West Bank: Ethnic cleansing by stealth.

[mears]

The Amnesty summary covers my comments;


...with the exception of not naming Israel as the root cause of the problem.

nontheless you see the hypocricy I'm sure. Taking up the plight of Palestinians in one area (Palestine) but not in other areas such as Egypt of Lebanon.

Palestinians are Palestinians no matter where they live.

 

[moono]

Ultimately, the international community is failing them and the cause of that failure is the American veto.

The American veto is a tool of the Israelis and the circle of conspiracy is complete.

I don't decry your criticisms for any other reason than that they shift the focus of attention away from the circle of conspiracy.

 

[mears]

Ultimately, the international community is failing them and the cause of that failure is the American veto.

The American veto is a tool of the Israelis and the circle of conspiracy is complete.

I don't decry your criticisms for any other reason than that they shift the focus of attention away from the circle of conspiracy.

Thats right, the Lebanese treat Palestinians like mushrooms, keep them in the dark and feed them shit.

Blame America.

Palestinians face discrimination in Egypt.

Blame America

Always easier to blame others for their problems and bad ways.

Ask any three year old

 

[moono]

That's a stupid response. The Israelis are ultimately responsible for the plight of the Palestinian refugees, no matter what conditions host countries offer. It's obvious that you simply wear the guise of neutrality.

 

[mears]

That's a stupid response. The Israelis are ultimately responsible for the plight of the Palestinian refugees, no matter what conditions host countries offer. It's obvious that you simply wear the guise of neutrality.

No they are not. Muslims are responsible for their own actions. They are not ignorant children. You should try to have a little respect for Muslims.

These Palestinian refugees live in Muslim countries. While in those countries they should be treated better by the government.

If Muslims care so much about Palestinians in the occupied territories, they should at least mention those living in squalor among fellow Muslims.

But who has time for that, right?

 

[moono]

No, mears, the 'cart before horse' posture doesn't float. Israel is ultimately responsible for the plight of Palestinian refugees. Your posture is a divergence. Busted.

 

[mears]

No, mears, the 'cart before horse' posture doesn't float. Israel is ultimately responsible for the plight of Palestinian refugees. Your posture is a divergence. Busted.

Nope, these Palestinians live outside Palestine. Muslim government don't have to treat them poorly, but in many cases do treat them poorly.

Muslims are responsible for their own actions.

 

[moono]

The authors of their plight are, ultimately, the Israelis who made them refugees. You can't argue with that. Make up your own analogies.

Their suffering would be ended tomorrow if Israel complied with the requirements of international law. Their burden is, primarily, that they are refugees, not that they are second-class citizens elsewhere. They have been wronged by the Israelis in the first instance and their less-then-adequate treatment by some hosts is incidental. You don't have a case, mears.

 

[mears]

The authors of their plight are, ultimately, the Israelis who made them refugees. You can't argue with that. Make up your own analogies.

Their suffering would be ended tomorrow if Israel complied with the requirements of international law. Their burden is, primarily, that they are refugees, not that they are second-class citizens elsewhere. They have been wronged by the Israelis in the first instance and their less-then-adequate treatment by some hosts is incidental. You don't have a case, mears.

You can treat humans with respect or treat them poorly. Israel has done this in many cases with Palestinians, treated them poorly. Palestinains have done this with Israelis (blowing up innocents) And Arabs do this with Palestinians (treating them like second class citizens).

None of them is right, none of them should get a free pass.

 

[moono]

Repetition won't make you right. 'Neutrals' just get in the way and are generally closet Zionists, in my experience. I mean, how can you look at Israel's record and be neutral ? It's absurd.

 

[mears]

Repetition won't make you right. 'Neutrals' just get in the way and are generally closet Zionists, in my experience. I mean, how can you look at Israel's record and be neutral ? It's absurd.

What about the PLO under arafat? Or the Palestinian elite who condone suicide bombings but never seem to offer their own kids up for the requisite sacrifice.

But they also are not responsible for their actions. Right, I mean Isarel drives them to do that.

Funny, the IRA doesn't do that and the Basques in Spain don't do that. And considering where the Palestinian people are right now its just not working for them.

Keep those eyes wide shut my friend.

 

[moono]

What about the PLO under arafat?

You cannot possibly equate the actions of the Palestinians with the actions of the Israelis. It's impossible. Recently, when the Israelis invaded the Palestinian jail, destroyed its fabric, kidnapped its inmates and murdered its guards, I saw people admonishing the Palestinians for demonstrating

If you really think that the actions of 'Palestinians under Arafat' are in any sense comparable with the atrocities of the Israelis then it's you who has his eyes shut, mears old chap, along with ears.

 

[mears]

You cannot possibly equate the actions of the Palestinians with the actions of the Israelis. It's impossible. Recently, when the Israelis invaded the Palestinian jail, destroyed its fabric, kidnapped its inmates and murdered its guards, I saw people admonishing the Palestinians for demonstrating

If you really think that the actions of 'Palestinians under Arafat' are in any sense comparable with the atrocities of the Israelis then it's you who has his eyes shut, mears old chap, along with ears.

Violent Palestinian resitance has given nothing but poverty to the Palestinian people. Their standards of living have diminished since the Intifada. Palseltinians are poor and helpless, like their bretheran scattered throughout the region. Can't say that about the Palestinian leadership under Arafat. Just ask his wife in Paris.

Its easy for you to spout off about the right of violent resistance. You don't have to live in Palestine, or provide for a family under such circumstances. You are not affected if Hamas doesn't recognize Israel and the Palestinian plight worsens. You will be posting about the evil nature of Israel.

Palestinians, like everyone, just want a good life for themselves and their family. Get you kids clothing, plenty of food and maybe a house. The Palestinian leaderships methods of fighting Israel has made ordinary Palestinian lives considerably worse. A peaceful protest, something akin of Ghandi or Martin Luther King might be a better route.

And hell, if it doesn't work you can go back offering the flowers of your youth to God (just not their own of course)

 

[vimto]

Violent Palestinian resitance has given nothing but poverty to the Palestinian people. Their standards of living have diminished since the Intifada. Palseltinians are poor and helpless, like their bretheran scattered throughout the region. Can't say that about the Palestinian leadership under Arafat. Just ask his wife in Paris.

Its easy for you to spout off about the right of violent resistance. You don't have to live in Palestine, or provide for a family under such circumstances. You are not affected if Hamas doesn't recognize Israel and the Palestinian plight worsens. You will be posting about the evil nature of Israel.

Palestinians, like everyone, just want a good life for themselves and their family. Get you kids clothing, plenty of food and maybe a house. The Palestinian leaderships methods of fighting Israel has made ordinary Palestinian lives considerably worse. A peaceful protest, something akin of Ghandi or Martin Luther King might be a better route.

And hell, if it doesn't work you can go back offering the flowers of your youth to God (just not their own of course)

Time for some lyrics

I remember April, when the sun was in the sky
Love was burning in your eyes
Nothing in the world could bother me
Cause I was living in a world of ecstasy
But now you're gone
I'm just a daydreamer, I'm walking in the rain
Chasing after rainbows, I may never find again
Life is much too beautiful, to live it all alone
Oh how much I need someone, to call my very own

Now the summers over, and I found myself alone
With only memories of you
I was so in love, I couldn't see
Cause I was living in a world of make believe
But now your gone
I'm just a daydreamer, I'm walking in the rain
Chasing after rainbows, I may never find again
Life is much too beautiful, to live it all alone
Oh how much I need someone, to call my very own

I'm just a daydreamer, I'm walking in the rain
Chasing after rainbows, I may never find again
Life is much too beautiful, to live it all alone
Oh how much I need someone, to call my very own

I'm just a daydreamer, walking in the rain
Chasing after rainbows, I may never find again
Life is much too beautiful, to live it all alone
Oh how much I need someone, to call my very own

I'm just a daydreamer baby

 

[vimto]

Rock on...

 

[ZAMB]

Repetition won't make you right. 'Neutrals' just get in the way and are generally closet Zionists, in my experience. I mean, how can you look at Israel's record and be neutral ? It's absurd.

A lot of the apathy in the West towards the plight of the Palestinian people can be laid at the door of the media - who report [are sometimes forced to report] events there in a very biased manner. Here is a link to a story by Robert Fisk which highlights the dishonesty of the media in reporting events in Palestine.

http://www.globalecho.org/view_article.aid=6222

I first realized the enormous pressures on American journalists in the Middle East when I went some years ago to say goodbye to a colleague from the Boston Globe. I expressed my sorrow that he was leaving a region where he had obviously enjoyed reporting. I could save my sorrows for someone else, he said. One of the joys of leaving was that he would no longer have to alter the truth to suit his paper's more vociferous readers.

"I used to call the Israeli Likud Party 'right wing,' " he said. "But recently, my editors have been telling me not to use the phrase. A lot of our readers objected." And so now, I asked? "We just don't call it 'right wing' anymore."

Ouch. I knew at once that these "readers" were viewed at his newspaper as Israel's friends, but I also knew that the Likud under Benjamin Netanyahu was as right wing as it had ever been.

This is only the tip of the semantic iceberg that has crashed into American journalism in the Middle East. Illegal Jewish settlements for Jews and Jews only on Arab land are clearly "colonies," and we used to call them that. I cannot trace the moment when we started using the word "settlements." But I can remember the moment around two years ago when the word "settlements" was replaced by "Jewish neighborhoods" — or even, in some cases, "outposts."

Similarly, "occupied" Palestinian land was softened in many American media reports into "disputed" Palestinian land — just after then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, in 2001, instructed U.S. embassies in the Middle East to refer to the West Bank as "disputed" rather than "occupied" territory.

Then there is the "wall," the massive concrete obstruction whose purpose, according to the Israeli authorities, is to prevent Palestinian suicide bombers from killing innocent Israelis. In this, it seems to have had some success. But it does not follow the line of Israel's 1967 border and cuts deeply into Arab land. And all too often these days, journalists call it a "fence" rather than a "wall." Or a "security barrier," which is what Israel prefers them to say. For some of its length, we are told, it is not a wall at all — so we cannot call it a "wall," even though the vast snake of concrete and steel that runs east of Jerusalem is higher than the old Berlin Wall.

The semantic effect of this journalistic obfuscation is clear. If Palestinian land is not occupied but merely part of a legal dispute that might be resolved in law courts or discussions over tea, then a Palestinian child who throws a stone at an Israeli soldier in this territory is clearly acting insanely.

If a Jewish colony built illegally on Arab land is simply a nice friendly "neighborhood," then any Palestinian who attacks it must be carrying out a mindless terrorist act.

And surely there is no reason to protest a "fence" or a "security barrier" — words that conjure up the fence around a garden or the gate arm at the entrance to a private housing complex.

For Palestinians to object violently to any of these phenomena thus marks them as a generically vicious people. By our use of language, we condemn them.

We follow these unwritten rules elsewhere in the region. American journalists frequently used the words of U.S. officials in the early days of the Iraqi insurgency — referring to those who attacked American troops as "rebels" or "terrorists" or "remnants" of the former regime. The language of the second U.S. pro-consul in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer III, was taken up obediently — and grotesquely — by American journalists.

American television, meanwhile, continues to present war as a bloodless sandpit in which the horrors of conflict — the mutilated bodies of the victims of aerial bombing, torn apart in the desert by wild dogs — are kept off the screen. Editors in New York and London make sure that viewers' "sensitivities" don't suffer, that we don't indulge in the "pornography" of death (which is exactly what war is) or "dishonor" the dead whom we have just killed.

Our prudish video coverage makes war easier to support, and journalists long ago became complicit with governments in making conflict and death more acceptable to viewers. Television journalism has thus become a lethal adjunct to war.

Back in the old days, we used to believe — did we not? — that journalists should "tell it how it is." Read the great journalism of World War II and you'll see what I mean. The Ed Murrows and Richard Dimblebys, the Howard K. Smiths and Alan Moorheads didn't mince their words or change their descriptions or run mealy-mouthed from the truth because listeners or readers didn't want to know or preferred a different version.

So let's call a colony a colony, let's call occupation what it is, let's call a wall a wall. And maybe express the reality of war by showing that it represents not, primarily, victory or defeat, but the total failure of the human spirit.

 

[moono]

Nice couple of contributions, chaps.


mears,

Palestinians, like everyone, just want a good life for themselves and their family. Get you kids clothing, plenty of food and maybe a house.

Israelis too, if you hadn't noticed, and the message is that there is no way that Israelis will get to enjoy that on Palestinian territory. Palestinians, tired of years of betrayal, have voted for a government that simply won't sell them out. They'll get their good life, houses and such, when the invader is gone.
They'll use the law, which is clear. Now let's see how the Zionist extremists and their bankers attempt to debase that law. Olmert has already set out his stall; rob thy neighbour and kill his children.

 

[mears]

Nice couple of contributions, chaps.


mears,

Israelis too, if you hadn't noticed, and the message is that there is no way that Israelis will get to enjoy that on Palestinian territory. Palestinians, tired of years of betrayal, have voted for a government that simply won't sell them out. They'll get their good life, houses and such, when the invader is gone.
They'll use the law, which is clear. Now let's see how the Zionist extremists and their bankers attempt to debase that law. Olmert has already set out his stall; rob thy neighbour and kill his children.

Do you consider Palestinian territory to be all of Israel? Is there room in the ME for a Israeli state?

There really is not any use going on if you don't have the wherewithal to answer the questions, otherwise I don't know who I am talking to.

Since 1945 hundreds of governments have sprung up in different places and international boundries have shifter often. No one is always happy with the outcome but nations usually get around to accepting them

Germany is not screaming out because they lost Prussia to Poland. Irish Catholics don't advocate suicide bombings because they are deprived of Ulster. Russia has acknowledged the secession of Ukraine. Serbia is coming to grips witht the loss of Kosovo. Gutemala no longer demands Belize.

But many Arab governments refuse to swallow their pride and acknowledge Israel.

At some point you need to get on with your life, especially if you don't live in the area.

 

[moono]

I have a feeling that we've been here before, M'ears.
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/world/israelborders.php
The Legal Borders of Israel

From my viewpoint, two States were created at Partition. The Arab rejection of that isn't relevant as long as the Western powers have the ability to bomb them into neanderthals. Nevertheless, Israel is synthetic. It will only exist legally and forever with Arab agreement ( as stated in UN law and treaty ). Arab acquiescence will do for now.

Note; If you read all of D'Amato's paper you'll discover that borders cannot be altered without the agreement of the UN and both parties . That's why Olmert's plan ( Sharon's plan without hair ) is illegal from the outset. The big question is, will the United States support illegality and throw us all into conflict ? I don't have to live there to get fundamentalist shrapnel through the head , Islamic or Zionist.

 

[mears]

I have a feeling that we've been here before, M'ears.
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/world/israelborders.php
The Legal Borders of Israel

From my viewpoint, two States were created at Partition. The Arab rejection of that isn't relevant as long as the Western powers have the ability to bomb them into neanderthals. Nevertheless, Israel is synthetic. It will only exist legally and forever with Arab agreement ( as stated in UN law and treaty ). Arab acquiescence will do for now.

Note; If you read all of D'Amato's paper you'll discover that borders cannot be altered without the agreement of the UN and both parties . That's why Olmert's plan ( Sharon's plan without hair ) is illegal from the outset. The big question is, will the United States support illegality and throw us all into conflict ? I don't have to live there to get fundamentalist shrapnel through the head , Islamic or Zionist.

Do you consider Palestinian territory to be all of Israel? Is there room in the ME for a Israeli state?

 

[moono]

Resolution 181 is quite clear as to the borders of Israel and Palestine. If we were to go the legal route most would claim that Resolution 242 is now the deciding factor- allowing borders to be set by negotiation between both sides. Obviously, Palestinians will want Israelis to return to UN designated territory and Israelis will not want to go.
I'm all for the legal solution. There will be many interpretations, many shyster lawyers in for a take, but I trust in the integrity of human rights legal teams to press for the just solution. Israelis have the same human rights as Palestinians. I trust human rights legal teams to reach the amicable settlements that extremists ignore, that's Israeli extremists, Palestinian extremists and American extremists.

 

[mears]

Resolution 181 is quite clear as to the borders of Israel and Palestine. If we were to go the legal route most would claim that Resolution 242 is now the deciding factor- allowing borders to be set by negotiation between both sides. Obviously, Palestinians will want Israelis to return to UN designated territory and Israelis will not want to go.
I'm all for the legal solution. There will be many interpretations, many shyster lawyers in for a take, but I trust in the integrity of human rights legal teams to press for the just solution. Israelis have the same human rights as Palestinians. I trust human rights legal teams to reach the amicable settlements that extremists ignore, that's Israeli extremists, Palestinian extremists and American extremists.

Yes, in any negotiations both sides must give a little. If the parties can do that and deal with their extremeists than something could be worked out.

 

[moono]

Sounds good doesn't it ? Unfortunately, Israel has spent so much money on illegal West Bank settlements that they won't give them up. That's negotiations out of the window, I'm afraid.

 

[mears]

Sounds good doesn't it ? Unfortunately, Israel has spent so much money on illegal West Bank settlements that they won't give them up. That's negotiations out of the window, I'm afraid.

Thats not for you to decide since you are not Palestinian nor live in the area.

Israel has left Gaza and maybe leaving most West Bank settlements will be enough. Maybe they will leave all of the west bank.

You don't have the authority to say when negotiations are thrown out the window.

 

[moono]

Maybe they will leave all of the west bank. You don't have the authority to say when negotiations are thrown out the window.

Of course not. I'm just relaying the absolute minimum requirements of Hamas, public knowledge. The pre-1967 borders are the first acceptable negotiating point, from their viewpoint. That position is supported internationally. If the Americans say 'forget the international position and we'll back the theft of a chunk of West Bank', well, everybody is aware of where that is going to lead. It simply isn't worth it to anybody except illegal settlers and Zionist estate agents. You want perpetual war over them ? I certainly don't.

I believe that Hamas have actually stated that there will be a ten year ceasefire if Israel agrees to retreat to the pre-1967 lines. So, ten years of peace in return for complying with international law. Can't be bad.
Except for illegal settlers and Zionist estate agents, naturally.

 

[rogue yam]

I believe that Hamas have actually stated that there will be a ten year ceasefire if Israel agrees to retreat to the pre-1967 lines. So, ten years of peace in return for complying with international law. Can't be bad.

You think that UN Res. 181 and Res. 242 require the Israelis to accept the pre-1967 Green Line as their border with Palestine. The Israelis do not agree with this position and neither does the United States. Blather on all you like about "international law", "human rights legal teams", and other such happy nonsense. The Green Line will simply never be accepted by Israel, least of all as a starting position for negotiations.

As for what I've excerpted above, this just shows how far you are from understanding the Israeli and American mindsets. A cease-fire is not peace. Ten years is nothing. Hamas has no right to threaten anyone with terrorism. Thus it is insane to expect others to pay Hamas not to do that which they have no right to do.

Accepting the existence of Israel, renouncing the use of violence, and acknowledging prior Palestinian commitments are required of Hamas before they will be allowed to sit down at the table. For these things they will be paid nothing.

Hamas (and you) are so filled with hatred that you simply can't understand this. So Israel is proceeding unilaterally to secure their future, and the Palestinian people are getting screwed again in the process. Congratulations on this great "humanitarian" success, idiot!

 

[moono]

Yam;

Accepting the existence of Israel, renouncing the use of violence, and acknowledging prior Palestinian commitments are required of Hamas before they will be allowed to sit down at the table. For these things they will be paid nothing.

You really are a one-eyed varmint, aincha.

Technically, Israel has not ratified its UN membership because it has not met the requirements of Resolution 194. That's one reason for not recognising Israel.

No country is expected to renounce the use of violence. Every country has the right to self defence under international law. That's one reason for not renouncing violence.

If by 'prior Palestinian commitments' you mean the Oslo 'accords', it is illegal under international law for any leader to give away territory without the express consent of the population. That would require a referendum. Arafat held no referendum and so the Accords are invalid. Human rights legislation prevents a population from being sold out, you see. Annoying, isn't it.

You've got a nerve calling me an 'idiot'. You are pure propaganda.

Accepting the existence of Israel, renouncing the use of violence, and acknowledging prior Palestinian commitments are required of Hamas before they will be allowed to sit down at the table.

Arrogant poppycock.

 

[rogue yam]

If by 'prior Palestinian commitments' you mean the Oslo 'accords', it is illegal under international law...

Every time you use the term "international law" you are just pulling something out of your ass. If this tendency of your is not insanity, then I simply don't know what it is.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I simply don't know what it is.

No change there, then.

 

[moono]

Lol. Humanitarian law is international, yam. The Geneva Conventions are international.
I do apologise for persisting in interposing the law between you and your piracy. It must be very frustrating, particularly when you're looking forward so much to ethnically cleansing Palestine. Heigh ho.