Exactly which side is it that relies on violence?

[Orion]

The language of the statement is interesting. Israel being "forced" to attack implies that there is no choice, meanwhile the choices are ample. Israel could allow the UN inspectors to continue to do their jobs, which they are more than adequate at, in gathering evidence that Iran has nuclear arms. So far, no such evidence exists.

Creating this pretext for an attack is identical to what its ally, the U.S., did in 2003 when it attacked Iraq. It is fabricating a reason for prevention, when no such threat exists.

This is also sadly predictable, in a way. Iran is the last nation missing in the puzzle to complete the trans Middle East oil pipeline stretching to the gulf, and the U.S. lacks the resources to mount another offensive in the region. Who better than its ally?

It is also sad that there is no evidence that Iran is definitely producing nuclear arms, yet the Western world will largely support this attack; meanwhile, North Korea is more than likely the next threatening candidate for nukes, has already committed to boycotting nuclear talks, and has made open threats of attack against Japan and South Korea, yet no support for true PRE-EMPTION in this matter is forthcoming. Furthermore, Pakistan, ALREADY a nuclear power, is on the brink of having its key security regions overrun by the Taliban, and yet the priority is now Iran?

If this weren't so laughable I'd cry. On one hand Israel is wiping out its neighbouring threat as it expands its territory in violation of UN law, and on the other hand it wants to settle the score with an old regional rival.

The fact that people are still debating over whether or not such an attack is justified is laughable, really. Please pick up a history book and take a HARD LOOK at what is going on.

 

[Marc39]

Obviously people who lived in the ME and whose relatives lived there can claim such a link. Some of these people are of course Jewish, but the vast majority of Jews do not fit this criteria. Its really that simple.

Jews immigrated to Palestine, lawfully so, under Turkish rule and, later, British rule (Never "Palestinian" rule, as there were no Palestinians at the time) and legally purchased land. It's really that simple.

Sammy Davis Jnr (and the other converts) have no ancestoral home in the ME, perhaps you should remember that so I don't need to repeat it again?

Thousands of Arab immigrants to Palestine, many of them illegal immigrants who merely arrived because of lax regulations, originating from as far away as northern Africa, had no ancestral home in Palestine. During the exodus of Arabs in the '48 war, the UN classified virtually everyone a refugee plus their descendants. Those who arrived to Palestine in 1946 were called refugees, however, none of them had a connection to Palestine as their ancestral home. Perhaps you should remember that.

The constant repeating of the lie that 'Jews' are from Palestine is annoying

One of life's simple pleasures for me.

Jews (as like all religions) are a mixture of persons from all areas of the globe. It is a religion, not a people nor a nationality and its followers have no 'one ancestoral home' - the ancestoral home of each member of this religion is the place where that particular persons ancestors lived.

Same can be said of Arabs and Palestine, since Arabs originated from Arabia, not Palestine.

This false propoganda is straight out of the Goebbels textbook and it is disappointing to see this method used again.

It's disappointing to see people attempting to have a rational, intelligent discussion who are unqualified or incapable of doing so.

As for the reference to 'Jews' I am only using the same language as everyone else on this forum. If its a problem then maybe the moderators need to post something as this is being used by everyone?

The greater problem is one of total lack of knowledge.

 

[bub]

The greater problem is one of total lack of knowledge.

You nailed it.

Go read articles about illegal colonies in West-Bank or the consequences of the blockade on Palestinians, it would be a good start

 

[Marc39]

You nailed it.

Go read articles about illegal colonies in West-Bank or the consequences of the blockade on Palestinians, it would be a good start

Illegal based on what specific law?

 

[The face of Jacob]

You nailed it.

Go read articles about illegal colonies in West-Bank or the consequences of the blockade on Palestinians, it would be a good start

The only illegal colonies in Judea and Samaria, not "West-Bank", are the enemy Arab colonies, and also the ones within the state of Israel which were created by the Arab nation which got out of the Arabian Peninsula and with its greediness occupied tens of countries and turned them into Arab ones. The difference between us and the Arab enemy is that we returned to our homeland and the Arab enemy invaded it.

That's why we should say: End the Arab occupation in the land of Israel!

West-Bank will be the name of the west side of the Meuse river when the Islamists will occupy its area. They won't blockade you because they won't have to. You know why?

You and your friend G-Man are the last ones who will decide for us what's legal and what's illegal.

Now back to the past British illegal colony in the land of Israel:

I bet it was also "legal" for you to rape and torture a 14 years old Israeli girl by British officers:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAIl3wwYRTA&feature=channel_page"]YouTube - British officers raped & tortured a 14 years old Israeli girl[/ame]

You think it was "legal" for the British to do it to a young girl who volunteered to glue placards? We want revenge for that.

Yes, for modern self-righteous Europeans like bub and G-Man it was "legal" for the British to do the following:

To occupy a land that wasn't belong to them.
To oppress the lives of the Israelis.
To instigate the Arabs against the Israelis.
To allow the Arabs to massacre the Israelis (Jaffa 1921, Hebron 1929 and more).
To prevent from the Israelis to hold weapons in order to defend themselves from the Arab murderers.
To prevent from Israelis who escaped from Hitler to enter their homeland and by that to sentence their death in the death camps.
To prevent from holocaust survivors to enter Israel.
To bomb the Jerusalem Post building.
To execute Israelis.
To make pogroms in the streets of Israel (like the one after the sergeants affair – see the video below).
And more and more and more.

But it was "illegal" for the Israelis to oppose this cruel foreign military occupation…

The honorable and self-righteous Europeans like bub and G-Man love to follow legality, the sad thing is that whenever they follow their "legality" it's the Israelis who are getting murdered. Their legality is legal in the same way that the one of Josef Goebbels was legal.

Murdering Israelis in Crusades was "legal", the blood libels were "legal", the pogroms were "legal", the Inquisition was "legal", the holocaust was "legal", the pogrom in the Polish city of Kielce in 1946 was also "legal" cause after all it started by the Polish police which probably acted out of "legality", the British refusal to attack the railways which led to the death camps was also "legal", the European support in the Arab enemy so they could finish doing what Hitler haven't is also "legal".

Millions of Israelis lost their lives thanks to the European "legality". Too much Israeli blood shed because of that "legality". European "legality" sees Israeli blood as something very cheap. If there's a decency in the world then the Europeans must pay back in their own blood for the Israeli blood they shed. There's no other kind of compensation. They started to pay.

There wasn't an attack on the King David Hotel. What was is an attack on the southern part of the King David Hotel and that southern part didn't function as a hotel at all but as a military headquarters of a foreign occupier which did all the crimes I've mentioned above. The ones who call it a "terrorist attack" and compare it, let's say, to the massacre in the Park hotel at Passover 2002 in Netanya are either terrorist themselves, or terror supporters, or Nazis or Kapos. The terrorists were the British. And anyway, this attack on the military headquarters was a natural response to the Black Sabbath terrorism.

For further reading about this incident visit this page.

I heard veteran Israeli fighters who said that if this attack on that military headquarters, which was one of the reasons that the British got out of Israel, would have occured 10 years earlier, then the state of Israel would have also been established earlier and we could have prevented the holocaust by saving the Israelis whom the British prevented from entering Israel. The contribution of the Israelis, who volunteered to the British army, to the fighting was worthless! It would have been much effective if they would have joined efforts in kicking the British oppressors out of the land of Israel. The British fought Hitler not in order to end the holocaust (they didn't end it) but in order to save themselves from Hitler. The Israelis who joined them did it because they thought they could end the holocaust but again their contribution was worthless and of course the British prevented from our people to enter and those that we managed to enter after all, "illegally", were saved from getting murdered in the death camps. I guess bub and G-Man think that it was also "illegal" to save them…

Not only that the bastards refused to attack the railways which led to the death camps (although they knew about those camps because they filmed them from the air and witnesses who escaped from these camps told them about what's going on inside), they didn't actually save the Israelis. 6.5 million dead Israelis prove that they didn't.

Germany lost mainly because it lost its enslaved manpower, and most of its enslaved manpower were Israelis. Why only to destroy a nation if you can also enslave its people as workers in weapons factories? Because the Nazis barely fed the Israelis, they started to die of hunger - which is worse than getting murdered in gas chambers – according to the survivors themselves, from that moment they started to lose manpower who produced them weapons.

I write 'Israelis' instead of 'Judeans' because every Judean is Israeli even if he isn't a citizen of a state called Israel as it's explained [ame=http://www.israelforum.com/board/showpost.php?p=226539&postcount=1]here in the middle.[/ame]


Further watching: How we ended the British occupation in the land of Israel:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7yNzZeThiI&feature=channel_page"]YouTube - How we ended the British occupation in the land of Israel[/ame]

Let's hope that the Jihadists that bub and G-Man love so much to support will be the ones who will ruin (legally! legally!) their own states from within. It will be our finest moment.

 

[Marc39]

The short answer is there are no internatinal laws prohibiting the settlements.

 

[Blunt]

“The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

- Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949

International humanitarian law prohibits [an] occupying power [from transferring] citizens from its own territory to the occupied territory (Fourth Geneva Convention, article 49). The Hague Regulations prohibit the occupying power [from undertaking] permanent changes in the occupied area, unless these are due to military needs in the narrow sense of the term, or unless they are undertaken for the benefit of the local population.

The establishment of the settlements leads to the violation of the rights of the Palestinians as enshrined in international human rights law. Among other violations, the settlements infringe on the rights to self-determination, equality, property, an adequate standard of living, and freedom of movement.

Israeli Confiscation and Settlement on Palestinian Land
As we have seen international laws are not recognised by israel I may remind you of this in the coming War

 

[Marc39]

“The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

- Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949

Israeli Confiscation and Settlement on Palestinian Land
As we have seen international laws are not recognised by israel I may remind you of this in the coming War

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention was drafted in the wake of World War II and its intention was to protect the local population from displacement, such as what had occurred in the forced population transfers in Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary during the war. This is clearly not the case with the *voluntary* Jewish settlements in the West Bank. If anything, Israel is importing settlements, not deporting them. Further, Israel is not the "occupying power" in the West Bank (The PA is), making Article 49 that much more irrelevant.

"If America Only Knew" is extremely slanted against Israel and has a severely anti-Zionist agenda, so, it really is not a reliable source of information.

 

[bub]

The short answer is there are no internatinal laws prohibiting the settlements.

It's debated, though the huge majority considers them illegal:

The European Union considers the settlements to be illegal,[54] and an April 21, 1978 opinion of the Legal Adviser of the Department of State to the United States Congress on the legal status of Israeli settlements concluded that "[w]hile Israel may undertake, in the occupied territories, actions necessary to meet its military needs and to provide for orderly government during the occupation, for the reasons indicated above the establishment of the civilian settlements in those territories is inconsistent with international law.

Furthermore, outside of the legality question, these colonies are condemned worldwide (even by their closest ally, the USA) because they
- prevent the creation of a viable palestinian state, which is the only way to reach peace
- have huge negative consequences on the Palestinians, which causes resentment and violence

 

[bub]

The only illegal colonies in Judea and Samaria, not "West-Bank", are the enemy Arab colonies, and also the ones within the state of Israel which were created by the Arab nation which got out of the Arabian Peninsula and with its greediness occupied tens of countries and turned them into Arab ones. The difference between us and the Arab enemy is that we returned to our homeland and the Arab enemy invaded it.

That's why we should say: End the Arab occupation in the land of Israel!

West-Bank will be the name of the west side of the Meuse river when the Islamists will occupy its area. They won't blockade you because they won't have to. You know why?

You and your friend G-Man are the last ones who will decide for us what's legal and what's illegal.

Now back to the past British illegal colony in the land of Israel:

I bet it was also "legal" for you to rape and torture a 14 years old Israeli girl by British officers:

YouTube - British officers raped & tortured a 14 years old Israeli girl

You think it was "legal" for the British to do it to a young girl who volunteered to glue placards? We want revenge for that.

Yes, for modern self-righteous Europeans like bub and G-Man it was "legal" for the British to do the following:

To occupy a land that wasn't belong to them.
To oppress the lives of the Israelis.
To instigate the Arabs against the Israelis.
To allow the Arabs to massacre the Israelis (Jaffa 1921, Hebron 1929 and more).
To prevent from the Israelis to hold weapons in order to defend themselves from the Arab murderers.
To prevent from Israelis who escaped from Hitler to enter their homeland and by that to sentence their death in the death camps.
To prevent from holocaust survivors to enter Israel.
To bomb the Jerusalem Post building.
To execute Israelis.
To make pogroms in the streets of Israel (like the one after the sergeants affair – see the video below).
And more and more and more.

But it was "illegal" for the Israelis to oppose this cruel foreign military occupation…

The honorable and self-righteous Europeans like bub and G-Man love to follow legality, the sad thing is that whenever they follow their "legality" it's the Israelis who are getting murdered. Their legality is legal in the same way that the one of Josef Goebbels was legal.

Murdering Israelis in Crusades was "legal", the blood libels were "legal", the pogroms were "legal", the Inquisition was "legal", the holocaust was "legal", the pogrom in the Polish city of Kielce in 1946 was also "legal" cause after all it started by the Polish police which probably acted out of "legality", the British refusal to attack the railways which led to the death camps was also "legal", the European support in the Arab enemy so they could finish doing what Hitler haven't is also "legal".

Millions of Israelis lost their lives thanks to the European "legality". Too much Israeli blood shed because of that "legality". European "legality" sees Israeli blood as something very cheap. If there's a decency in the world then the Europeans must pay back in their own blood for the Israeli blood they shed. There's no other kind of compensation. They started to pay.

There wasn't an attack on the King David Hotel. What was is an attack on the southern part of the King David Hotel and that southern part didn't function as a hotel at all but as a military headquarters of a foreign occupier which did all the crimes I've mentioned above. The ones who call it a "terrorist attack" and compare it, let's say, to the massacre in the Park hotel at Passover 2002 in Netanya are either terrorist themselves, or terror supporters, or Nazis or Kapos. The terrorists were the British. And anyway, this attack on the military headquarters was a natural response to the Black Sabbath terrorism.

For further reading about this incident visit this page.

I heard veteran Israeli fighters who said that if this attack on that military headquarters, which was one of the reasons that the British got out of Israel, would have occured 10 years earlier, then the state of Israel would have also been established earlier and we could have prevented the holocaust by saving the Israelis whom the British prevented from entering Israel. The contribution of the Israelis, who volunteered to the British army, to the fighting was worthless! It would have been much effective if they would have joined efforts in kicking the British oppressors out of the land of Israel. The British fought Hitler not in order to end the holocaust (they didn't end it) but in order to save themselves from Hitler. The Israelis who joined them did it because they thought they could end the holocaust but again their contribution was worthless and of course the British prevented from our people to enter and those that we managed to enter after all, "illegally", were saved from getting murdered in the death camps. I guess bub and G-Man think that it was also "illegal" to save them…

Not only that the bastards refused to attack the railways which led to the death camps (although they knew about those camps because they filmed them from the air and witnesses who escaped from these camps told them about what's going on inside), they didn't actually save the Israelis. 6.5 million dead Israelis prove that they didn't.

Germany lost mainly because it lost its enslaved manpower, and most of its enslaved manpower were Israelis. Why only to destroy a nation if you can also enslave its people as workers in weapons factories? Because the Nazis barely fed the Israelis, they started to die of hunger - which is worse than getting murdered in gas chambers – according to the survivors themselves, from that moment they started to lose manpower who produced them weapons.

I write 'Israelis' instead of 'Judeans' because every Judean is Israeli even if he isn't a citizen of a state called Israel as it's explained here in the middle.


Further watching: How we ended the British occupation in the land of Israel:

YouTube - How we ended the British occupation in the land of Israel

Let's hope that the Jihadists that bub and G-Man love so much to support will be the ones who will ruin (legally! legally!) their own states from within. It will be our finest moment.

Wow. I say that the colonies are illegal and from that you deduce that I support (1) the British killing Israeli (2) the nazis killing the Israeli and (3) the jihadists killing Israeli

Wow :shock:

 

[Marc39]

It's debated, though the huge majority considers them illegal:

The European Union considers the settlements to be illegal,[54] and an April 21, 1978 opinion of the Legal Adviser of the Department of State to the United States Congress on the legal status of Israeli settlements concluded that "[w]hile Israel may undertake, in the occupied territories, actions necessary to meet its military needs and to provide for orderly government during the occupation, for the reasons indicated above the establishment of the civilian settlements in those territories is inconsistent with international law.

Furthermore, outside of the legality question, these colonies are condemned worldwide (even by their closest ally, the USA) because they
- prevent the creation of a viable palestinian state, which is the only way to reach peace
- have huge negative consequences on the Palestinians, which causes resentment and violence

It is, indeed, a topic of vigoroous debate, but, the matter has not been adjudicated, so, to brand the Israeli gov't as some sort of international outlaws is doing so without basis. FWIW, when any advocacy group, such as If Americans Only Knew, deliberately provides misleading and inaccurate information to support their cause, not only do they tarnish themselves, they discredit their entire cause. When I first started investigating the whole Arab-Israeli cnflict, I started out with a blank slate in terms of my personal views. I read a lot of information from a variety of sources, both pro and con on all sides. It soon became clear to me that the pro-Palestinian/anti-Israeli side engages in blatant deception, outright promotion of propaganda and egregious prevaricating. Their lack of credibility contributed to my feeling that the pro-Israeli side is in the right historically and currently

 

[bub]

It is, indeed, a topic of vigoroous debate, but, the matter has not been adjudicated, so, to brand the Israeli gov't as some sort of international outlaws is doing so without basis. FWIW, when any advocacy group, such as If Americans Only Knew, deliberately provides misleading and inaccurate information to support their cause, not only do they tarnish themselves, they discredit their entire cause. When I first started investigating the whole Arab-Israeli cnflict, I started out with a blank slate in terms of my personal views. I read a lot of information from a variety of sources, both pro and con on all sides. It soon became clear to me that the pro-Palestinian/anti-Israeli side engages in blatant deception, outright promotion of propaganda and egregious prevaricating. Their lack of credibility contributed to my feeling that the pro-Israeli side is in the right historically and currently

Hey I'm exactly like you but I found the other side more convincing about colonies.

 

[Marc39]

Hey I'm exactly like you but I found the other side more convincing about colonies.

The flat-out lying perpetrated by the most senior and otherwise respected members of the pro-Palestinian side, including thse in academia and the law, is shocking to me and really rather disturbing that someone in a responsible position would deliberately lie in order to advance their cause. This is not to say the pro-Israeli side does not frame issues in their favor, they do, but I have not seen anywhere near the kind of distortions I see on the other side. It's disgraceful and very disheartening.

 

[bub]

The flat-out lying perpetrated by the most senior and otherwise respected members of the pro-Palestinian side, including thse in academia and the law, is shocking to me and really rather disturbing that someone in a responsible position would deliberately lie in order to advance their cause. This is not to say the pro-Israeli side does not frame issues in their favor, they do, but I have not seen anywhere near the kind of distortions I see on the other side. It's disgraceful and very disheartening.

what kinds of lies? have you got examples? that they were "chased" by Israeli in 1947?

as for my positions, though the Palestinians made several errors in the past, I focus on what happens today, and I see one side that is blockaded and trying to negociate (the Hamas proposed several truces and favors the 2 states solution) and the other side annexing more and more land, refusing to negociate and blaming the first side because of its charter that "does not recognize Israel" while its own "charter" (the likkud platform) says that Palestine does not exist and that Israel should annex the whole country

 

[Marc39]

what kinds of lies? have you got examples? that they were "chased" by Israeli in 1947?

as for my positions, though the Palestinians made several errors in the past, I focus on what happens today, and I see one side that is blockaded and trying to negociate (the Hamas proposed several truces and favors the 2 states solution) and the other side annexing more and more land, refusing to negociate and blaming the first side because of its charter that "does not recognize Israel" while its own "charter" (the likkud platform) says that Palestine does not exist and that Israel should annex the whole country

The pro-Pal distortions and lies are too numerous to list. Internet sources are among the worst offenders. If Americans Only Knew and Palestine Remembered are among the worst of the worst. Rashid Khalidi, a prominent academic, is also a former PLO leader who wrote a column for the NY Times about the Gaza war that was riddled with falsehoods. Another representative of the pro-PLO side, an Arab lawyer, wrote an opinion piece for the Wall St. Journal that contained so many blatant lies, I emailed him to express my dismay. Khalidi is off the charts, so, I don't really expect much from him in the way of truthfulness, but, a law professor either lying or not knwing the truth about the legal aspects of Israel's actions was reprehensible. Other purveyors of propaganda and historical inaccuracies are the crop of so-called New Historians in Israel, such as Benny Morris, Ilan Pappe and Avi Schlaim. What is especially sad is how the anti-Israel crowd quote them because they are Jewish and, thus, presumably, objective. Not at all. They are anti-Israel and anti-Zionist. They are among the worst of the pro-Palestinian propagandists. Morris even wrote an article about his dismay over being used by Israel bashers.