Summary of Israeli Casualties from Terrorism

[CyberRose]

Rose: "Do not let Rachamim define the word 'terrorism'.":

You're obviously not thick are ya? So why are you incapable of using the quote button? It's really not that hard, then you wouldn't keep fucking up your replies to people by appearing unable to comprehend what they've said.

FYI I said: "Don't let Rach18 define the argument"

Rachamim DOES not define it, English dictionaries and academics do so.. International Law is quite clear on this issue so start writing the Hague if you have a problem with what I stated.

There is no accepted definition of terrorism

" 'Palerstinian' civilian deaths.": Except that I also explained just why that statistic is worthless. Inded, EVEN IF Israel had killed all attributed to it they would have been killed in the course of completely legal and justifiable military operations by the legal military of a sovereign nation.

Justifiable by who exactly?

On the other hand, Israelis killed by Arab terrorists were ALL killed by illegal terrorists. You need to do some very basic legal research. Your position is filled with holes.

Israelis killed by terrorists were all killed by terrorists were they? Hmmm. That's an interesting one, I hadn't even thought of it that way before. You know, I think you're actually right there!

Don't tell me I need to do research pal, I think I have (and will) demonstrate I'm more than capable of showing that you're understanding of terrorism, the causes and the theories, are pretty sub standard

"A terrorist is a person who kills for political ends that you do not agree with.": TOTAL AND UTTER GARBAGE.

Do you agree Israel is a terrorist state?

See Rose, you do not define International Law (and thank G-D for THAT). International Law is quite vague on more than few points but terrorism is one area where it is very black and white. You as an individual do not have ther liberty to define issues that effect the entire world. You must bow to the majority and on this issue the majority have spoken loud and clear.

There is no such international law definition of terrorism. The UN has no definition you know why? Cos nobody can agree on one. I have a definition, you do, everyone on here does, every country has their own definition, but there is no agreed upon definition either in politics or academia. This is just another example of you knowing shit about this subject. I suggest you do some more research and come back when you know your stuff

In fact, your position does not even make the faintest common sense. Indeed, one MIGHT call you hypocritical in that you admonish the poster to not buy into what I say because YOU do not agree with my words. Yet you then proceed to instruct the poster that terrorism is only terrorism when "you do not agree with it." Make up your mind.

If you weren't so illiterate and were capable of actually reading what I had said, you wouldn't make yourself look like a complete fool here

Luckily, for the world, your position is beyoond the fringe. Tell me, have you yourself or anyone very close to you ever been victimised by "what others call" terrorism? I am curious and although it does not directly pretain to this thread, I think in answering it you would allow me to understand you a bit better. Of course that is up to you.

No. Not that it has any baring on this debate whatsoever. You know very little about the phenomenon of terrorism, that is demonstrated day after day in this forum and especially in this thread

"Rachamim's definition does not include Israel because Rachamim agrees with Israel.": NONSENSE. Israel is a soveriegn nation whose armed forces legally engage in defencive actions. Israel does not purposely target non-combatants and never has on an institutional basis

Many people's definition includes sovereign nations. Indeed, the very loose definition in the dictionary is vague enough to include states. It is also possible that many countries consider in their own definitions, Israel to be a terrorist state.

"1 man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.": NONSENSE. BOTH Resistance AND Terrorism are very well defined in International Law. There is NO room for interpretation.

I know this is the same post, but you repeat your bullshit here. There is no agreed upon definition of terrorism in international law. This is something you've pulled out of your arse to give credence to your argument that a state cannot be a terrorist. Not only does this cast doubt on the rest of your arguments and suggests you know jack shit about terrorism, it perfectly proves my definition that a terrorist is only ever someone you disagree with or do not support...

 

[rachamim18]

Weltweit: "The fact that these groups clamor for Israel's destruction makes it convenient for Rachamim and his ilk (sic) to continue their subjugation of Arab groups.": I, and most Israelis, would much rather have peace than war. Do you somehow imagine that Israelis live for war? That we enjoy having to postpone university so we can eat rats and carry 80 kilos 90 klicks at a time in desert heat? That we chuckle at dodging 120 km/h stone the size of a fist or Molotovs? Or AKs? That we cherish having naive and ignorant foreigners coming to our country and spitting in our faces? We do not need to maek excuses, Arabs provide them readymade. As I said, read their Charters.


"It also allows for them to not hold direct negotiations.": It is strictly very basic common sense to require an opposing party to recognise your very existence before sitting down to talk about anything. If you deny I even exist, how can I take anything you say on good faith?

"It also permits them to not allow a decent standard of living in Gaza.": Israel ceded Gaza, ENTIRELY , almost 3 years ago to the day. Israel gave the Gazans a 1 bllion US industry (hothouse flowers). Israel allowed an International Airport. It allowed construction of a deep water port. And..the last day , as the very last Israeli vehichle crossed out of Gaza the IDF foiled a HAMAS plot to use a human bomb against that truck!!! Ooooh, I thought it was all about an "OCCUPATION!!!" Then, virtually everyday after Gazans launched Qassam rockets into Israel Proper. They kidnapped an IDF soldier. They kidnapped a British journalist for BBC. They tried to kidnap American diplomats. They surrounded a Bedua village and threatend to exterminate each and every village. they sent human bombs to the Border Chackpoints, and plenty of other loving acts.

On top of it all, HAMAS then staged a coup in Gaza and hijacked the political system before being quarinetine.how quickly people forget the daily drive bys in Gaza City , Khan Younis, and Rafah. The communal kidnappings, killing of ribvals, and terrorism just within Gaza. Blame Israel. Of course. Israel only gave them billions, left them entirely alone, and sought peace. How dare they!!! Israel should have instead allowed whoever wanted to just stroll through Erez or Keren and murder at will.

"Why should Israel negotiate for peace?" Yeah, because I mean, we all know how warlike those Israelis are! They would never dream of being with their familes and making money when they could instead be getting spit on at Checkpoints.

"Israel gets whatever it wants without negotiating!": Yes, we crave those Qassams so much!


"Quoting Tutu.": Yes, let us listen to the words of a man who not only wishes to see Israel disappear, but hates Jews. After all, as Tutu ALSO said, "Jews are a peculiar People who try to monopolise G-D and the Holocaust." (He actually said them as 3 different quotes but the words are indeed 100% accurate).

 

[El Jefe]

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/terrisraelsum.html

34 dead so far this year.

1/10

You're losing your touch

 

[rachamim18]

Rose: "Rachamim wants to leave Israel out of the debate, that is why he defined terrorism.": Uh, no, not at all. I want Israel in the debate very much...just not as the villian you pretend they are. One side commits illegal acts of terrorism, the other is a lawful military of a sovereign nation engaging in perfectly legal defencive acts. Not too difficult to untangle it I imagine.

" 'Palestinian' non-combatant deaths should also be included in a discussion of Israeli fatalities due to 'Palestinian' terrorism because it makes the discussion more balanced.": You mean like when people talk about "Palestinian Refugees" and I point out that Jewish Refugees from Arab Lands outnumber them more than 2 to 1 and am told that one does not excuse the other? Is that what you mean?

I am all for proper context. However, you are not offering any context by introducing THAT subject into this discussion because one statistic applies to actual victims of legally defined terrorism and is a conclusive number. The other, the one you wish to introduce, is not even quantified, let alone related to the subject matter. As I asked, how many were actually killed by fellow Arabs? No autopsies, no forensics, no 3rd party witnesses, no physical rpoof like film or photos and yet you seek to morally grandstand? Shame.

First you need to actually show them to have all been killed by Israel. Then you need to tell us how many were miliatns because sadly, Arabs do not track THAT number. ALL dead Arabs are killed by Israel, period. No mention of militant membership, participation in violent acts at the time of death, or any independant verification of Israeli culpability.

WHEN you provide those details then you can try and provide some context. Until then, all you are doing is muddying waters with heinous propaganda.

Weltweit: I have, as recently as yesterday, talked of many things Israel does wrong. However, accusations you have made here are NOT some of them. You have done nothing but engage in baseless propaganda and itis my responsibility to call you on it. IF you have proof to the opposite, provide it.

" 'Palestinians' should love Israel.": No, I do not care if they love it or absolutely hate it, as long as they do not try to kill Israelis.

 

[CyberRose]

Rose: "Rachamim wants to leave Israel out of the debate, that is why he defined terrorism.": Uh, no, not at all. I want Israel in the debate very much...just not as the villian you pretend they are. One side commits illegal acts of terrorism, the other is a lawful military of a sovereign nation engaging in perfectly legal defencive acts. Not too difficult to untangle it I imagine.

Lawful according to who?!

" 'Palestinian' non-combatant deaths should also be included in a discussion of Israeli fatalities due to 'Palestinian' terrorism because it makes the discussion more balanced.": You mean like when people talk about "Palestinian Refugees" and I point out that Jewish Refugees from Arab Lands outnumber them more than 2 to 1 and am told that one does not excuse the other? Is that what you mean?

What Jewish refugees (I have a feeling I know your answer to this already)

I am all for proper context. However, you are not offering any context by introducing THAT subject into this discussion because one statistic applies to actual victims of legally defined terrorism and is a conclusive number. The other, the one you wish to introduce, is not even quantified, let alone related to the subject matter. As I asked, how many were actually killed by fellow Arabs? No autopsies, no forensics, no 3rd party witnesses, no physical rpoof like film or photos and yet you seek to morally grandstand? Shame.

There is no accepted definition of terrorism, do try to keep up

First you need to actually show them to have all been killed by Israel. Then you need to tell us how many were miliatns because sadly, Arabs do not track THAT number. ALL dead Arabs are killed by Israel, period. No mention of militant membership, participation in violent acts at the time of death, or any independant verification of Israeli culpability.

I don't need to show anything. I merely commented that a fair comparison would be to see how many innocents had died at the hands of Israel, the technicalities of that are for others to argue over

 

[rachamim18]

Rose: "Why does Rachamim not use the quote button?": I have explained it m,any times. 2 reasons. I) I am 41 and missed the computer age by a few years. As such I am completely self taught on the computer and never learned to useit. I am sure though that were I to try I would pick it up post haste. So why not then? II) I am a Jew. I was raised traditonally. We are a rote and memory culture. One device used to internalise learned information is to paraphrase. You take information and write it down using synonyms and rephrased and this in turn helps one to memorise the given material. It works wonderfully.

Admittedly it would save me alot of time to just use a handy little button but I much prefer the way I am used to.


"Rose said 'Do not let Rachamim define the argument,' not 'Do not let Rachamim define terrorism'.": And yet you meant what I posted, yes? Seeing as how you have been concentrating on context today you will have no problem whatsoever seeing that the context of your post easily leads one to my conclusion and inf act you say it plain as day. Ergo, what odes it matter that I paraphrased is as such? indeed, the entire "argument" is about the defintion of "terrorism."

"There is no 'accepted defintion of terrorism'.": WHAT? I am sure you have a dictionary.

"Justifable by who exactly?": International Law and Rules of War.

"Rachamim's English is shoddy when he tells us that 'All Israeli victims of terrorism were killed by Arab terrorists'.": Indeed, English is my what? 5th language? In any regard the phrase, while not rolling right off the tongue is absolutely correct and to the point. In this dynamic Arabs are the terrorists, Israeli soldiers legally justified. Obviously you missed it.

"Rose is more than capable of showing that Rachamim's understanding of everything to do with terrorism is sub par.": Yes, I who has literally spent 24 years combatting it and witnessing it first hand from several different angles has less understanding than you, who reads about it . OK, thanks for the tip. When you have mastered the actual defintiion, we can debate its other facets.

"Another man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.": Ahhhh...

"Does Rachamim agree that Israel is a terrorist state?": Gee, I wonder what Rachamim will respond to that with? Let us see...NO. Neither does the ICC/Hague nor the UN. On that note, neither does the vast majority of the world.

"There is no such International Law definition of 'terrorism'.": I think you need to go and check that one. I will not hold it against you. We will pretend you never said it. Wink.

"The UN has no definition of terrorism.": Not officialy but it accepts the definiton as stated in International Law. I am sure, as well versed on terrorism as you are, that you have throughly memorised Rules of War. the UN accepts it and acts accordingly.

"Rose suggest that Rachamim go and study about terrorism and then come back when he knows his shi%.": Wow, maybe I will follow your advice. Hahahah. Whatever. Tell me, have you ever even seen an actual gun? A dead person? How about a persons intestines and brains spread out over several meters? You know about terrorism? From where? A textbook (highly unlikely that one, no offence)? Internet? Please. You know, I would rather have some tool spouting Fanon to me than try and sit there and offer that simplistic stock nonsense about "Freedom fighters."

You can admire whom ever you please. You can try and offer as much context as you see fit. However, you CANNOT change International Laws and Standards all on your own and as I said, thank G-D for small things.

"If Rachamim was not illiterate.": Well, granted I am many things but calling a person who can read and write almost 20 different langauages (wish I could speak that many) illiterate is just indicative of how far you miss the mark. Consistency should count for something though and on that count , hats off!

"Many countries could consider Israel to be a terrorist state.": "Many countries" have nothing at all to dow ith the establishment and/or enforcement of International Law so the point is irrelevant. What Syria or Iran imagines Israel to be is important...how? When the Hague says so, we can discuss it.

As for your last "point," again, I will remind you, I never said a "state cannot be terrorist." I said Israel is not a terrorist state. Bit of a difference. I realise, as you so helpfully point out, that my English is far from perfect but even I , in my subpar manner can understand the difference.

 

[CyberRose]

http://web.archive.org/web/20070129121539/http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html

International law = the UN in matters of security. They have no definition of terrorism because the world's nations cannot agree on one. Unless you can show me otherwise, what you say above is wrong, proved beyond all reasonable doubt. It also casts severe doubts over your understanding of terrorist issues

I would also suggest that your first hand experiences of terrorism is the reason why your understanding of terrorist issues is so poor

 

[ymu]

72 Palestinian kids dead so far this year. But that was all due to their parents throwing them under tanks and stuff to make the Israelis look bad. Obv.

 

[rachamim18]

Rose: One would imagine that you would have at least performed a cursory online search of not actually researching this issue. The UN? I guess then that you have near heard of Schmid? Or maybe of the 1999 GA Res on it (5/210 1999), the Consensus? Any of it ringing a bell?

That is also ignoring IHR (Rules of War) for which the UN is not equipped to deal with.

 

[rachamim18]

YMU: No, not tanks but probably were not being good parents in letting some of them run to demos where violence ALWAYS occurrs, or lettingthem stay outside where OTHER Arabs fire guns, and yes, a couple MIGHT have been INADVERTANTLY killed by soldiers performing lawful duties.

I would also remind you that it is not England and that kids turn into men at age 11 trhere and as such are allowed to join militant organisations as full fledged members. I will also remind you that several teens have blown themselves up and others have been intercepted befroe they could detonate.

 

[CyberRose]

Rose: One would imagine that you would have at least performed a cursory online search of not actually researching this issue. The UN? I guess then that you have near heard of Schmid? Or maybe of the 1999 GA Res on it (5/210 1999), the Consensus? Any of it ringing a bell?

That is also ignoring IHR (Rules of War) for which the UN is not equipped to deal with.

YOU'RE telling ME to research something online!? Lol!

Anyway, I don't need Google to tell me there's no agreed upon definition of terrorism in international law. You claim to know otherwise, yet you fail to provide any evidence to back up your claims. So entertain me, what is the agreed upon definition of terrorism in international law? And who decided it?

 

[TomUS]

Should Arabs ever stop their violence for any period of time you and others will see the Barrier go down rather quickly. As well it will be removed if and when Arabs agree to a Final Settlement and Israel can finish its long awaited Withdrawal from the so called "WB."

I can understand and appreciate your attitude toward terrorism directed against Israel. But, seems to me the best way to fight Hamas (& others who want to destroy Israel) in the long run is to strengthen Fatah. Wouldn't it be to Israel's benefit to pull a few settlements from the WB - especially the ones illegal under Israeli law, as a gesture to get negotiations going? This would pull the rug out from under Hamas. If Gazans see some real progress being made toward a Palestinian state by Fatah, the support for Hamas would decline. The ball is in Israel's court. It holds most of the cards. There's not many consessions the Palestinians can make. At this point, it seems to me, it's up to Israel to start the ball rolling.

 

[nino_savatte]

Is the thread about the rubber bullet a troll, or does that appellation only apply to any thread that mentions any negative thing happening to any israeli?

Is this a wind up? Silly question.

 

[nino_savatte]

Rose: "Why does Rachamim not use the quote button?": I have explained it m,any times. 2 reasons. I) I am 41 and missed the computer age by a few years. As such I am completely self taught on the computer and never learned to useit. I am sure though that were I to try I would pick it up post haste. So why not then? II) I am a Jew. I was raised traditonally. We are a rote and memory culture. One device used to internalise learned information is to paraphrase. You take information and write it down using synonyms and rephrased and this in turn helps one to memorise the given material. It works wonderfully.

This is the worst litany of excuses I have ever seen. Being Jewish doesn't preclude you from using the quote button. Plenty of Jews on U75 have no problem with it. Also your age has nothing to do with it. There are posters whose age is greater than yours, who have no trouble with quotes or hyperlinks.

If any of the things that you've said in your post were true, you wouldn't be sitting at a computer now nor would you be using a computer on the Shabbat (I've seen you posting on Saturdays, so let's see your excuse for that).

 

[bluestreak]

You've fallen into two traps:

1) Letting rach18 define the argument only in terms of "terrorism"

2) Giving a definition of terrorism to include those you want to criticise

Solution:

1) Don't let rach18 define the argument to fit his own opinions. "Terrorism" has nothing to do with it. Civilian (ie innocent) deaths would give a more accurate comparison - how many Palestinian civilians have lost their lives this year? I don't know the figure, but I would guess it was higher than 34

2) Don't, under any circumstances, try to define "terrorism"! I've fallen for that many a time and the threads just do not stop. I've come up with what I think is a pretty accurate and agreeable definition of "terrorism" that highlights the problem perfectly:

"A terrorist is a group or an individual that commits acts of political violence who you do not agree with or support"

Rach18's definition of terrorism does not include Israel, because he supports their actions. Your definition does include Israel because you do not agree or support their actions. Many people on here will probably find a definition that does not include Palestinian violence as terrorism (one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter an all that). The fact is, terrorism is a 'negative word' used to ascribe negative characteristics to whoever is being described, and that's about as useful as the word is unless you're talking in rather simple terms.

A superb post, IMO.

 

[CyberRose]

A superb post, IMO.

Can you do me a favour, can you reply to some of my replies in other threads with that? Everyone you post in I promise that will be a month a won't mention T***z!

 

[Spymaster]

This is the worst litany of excuses I have ever seen. Being Jewish doesn't preclude you from using the quote button. Plenty of Jews on U75 have no problem with it. Also your age has nothing to do with it. There are posters whose age is greater than yours, who have no trouble with quotes or hyperlinks.

Ladies and gentlemen,

This post is evidence that Nino's brain has been scrambled. It is also evidence that he's a nasty little shite whose sole purpose in posting is to antagonise another poster, over, of all fucking things, his reluctance to use the quote function!

I ask you!

Rachamim simply stated that a) being 41 he was not taught computing, and b) that as a jew he learnt by rote and that a traditional method used to remember written material was to paraphrase.

Given these points he then stated that he was simply more comfortable posting that way. A personal choice in other words, not one required of him by his religion or dictated by his age.

Nino then puts forward an argument that would only make sense if Rachamim had said that all jews over the age of 41 are unable to use the quote function, which of course he did not !!!

If any of the things that you've said in your post were true, you wouldn't be sitting at a computer now nor would you be using a computer on the Shabbat (I've seen you posting on Saturdays, so let's see your excuse for that)

This translates as: "If Rachamim is a self-taught, computer using jew of 41 years of age who uses paraphrasing as a debating device, he wouldn't be sitting at a computer now........ or on Saturdays ......... so he's lying!"



Nino has me on ignore and who can blame him? Posts like that deserve all the opprobrium one can muster.

 

[bluestreak]

Spymaster and rachamin
sitting in a tree....

 

[Spymaster]

Spymaster and rachamin
sitting in a tree....

K.I.S.S.I.N.G!

Just a bit of balance Bluey.

Make love not war.

Have a good weekend!

 

[ViolentPanda]

Rachamim simply stated that a) being 41 he was not taught computing, and b) that as a jew he learnt by rote and that a traditional method used to remember written material was to paraphrase.

I'm 5 years older than him, learned by rote (as did most people of my age, it was the educational standard until the 1970s in the UK), didn't touch any sort of word-processing device (even a typewriter) or computer until I was in my 20s, and have managed to find my way round the use of the "quote" function fairly easily.

I wouldn't mind the paraphrasing if that's all it were, but often it isn't. I posted a reply to one of Rachamim's bouts of "paraphrasing" a few days ago, showing FOUR separate instances in a SINGLE POST where his "paraphrasing" seriously misrepresented or entirely mis-stated what I'd said. Paraphrasing is fine when that's all it is, but when it's a vehicle for (either mistakenly or mendaciously) misrepresentation to the degree that Rachamim's is, then he'd be doing himself a favour by spending the entire five minutes necessary to learn the use of the "quote" function in doing so.

 

[Spymaster]

I'm 5 years older than him, learned by rote (as did most people of my age, it was the educational standard until the 1970s in the UK), didn't touch any sort of word-processing device (even a typewriter) or computer until I was in my 20s, and have managed to find my way round the use of the "quote" function fairly easily.

Congratulations grandad .

I'm not seeking to defend or condemn Rach's use of paraphrasing. Simply pointing out that Nino's post was nasty, dishonest bollocks and why!

 

[Grandma Death]

Rose: "Why does Rachamim not use the quote button?": I have explained it m,any times. 2 reasons. I) I am 41 and missed the computer age by a few years. As such I am completely self taught on the computer and never learned to useit. I am sure though that were I to try I would pick it up post haste. So why not then? II) I am a Jew. I was raised traditonally. We are a rote and memory culture. One device used to internalise learned information is to paraphrase. You take information and write it down using synonyms and rephrased and this in turn helps one to memorise the given material. It works wonderfully.

Admittedly it would save me alot of time to just use a handy little button but I much prefer the way I am used to.

But it fucks people off. You are consistently misquoting and, off the back of that misquoting-you are making an argument where none exists.

So stop using your background and poor PC skills as an excuse and start using the quote button FFS.

Even Cyberose is geting hacked off with it FFS.

 

[Grandma Death]

YMU: No, not tanks but probably were not being good parents in letting some of them run to demos where violence ALWAYS occurrs, or lettingthem stay outside where OTHER Arabs fire guns, and yes, a couple MIGHT have been INADVERTANTLY killed by soldiers performing lawful duties.

*slaps head* so its the parents fault-how remiss of YMU

 

[rachamim18]

Rose: "Rachamim is telling Rose to research something online? What a joke.": Actually I always reccomend true research, not a computer but seeing as how we are communicating via the internet, and seeing as how THIS info can be easily found online (I am sure), sure, look online.

Why did I tell you to research? Well, first you played games with the issue over the PA Ministires,etc. and now you are telling me that there is no defintion of International Law. Specficially you state that the UN does not have one and on that count you are wrong 100%. Ergo, you DO need to research.

What is the definition? Let us go with the League of Nations Defintion which is one of 3 accepted by the UN:

" All criminal acts directed against a state and intended or caluclated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons in the general public." League of Nations, 1937.

The argumentive issue then could be, what exactly constitutes "criminal." Without even going into the other 2 much more lengthly official defintions we can simply look to a different arena for guidance on THIS issue: IHR, AKA ROW (International Humanitarian Law AKA Rules of War). Interestingly IHR does not define "terrorism" itself but that is merely an issue of semantics since it quite clearly defines what the acts that constitute terrorism are.

In other words, while the UN DOES offer a definition (3 official actually), in addition to spelling out terrorist acts, IHR does not offer an OFFICIAL definition but officialy defines terrorist actions so that the issue is addressed in a comprehensive manner (I knew Officer's College would serve me soemeday!).

IHR offers that aside from other specific acts also listed, one can look to both the 13 existing UN Conventions on Terrorism (Wait! Rose said the UN does not deal with htis!!!) as well as other International Conventions such as Geneva IV, Article 33, Protocol I Additional Geneva Article # 51(2), Protocol II Additional Geneva Article # 4 and Article # 13(2). The Hague also takes alot of time spelling it out as well.


As to who decided it, refer to the many different watermarks listed above, as well as Shmid at the UN, and a myriad of other deciding parties. You want lists of Signatories and Parties to all 13 UN Conventions? You want them for the afore mentioned alternative Conventions? The issue is so very basic that I truly find it difficult to believe that you would really be so ill informed about it.

 

[Gmart]

Interestingly IHR does not define "terrorism" itself but that is merely an issue of semantics since it quite clearly defines what the acts that constitute terrorism are.

Sure but the reason it doesn't define it is because it depends on the eye of the beholder.

Using terror to promote a political aim is as simple as it gets, yet many of the oppressors argue with this because it includes them.

Burma certainly!

China certainly!

Israel certainly, after all a whole portion of the population is guarded in huge pens called the WB and Gaza strip where the Israelis kill them to instill fear and hatred at every level.

Granted the Palestinians are just as bad if not as efficient with their weapons of death, yet violence begets violence, and every bomb sent by the Palestinians says that they are VERY pissed off about something, and just penning them in and exterminating them, while blithely suggesting that they started it, is just evasion.

The Israelis need to wake up and recognise that we do NOT live in the middle ages anymore, and that the time has passed where such a discriminatory and simplistic purist view would hold sway.

Until the Israelis work this out and compromise on things they hold sacred, the killing will continue...

As I've said elsewhere the Israelis could lay down their arms and they would still win.

A unified territory, Jerusalem under UN protection and a progressive constitution is your only hope, maybe even the only hope for the world, coz if this keeps going, then it might end up being too late for apologies...

 

[rachamim18]

Tom: "The best way to combat terrorism against Israel would seem to be to strengthen Fatah.": Well, first let me say that Israel has a long history of supporting more moderate sides within the "Palestinian" milieu. When Ftah was the main enemy of Israel (among "Palestinina") Israel tacitly supported HAMAS as it presented an alternative to the Narxist Pan Arabism that formed the core of Fatah ideology.

Just for general info...Fatah differed from all other Pan-Arabist and Arab-Marxist movements of the era (1964/1965) because while the others believed that Pan-Arabism was a pre-requisite to freeing "Palestine," Fatah maintaed (and still does) that freeing "Palestine" was the pre-requsite before Pan-Arabism could be effected.

HAMAS grew out of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood (Gazan Branch) and as such were Islamic Fundamentalists from the get-go. Fatah and other Pan-Arabist movements ruled the roost and were pounding Israel day in and day out. Relgion was seen as a great moderating factor.

So, now HAMAS is the main threat in terms of terrorism and "Palestinian" opposition in general. Fatah has shifted towards the opposite end of the dynamic and as such Israel naturally seeks to strengthen it. I realise you do not post regularly in the forum and as such might have missed my talking about the new PA Infantry that was created by Israel , with Fatah, and is being trained by the US (in Jordan).

In addition, while totally ignoring HAMAS aside from the periphery as in issues concerning the hudna (temporary cease fire), Israel has daily contact with the PA. Fatah is a distinct organisation, as is its umbrella the PLO, but in de facto terms Fatah IS the PA.


"Would it not be in Israel's best interests to pull a few 'Settlements,' especially illegal ones to get Negotiations jump started?": Israel has been doing just that since 1994 although the world takes precious little notice. In fact, an illegal Outpost Adei Ad is being torn down as we speak. The IDF has been transporting caravsn for the last 2 weeks even though "Settlers" have been doing their best to stymie it.

Yesterday the outgoing CO of Shomron (Samaria) Brigade held a tet a tet with other YESHA (WB) IDF hiearchy and members of the State Prosecutor's Bureau (Justice Ministry). He is quite concerned with escalating tensions as Israel prepares to pick up the pace with the long awaited "WB" Withdrawal. The first to go naturally are post 94 "Settlements" which basically are relegated to what is known as "Hilltops." Hilltops are, as the name suggest tops of strategic hills with a couple of scattered and battered caravans and very young ultra religious/nationalist "Settlers."

In addition, the afore mentioned PA Infantry is currently deployed in areas that, per Oslo II, are supposed to be within IDF control. Of course the IDF still reserves ultimate security control of the districts but it is usually maintaining a hands off policy (there IS a modicum of friction on the part of the PA and IDF as to delegating de facto responsibility).

Then you have the IDF removing Roadblocks and Checkpoints in key areas to ease "WB" transit/travel. This started a while back but picked up after the former UK PM Blair , as Quartet Mid-East Envoy developed a strategy that would ease conditions for "Palestinians" while not seriously adding risk to Israel and Israelis.

Israel is doing what it can. Just to offer a tiny glimpse of what the underlying problem actually is...the PA Infantry? It is 3 Battalions with 600 men each and operating in the most terror prone districts in the so called "WB." Yet, to date, the Infantry has been unable to even arrest a single terrorist! Israel eases up, the terror rises. Israel decides to just pull back and close ranks and it is called "isolationist." Damned if you do, damned if you do not but always err on the side of safety and security. That is the mantra.

The problem with eroding support for HAMAS in Gaza is two fold. Israel had managed to effect quite alot of discontent among Gazans during the long Blockade. Just prior to the hudna Gazans were coming close to open rebellion, although with the size of the HAMAS armory it probably would have been nothing more than a slaughter of (mostly) innocents.

The problems are that the hudna naturally attracts support for HAMAS. People who have been deprived quickly forgoet the pent up frustrations in light of sudden opportunity and exposure to everything long denied. Also, as I said, no matter what Israel does for the PA and "WB" it is not enough . People usually do not want to hear about incremental steps and acclimation. They want Economic Takeoff today. They want unfettered Self Determination, not an inept PA who does not even have sea legs yet.

Israel's ultimate priorties will always relate to its own citizens, to security and their prosperity. With a "govt." like the PA who cannot even find itself able to arrest a single terrorist, what is Israel to do? The Kadima Platform calls for Unilateral Waithdrawl in the absence of a true partner in coexistence. Sharon's vision called for Israel to unilaterally declare its borders , Gaza as is, so called "WB" along the current demarcation (Greenline excepting E. Jerusalem) except for 4 to 6% consisting of the heaviest Israeli population concentrations and most siginficant Jewish cultural and religious sites.

"There are not many concessions that the 'Palestinians' can make.": I beg to differ. They can. even though they have violated very major OLSO I and II point, still TRY to arrest and/or impede terrorists which violate not only International Law BUT PA Law as well!

 

[rachamim18]

Nino:"Being Jewish does not preclude Rachamim from using the Quote Function.": Why would you EVER think it does? I CHOOSE not to use it, because I am not used to using it (due ot my age) and find that paraphrasing halps one to internalise subject matter and retain it. See, this is what is known as a "subteltie." Have no fear, I am devoted to you Nino and will rmeain steadfast in my efforts to try and help you interalise THAT.



"How will Rachamim explain away his posting on Shabbat (Jewish Sabbath)?": Is comprehsnion ALSO an issue Nino? How many times have i patiently explained that I am not in the least bit religiously observant. Here comes that darnblarn "subteltie" thingamigjig again! SUBTELTIE: It is QUITE possible to choose not to retain a value system foisted upon you by your parents. I value my culture, I even believe in G-D, but have not been observant AT ALL since I was 16 (entered the army). Hope that clears it up for you. It is all I live for...


Spy: WOW! You actually understood me! I feel reddemed. Actually I expect most rational adults to fully understand me. I do not see why some have difficult with it. Thank you for providing a rational alternative .


Panda: "Panda is 5 years older than Rachamim and also learned by Rote and Memory and yet has manged nicely with the Quote Function.": See, that is where that little inconsequential word "CHOICE" comes in. You have your choice, I have mine. Asked to rationalise MY choice, I honestly explained why.
Thank you for explaining yours!

As for the rest of your post, I am afraid it nothing but the usual insult (yes, i AM playing THE victim AGAIN, thank you kindly for allowing me).

 

[rachamim18]

Grandma: "Post# I.": INSULSTS.

"POST # II.": Kind of an insult in that you are making fun of what I said if not me. Still, I will point out one basic truism that of course has escaped you. IF one has children (I do), one needs to watch them as much as possible. IF one is relegated, for whatever reason, to living in a place where gunfire is nore often than not the rule of thumb, one should hold their children as close as possible.

IF one instead allows one's children to run rampant, and the child then dies even from an INADVERTANT shot by a lawful army not aiming for him/her, who holds the ultimate blame? A legal armed force not aiming for him or her or the parent who lets the child run rampant? I would wager you probably do not have kids...


G: "The reason why IHL does not define terrorism is because there is no agreeable defintion.": Really? So then the L. of Nations and UN OFFICIAL definitions are what? IHR spelling out each individual act is what? You do not make any sense.

"China commits terrorism.": No, it certainly does not. It DOES break IHL but not via terrorism. You need to carefully read the post in question, internalise it, and then see what you come up with.

"Burma (sic) commits terrorism.": Mynammar (the nation's actual name) DOES commit it AND also breaks IHL via different actions as well.

Israel commits terrorism.": Fine, then instead of a blanket accusation tell us just how it does this. Before you toss out stuff check and see if it is a contravention of any existing International Convention or actual Law.

"Israel guards the entire populations of Gaza and the so called 'WB'.": No, it does not. It maintains an administrative presence in the absence of any previous or existing legal governmental entity. In addition, Israel is the Jewish State and only Jewish States have EVER existed there in terms of nations. As I said, you need to actually study real IHR and laws concerning terrorism.

"Every bomb detonated by 'Palestinians' shows that they are extremely pissed.": So what? They are "pissed" because non-Muslims hold dominion over the land. Others, non-Muslims among tthem, are pissed because they want the power. They are malcontent just having a large portion and not the whole pie. Too bad. That is life. They came as conquerors and now stay with the bulk of the land (Jordan was created out of "Historic Palestine") so that if anyone has a right to be p9issed it is Jews and Israelis in general.

I will also remind you that being "pissed" is not a legal OR a moral excuse for committing random acts of violence PURPOSELLY against non-combatants, i.e. TERRORISM.

"The Israelis could lay doewn their arms and still win.": No offence, and I mean that, but saying that really makes me wonder if you are just saying things to say them, or perhaps not in touch with reality we most people know it. IF Israelis lay down arms they will die. They will not lose self determination (only), they will be exterminated. Doubt it? That is right, you have NOT read the HAMAS Charter...let alone those of the 26 other "Palestinian" militant organisations in Gaza and the so called "WB."

"A progressive Constitution.": ISrael has an equivalent , called the "Basic aw."

"Jerusalem under UN control.": Israel agreed to that in 19819. Arabs in 1948 seized the eastern half and tried to paus Jews out of the western half. Until 1967 no Jew could even visit the Jew's holiest site. Arabs literally shat and urinated upon it, and on another portion of it raised pigs. Now ALL people can enjpy ALL of Jerusalem.

 

[nino_savatte]

Nino:"Being Jewish does not preclude Rachamim from using the Quote Function.": Why would you EVER think it does? I CHOOSE not to use it, because I am not used to using it (due ot my age) and find that paraphrasing halps one to internalise subject matter and retain it. See, this is what is known as a "subteltie." Have no fear, I am devoted to you Nino and will rmeain steadfast in my efforts to try and help you interalise THAT.



"How will Rachamim explain away his posting on Shabbat (Jewish Sabbath)?": Is comprehsnion ALSO an issue Nino? How many times have i patiently explained that I am not in the least bit religiously observant. Here comes that darnblarn "subteltie" thingamigjig again! SUBTELTIE: It is QUITE possible to choose not to retain a value system foisted upon you by your parents. I value my culture, I even believe in G-D, but have not been observant AT ALL since I was 16 (entered the army). Hope that clears it up for you. It is all I live for...

Thanks, you've just confirmed every single suspicion that I've ever had about you.

 

[Spymaster]

Thanks, you've just confirmed every single suspicion that I've ever had about you.

Translation: "I now realise I've made a total dick of myself on this thread!"