecute Israeli soldiers for potential violations of international law, and that it limit its scope exclusively to events in Jenin.

The UN refused to accept the last two conditions and were forced to ultimately disband their mission.

Why would you set as a precondition to the investigation that you cannot prosecute IDF soldiers for international war crimes unless you knew they had committed some?

Your own link damns you.








[edit on 22-3-2006 by Jakomo]

[edit on 22-3-2006 by Jakomo]

Jakomo,

No, being EDUCATED on a subject makes you a RELIABLE source of information on that subject.

R U serious? If you are the type of person who distort and lies no amount of EDUCATION makes you RELIABLE. Moreover Chompsky has a pHD in LINGUISTICS. What does Linguistics have to do with the subjects he get into?

Would you say a PhD in Microbiology is a RELIABLE source on microbiology?

Yes, but not in Political Science.

Your link is full of links to reports on the human rights violations and the denial by the UN itself that their report was accurate.

My link was balanced. Which is why I use it.

Let me tell you a little something about the UN. Israel does not trust them. The Jenin camp is a UN camp. That did not stop it from being a base for terrorist operations under the 'auspices' of the UN.
Moreover, in 2000 3 Israeli soldiers were killed and kidnapped in northern Israel plain view of the UN located in Lebanon on the border with Israel, the UN lied about the events, probably had prior knowledge of the Hizbullah's intentions and even had a video tape in there possession most probably taken from one of their 'peacekeeping' soldiers.
read it here - another balanced source. They UNs investigation of itself is a joke and their support of Hezbullah became apparent.
This is not the only such occurance other incidents including Palestinian using UN ambulances to hide terrorists, transport bombs and steal remains of Jewish soldiers.

With such an issue of trust in the UN do you expect Israel to allow a UN inquery into the events in Jenin without it being fair and balanced? Why would the UN not agree to having an anti-terror expert on their board? Why not concentrate only on Jenin? Why not be a fact finding inquery? You convienintly left out the following quote:

According to Israel, all three positions violate of the UN's own principles (as stated in the "Declaration on Fact-finding by the United Nations", A/RES/46/59 of December 9, 1991).

Israel was worried that the UN had an agenda. Its pro-ARAB stance to Israel was obvious from Israel's experiences.

Regarding Human Rights Watch (HRW): Again you neglected what the UN said about HRW:

UN Report was strongly criticized by Human Rights Watch as "flawed" for not having any first-hand evidence and failing to address serious questions[36

Basically this means that HRW relied on heresay.


[edit on 22/3/06 by JudahMaccabbi]

[edit on 22/3/06 by JudahMaccabbi]

Ironcially to your critism to UN, Israel would probably never have existed without UN support.