Invading Israel

Originally posted by ArchAngel
If Israel had built the wall on their border there would be no opposition to it.

Israel has been defined as legitimate, legal, and a right to her own borders!

Thanks ArchAngel, I believe a multitude of contentious threads have just been cleared up.

Originally posted by Mirthful Me

Originally posted by ArchAngel
If Israel had built the wall on their border there would be no opposition to it.

Israel has been defined as legitimate, legal, and a right to her own borders!

Thanks ArchAngel, I believe a multitude of contentious threads have just been cleared up.

A right to borders, but not to establish them on lands that are not theirs.

Between driving the Jews into the sea and driving the Palestinians across the Jordan there are many possibilities.

I support the one where Israel withdraws behind their borders, and stays there while the Palestinians get freedom from occupation.

If thats hate then I am a hater.

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by ArchAngel
The path of the wall is a warcrime.

Really? You must be a rabid reader of Amnesty International or some other anti-Israel site?

No, I got it from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at The Hague

Allow me, courtesy of you:

as posted by ArchAngel
This is an outright lie.

ISRAEL'S ANTI-TERROR FENCE: THE WORLD COURT CASE
CAMERA ALERT: Background on Israel's Anti-Terror Fence

From your own source:

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) at The Hague in the Netherlands has ruled in an “Advisory Opinion” that Israel's security fence is illegal and violates international law. The court advised the United Nations Security Council to take action to stop Israel's construction of the fence and to dismantle parts already built. It said compensation should be paid to Palestinians affected by the fence.

I'll bet that you think that Laurence E. Rothenberg and Abraham Bell, of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs are not biased.

How silly.

]Apparently "an outright lie" must be subjective, as is the utterance and proclamation of "a war crime"?

The ICJ seems to agree with me, not you, and they would be the authority.

Btw, while your dishing out the ole' war crime accusations that your so notorious for spewing, how about mention the war crimes that the Palestinians are committing. Come on, don't be shy...

As you have pointed out before Palestine is not a nation.

It is an occupied territory.

As there is no Palestinian contracting party, and no representatives had ever signed the agreements, they cannot commit warcrimes.

Unless you want to admit that the lands belong to the Arab nations that held them before Israel invaded in a sneak attack back in 1967 where this began.

Originally posted by ArchAngel

Originally posted by Mirthful Me

Originally posted by ArchAngel
If Israel had built the wall on their border there would be no opposition to it.

Israel has been defined as legitimate, legal, and a right to her own borders!

Thanks ArchAngel, I believe a multitude of contentious threads have just been cleared up.

A right to borders, but not to establish them on lands that are not theirs.

Between driving the Jews into the sea and driving the Palestinians across the Jordan there are many possibilities.

Right, this is just another of the fronts the muslims and other Israel bashers keep attacking Israel on - give up weapons, give up land, give up this, give up that, etc., etc. until they get it down to nothing left - which is their goal after all.

It would be very interesting to hear what one or more of those "possibilities" you mentioned are. You see both countires must end up being able to live in peace. If the palestinians aren't going to ever allow the Israelis to live in peace, then Israel has to have defensible borders. That means the country can't be reduced to a strip of land 20 miles wide while surrounded by real and potential enemies that keep saying things like Israel must be wiped off the map.

So, what are these "possibilities"?



[edit on 12/9/2005 by centurion1211]

Here you can see the route of Israels security fence
(the route ArchAngel provided has never been a realistic concept approved by the Knesset.)

One has to know, that the Westbank is territory whose status is not finalized, there are no borders until now.

The so called „Green Line“ is the 1949 armistice line, as there was no internationally recognized border at the time.

Final borders will be determined by negotiation.


Mod Edit -
Link to 1.5mb image to save loading times:

Revised Route of the Security Fence According to the Government Decision of February 20, 2005

[edit on 10/12/05 by JAK]

I am so tired of seeing people suck Israel's wang. It's absolutely disgusting.

NO country, not even the US, gets so many people backing it whenever you merely criticize it. Seriously.

Criticize Iran/Iraq/Syria, you're anti the country or the nationality of its people (Iranian/Iraqi/Syrian, and that's if you're nice. Most say anti-terrorist )

Criticize the US, you're anti-American.

Criticize the UK, France, Germany, etc., same thing.

Criticize Egypt, the Sudan, Somalia, etc., same thing.

Criticize China, N. Korea, Japan, etc., same thing.

But all of a sudden, when you criticize Israel, you're an anti-Semite. The term itself is so ridiculous I consider anyone who labels somebody with it a moron. That aside, the first thing you are accused of is being agaisnt the Jewish religion, when Israel is not even populated by Jews only.

It's laughable, from the idiotic notion that God would chose one group of people over all others to the moronic anti-Semite label. Please, take Israel's wang out of your mouths for one second, please, and actually consider the criticisms for what they are. Criticism.

Right, this is just another of the fronts the muslims and other Israel bashers keep attacking Israel on - give up weapons, give up land, give up this, give up that, etc., etc. until they get it down to nothing left - which is their goal after all.

Why not just give back whats not theirs?

Return the land taken in the 1967 Israeli sneak attack.

It would be very interesting to hear what one or more of those "possibilities" you mentioned are. You see both countires must end up being able to live in peace. If the palestinians aren't going to ever allow the Israelis to live in peace, then Israel has to have defensible borders.

No matter where it ends up Israel is going to have a border with Arab nations.

If Israel creates borders that enclose areas that did not belong to them before the invasion, and does not reach a mutual agreement the act is hostile.

That means the country can't be reduced to a strip of land 20 miles wide while surrounded by real and potential enemies that keep saying things like Israel must be wiped off the map.

Look at the maps before Israel was created to understand better why they might want this.

Please point out any Jewish nation in this 1600 year period.

www.friesian.com...

So, what are these "possibilities"?

Peace and equal rights in Israel.

A withdraw from teh occupied territories, or at least allow the people full citizenship.

Palestine is not free, and as long as the occupation remains, and the Israeli position does not change there will not be peace.

They only ask that Israel give back what they took.

Originally posted by ArchAngel

Why not just give back whats not theirs?

Before Israel won the 1967 war, Jordan had annexed the WestBank - but the Hashemites do not want to have that land anymore.

Furthermore, Israels historic and legal claim to these territories is no less valid than that of the Palestinians. And that's why the future status of the WestBank is subject to negotiation between Israel and the PA.

Originally posted by ArchAngel

A withdraw from teh occupied territories, or at least allow the people full citizenship.

The Palestinians in the WestBank do not want the Israeli citizenship.

Originally posted by ArchAngel
No, I got it from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at The Hague

ArchAngel, indicate which judge of the International Court of Justice stated unequivically that Israel was committing a "warcrime," k? Cause I am quite, quite certain it was not Judge Buergenthal.

The rest of your commentary is simply semantics, for the International Court of so-called Justice lacked sufficient evidences and information to render opinion or judgement. And that is my version of semantics.



Anyhow, you then mention:

It is an occupied territory.

As there is no Palestinian contracting party, and no representatives had ever signed the agreements, they cannot commit warcrimes.

Incorrect (note bolded text), again. More semantics and blah, blah, and blah.
A war crime is a punishable offense, under international law, for violations of the law of war by any person or persons, individual or individuals, group or groups, organization or organizations, military or civilian. War crimes include violations of established protections of the laws of war, but also include failures to adhere to norms of procedure and rules of battle. I suppose according to you, ArchAngel, suicide attacks are considered within norms of procedure and rules of battle or combat, huh?
War crime

Furthermore:

Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention defines war crimes as: "Wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including... wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial, ...taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly."

This, international lawyers say, is the basic definition of war crimes.

What is a war crime?

See, it matters not whether one is of a nation state, etc. Even guerilla fighters, insurgents, terrorists, foreign fighters, etc. can be charged with committing war crimes, ArchAngel. Your simply being anal-retentive (Freudian terminology) in simply applying the charge of war crimes to individuals of a state, country, or nation, more specifically: Israel.
Am I wrong?
Human Rights Watch: Suicide bombers 'war criminals'
Israel/PA: Suicide Bombers Commit Crimes Against Humanity
Human Rights Watch: Suicide bombers guilty of war crimes
Palestinian Suicide Bombing Condemned As A Crime Against Humanity

Whether you are willing to admit it or not, you cannot keep throwing the stone, sorry for the pun, at one side and always expect to be right, cause in this case your are not. If Israel is committing war crimes, then those who are calling themselves Palestinians, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. are likewise committing war crimes.

The absolute truth here, which is factually undeniable, is that:

The fact is that, tactically speaking, both the suicide bombers and those who wipe out entire neighborhoods with rockets and bulldozers are pursuing their aims by killing and demoralizing civilian populations.

The Suicide Bombers Lie







seekerof

[edit on 9-12-2005 by Seekerof]

Is this a joke ? peace loving israeli state

It was meant sarcastically yes

Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist

Is this a joke ? peace loving israeli state

It was meant sarcastically yes

Please. Why don't you point at a single conflict where Israel wasn't attacked or provoked.

Which country do you think gave them the nukes? Naive Child......

SpyDog...who would that be?
I sure hope you are not referring to the US (and here).






seekerof

[edit on 10-12-2005 by Seekerof]

Doesnt each country have the right to defend its borders, or is it just the countries with friendly relations with the US.

Im sick to death of Americas holier-tham-thou attitude towards the countries in the middle east. You cannot justify Israels Nukes without justifying Irans. The reason being that each country identifies its own threats and defends themselves as they see fit.

Also seeing as how the Isrealis believe themselves to be Gods Chosen People, if iran did start flipping nukes at them wouldnt "god" protect them?

If they truly believe, the shouldnt have anything to worry about

The Palestinians in the WestBank do not want the Israeli citizenship.

This is called self determination... and is usually supported by the US.

If the palestinians dont want to be israeli citizens they dont have to be.
All they want is there own nation, whats wrong with that. People seem to forget that the palestinians are currently living in what can only be described as Ghettos, without an army to defend themselves.

People need to realize that Palestine doesnt have the lastest in american warfare technology, and also need to note how sad it is that these people feel there only defense is to strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up. Let me point out that whether its a suicide bomber or a cruise missile... people are just as dead

Incorrect (note bolded text), again. More semantics and blah, blah, and blah.
A war crime is a punishable offense, under international law, for violations of the law of war by any person or persons, individual or individuals, group or groups, organization or organizations, military or civilian. War crimes include violations of established protections of the laws of war, but also include failures to adhere to norms of procedure and rules of battle. I suppose according to you, ArchAngel, suicide attacks are considered within norms of procedure and rules of battle or combat, huh?
War crime

As there is no Palestinian state if a Palestinian commits a warcrime you blame the individual.

If an Israeli soldier commits a warcrime you blame the entire Israeli state.

As a supposed democracy you then must blame the citizens of Israel seeing they have had two generations to vote in a government that would end the occupation.

Originally posted by ArchAngel

As there is no Palestinian state if a Palestinian commits a warcrime you blame the individual.

That is wrong, since the Palestinian Autority is responsible for their people.

It would be a big mistake allowing them to building a state, unless they did not start to prove they would care for their own people and want to be be a responsible, peaceloving neighbour of Isarel.

Thats why the Palestinian Authority agreed to fulfil importat principal obligations of the road map the Quartet ( the U.S. EU, UN and Russia) published in April 2003, like

• Consolidation Palestinian security organizations
• Confiscate illegal weapons
• Calling for immediate and unconditional cease-fire
• Takeing substantive and visible actions to stop terrorists
• dismantle terrorist infrastructure
  and more

[edit on 11-12-2005 by Riwka]

That is wrong, since the Palestinian Autority is responsible for their people.

You are wrong.

The UN does not recognize them as a nation, and neither does the occupying power, Israel.

The PA does not govern the Israeli military, nor control its borders so it cannot be a state.

Originally posted by dbates

Did Israel use chemical weapons to gas Iranian troops?

You mean weapons that were sponsored & supplied by the good ol U.S? To quote....Sam Gejdenson, Chair of the Congressional Investigation into US exports to Iraq found that from 1985-1990 “the US government approved 771 licenses [only 39 were rejected] for the export to Iraq of $1.5 billion worth of biological agents and high-tech equipment with military application[s]”

source : www.interactorg.com...

Did Israel attempt to shoot down military aircraft who were enforcing UN resolutions?

The very same UN Resolutions that one page prior you stated were "toothless recommendations unless someone is willing to put some teeth into it". It's awfully cozy when those resolutions can be used to conveniently back your argument. Hey I agree that the U.N is a farce as well but pick a side please.

Has Israel massed troops on it's borders and threatened to invade Saudi Arabia?

The same Saudi Arabia that possibly involved 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers. Sounds like a good thing if you ask me. I mean the U.S. is attempting to wipeout terrorism why not start there.

Israel is as crooked as a dogs hind leg and that does not imply that they "alone" should be targetted. However their U.S backed agenda will continue to distance any chance of peace in the middle east.

brill

[edit on 11-12-2005 by brill]

Originally posted by Parmenides
Please. Why don't you point at a single conflict where Israel wasn't attacked or provoked.

www.lewrockwell.com...

brill