seesm the israeli troops cant get enough of the football

Former Member

Dear Wendy wrote:

You call it "nicking" - While I see it as a result of self-defence.
You have to ask yourself, what caused Israel to get hold of those areas in the first place? And if we're technical, the "someone elses land" is other countries like Jordan and Egypt, who haven't been interested in getting their land back - most probably because of the people which inhabitates it.

You see moving civilians into the middle of a hostile population as "self-defence"

:eek2: :nervous: :eek2:

So, lets get technical - what proof have you that it is Egyptian and Jordanian land?

And I presume you mean that the settlers are putting the Egyptians and Jordanians off claiming the land back.......... right?

:crazyeyes

Former Member

Dear Wendy wrote:

You call it "nicking" - While I see it as a result of self-defence.
You have to ask yourself, what caused Israel to get hold of those areas in the first place? And if we're technical, the "someone elses land" is other countries like Jordan and Egypt, who haven't been interested in getting their land back - most probably because of the people which inhabitates it.

anyone else tried of this boring rhetoric..no?

Former Member

Fiend_85 wrote:

Self defence against what exactly? People wanting to live their lives?! Heaven forbid!

Self-defence when being attacked or threatened, and thereby gaining the discussed land.
Take an overview of the wars.

Former Member

self-defence when being threatened? So in fact, a pre-emptive strike, and not even against another country, against a bunch of civilians...

Former Member

Dear Wendy wrote:

Self-defence when being attacked or threatened, and thereby gaining the discussed land.
Take an overview of the wars.

Yes well, when you move onto peoples property, chase most of them off at gunpoint (throw in a bit of rape and killing to encourage their departure) and then treat those left as sub-human, they will get a bit pissed off.

Its human nature innit.

STOP PLAYING THE VICTIM - IT DOESN'T SUIT YOU!!!!!

Former Member

freethepeeps wrote:

You see moving civilians into the middle of a hostile population as "self-defence"

:eek2: :nervous: :eek2:

So, lets get technical - what proof have you that it is Egyptian and Jordanian land?

And I presume you mean that the settlers are putting the Egyptians and Jordanians off claiming the land back.......... right?

:crazyeyes

No, the self-defence was the wars fought originally which led to the areas coming under Israeli control. So I think you misunderstood where I was getting at.

What proof do you have that it is Palestinian land? After all, it was Jordanian or Egyptian land before Israel gained control.

Regarding the people, it includes the settlers and the rest

Former Member

Fiend_85 wrote:

self-defence when being threatened? So in fact, a pre-emptive strike, and not even against another country, against a bunch of civilians...

I don't think we're talking about the same thing. I am talking about the wars which led to Gaza and the Westbank under Israel's control. Not the ongoing conflict/war with the Palestinians.

Former Member

Dear Wendy wrote:

What proof do you have that it is Palestinian land? After all, it was Jordanian or Egyptian land before Israel gained control.

no one ever owned the land, you can't own land, you can only settle, i reckon pondscum own the land...let them have it they deserve it

Former Member

Dear Wendy wrote:

No, the self-defence was the wars fought originally which led to the areas coming under Israeli control. So I think you misunderstood where I was getting at.

What proof do you have that it is Palestinian land? After all, it was Jordanian or Egyptian land before Israel gained control.

Regarding the people, it includes the settlers and the rest

Erm, the attacks in the '67 war came from the Israelis .......... and according to those who lead the attacks, it was NOT self defence:

"The former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman, regarded as a hawk, stated that there was 'no threat of destruction' but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could 'exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies.'...Menahem Begin had the following remarks to make: 'In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.' "Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."

"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it." Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's Chief of Staff in 1967, in Le Monde, 2/28/68

As for it being Palestine, have you heard of the Balfour Declaration perchance?

Your revisionism is both ugly and unconvincing.

:sour:

Former Member

give "pakistan" back to the "homo sapiens"

Former Member

If I am not mistaking there was a strain of provocations by Arab countries, before the attack was launched by Israel. Now - I guess what your quotes turn towards is the fact that Nasser most probably didn't have the capacity to fulfill the "erediction of Israel" as he had expressed, but that the attack was needed in order to live as human beings without the constant threat.

I am sorry for being thick here, but what are you getting at with the Balfour decleration?

Former Member

Dear Wendy wrote:

If I am not mistaking there was a strain of provocations by Arab countries, before the attack was launched by Israel.

At least you admit that the attack was launched by Israel. It's a start.

the attack was needed in order to live as human beings without the constant threat.

Just a real shame the Palestinians don't have such a luxury, eh?

Former Member

Just to query the assertions that "both sides are as bad", lets have the stats from the Intifada:

Palestinians killed by Israelis: 3223 (proportion of civilians not available)
Palestinians killed by, or during, extra-judicial executions: 469
Palestinian citizens of Israel killed by Israel: 17
Israelis killed by Palestinians: 950, of which 301 were soldiers.
Number of Palestinians living below the poverty line: nearly 50%

Source.

Former Member

Kermit wrote:

Just to query the assertions that "both sides are as bad", lets have the stats from the Intifada:

Palestinians killed by Israelis: 3223 (proportion of civilians not available)
Palestinians killed by, or during, extra-judicial executions: 469
Palestinian citizens of Israel killed by Israel: 17
Israelis killed by Palestinians: 950, of which 301 were soldiers.
Number of Palestinians living below the poverty line: nearly 50%

Source.

And that proves absolutely nothing. Thank-you for that useless insight Kermit.

Those figures lump combatants in with non-combatants – suicide bombers and terrorists with innocent civilians. Helpful.

There are some outdated figures here - they at least attempt to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants.

Former Member

suicide bombers and terrorists with innocent civilians.

Will the two sides agree definitions on this?

Will they fuck. So the figures are meaningless. Lotsa dead individuals because other individuals can't get along. Take the shitty political terms out of the equation and see it as individuals killing other individuals because of their irrational beliefs please.

There are no sides, just a pile of corpses.

Former Member

Thats from your source Disillusioned - it shows that Israel killed a lot more non-combatants under the age of 18, doesn't it?

The whole definition of "combatants" begs a lot of questions as well - does it include all Israeli reserves and serving soldiers?



And Dear Wendy

I think that Balfour is relevant - what does this map show?

Former Member

Disillusioned wrote:

Those figures lump combatants in with non-combatants – suicide bombers and terrorists with innocent civilians. Helpful.

It was, when I was careful to combine the totals of Israeli innocents with the Israeli bombers and terrorists. Therefore the figures are like-for-like, therefore the figures are a fair and just comparison.

950 all in, versus 3200 all in. Big difference, I'm sure you'd quite agree.

I also question how, and under whose terminology, they are defining "combatants". I would hate to suggest anything other than the organisation's impartiality, but there does seem to be quite a bit of emotive language in an article which is supposed to be empirical.

Former Member

freethepeeps wrote:

Or more to the point, do the Israelis classify a 9 year old child throwing a stone at an IDF armoured vehicle during a street protest as a 'combatant'?

My guess is they do.

At the end of the day, we all know how dangerous those little devils and their rocks can be to a tank... :rolleyes:

Former Member

Aladdin wrote:

Or more to the point, do the Israelis classify a 9 year old child throwing a stone at an IDF armoured vehicle during a street protest as a 'combatant'?

My guess is they do.

In fairness, the ICT have said that they have discounted rock-throwers. But, at the same time, the ICT will have been told who to say is "combatant", and the IDF aren't exactly the most truthful and honest organisation known to man.

Former Member

Kermit wrote:

In fairness, the ICT have said that they have discounted rock-throwers. But, at the same time, the ICT will have been told who to say is "combatant", and the IDF aren't exactly the most truthful and honest organisation known to man.

Heres where it all starts to get confusing:

Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, who was killed in an Israeli helicopter missile strike was by far the most senior Palestinian terrorist killed in more than three years of Israeli-Palestinian fighting. Confined to a wheelchair since being injured in a sports accident in his youth, he nevertheless managed to, almost single-handedly, found the Muslim Brotherhood movement in the Palestinian territories. He not only served as the ideologue of Hamas, but was also its most influential decision-maker

STATUS: Full Combatant

Rani Yassin, Sheikh Yassin's son, was lightly injured in an Israeli helicopter missile strike while escorting his father. Rani Yassin was a Hamas activist, he used to escort Sheikh Yassin in all his activities and was his confidant.

STATUS: Full Combatant

And yet the claim is that "full combatants" were actively involved in fighting

_____________________________________________

Samer Fathi Afan, 25, of the Bedouin village of Uzeir near Nazareth, was one of two Israeli security guards shot dead at a construction site along the route of the security fence near Abu Dis in East Jerusalem.

Samer was the son of Sheikh Fathi Afan, Chairman of the Organization of Muslim Clerics in Israel. Samer had served in the Border Police, and was discharged four months ago. While waiting for a position to become available in the Israel Police, he found employment as a guard with the Tamnun security company. After working at the Haifa Central Bus Station, he transferred to the Jerusalem area just a week ago.

Status: Non- combatant

Hello??? The guy had been with the Border Police 4 months previously, and was waiting to be a cop.

__________________________________________________

Eyal Yeberbaum, 27, of Negohot, south of Hebron, was killed in his home during the holiday meal on the eve of Rosh Hashana when a Palestinian terrorist who infiltrated the settlement opened fire with an M-16 assault rifle. Eyal Yeberbaum attended the yeshiva high school in Efrat and went on to complete his army service in the artillery, combining military service with study at the Otniel hesder yeshiva. He and his fellow students at Otniel were among the founders of Negohot. Last year he married Sarah Rosenberg; they had no children. Eyal worked at a Discount Bank branch in Kiryat Gat and was a student at the Ahva regional college.......

......We are classifying Yeberbaum as a non-combatant, because, although he normally carried a pistol, he doesn't not appear to have had time to arm himself before answering the door.

Status: non-combatant

_________________________________________________

Husseini Sarafiti, 40, was killed in an Israeli airstrike in Gaza City.

Status: Full Combatant

Hmmm, he is inside Gaza City, and is killed by a missile from a plane and is a full combatant, whilst the setttler who is on illegally occupied land, and "normally" packs a piece is a non-combatant.

I'm not surprised the y found that 80% of Israeli deaths were "non-combatants"

:eek2:

Former Member

Tragically Palestinian terrorists have frequently used stone-throwing children as human shields. For whatever reason whether its indoctrination in Palestinian schools or by local leaders unfortunately it seems some Palestinian children are brainwashed into confrontation with Israeli troops. And should their parents really be allowing their children to throw rocks at soldiers? Given the fact that Palestinian terrorists have used children as human shields and also that some Palestinian terrorist groups even recruit children and get children to throw grenades – not rocks at Israeli troops I think it’s pretty irresponsible parenting.

I do think the Israelis are too heavy-handed at times but I think it is a complete lie that Israel indiscriminately targets women and children as the ICT's research supports. Indisputably, too many people have died on both sides and I really hope that ends and both sides remain committed to the Roadmap for Peace. But the Palestinians need to clearly reject terrorism and violence for there to be peace. However, given Hamas's success in some local elections Palestinian terrorist groups still worryingly have the support of a lot of people.

Former Member

Why is it all up to Palestinians to "make" peace? They aren';t the ones illgeally occupying another's land, destroying business and using completely disproportionate force to "clamp down" on people.

Why are the Palestinians so wrong for allowing their children to walk freely on their own land? The rock-throwing isn't even the important thing: Israel has, on several occasions now, opened fire on United Nations secure schools, killing children sitting at their desks. Is that grossly irresponsible parenting, sending your kids to school to get shot at their desks?

Israel have the power to make peace, they always have had. Every time there has been an opportunity it is Israel who have destroyed it, not Palestine. Israel are to blame because Israel will not come to the negotiating table with a serious offer, because Israel are not interested in peace because in peace they won't have the power.

Former Member

Delusional one

Aah that was so sweet and caring ..........

And ever so orientalist.

Next up on the agenda no doubt is the bullshit about Palestinians not loving their kids.

The ICT "research" is a flawed load of bollocks.

Former Member

Kermit wrote:

Israel have the power to make peace, they always have had. Every time there has been an opportunity it is Israel who have destroyed it, not Palestine. Israel are to blame because Israel will not come to the negotiating table with a serious offer, because Israel are not interested in peace because in peace they won't have the power.

Whatever Kermit.

Israel has destroyed every opportunity for peace? Yawn.

So um just after the Six Day War in 1967 Israel offered to move out from the Sinai and the Golan Heights in return for peace. How did the Arab leaders respond? "No peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel."

But Israel did in the late 70's make peace with Egypt and Israel withdrew from the entire Sinai in return for peace with Egypt.

In 2000 the Israelis offered full withdrawal from the Golan Heights in return for peace. Syria rejected it...

Also in 2000 Arafat turned down without a counteroffer 92% of the West Bank, all of Gaza, Arab neighbourhoods of East Jerusalem, a Palestinian state plus the dismantling of settlements. Israel then made another offer of 95% of the West Bank but Arafat still turned it down - with no counter-offer. Instead terrorist Arafat chose violence...

Former Member

freethepeeps wrote:

Next up on the agenda no doubt is the bullshit about Palestinians not loving their kids.

Former Member

Disillusioned wrote:

Whatever Kermit.

Israel has destroyed every opportunity for peace? Yawn.

So um just after the Six Day War in 1967 Israel offered to move out from the Sinai and the Golan Heights in return for peace. How did the Arab leaders respond? "No peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel."

Should have offered to withdraw from Occupied Palestine as well then.

In 2000 the Israelis offered full withdrawal from the Golan Heights in return for peace. Syria rejected it...

And 3 years later Syria made the same offer and Israel rejected it.

Also in 2000 Arafat turned down without a counteroffer 92% of the West Bank, all of Gaza, Arab neighbourhoods of East Jerusalem, a Palestinian state plus the dismantling of settlements. Israel then made another offer of 95% of the West Bank but Arafat still turned it down - with no counter-offer. Instead terrorist Arafat chose violence...

Yawn x 94,000,000

http://www.mediamonitors.net/gushshalom1.html

Former Member

Disillusioned wrote:

Oh but we've had that a number of times on these very boards Disillusioned. Those terrible Palestinians, apparently "encouraging" children to throw rocks at the IDF. Naturally the blame for those children being murdered by Israeli soldiers must fall squarely on the Palestinians.

Former Member

Disillusioned wrote:

Also in 2000 Arafat turned down without a counteroffer 92% of the West Bank, all of Gaza, Arab neighbourhoods of East Jerusalem, a Palestinian state plus the dismantling of settlements. Israel then made another offer of 95% of the West Bank but Arafat still turned it down - with no counter-offer. Instead terrorist Arafat chose violence...

Yeah, yeah - of course the world was offered to Arafat on a plate, and he chose to be incarcerated in the Muqata instead - it's because the only logical ones in this scenario are the zionists, right?

David Ben Cramer, tells it a little differently, and, a little more believably than you do (op cit pp 232/3):

One more myth to unclatter: the conviction of most Israelis, and almost all American zionists, that Israel offered Arafat the moon - everything he wanted, or should have wanted - in the Bill Clinton round of Camp David negotiations. The way Israelis say it shows the national genius for "explaining". By their account, PM Ehud Barak offered Arafat ninety-seven percent of the land! And that idiot Arafat turned it down! ("We tried to give him a country - just like that!")... The only question Israelis leave open is whether Arafat then had to scramble to get out in front of his own people's rage, and purport to lead the terror war that followed - or, if, instead, while he was smiling and pretending to talk peace, he was already planning his dirty campaign to murder Jews. Israelis can never decide whether to brand Arafat as a hapless and irrelevant moron, or as evil-genius incarnate. But either way (in their view) the putz is killing children despite incredible Israeli generosity.
It's the kind of figure that's exact enough to stick in your head - for a lousy three percent! [snip]
But what was the three percent - and what did it mean? Actually, by the bitter end of the peace talks, the Israelis were proposing to keep about six percent of the West Bank - three blocs of their settlements (all the big ones) and the highways that lead to them. In exchange, they would cede to the Palestinians desert land in Israel that was, in area, equivalent to three percent. But the map that resulted from Israel keeping just six percent would have yielded a "Nation of Palestine" that was actually three small ghettos, each walled off from the others by Israeli fortifications, or roads patrolled by the Israeli army, or fences with checkpoints. In other words, a citizen of Palestine still couldn't go around his country, - say from Nablus to Hebron (not to mention the wholly seperate ghetto of Gaza) - without the acquiescence of Israelis. In addition, Israel proposed to keep five army bases in the Jordan Valley (on the east side of "Palestine"), and to maintain full control of the airspace above "Palestine", and the water aquifers below "Palestine", and the seacoast and all the borders of "Palestine".
Less than a Bantustan, for your information," was Arafat's (rather huffy) summation, in a subsequent interview

:eek:

Former Member

TBH J, I don't think the beer is a very good idea outside of the christian areas.....

Former Member

freethepeeps wrote:

TBH J, I don't think the beer is a very good idea outside of the christian areas.....

Or outside of the Jewish areas. Alcohol isn’t prohibited in Judaism. Although I guess the beer should be kosher really. Although most of the Israeli beers are I think and I think Miller is too.