sealadaigh
Rookie
- Banned
- #21
And in the West Bank, they are legally defined as the "occupational power", according to international law, the UN and rulings by the Israeli Supreme Court.i know how you got the term. it is a stupid term. they are the IDF and they are known as the IDF by the world.
Omitting that term after 45 years, is inferring there is no occupation at all. And that is not only a severe injustice towards the Palestinian's, it's not factually correct or legally defined.i object\t to the term being used because it serves no purpose. u have no problem talkihng about the occupation.
Why wouldn't it be appropriate? If you want to know what's going on in a certain area, there is no better source than the people who live and work in that area. Incidently, I read your links and they're not two sources, nor are they Haaretz or the NYT. It's the same article at both sites and the source is Reuters. Which is an international, non-biased, non-aligned media outlet, that I use as well.
If the Palestinian Information Center is not a good source, then why does your source say the same thing? Both articles said 5 people were shot. So where's the weakness? I'll tell you where it is, it's on the Reuters page and it's what they didn't say.
Do you see what is being omitted in this discussion? Why was no one questioning what right Israel has controlling any area that isn't Israel's? They have no legal authority whatsoever to deem anything off limits on the Palestinian side of the fence. The Pals have every legal right in the world, to walk up to that fence and paint it with graffiti, if they so deem. What do you think West Germany's response would be to East Germany trying to do what the Israeli's are doing now along the Berlin Wall? And the West German side of that wall, is covered in graffiti.
I know Reuters is neutral, but still they left out a very important point in this whole issue, which does play a role in preventing any progress from being made.
No one is trying to take your rights away and I would hope you'd comment on things you object to. I'm just saying for me, I object to "what" is being said, not "who" is saying it.
If that is what you believe, I'm fine with it. I don't argue against what anyone believes. People are free to believe whatever they want to believe. But I do draw the line when they try to push those beliefs as "facts", without any evidence to back it up. And if you cannot prove it is a "weak" position using those sites, it is not a fact. And in this particular case, since both sites said the same thing, that is prima facia evidence the site is not weak (on this issue). Maybe on other issues, they are, but not this time.i thinki there is plenty of evidence without using sites such as that and i think the use of such sites gives the impression, albeit a mistaken impression, that you are making arguments ffrom a weak position.
That's unfortunate. I thought we were having a pretty decent conversation on a very volatile subject that is a "hot button" for a lot of people. Being able to discuss difficult, complex issues without getting all emotional, is a good thing. As we just showed.but go ahead. you ave just lost me. enjoy yourselves.
try to pay attention. i am saying that the name for the IDF is the "IDF". maybe you would show me any UN paper that calls them the "IOF" or iternational court or any foreign government that refers to them as the "IOF".
as for "If you want to know what's going on in a certain area, there is no better source than the people who live and work in that area.", israelis live and work in the area, and that nincludes the IDF. are you even suggesting to me that they are a creditible source. they say the shootings were alright. i think the IDF is biased.
the fact of the matter is that the least reliable sources are those from people directly involved.
i have no idea what discussion you think you were having, but the only discussion i was having was about creditable sources.
go reread what i said. where did i ever say that the palestinians did not have a right to go up to the fence. don't try to put words in my mouth.