reply to post by gravitational
HRW is an entirely different thing compared to the Commision on Human Rights and the UN. Human Rights Watch is an independent organization that
dosen't come under the auspicies of the UN. Its nice to see your patern- Make up an entirely false statement and pretend that it is true, once proven
false with a respectable source you then attack the source saying it has either an anti-Israel bias or is anti-Semetic, now that I have proven this
false (as HRW is not the UN or HRC) I wonder what your next excuse will be.
The fact that so many resolution have been past against Israel in both the General Assebely and the Security Council (where it enjoys a freindly US
veto when ever it is dearly necassary) speaks volumes in regards to Israel. Not volumes in the sense that the UN is anti-Israel but that Israel is
obviously violating the UN charter which it is a signee to.
Arab (Palestinian) terror attacks started long before the so called “occupied territories” in 1967 and long before the establishment of Israel in
Yes obviously and at the time it the terror attacks were caused by somthing else- the Refugee problem. Infiltration (early terrorism) was a direct
consequence of the displacement and dispossession of around 700,000 Palestinians in the course of the 1948 war, and the motives behind it were largely
social and economic rather that political or military. Infact the best available estimate states that during the 1949-1956 period 90 percent or more
infiltrations were motivated by social and economic concerns.
To stop infiltration Israel adopted a 'free fire' policy- in other words shoot first and ask questions later- which killed between 3000-5000
Palestinians- the majority of them unarmed. At the time Israel was unwilling to resolve the refugee problem- the right of return or compensation as
dictated by international law.
Of course as there is today a minority (which is growing due to counter-effective measures which Israel has enacted) there was back then also a
minority that wanted to either enact vengence for familly reasons not religous (fundementalist Islamic) reasons as there is a rather common consensus
that Islamic fundementalist terrorism or martyrdom (through terrorist- suicidal acts) was almost non-existent up untill after the Islamic revolution
in Iran. Infact much of the terrorism after and prior to June-1967 remained secular, it was not untill the 80's that Islamic terrorism really
Now there is almost one form of terrorism and that is Islamic fundementalism. The sad reality is that there are some religous sociopaths that want
nothing more then to kill Jews, however, they are still a minority and Israel can take actions to prevent them from growing and then to skilfully
destroy them. Making the lives of vunreable Palestinian youth a living hell will not help- as many experts of terrorism blame socio-economic factors
for driving Islamic youth into fundementalist organizations. Hamas is rather intellegent- they combine a strong conviction to Islamic fundementalist
principles combined with a large welfare and public sector providing basic needs which is only growing due to the destruction of the private sector by
the Israeli blockade and 2008/2009 Gazan war. Infact most the measures Israel has taken has only increased the numbers of Islamic terrorists.
I have already outlines how to prevent and curb terrorism. These same measures could be undertaken in Iraq.
I suggest you read the works of Ze'ev Jabotinsky- probably the most intellegent and realistic of all Zionists. Jabotinsky published an insightful
essay called "On the Iron Wall (We and the Arabs)". In this he realisticly outlines that Arab hostility would be inevitable and Israel must pursue a
policy of a Iron Wall- showing its military dominance and proving that Israel cannot be beaten. He said "A voluntary agreement between us and the
Arabs of Palestine is onconceivable nor or in the foseeable future". and "the sole was to such an agreement is through the iron wall, that is to
say, the establishment in Palestine a force that will in no way be influenced by Arab pressure". He does not say that there can be no agreement with
the Arabs (two-state solution) rather that Israel has to first assert itself as a regional power- which it has- and this has lead to peace agreements
with Jordan and Egypt aswell as an agreement with the PLO. Now Israel must make some commitments and return to the pre-June 1967 borders. They must
return land for peace as they did with Egypt (that worked).
Terrorism will remain- but it will be a fringe minority and it will only decrease overtime. However if Israel fails to act soon it will only get
worse. It must choose between either security of expansion- there is no way that it can have both and history shows this. Every empire collapses.
There are poor people all over the world. Do they all engage in terror activities?
Are they all occupied by a foreign power? No... and the ones that are largely do. Take a non-muslim example. The IRA.
Most Israelis were extremely poor during the1800's and 1900th, yet they worked hard to improve their lives, instead of complaining and accusing
everybody none -stop for their situation.
Most the world was poor during the 1800's and 1900's. The Industrial Revolution, innovation and democratic government eventually changed this along
with the hard work of many. What is the point?
What you do, not as bluntly as BIB, is apologize for the Palestinian murderous behavior.
No I clearly don't. If I did I would be essentially promoting it. What I want is to investigate a meaningful solution. What you seem to be doing is
apologizing and even advocating murderous Israeli behaviour.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The UN and especially the HRC is a sad farce.
How is this relevant to the debate anyway? I cited HRW not the HRC.