Israel the Monster: Mass-murder of Innocents

[toomuchtime_]

So does that mean using civilians as shields is not bad. So I could attack somewhere use all the people on this board and thier families as shields so when i get attacked all of you get killed and i can escape out the back. Does that make me a better person than the person who attacked me???

--------------------------------------

Not only is it bad, but under the Geneva Accords, it is a war crime, a war crime that every member of every Palestinian militant organization has been guilty of every minute of every day for decades.

 

[cunclusion]

--------------------------------------

Not only is it bad, but under the Geneva Accords, it is a war crime, a war crime that every member of every Palestinian militant organization has been guilty of every minute of every day for decades.

Ok you know it is but why does everyone else seem to think its not. Every country that has to attack organizations like this one will end up killing civilians because these organizations always shield themselve behind civilians.

 

[Luciano]

--------------------------------------

Not only is it bad, but under the Geneva Accords, it is a war crime, a war crime that every member of every Palestinian militant organization has been guilty of every minute of every day for decades.

Do you think those Geneva Accords can apply on some freedom fighters while they can't be applied on a terrorist army that has the most recent technology that enable it to know that these are civil targets and these are not??

 

[cunclusion]

Do you think those Geneva Accords can apply on some freedom fighters while they can't be applied on a terrorist army that has the most recent technology that enable it to know that these are civil targets and these are not??

The problem with that is freedom fighters vs. terrorists is based on how the outside world looks at them. But most of the time when an organization attacks innocent civilians its terrorism.

But as far as the technology behind bombing targets. Its man made it will not always hit targets but these attacks most of the time are never intentional.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Do you think those Geneva Accords can apply on some freedom fighters while they can't be applied on a terrorist army that has the most recent technology that enable it to know that these are civil targets and these are not??

Just one problem with your statement. Israel does NOT target civilians. They targeted legal MILITARY targets. Or perhaps you can provide us a list of the civilian targets, since Shogun could not. And I do mean in this go round. Lebanon was 2 years ago and as far as I know they never targeted civilians then either.

 

[José]

toomuchtime said:

The "right of return" is a slogan, a gimmick, a piece of propaganda that has no real meaning and which never was and never will be relevant to any serious negotiations.

Then the same poster stated:

But as a practical matter, this (compensation for the refugees) cannot be done because the Arab leaders have used the "refugees" as a propaganda tool for so long, that now advocating a more reasonable basis for deciding this issues, would be political suicide.

MAKE UP YOUR MIND, FOR HEAVEN’S SAKE, TOOMUCHTIME!!!

Either the right of return “is a slogan, a gimmick, a piece of propaganda that has no real meaning and which never was and never will be relevant to any serious negotiations” or it is so important to the Palestinian society that dropping it “would be political suicide”.

It certainly can’t be both!!

 

[José]

Toomuchtime

Criticize the right of the Palestinian people to live in Western Palestine all you want, but, for the sake of your own reputation, do it without falling into this kind of flagrant, embarrassing contradiction in the same post, like the one I highlighted above.

 

[José]

We have to be careful to distinguish between personal opinions and facts.

For example:

Whether or not the state of Israel should have been created 60 years ago is a perfectly legitimate debating topic.

Opinions pro and against the creation of Israel must be debated in a civil manner and no one should be called an ignoramus for holding a given opinion on this matter.

But the fact that the modern state of Israel was founded in 1948 is not a matter of opinion, it’s a historical fact that is not open for debate and anyone who tries to deny it deserves to have his lack of knowledge or bad faith exposed.

Similarly, whether or not it is desirable that the Palestinian people have the right to settle in the part of their historical homeland that corresponds to the modern state of Israel is also a legitimate topic of debate. I fully respect both points of view.

But the fact that the right of return is passionately supported by nearly the entire Palestinian society is not an opinion it is a fact that can be demonstrated by any non biased poll.

When you come into a message board and says that “the right of return is irrelevant” you lose all your credibility as a debater because you reveal in front of your peers your lack of knowledge on the subject being debated.

The truth is that the right to live in Western Palestine is the non-negotiable core of the Palestinian national identity and any Palestinian leader, including the late Arafat, who compromises this right is immediately delegitimised in the eyes of his people.

You don’t even need to fall into the kind of embarrassing contradiction like toomuchtime did when he stated that the right of return is important and unimportant at the same time.

The moment you say the right to live in Western Palestine is not passionately supported by almost the totality of Palestinians you get as demoralized as a debater as a physician who states that the kidney is responsible for pumping blood to the rest of the organism, if you allow me this clumsy comparison.

 

[José]

Originally posted by BlackAsCoal
The right of return, which I also support, does not mean that Israel should not exist. My comment was about the percentage of Palestinians who support a two-state solution .. which by it's very definition, demonstrates my point.

Originally posted by jillian
Right of return absolutely means Israel will not exist simply by virtue of disparate birth rates.

Jillian is absolutely right, BlackAsCoal…

When a Palestinian supports a Palestinian state out of one side of his mouth and the right of return out of the other HE IS IN FACT SUPPORTING A DE FACTO ONE STATE SOLUTION.

Do the math yourself, buddy:

support for a Palestinian state + support for the right of return = support for a DE FACTO unitary state.

The western press manipulates the polls by hiding the fact that the Palestinian support for a Palestinian state is meaningless since 99% of Palestinians think that the right of return is not even open for debate.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Do you think those Geneva Accords can apply on some freedom fighters while they can't be applied on a terrorist army that has the most recent technology that enable it to know that these are civil targets and these are not??

--------------------------------------------------

The Geneva Accords allow that civilian casualties that are the unavoidable consequence of the pursuit of a legitimate military target are acceptable, so that means when the Palestinian militants placed themselves, their weapons, their ammunition, their workshops, their laboratories, etc. in civilian areas, they were war criminals, but when the Israeli efforts to destroy these legitimate targets also caused civilian casualties, the Israeli actions were perfectly legal.

 

[toomuchtime_]

toomuchtime said:

The "right of return" is a slogan, a gimmick, a piece of propaganda that has no real meaning and which never was and never will be relevant to any serious negotiations.

Then the same poster stated:

But as a practical matter, this (compensation for the refugees) cannot be done because the Arab leaders have used the "refugees" as a propaganda tool for so long, that now advocating a more reasonable basis for deciding this issues, would be political suicide.

MAKE UP YOUR MIND, FOR HEAVEN’S SAKE, TOOMUCHTIME!!!

Either the right of return “is a slogan, a gimmick, a piece of propaganda that has no real meaning and which never was and never will be relevant to any serious negotiations” or it is so important to the Palestinian society that dropping it “would be political suicide”.

It certainly can’t be both!!

--------------------------------------------------------------

Of course it can be both. Arab leaders have insisted for so long that the "right of return" is a non negotiable demand that the vast majority of Palestinians and the vast majority of Arabs is countries now reluctantly hosting these "refugees" are unwilling to accept that it is an unattainable goal. Arab politicians who are aware of Israeli public opinion and international opinion know that there is virtually no support for this alleged "right of return" so when they continue to incite the Palestinians to demand it, to even make peace and statehood contingent of it, they are doing so because they understand that this demand is now so much a part of the cultural heritage of the Palestinian people that to tell them the truth, that it is not attainable, would be political suicide.

In the later stages of the last negotiations with Arafat, Israel offered to take 100,000 of the "refugees" and Clinton proposed an international fund to compensate those who would not be allowed to emigrate to Israel as a way of allowing Arafat to save face. Arafat understood that Israel would never recognize a "right of return" and that it would be impossible for him to rally significant international support for a refusal to settle for any less than a full "right of return" and he also realized that after being told for half a century that all the refugees would be allowed to "return" to Israel, it would be a very hard sell to convince the Palestinian people to settle for less.

 

[Shogun]

t's truly ******* hilarous to see you people put quotations around "refugee" when it comes to a muslim.. but were they jewish you'd fall over yourselves validating a racist state policy meant to pack israel with jews; democracy be damned.


truly.

 

[toomuchtime_]

t's truly ******* hilarous to see you people put quotations around "refugee" when it comes to a muslim.. but were they jewish you'd fall over yourselves validating a racist state policy meant to pack israel with jews; democracy be damned.


truly.

----------------------------------------------------

I put quotation marks around the word because it is used to indicate so many different things, sometimes through ignorance and sometimes to mislead, that I regard it as just a provisional placeholder for a group that is poorly defined in most people's minds. UNWRA, the UN agency that keeps records of and attends to the needs of these people, defines a refugee as some one who lived in what became Israel for two years between 1946 and 1948 or any of his or her descendants. The UN had originally proposed that a refugee should be defined as some who had lived in what became Israel for at least five years, but the Arab states of opposed this definition so vigorously, that it was dropped to two years; this seems to indicate that the Arab states believed a significant number of those who left Israel during the war had been there less than five years.

So the UN's definition of a Palestinian refugee includes the great grand children of an Arab worker who had been in Israel for only two years as well some whose family had there for generations, yet those who espouse a "right of return" speak of a right to return to their historical homeland. So which is it? Does refugee refer to those for whom what is now Israel is their historical homeland or to those who are descended from some one who only lived there for two years?

 

[Shogun]

relying on that convenient definition is about as convincing as invalidating native americans because they don't wear shoes. self righteousness sure is rare among those who feel the need to find an excuse for their domination of other peoples, isn't it?

 

[Godboy]

The problem with that is freedom fighters vs. terrorists is based on how the outside world looks at them. But most of the time when an organization attacks innocent civilians its terrorism.

"One Man's Terrorist is Another Man's Freedom Fighter"

Often and thoughtlessly repeated, this is one of those sayings that cry out for logical and philosophical analysis. Competent analysis will show that clear-thinking persons ought to avoid the saying.

Note first that while freedom is an end, terror is a means. So to call a combatant a terrorist is to say something about his tactics, his means for achieving his ends, while to call a combatant a freedom fighter is to say nothing about his tactics or means for achieving his ends. It follows that one and the same combatant can be both a terrorist and a freedom fighter. For one and the same person can employ terror as his means while having freedom as his end.

Suppose a Palestinian Arab jihadi straps on an explosive belt and detonates himself in a Tel Aviv pizza parlor. He is objectively a terrorist: he kills and maims noncombatants in furtherance of a political agenda which includes freedom from Israeli occupation. The fact that he is a freedom fighter does not make him any less a terrorist. Freedom is his end, but terror is his means. It is nonsense to say that he is a terrorist to Israelis and their supporters and a freedom fighter to Palestinians and their supporters. He is objectively both. It is not a matter of 'perception' or point of view or which side one is on.

Another Palestinian renounces terrorism and fights for freedom from occupation by the path of negotiation. He is objectively a freedom fighter and objectively no terrorist. A third case might be an Israeli terrorist who blows up a Palestinian hospital or mosque in revenge for Palestinian terrorist attacks. He is objectively a terrorist but objectively not a freedom fighter.

So there are two reasons to avoid 'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.' The first is that it rests on a confusion of means and ends. Describing a combatant as a terrorist, I describe his means not his end; describing a combatant as a freedom fighter, I describe his end not his means. A second reason to avoid the saying is because the saying suggests falsely that there is no fact of the matter as to whether or not a person is a terrorist. There is: a combatant is a terrorist if and only if he employs terror as a tactic in the furtherance of his political goals. It doesn't matter what his goal or end is. It might be the noble one of freedom from oppression. Or it might be base one of domination and exploitation. What makes him a terrorist is the means he employs. (Of course, I am not suggesting that a noble end justifies terrorist tactics.)

 

[José]

Here´s a bit more of objective political analysis for you, Godboy:

A state that immediatelly kills any native of the land who tries to return "illegaly" to their towns and villages of origin after being denied legal entry for no other reason than their race.

This kind of state is objectively a racial dictatorship.

 

[toomuchtime_]

relying on that convenient definition is about as convincing as invalidating native americans because they don't wear shoes. self righteousness sure is rare among those who feel the need to find an excuse for their domination of other peoples, isn't it?

-----------------------------------------------------

I'm sorry, but which definition of a refugee is it that you find to be "convenient?" The UN's definition - which is the one Arab leaders have been insisting on - that any descendant of anyone who lived in what became Israel for two years between 1946 and 1948 is a refugee, or the definition often put forward by pro Palestinian propagandists who claim the "right of return" is to allow people to return to their historical homeland?

 

[Godboy]

Here´s a bit more of objective political analysis for you, Godboy:

A state that immediatelly kills any native of the land who tries to return "illegaly" to their towns and villages of origin after being denied legal entry for no other reason than their race.

This kind of state is objectively a racial dictatorship.

Why would they let Palestinians into their country? The Israelis are not stupid and they are not suicidal. The Palestinians have been killing jews for many decades, long before Israel became an official state.

On the topic of race...race is not the problem, its the fact that the Jews dont share the same religion as the Palestinians, and there is little to no tolerance for non-muslims in the Middle East. THATS what started all this in the first place.

 

[QUENTIN]

Seriously:

Israel aims at military targets and causes civilian deaths as an accidental result.

Hamas aims at CIVILIANS and kills them on purpose.

From an article on the conflict by Nir Rosen, an Israeli jew:

"When you drop bombs on populated areas knowing there will be some "collateral" civilian damage, but accepting it as worth it, then it is deliberate...taking of innocent human life"

The fact that their tactically guided missiles' aim is targeted on a loose military (and in reality, they're intentionally targeting police stations too) target MAKES NO DIFFERENCE because they know that the destruction will not be confined to military personnel. They are intentionally killing innocent people too.

This is the same irrational, jingoistic justification offered by all violent regimes with power to differentiate themselves from their Other, their weaker and resourceless Enemy, about how their actions that cause massive destruction and senseless death are nothing like the Other's actions that cause massive destruction and senseless death.

The only difference is that Israel is killing way more Palestinians than vice-versa, so in this instance and this particular moment, they're more in the wrong and need to ******* stop murdering children right the **** now.

ANYONE who can justify the intentional killing of innocent people is an immoral ******* bastard who has no place in the company of real human beings.

 

[Godboy]

Here´s a bit more of objective political analysis for you, Godboy:

A state that immediatelly kills any native of the land who tries to return "illegaly" to their towns and villages of origin after being denied legal entry for no other reason than their race.

This kind of state is objectively a racial dictatorship.

...and since we are on the subject, Israel does not immdeiately kill any native who tries to return to their "place of origin". You and i, and every other person on these boards knows Israel doesnt immediately kill people who try to enter their country. Can we please at least keep this discussion honest?