wolfowitz a legitimate target?

[brad]

wolfowitz a legitimate target? US targeted saddam. or do u think now that US has won militarily that all resistance is 'terrorism'.

[Wake up CALL]

legitimate:

1 a : lawfully begotten; specifically : born in wedlock b : having full filial rights and obligations by birth <a legitimate child>

Using this definition I do believe he was a legitimate target so I voted yes.

Good poll Brad...........

[Cyrus]

The war in Iraq was far from being legitimate, as far as legitimate wars can exist. We have been through this before: As far as the U.S. was concerned, there was no direct mandate from Congress to the Prez to go to war. The most explicit and direct mandate is required in such a vital process, contrary to what bush supporters and the cowards opposing them have claimed. (Of course, the U.S. has undertaken beligerent action towards dozens of countries post-WWII without the express authority of Congress, but this does not legitimize any of those actions.)

As far as the int'l community is concernce, a nation (the U.S.) has taken it upon itself, unilaterally and outside explicit UN rules, to enforce United Nations' Resolutions, constructing, in the process, illegitimate (in the eyes of the int'l treaties that constitute the U.N.) "coalitions". That nation has gone to war against another nation outside the realm of int'l law -- the rest is simply hot air diversion.

When we understand that the war in Iraq was illegitimate, we could perhaps understand some implications, which we might do well to consider, even now, as theoretical exercises: A bomb planted by Iraqis detonates in Fort Bragg killing hundreds of American soldiers; a bomb planted by same detonates in the offices of a U.S. government agency killing dozens of gov't employees and civilians; an airplane carrying a U.S. officer and civilians is downed by Iraqi bombs/ground fire; etc.

It is interesting to note that, while the above would be ruled completely legitimate by a force superior to the U.S. that would enforce int'l law and treaties to which the US is a signatory (invading Martians perhaps...), now that the "coalition" military forces have been declared as legitimate occupying forces by the United Nations, acts of non-military resistance and of civilian unsubordination could well be completely illegitimate as far as the Geneva Protocols are concerned! In other words, the people who bombed Wolfowitz's hotel could be legitimately shot on sight by Americans.

But it's amusing, no, it's really tragic, to see the pro-war arrogant superpatriots turning desperately to issues of legitimacy, UN sponsorship and financial aid from the dethpicable frogs and krauts, when the body bags start piling up. Ah, the perils of bastard wars.

[brad]

well i just mean zionists say pal. 'should' target military not civilian.

but israelis blow up apt. building 2 kill hamas leader.

[Wake up CALL]

Cyrus do you read just enough of an article or a bill passed by Congress to pass judgement without bothering to understand it at all? Just wondering where you come up with these off the wall erroneous opinions.

[Gamblor]

Because the UN is an impartial governing body.

You can't compare anything Arab nations do to anything the US/Israel does.

Israel is a democratically elected government (even if you assume only Jews have the democratic rights, which again, is false).

Every single Arab state, including the PA, is a dictatorship/regime of some sort, to the highest levels of government, and thus does whatever pleases its leader , not its people.

Apples and Oranges.

[nicky g]

The fact that your own citizens have democratic rights is no excuse for treating other people badly.

[J.R.]

Are you Mike Haven, or are you using the Mason picture he displays as well?

[elwoodblues]

Are you claiming that you read the full text of public laws and bills before commenting on them? Give me a break, I would bet good money that there isn't a single individual in the country that has read all of some of the larger budget bills that pass (usually several thousand pages long) even the legislators that pass them. The PATRIOT Act alone is a couple hundred pages...again, I would bet that a relatively small number of people who comment on it have read it in its entirety.

Are you really complaining that he/she hasn't read the full text or are you complaining about the conclusions that they're making?

~elwood

[Gamblor]

But the fact that those people call for the destruction of the state is.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you claiming that you read the full text of public laws and bills before commenting on them? Give me a break, I would bet good money that there isn't a single individual in the country that has read all of some of the larger budget bills that pass (usually several thousand pages long) even the legislators that pass them. The PATRIOT Act alone is a couple hundred pages...again, I would bet that a relatively small number of people who comment on it have read it in its entirety.

Are you really complaining that he/she hasn't read the full text or are you complaining about the conclusions that they're making?

~elwood

[/ QUOTE ]

Elwood,

If you had read my post it would be clear. I was asking Cyrus a question not expressing an opinion or lodging a formal complaint. To answer your question I either refrain from comment, note that I may not be sure based on a lack of information or thoroughly examine the law, bill or subject before stating my conclusion as a fact.

[brad]

no but i am a 2+2 munchkin so uu kknow

[Cyrus]

Wake Up CALL,

If you had any specific arguments, I would perhaps entertain the suggestion to think about addressing them. But your posts consist of nothing but irrelevant and generic remarks, spiced with (what I assume are meant to be) witticisms.

Case in point, the here an' now : I responded to Brad's post by claiming that (a) the U.S. invasion of Iraq was illegitimate the way it was conducted, and that (b) the occupying forces of Iraq are now legitimate, and therefore (c) the current acts of insubordination to those occupying forces, incl. civilian reps such as Wolfowitz, could well be illegitimate.

Note that my conclusion above was posted without absolute conviction, since I am not a specialist in int'l law. (This is, by the way, an invitation for further discussion and/or elaboration by people with expertise, but you wouldn't know about such finesse.) But I do know enough about int'l law to claim that it recognizes faits accompli and, in fact, proceeds along nations' current commitments & will.

Your response was, once again, to insult , i.e. to question my reading ability. Without, of course, offering any opinion, argument or reference, once again.

Nice going.

--Cyrus

PS : See if you can muster up a minute or two of serious thought about any subject besides stringing up code or Palestinians. Exercize'll do wonders for your brain cells.

[Cyrus]

"You can't compare anything Arab nations do to anything the US/Israel does. Israel is a democratically elected government (even if you assume only Jews have the democratic rights, which is false).
Every single Arab state, including the PA, is a dictatorship/regime of some sort, to the highest levels of government, and thus does whatever pleases its leader , not its people."

Israel grants full civil rights only to Jews. It is a state created by Jews for Jews only. It is an ethnic and religious state. Whatever limited rights other inhabitants of Israel have, they are provided in exactly the same way Whites were granting "civil rights" to Blacks in the old South Africa.

(By the way, Gamblor : If you feel your oats some morning and wanna discuss the close collaboration between Israel and the old apartheid regime of South Africa, we have a date! I'm sure you'd wanna show me it was all Arab propaganda.)

The destiny reserved by Israel for the Palestinians, at best, is the kind of badustans which Blacks had in old S.A., and which "inexplicably" they resented and rioted against and rebelled against, because they wanted uhuru or whatever else them ingrateful niggers were chantin'.

As to Palestinians, they have, remarkably for a nation under occupation and engaged in armed struggle, the best possibly democratic regime under the circumstances -- which somehow renders your argument worthless about Israel facing "undemocratic opposition".

But I like it that you bring the issue of democracy as criterion for peace. Tell me, if tomorrow the United States forces democracy upon all of Israel's neighbors, would you accept then a true peace with Palestinians and granting them what the whole planet, including the US, has defined as a just solution (=a free and independent Palestinian state) ??

...I thought so.

[Chris Alger]

No. You either reject the Wolfowitz mentality or you don't.

[brad]

well i meant the israeli supporters who say suicide bombers would be legitimate if they targeted military targets.

and israel demolishes whole apartment buildings to get a semi high level 'terrorist'.

so what i mean is, is the 'iraq resistance' legitimate by targeting wolfowitz, or are they engaged in terrorism,

or

is there a double standard, US/israel on one side and arabs on the other.

[Chris Alger]

Sure, but "supporters" of Israeli policy in the OT's are simply supporters of terrorism, or to be precise, they support the killing and infliction of mass pain on innocent people in the hopes that the resulting terror facilitates their political goals. By their standard, everyone is a "legitimate target."

[Gamblor]

Whatever limited rights other inhabitants of Israel have, they are provided in exactly the same way Whites were granting "civil rights" to Blacks in the old South Africa.

The difference between the civil rights of Israeli Arabs and the civil rights of "them ingrateful niggers" in South Africa is as vast as your lack of knowledge regarding Israeli public opinion. If you'll recall, whatever that opinion is, it is still public opinion, not the opinion of a single war-monger bent on keeping his grip on power. Palestinians are foreigners, but Israeli Arabs are not. Don't put them in the same basket.

As to Palestinians, they have, remarkably for a nation under occupation and engaged in armed struggle, the best possibly democratic regime under the circumstances -- which somehow renders your argument worthless about Israel facing "undemocratic opposition".

If the Palestinians, and their leadership especially, are so committed to democracy, where was the big democracy before 1948? Before 1948, they could have had anything they wanted.

But I like it that you bring the issue of democracy as criterion for peace. Tell me, if tomorrow the United States forces democracy upon all of Israel's neighbors, would you accept then a true peace with Palestinians and granting them what the whole planet, including the US, has defined as a just solution (=a free and independent Palestinian state) ??

Throw in severe weapons sanctions and American monitors for Jewish residents there and you have a deal. Access to Jewish religious sites is a must. Well, at least, the ones the Arabs haven't destroyed and vandalized.

By the way, anyone notice the Haram al-Sharif is still standing and protected, even through Israeli rule, despite the fact that it lies on top of the ruins of the holiest place in Judaism?

[nicky g]

"But the fact that those people call for the destruction of the state is."

What do you actually mean by this? Or, more precisely, what do you think the people you're referring to mean by it?

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
"If the Palestinians, and their leadership especially, are so committed to democracy, where was the big democracy before 1948? Before 1948, they could have had anything they wanted."

[/ QUOTE ]
Needing only to forge a national consensus among tribal and clan communities demarcated by borders drawn by foreign occupiers yet well-armed and resolute enough to expel the world's most powerful empire while fighting a running civil war with Zionists determined to take the country for themselves. Obviously an independent state ripe for the plucking. If only Arabs weren't so lethargic and dissolute.

[Gamblor]

What do you actually mean by this? Or, more precisely, what do you think the people you're referring to mean by it?

One of either two things depending on which group is involved:

1) Muslim totalitarian Shari'a etc. etc. rule

2) Arab rule, Muslim, Christian, or otherwise.

The Imperialist nationalist Arab movement demands Arab rule over the entire Middle East.

[Gamblor]

Needing only to forge a national consensus among tribal and clan communities

And the Jewish Consensus in the Yishuv, from the Messianic Haredim to the Labour Zionist socialists to the Revisionist Zionists to the Orthodox Religious Zionists were in 100% consensus.

demarcated by borders drawn by foreign occupiers

And the Zionists drew their own borders? Given your assumption that the Zionists want the whole thing, I'd say its surprising that they drew their own, original '48 borders, over only half of the "whole thing".

well-armed and resolute enough to expel the world's most powerful empire

Because that Empire didn't have its hands full preventing another world superpower from taking over all of Europe, it must have devoted a significant portion of its strength to fighting for control of a barren slice of land the size of Lake Ontario. What power those Zionists wielded!

fighting a running civil war with Zionists

A civil war? What political entity were they fighting over? What country existed there? What were the political perspectives? If you think this is a civil war, your perspective is more messed up than I thought. This, is our nation, and their nation. Two distinct and separate cultures, nationalities, livelihoods. It's a good thing those Zionists didn't sign the Emancipation Proclamation or else the Arabs might have not attacked at Bull Run! Civil war, indeed.

Need I remind you of the original two-state solution? Why is it now the Arabs are suddenly begging for the original '48 plan? The answer should be plainly obvious to any rational person - they never wanted it before, instead opting to try to take the whole thing. Now they realize they can't have it, so they're settling. For the time being, of course. 20 years from now, after they re-arm, I'm sure they'll take another run at it.

All true, but the wrong conclusion - the Zionists faced every hurdle the Arabs did, without 300 million of their own kind backing them up. Shame. I would expect more from an "impartial", well-read person, but it appears as though you're reading the wrong books.

[Chris Alger]

Your comparison of Zionist success with Palestinian failure overlooks with characteristic idiocy that the Zionists had the support of the world's most powerful empire and the Palestinians didn't.

[ QUOTE ]
"Need I remind you of the original two-state solution? Why is it now the Arabs are suddenly begging for the original '48 plan?"

[/ QUOTE ]
The 1947 (not 1948) partition plan was killed by Israel, not the Arabs. Keeping with long-standing Zionist policy of grabbing as much land as was expedient, Israel (actually the Yishuv) had occupied territory beyond the partition guidelines well before the May 1948 invasion. After the war, Israel refused to consider giving anything back or repatriating the refugees it created. As Univ. of Haifa historian Ilan Pappe notes: <ul type="square">The Arab refusal to accept the partition plan before the war ... did not mean a logical invalidation of the plan after the war. The Americans led the UN to try and persuade Israel to accept the partition plan as a basis for negotiations on peace. However, strengthened by its military successes and already aware of the impotence of the UN and of American reluctance to reach a confrontation, Israel was only willing to negotiate for peace without having to make any gestures on either territories or repatriation. [/list]Indeed, at the end of the 1949 Lausanne conference, "[t]he Arab countries in their note expressed their willingness to sit down with Israeli representatives provided the Israelis would allow the repatration of the Palestinian refugees." Pappe, "The Making of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1947-51" (London: 2001), pp. 273, 267. Israel, of course, refused, a policy that remains intact to this day.

Arabic expressions of support for the two-state solution date at least to 1981, when Saudi Prince Fahd proposed withdrawal to 1967 borders with guarantees "that all states in the region should be able to live in peace." In 1988, the PLO formally endorsed the two-state solution after hinting at it with no positive response from Israel or the U.S. for years prior.

Those events are respectively 22 and 15 years ago, what you think a "rational person" would define as "suddenly." Israel, OTOH, "accepted" partition briefly through words only in November 1947 while almost immediately drawing up plans to incorporate Palestinian areas and leave the rest to Jordan. Since then Israel has never acknowledged even in principle the right of Palestinian sovereignty over Palestinian land and people, and platform of Israel's largest party expressly rejects the very possibility of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan. This history is what Zionists like to call "Arab rejectionism," although exactly what Arabs are suppoesedly rejecting is rarely made clear.

[Gamblor]

Your comparison of Zionist success with Palestinian failure overlooks with characteristic idiocy that the Zionists had the support of the world's most powerful empire and the Palestinians didn't.

And your reply, with smug obnoxiousness, ignores the fact that the Arabs had the support of 300 million other oil producing Arabs.

The 1947 (not 1948) partition plan was killed by Israel, not the Arabs. Keeping with long-standing Zionist policy of grabbing as much land as was expedient, Israel (actually the Yishuv) had occupied territory beyond the partition guidelines well before the May 1948 invasion.

Correction, semantic boy. Jews happening to live in the unclaimed territory now known as the West Bank were driven out by the Arabs when the war began, fleeing to safe havens like Tel Aviv. The Arabs blatantly killed the partition plan, as it was in fact the Arabs who struck first in the Galille, taking over British bases there in Feb. 1948.

The Jews, who were prevented from acquiring any sort of munitions outside of rifles until late 1948, were able to protect their settlements but the Arabs won the battle for the roads, and thruways, which led to a shift in strategy for the Israelis to offensive - in trying to free roads to allow supplies like FOOD through, which the Arabs had refused to allow.

Yet, since the Arabs had no significant representation in the UN until later, they refused any sort of truce negotiations until Count Bernadotte arrived to mediate. In fact, in the south, the Egyptians broke the truce one day before expiry - but then nobody ever said they fought clean.

The history of saying one thing, doing another is common, it appears. Of course, having read a book and never actually conversing, in Arabic, with an Arab is typical of you Human Rights champions who just don't get that they, as a people, have been taught since day one that Jews are evil monkeys and pigs and deserve to die. Again, you're reading the wrong books. Perhaps it's not an inherent evil, but it's certainly a learned one.

Of course, the fact that they explode (and support those that explode) to further their political cause is complety lost on you.

Arab rejectionism, is simply the Arab tendency to fire rifles into the air and shout like banshees every time Israel asserts its independence.

[Chris Alger]

I'll note first that nothing above resonds directly to any substantive thing I said in my last post. So this is the last time I've going to give you the benefit of a detailed response.

[ QUOTE ]
And your reply, with smug obnoxiousness, ignores the fact that the Arabs had the support of 300 million other oil producing Arabs.

[/ QUOTE ]
You don't know what you're talking about. The entire Arab world was dominated by Britain and France until after WWII, which installed pliant royalties -- several of which still survive -- to govern after they left. There was no Arab commitment to an independent Palestine remotely comparable to the British commitment to Zionism. Furthermore, the militarily dominent British directly assisted the Zionists during the civil war stage of the battle for Palestine prior to May 1948, during which indigenous resistance to the Jewish state was crushed, including the use of civilian terror and ethnic cleansing.

As for the critical period imediately after UNGAR 181, see Benny Morris: "Theoretically, the Palestinian Arabs had the whole Arab world to fall back on, but that world, less organized and less generous than Jewry, gave them little in their hour of need, in money and arms; the thin stream of Arab volunteers, perhaps five thousand all told, even fell short of the number, and certainly the quality, of the foreign volunteers -- both Jewish and non-Jewish -- who came to fight for the Yishuv." Righteous Victims, p. 193

[ QUOTE ]
Jews happening to live in the unclaimed territory now known as the West Bank were driven out by the Arabs when the war began, fleeing to safe havens like Tel Aviv.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is untrue because the AHC claimed it as part of a proposed unitary Palestinian state, which the UNSCOP minority report recommended. And you're wrong about Arabs attacking first in the West Bank. The attack on the Etzion block didn't occur until May 1948, when the civil war stage was already over. On the whole, Palestinian villages in the West Bank saw little fighting and "barely contributed to the war effort." Morris, p. 195.

[ QUOTE ]
The Arabs blatantly killed the partition plan, as it was in fact the Arabs who struck first in the Galille, taking over British bases there in Feb. 1948.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you don't know what you're talking about. Palestinian and Zionist militia were actively fighting each other by December 1947. In December-January, "hundreds of Arab civilians were killed or wounded by IZL [Irgun] terror." Morris, p. 198.

[ QUOTE ]
The Jews, who were prevented from acquiring any sort of munitions outside of rifles until late 1948

[/ QUOTE ]
No, by the end of May 1948 the Haganah had 13 tanks, 12 armored cars, 15 half-tracks, 3 coastal patrol boats, 4 or 5 small field artillery pieces, 24 antiaircraft or antitank cannon, 75 PIAT launchers, about 100 armored trucks and personnel carriers, 700 2 inch mortars, 100 3 inch mortars, 28 reconnaissance and transport planes and 3 Czechoslovakian fighter planes. Morris, p. 217.

[ QUOTE ]
Yet, since the Arabs had no significant representation in the UN until later, they refused any sort of truce negotiations until Count Bernadotte arrived to mediate.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't true. In Decemeber 1947, Arab leaders in Jaffa successfully negotiated a cease-fire that Irgun, the Stern gang and some Arab elements failed to abide by. As for cease-fires after the invasion, Count Bernadotte was appointed mediator five days after the May 15 invasion and succeeded in obtaining a negotiated truce beginning June 11 after "first one side then the other balked, each interested in making as many gains as possible on the ground." Morris, p. 235.

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, in the south, the Egyptians broke the truce one day before expiry - but then nobody ever said they fought clean.

[/ QUOTE ]

Egyptians don't "fight clean?" You'd think the Egyptians had a hotel bomber, assassin or death squad warrior as a Prime Minister. The July 8 Egyptian attack was anticipatory because "during the truce the IDF had planned a major offensive against the Egyptians" to begin when the truce ended on July 9. Morris, p. 237.

[ QUOTE ]
The history of saying one thing, doing another is common, it appears.

[/ QUOTE ]

From what? You haven't provided a single example of this.

[ QUOTE ]
Again, you're reading the wrong books. Perhaps it's not an inherent evil, but it's certainly a learned one.

[/ QUOTE ]

As your post indicates, you haven't supplied a shred of evidence that any book I've cited here is in any way "wrong" about anything but instead have to fall back on your racist anecdotes about demon Arabs that demonize Jews. And it is more than obvious that whatever "right" books you've allegedly read haven't informed you about the elementary facts about a conflict over which you are eager to see other people's blood shed. I only know a little about it, but then I'm not the one who favors the continued supply of lethal aid to the intransigent side.

[nicky g]

"The Imperialist nationalist Arab movement demands Arab rule over the entire Middle East. "

No, the Palestinians demand Palestinian rule over themselves. The vast majority are not interested in either of your two definitions. Regardless, I note these only refer to "rule". So by "the destruction of the state of Israel", commonly taken to mean the genocide and/or ethnic cleansing of the Jews in ISrael, what you actually mean is a different political set-up where the State of Israel is currently based. So for political aspirations, these people forfeit all of their rights? Believing there should be a Muslim or secular or otherwise non-Jewish state in place of the Jewish state is enough to lose you your rights?

[Gamblor]

The entire Arab world was dominated by Britain and France until after WWII, which installed pliant royalties -- several of which still survive -- to govern after they left.

This is not a fact. How exactly do you take this to be fact?

There was no Arab commitment to an independent Palestine remotely comparable to the British commitment to Zionism.

This is a misnomer. While there was no commitment to Palestine, there was a certain commitment to destroying Zuionists and thus cannot be admitted as evidence in support of your case that the Arabs were willing to accept a two state solution. Furthermore, if the Zionists were committing such horrid terrorism against the British, why did the "victims" turn around and accept the Israeli state?

Furthermore, the militarily dominent British directly assisted the Zionists during the civil war stage of the battle for Palestine prior to May 1948, during which indigenous resistance to the Jewish state was crushed, including the use of civilian terror and ethnic cleansing.

You make no sense. Again, what civil war were they fighting? Over what political entity was control being contested?

On the whole, Palestinian villages in the West Bank saw little fighting and "barely contributed to the war effort.

[ QUOTE ]

Jews happening to live in the unclaimed territory now known as the West Bank were driven out by the Arabs when the war began, fleeing to safe havens like Tel Aviv.


[/ QUOTE ]

Reading Comprehension is not your strong suit, is it? I don't recall using the word "Palestinian". If I'm not mistaken, Palestinian is a generic word referring to a smattering of Arabs who inhabited the region during the mandate, while Arabs refers to the whole ethnic group.

Again, you don't know what you're talking about. Palestinian and Zionist militia were actively fighting each other by December 1947. In December-January, "hundreds of Arab civilians were killed or wounded by IZL [Irgun] terror." Morris, p. 198.

And how many Jewish civilians by Arab fedayeen raids?

No, by the end of May 1948 the Haganah had 13 tanks, 12 armored cars, 15 half-tracks, 3 coastal patrol boats, 4 or 5 small field artillery pieces, 24 antiaircraft or antitank cannon, 75 PIAT launchers, about 100 armored trucks and personnel carriers, 700 2 inch mortars, 100 3 inch mortars, 28 reconnaissance and transport planes and 3 Czechoslovakian fighter planes.

Wow, 3 planes? 13 tanks? The Haganah totalled 140,000 soldiers, in comparison to the combined Arab forces of 350,000. Those numbers are still from the second half of '48, after the establishment of the state. You'll recall, as you said above, that the war began long before May '48, and again, you verify my statement that Israel was not allowed munitions until the second half of 1948.

And it is more than obvious that whatever "right" books you've allegedly read haven't informed you about the elementary facts about a conflict over which you are eager to see other people's blood shed

Only the people eager to see mine.

What is it about Benny Morris you like so much?
His radicalism? Perhaps it is his membership in the Israeli academic left that you admire so much. He is a new Zionist, a propagandist of the first order, and a misrepresentative of the truth. The fact that he's Israeli is not evidence of his reliability, but it is evidence of his right to free speech without intimidation or threat. I'd wonder what some Palestinian Arabs might say about their indoctrination of evil, upon given the right to free speech.

For a further analysis of Benny Morris' fraudulent writings, see here (http://www.meforum.org/article/466) .

You are still wrong. The Arabs rejected the two state solution to begin with, and I don't recall using the word "demon" anywhere.

It would appear you have taken a lesson from the Goebbels School of Propaganda

[nicky g]

"The Arabs rejected the two state solution to begin with"

Is this really surprising? Imagine you're told that half of your country is going to be given away by a colonial power to be settled by some people who don't live there but have decided to create a religious state there based on the fact that some of their coreligionists lived there 2000 years ago. Your reaction would be what, the more the merrier?

The Palestinians were hardly the only rejectionists. The Zionists rejected countless plans and went so far as assassinating the UN mediator sent to report on the matter because they didn't like his plan, (one of the planners of the assassiniation, Shamir, went on to be Prime Minister - how's that for rewarding terrorism?) and have rejected or sabotaged every resolution and peace plan since.

[Gamblor]

Imagine you're told that half of your country is going to be given away by a colonial power to be settled by some people who don't live there but have decided to create a religious state there based on the fact that some of their coreligionists lived there 2000 years ago. Your reaction would be what, the more the merrier?

At what point did half of British Mandate Palestine belong to Arabs? When were the borders demarcated? Nicky, you're brainwashed. There were Arabs there yes, but there were Jews there too. It was nobody's state, it was just a random smattering of people hanging out there - in fact, the main institutions that even resembled a state's institutions were run by the Yishuv.

The Zionists rejected countless plans and went so far as assassinating the UN mediator sent to report on the matter because they didn't like his plan, (one of the planners of the assassiniation, Shamir, went on to be Prime Minister - how's that for rewarding terrorism?)

What court convicted him of this?

and have rejected or sabotaged every resolution and peace plan since.

Yes. It is the Israelis who are rejecting peace. The only comprehensible basis for your statement is that the Israelis rejected any peace that would not provide them with secure defensible borders. Whereas the Arab rejection of peace...

[nicky g]

"At what point did half of British Mandate Palestine belong to Arabs? "

Legally? Never; it was always part of some empire or other. Rightfully? Given that they were the inhabitants of the territory, and assuming the prinicple of self-determination, for hundreds of years.

"When were the borders demarcated? "

In 1922, when the British drew a border between Transjordan (now Jordan) and Palestine (now Israel/Palestine), leaving its inhabitants hoping to establish an independent state within those borders.

"It was nobody's state, it was just a random smattering of people hanging out there "

In 1948 there were 1.2 million Arabs and 600,000 Jews there. That hardly consitutes a random smattering. That said, the vast, vast majority of those Jews had not been born there and had only been there for a decade or less. Their only claim to the land was based on religion, which is not a great basis for the solution to complex international problems.

"What court convicted him of this?"

What Israeli court would? Are you really denying that Shamir was involved?


"Whereas the Arab rejection of peace..."

The Arab postion has been based on 35 years of illegal occupation and repression, and the refusal to redress the ethnic cleansing of 800,000 people.

[Gamblor]

Rightfully? Given that they were the inhabitants of the territory, and assuming the prinicple of self-determination, for hundreds of years.

In 1948 there were 1.2 million Arabs and 600,000 Jews there. That hardly consitutes a random smattering. That said, the vast, vast majority of those Jews had not been born there and had only been there for a decade or less. Their only claim to the land was based on religion, which is not a great basis for the solution to complex international problems.

I thought we already established Judaism as a nation as well as religion. Given that, if the Jewish nation is historically proven via Roman, Greek, etc. etc. documents to have been exiled from the land, do they not have a right equal to it? Given the truth that most hadn't been born there, why do the Palestinians still have any right to anything there, seeing as they haven't been born there?

It is a random smattering if there are no organized state institutions, which there weren't.

"What Israeli court would? Are you really denying that Shamir was involved?

Yes I am. You are taking hearsay as fact. He was never tried in any international court, and I'd imagine killing a UN mediator would warrant at the minimum a trial.

It should be noted that the Arab world outright rejected the Bernadotte plan, as Syrian officer Muhammad Nimr al-Khatib said, &amp;#8220;Most of these mediators are spies for the Jews anyway.&amp;#8221;

It is so typical of you to generalize all Israelis as one. If one Israeli does something immoral, the entire nation be damned.

I cannot begin to defend each and every Israeli action, because there are terrorist elements in Israel too - Kach and Lehi come to mind. But those groups are marginalized and they are arrested, even banned.

Even Sharon, yoru great scapegoat for all that is unholy, has been cleared by all elements of judicial inquiry of anything beyond negligence in the Sabra and Chatila massacre. Yet you, and the Arab world continues to exploit the incident - even as Syria makes allies with Hobeika, the Phalangist personally responsible for the massacre.

Yet the Palestinians collective support of "martyrdom operations" does not register on your radar.

[nicky g]

"I thought we already established Judaism as a nation as well as religion. Given that, if the Jewish nation is historically proven via Roman, Greek, etc. etc. documents to have been exiled from the land, do they not have a right equal to it? Given the truth that most hadn't been born there, why do the Palestinians still have any right to anything there, seeing as they haven't been born there?"

The Jews in 1948 no longer had any direct connection to the land. If there is a statute of limitations on such claims, I think it would have expired well before 2000 years passed. There was no piece of land or property of which any Jew could say truthfully say "this hill belonged to my great great great great great etc" grandfather. Use some common sense.

As for today's Palestinian refugees, obviously 100% return is impractibale. But there are clear differences in the situation. The state that exiled them still exists; any of today's or recent Israeli leaders were amongst those who exiled them; many victims are still alive; the international system is more or less the same; those who weren't born then have clear claims to certain houses villages, pieces of land etc that belonged their parents or grandparents and which they can clearly say they would have inherited; thousands still have deeds, keys to homes etc. That;s not to say they should all be allowed to return; they couldn't all be, and may wouldn't want to. But the state of Israel still has to acknowledge their disposession and make some kind of redress such as no-strings, reasonable offers of compensation. Even a mere apology or acknowledgement of the illegitimacy of their disposession would go a long way towards healing such wounds.

"You are taking hearsay as fact. He was never tried in any international court, and I'd imagine killing a UN mediator would warrant at the minimum a trial."

What are you talking about? Since when have international courts been able to try Israelis? Who would ahve handed him over? There have been no international trials of anyone, despite numerous breaches of international law. Were there international trials following the Israeli shelling of the UN base at Qana, killing dozens of refugees and UN employees? Has there been a UN trial for the UN employee Iain Hook, killed last year by an Israeli smiper. No international court has the power to try any Israelis, and with the current attitudes of Israel and the US towards the International Criminal Court, none ever will.

"It is a random smattering if there are no organized state institutions, which there weren't. "

There were colonial governing institutions from Ottoman and British rule. Saying it was just a random smattering of people with no rights of self-determination is no more true than it would have been of India, for example; the people who had been living on and farming the land for centuries had rights to self-determination on it, regardless of the fact thay they had yet to form an independent state.

"It is so typical of you to generalize all Israelis as one. If one Israeli does something immoral, the entire nation be damned. Yet the Palestinians collective support of "martyrdom operations" does not register on your radar."

I do not mean to lay the blame with all Israelis. Everyone here routinely talks about "Israelis" and "Arabs" or "Palestinains" as shorthand for various active factions in the conflict. I don't think the people of Israel are to blame for everything that the State of Israel has done. Nevertheless it seems absurd for the pro-Israelis to lecture others their support for terrorism when at least three of their elected leaders have been clearly implicated in acts of terrorism.

[Gamblor]

Even a mere apology or acknowledgement of the illegitimacy of their disposession would go a long way towards healing such wounds.

Fair enough. Israel has considered for a long time, and more and more Israelis support the notion of some compensation.

Has there been a UN trial for the UN employee Iain Hook, killed last year by an Israeli smiper. No international court has the power to try any Israelis, and with the current attitudes of Israel and the US towards the International Criminal Court, none ever will.

I believe a Palestinian led suit in Belgium was thrown out.

Furthermore, that these UN compounds are havens for people they believe to be "freedom fighters" but in fact plan terrorist acts, makes the UN compund a legitimate target for soldiers attempting to arrest terrorists. Army intel showed various terrorist activities in the UNRWA compounds as well as in Amnesty International offices.