Stupid, stupid fuckers.

[rachamim18]

Frog:"Was Russia justified in maltreatment of Jews because Jews had only been there 9 generations, thus offering Russia the right (among others) to deny land to Jews?": Jews never claimed that they were the true Russians, entered cafes and detonated TNT strapped to themselves, or created manifestos calling for complete genocide of the Russian People so that Jews could have their rightful land free of fake Russians. AGAIN< a different dynamic with a non-senscial analogy.

"Roman atrocities hold little relevance because it happened so long ago.": No, because it offers the truth about who actually lived on the land first, a claim made by both groups, and something considered quite important to alot of people.

It also caused the Diaspora, which caused our 2000 years of continuous persecution, and thus caused our return under legal UN Ratification. All pieces of the same puzzle.

If 2000 years ago is of no concern, either is 60 years because one cannot pick a number out of a hat and say this is when the history begins or ends. ALL facts must be considered.

 

[nino_savatte]

Nino: "Dayjob.": But Ninito, you already know that because you searched me to death online, remember? Telling me back some of my businesses from Directories? Or has it slipped that inquisitive mind again?

Aye, your "day job". Your attempts at wisecracks are piss poor. Maybe you should consider doing an open mic spot first to see how it goes, but I reckon you'll die on your arse.

 

[frogwoman]

"Soes not matter what 'Palestinians' call themselves.":It very much does. First, the are using a label that was coined to describe every inhabitant of that land, not just Arab this suggesting (and often fooling people) that they are the only inhabitants of the land predating the 48 War or Mandate itself. This includes people like my Jewish family who had lived in Hebron for thousands of years.

Secondly, it then is used to claim that they are the actual descendants of true "Palestinians." The Roman coined this Latin label to denigrate the Jews, the indigenous people, whom they had just beaten in a many years long (centuries actually) long armed struggle.

Why did they use THIS term? It is Latin for "Philistines," traditional enemies of our People. Who were the Philistines? They are also known now as Phonecians.They were a people who had predated us, but had themselves invaded. They originated in the Mycaenean Proto-Greek culture of Crete. They were pre-Hellenistic Greeks! Ergo the claim is ridiculous yet believed by some who then believe the rationale that goes hand in hand that Arabs are the idigienous people of the land.

But Jews weren't originally the indigenous people of hte land were they? In the Torah it says that the Jews were promised the land, it doesn't say they originated there, and they fought wars with Canaanites and other people living there, so depending how far back you wanna go, you can justify whatever position you want.

All things being equal in most land claims judges often award possesion based on who posessed it first. This is a vital issue.

Yeah but we are talking two thousand years here mate It isn't a question of something that happened in the last century is it?

"Israel breaks International Law.": Please be more specific, how, when? In fact, were it a;; true we would see something at the Hague, at the Tribunal, not even an indictment has ever been issued and not because they love us.

The illegal house demolitions? The settlements? The disproportionate use of force? The collective punishments, the way that Gaza is used as a testing ground for new weapons? I dont expect you to think any of this is a breach of international law, but the fact is that Israel has been warned on this countless times and nothing has come of it.

there are countless zionist websites bemoaning the amount of UN resolutions Israel has had passed against it and how this proves the UN is biased against it ...

And how come some Israeli generals can't enter this country in case of arrest? I thought Sharon was indicted but just never brought to trial?

The only thing that has EVER happened were unsuccessful attempts to do so, and a brief on the Barrier calling it illegal. A brief is just like this post, it is an opinion, nothing more and nothing less (although Briefs can have valuable facts in them, such as the ones I am providing you) and yet if they do so, they will find at last one judge that would be receptive to carry it on through and this has never,ever happened.

Unsuccessful because the US vetoed it no doubt ...

"Israel is not villafied in the media.": Ever read the Guardian?

Erm no, I didn't say that did I, I didnt say that Israel was never vilified, of course it is attacked in the media frequently, but it's nowhere near on the scale that the Serbs (a country that was bombed, rather than just being criticised) were during the 1990s and still are to an extent, you'll never read Nazi-type rants in mainstream newspapers passing for informed commentary, calling them "barbarians", saying that they're "asking for it" (ie to be killed) and generalising an entire nation by their race. Despite the fact that Israel is behaving in the same way as Serbia if not worse and has been doing for sixty years.

"OK to kick out of homes because of a lack of National I.D>, such as the coopted lable of "Palestinians.": Noone is kicked out, or has not been kicked out except for roughly half a dozen border villages in the 52-53 pre Suez
Crisis and this was criminal, in my view. Yet the morality of that time saw much worse and the world acknowledges this by failing to rectify 1200 Arabs' and their descendants claims...EXCEPT that the Israeli High Court did so itself and paid damages. Hmmm....

Well if they actually did that, that's really good.

Did any others lose their homes? Not like that. Many abandoned villages and domiciles, etc. In the 49 Armistice following the creation of the state Arabs who had done so for any reason were allowed to return under UN Mediation under 2 prerequisites: I) Sign a vow of obesiance, II) Become citizens.

What about the Palestinians forced to move out in order to make Jewish settlements? You dont seem to believe that this happens any more but it does.

In lieu of such action they were offered UN Mediated financial settlements at then fair market value IF they could provide legal deeds, which began being issued in the early 19th Century CE by the Ottomans and has been an ongoing process up until the 48 War.

Sadly almost all refused to even enter Mediation or adhere to any agreements. Why? Pressure from Arab Nations who used, and continue to atrociously do so, the issue as a scapegoat to siphon off internal dissent . "Calling for more personal freedoms? Look at your brother in Filastin, under Jewish Occupation. How dare you be so selfish, the Qu'ran tells us the Waqf must remain just so." This then manipulated desired public opinion into policy that was shared by every member of the fledgling ogranisations such as the League,etc.

Yes the Palestinian issue has been exploited by many Arab countries in an absolutely appalling way.

But this does not justify israel's actions.

Today, to date, only Jordan has ever offered "Palestinians" citizenship and any form of rights above Refugee Status. Why Jordan? Probably because when "Palestinians" refused statehood in 1919, and the UK then lopped off most of their promised nation and created Trans-Jordan, most of the people left after Jewish Refugees made their way over the new border, almost all inhabitants were the people now called "Palestinians."

I am aware of all this. Does that make it OK? Of course not.

 

[rachamim18]

Nino:"Open Mic.": Thanks appreciate it, maybe you can be my manager. I could perhaps do a string of one nighters in day care centers and nurseries. You have ALL the connections. Appreciate any help.

 

[rachamim18]

Frog: "Jew were not the indigenous people of the land because the Torah says that the Cananaanites lived in the Promised and.": Well, you got this Scripture correct (smile).

However,idigenous denotes the original people at the time of a population shift if you want one of the tech. definitions, the one I use. See, at the time of the Arabs entry into history, Canaanites (anmother word for Philistines and Phoenicians, among other related societies/cultures)had been extinct for more than a millenia. Jews are the oldest surviving inhabitants of one of the earliest inhabited places on the planet.

Jews orginated in Mesdopotamia, between the Tigres and Euphrates, basically modern day Iraq but were semi nomadic and settled the land in question in two gradual but distinct waves.

Although some Torah can have some historical accuracy it is a poor guide for anything having to do with history. It is best read as a symbolic work, albeit one which offers us a perfect guide for living.

"Talking 2000 years ago, not 100.":In our parrt of the world 2000 is a drop in the bucket, seriously. In any event the truth does not change, in cases of contested land where things are equal or nearly so, many judges, as stated, will award it to the first party who resided there. Who was that party?

Yet THAT party offered the bulk of its land to the ususrper, the occupier, what other nation even offered a minimum of its land, let alone the bulk of it? Not only the bulk but the bulk of arable land as well!!!

"Illegl house demos break International Law.": There are NO illegal demoilitions, all were and are according to Israeli and International Law. First, ones known as punative demos by most foreigner sources were ceded as a goodwill gesture at Sharm al Sheikh more than 2 years ago.

Did they violate International Law? Nope. It is a practice carried out throughout the Middle East and is thus a Cultural Norm. It was also a practice aimed at punishing the bombers himself, or herself as the case maybe. Arabs , as a culture at large have no individualism as you do in the UK. Everything is for the family, and clan as a whole. Knowing that the family will suffer (which sounds like collective punishhment to you, an oxymoron in a society where individualism can get one killed) has prevented countless terrorist actions. Losing a domicile makes one loe incredible face, and honour is everything.

To offer the more orthadox legal expplanation, one which may be understood independantly of any kind of culturisms..."...It is prohibited EXCEPT under military neccessity." Since it has proven its deterrant power, and thi is documented, then we consider it militarily neccessary.

Disclsure: In 2005 there WAs an IDF study that concluded the practice should end because its PR and subsequent psychological impact were neutralising the deterrant power of the practice and that it should cease. This was taken into account with the goodwill gesture.

In 1949 we DId become party to the 4th Geneva Convention but we also believe that the Demos, which only occurred outside of the Greenline, did not fall under the Convention ANYWAY since there had never been any state there other than the Jewish State. Occupying one's own land? From this perspective there is no issue whatsoever.

However the practice was only seen as an Israeli practice, although as stated more than a dozen other Mid-Eastern nations practicve it, and it generated incredibly bad PR for the nation. So, it was nixed.

Demolitions today have noo conflict whatsoever with the Genevas, or any other treaty or norms since they only effect those domiciles sitting atop smuggling tunnels, bomb factories, or those built illegaly, permitlessly, and uninspected as with any modern nation.

"Settlements are also illegal.":Again, there has never been a single nation in existence there, EXCEPT for the Jewish One so the word "Settlement," other than referring to the specific post 67 movement means nothing.The lack of soveriegnity prevents any violation of any law.

Morally speaking, they are and have always been Jewish land despite the present Arab majority.

Tactically, they were envisioned to serve as a security belt in areas relinquished by then avowed enemies Jordan and Egypt.

"Disporportionate use of force also is illegal.": Itis called Assymetrical Warfare and is not only an accepted but standard doctrine. It ha nothing at all to do with illegality. An armed force is allowed under law to use the neccessary strength needed to accomplish specific objectives.

IF the collateral damage outweighs the intended benefit of an operation, then Laws are broken. To date we have not broken them.

"Collective punishment is also illegal.": Yes,it is and that is why we do not engage in it.

"Gaza is used to test new weapons,also illegal.": Used to test? Um, no it is certainly not. We introduce new equipment into our operations all the time but that has nothing to do with testing which has taken place long before anyone in he field gets theri hands on it.

"Israel has been warned countless times, to no avail.": By who? Entities who commit warcrimes are not "warned," they are indicted. An NGO warns us? Oooooooh, hiver me timbers. Better get out the spinach.

See, the Tribunal operates on actual legal principles and not public opinion although such opinion seems to determine who gets their come uppance. If Israel were at all deserving, with its PR image, we would see plenty of trials. No reason, no indictment.


"Countless UN Resolutions.": Gneral Assembly Resolutions mean as much as a legal brief, i.e.: not a thing. The UN is the sum of its members. Members who are technically at war with Israel athor countless resolutions , refuse to recognise the UN Ratification that brought Israel into existence and guaranteed its continued existence, and then expect Israel to jump through their ideological hoops when they athor spurious nonsense.

 

[rachamim18]

Frog:"Thought Sharon was indicted, just never brought to trial.": Nope, not at all.

"Some IDf Generals cannot visit the UK for fear of arrest.": "Yourt nation" has a lw that allows individuals to file suits seeking the arrest of peope they "feel" committed warcrimes even if no UK citizen was involved. The law has no International standing and is a joke. Oooooooh, do not weant to lose my right to go to Harrod's, or see where Cromweell NEVER formally allowed Jews back in,right? I myself am barred but not for anything in the IDF so it is no biggy.

"Unsuccessful because the US probably vetoed it.": Vetoed what? The Brief? Briefs are not subject to any kind of acceptance or rejection, they merely exist.

"Israel is not villafied on a scale approaching the Serbs in the media.": Since I myself am not allowed in your nation I truly have no idea what nation appears worse or better but I do know worldwide, it is Israel getting trashed and has been since 48. Most nations have people who do not even know what "Serb" means.


"Palestinians forced to move out in order to establish Jewish 'Settlements'.": Frst, I have explained why the word "Settlement" is an oxymoron. The land is entirely Jewish and until Arab Statehood is extended for the 33rd time, there is no such thing as an Israeli "Settlement."

Secondly, Arabs are only evicted when they squat on deedless or land without them having deed to it.

Third, some were merely attempts to reestablish historical Jewish habitacions, like Etzion where they had been exterminated prior to Statehood.

Not only does it "never happen anymore," it never did!

"Does Jordan and its coming into existence change the dynamic?": It damn welll should when it comprise the bulk of the promised "Palestine," is almost entirely populated by "Palestinians," and people clamor for "Palestinian" statehoood.

 

[frogwoman]

Frog:"Thought Sharon was indicted, just never brought to trial.": Nope, not at all.

"Some IDf Generals cannot visit the UK for fear of arrest.": "Yourt nation" has a lw that allows individuals to file suits seeking the arrest of peope they "feel" committed warcrimes even if no UK citizen was involved.

Then how do you explain this then?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/feb/20/uksecurity.israelandthepalestinians

"Scotland Yard allowed a suspected war criminal to escape from Britain partly because they feared an attempt to stop him would lead to a gun battle at Heathrow airport, police documents seen by the Guardian reveal. The former senior Israeli officer was supposed to be detained as he arrived in London for a speaking engagement, after a British court had ordered his arrest. But detectives looked on as he landed, then hid on the plane for two hours, before flying off to avoid arrest."

The law has no International standing and is a joke. Oooooooh, do not weant to lose my right to go to Harrod's, or see where Cromweell NEVER formally allowed Jews back in,right? I myself am barred but not for anything in the IDF so it is no biggy.

Its not just the UK where Israeli war criminals are wanted for war crimes, it's also countries in the EU like Belgium.

"Unsuccessful because the US probably vetoed it.": Vetoed what? The Brief? Briefs are not subject to any kind of acceptance or rejection, they merely exist.

OK yeah I dont really know what you're talking about.
But the US is well known for vetoeing any kind of resolution regarding Israel in the UN.

"Israel is not villafied on a scale approaching the Serbs in the media.": Since I myself am not allowed in your nation I truly have no idea what nation appears worse or better but I do know worldwide, it is Israel getting trashed and has been since 48. Most nations have people who do not even know what "Serb" means.

Oh yeah, really?

So it would be quite a normal occurrence to read something about how Israelis have an ancient hatred of Palestinians in their DNA and how they are all "evil"?

So in response to its treatment of the Palestinians, Israel is subjected to a campaign of bombing and then a nine year occupation of part of its territory, which is then forcibily declared "independent" without its consent, leaving Israeli civilians stranded and liable to attack? And it's also subjected to international isolation because they don't hand over war criminals? When did this happen? How come I didnt know about it?

How come Angela Merkel just spoke at the Israeli Parliament last week about German and Israeli friendship, how come most EU Countries (which are of course bastions of anti-Israeli sentiment) abstain from voting in the UN on most issues relating to Israel and only give the PA a tiny amount of aid, which is not in the least bit comparable to that given by the US to Israel, and the US and the UK both supply Israel with weapons, and the US consistently vetoes anything about it at the UN security council?

Oh and Im sure you could find plenty of people here who don't know what Israeli means, quite a number of people I've met think Jews and Jehovahs witnesses are the same thing, and there are people who dont know who the prime minister is

"Palestinians forced to move out in order to establish Jewish 'Settlements'.": Frst, I have explained why the word "Settlement" is an oxymoron. The land is entirely Jewish and until Arab Statehood is extended for the 33rd time, there is no such thing as an Israeli "Settlement."

That is a load of disingenuous crap sorry, you cannot excuse what is going on by defining it out of existence ...

Secondly, Arabs are only evicted when they squat on deedless or land without them having deed to it.

Right because more often than not Palestinians are refused permission to build.

So Immigrants from America building on Palestinian land illegally (including in the garden of someone's house in one case) is OK then?

Third, some were merely attempts to reestablish historical Jewish habitacions, like Etzion where they had been exterminated prior to Statehood.

Do you not understand how mad this is, building on someone else's land in order to establish "historical habitations" that existed thousands of years ago! It'd be fucking funny if it wasn't so tragic.

Seeing as the Romans lived in Britain such a long time ago I guess it would be OK if some Italian people came here, forced me to get out of my house because there were archaeological relics here or something so they could re-establish a Roman Villa ...

Not only does it "never happen anymore," it never did!

"Does Jordan and its coming into existence change the dynamic?": It damn welll should when it comprise the bulk of the promised "Palestine," is almost entirely populated by "Palestinians," and people clamor for "Palestinian" statehoood.

I'm sorry but much of Transjordan can more accurately be called Southern Syria and the majority of the Jordanian territory wasn't in the Palestinian mandate in the first place as shown here:
http://www.doublestandards.org/keeley1.html

Whether Palestine is Jordan or not this does not change any of the facts anyway

 

[frogwoman]

Frog: "Jew were not the indigenous people of the land because the Torah says that the Cananaanites lived in the Promised and.": Well, you got this Scripture correct (smile).

However,idigenous denotes the original people at the time of a population shift if you want one of the tech. definitions, the one I use. See, at the time of the Arabs entry into history, Canaanites (anmother word for Philistines and Phoenicians, among other related societies/cultures)had been extinct for more than a millenia. Jews are the oldest surviving inhabitants of one of the earliest inhabited places on the planet.

You are basically saying that "indigenous" means the Jews in Israel and nothing else and that means that every Jew has, not only a right to come to Israel, but more of a right than a Palestinian, even if the person in question has never been to Israel, and does not have any connections to the place. You are aware that even on your spurious arguement, a lot of people came to Israel who are not in the slightest bit connected to it at all, yeah?

How does a rich person from America who does not have any reason to go to Israel and does not face discrimination in daily life have more of a right to go to Israel based on what happened thousands of years ago than someone who is already living there?

Although some Torah can have some historical accuracy it is a poor guide for anything having to do with history. It is best read as a symbolic work, albeit one which offers us a perfect guide for living.

But you are forgetting that the zionist movement justified moving to Israel on the basis that it was the Jews' historic homeland as stated in the Torah, but the Torah doesn't say that it was where Jews originated, only where they were promised they can go, so isn't the Torah's description of these events important if you are going to talk about what happened thousands of years ago as a justification for what the modern country is doing?

"Talking 2000 years ago, not 100.":In our parrt of the world 2000 is a drop in the bucket, seriously. In any event the truth does not change, in cases of contested land where things are equal or nearly so, many judges, as stated, will award it to the first party who resided there. Who was that party?

Im sure loads of people lived there before the Jews so should the ownership of the land go to us? If 2000 years is a drop in the bucket then why isnt the Jewish homeland somewhere like Iraq?

Yet THAT party offered the bulk of its land to the ususrper, the occupier, what other nation even offered a minimum of its land, let alone the bulk of it? Not only the bulk but the bulk of arable land as well!!!

"Illegl house demos break International Law.": There are NO illegal demoilitions, all were and are according to Israeli and International Law. First, ones known as punative demos by most foreigner sources were ceded as a goodwill gesture at Sharm al Sheikh more than 2 years ago.

erm, i'm sorry, but house demolitions as punishment are always illegal according to international law, especially when they take place with people still in them !! What makes them legal?

Did they violate International Law? Nope. It is a practice carried out throughout the Middle East and is thus a Cultural Norm.

Stoning women to death for being raped and therefore "committing adultery" is also practiced throughout the middle east, and is also a cultural norm. Does this make it right?

Stop trying to defend the indefensible.

I thought Israel was suppose to be the best country in the middle east and better than all the other arab countries anyway ... so why are you justifying this practice in this way?

It was also a practice aimed at punishing the bombers himself, or herself as the case maybe. Arabs , as a culture at large have no individualism as you do in the UK. Everything is for the family, and clan as a whole. Knowing that the family will suffer (which sounds like collective punishhment to you, an oxymoron in a society where individualism can get one killed) has prevented countless terrorist actions. Losing a domicile makes one loe incredible face, and honour is everything.

Well that is the definition of collective punishment isnt it. Do we send people to jail because of what someone in their family did?? NO! ... and frequently its not just the bomber's house but houses where there MIGHT be a bomber or where one happened to walk past one day, and whole neighbourhoods ...

To offer the more orthadox legal expplanation, one which may be understood independantly of any kind of culturisms..."...It is prohibited EXCEPT under military neccessity." Since it has proven its deterrant power, and thi is documented, then we consider it militarily neccessary.

Disclsure: In 2005 there WAs an IDF study that concluded the practice should end because its PR and subsequent psychological impact were neutralising the deterrant power of the practice and that it should cease. This was taken into account with the goodwill gesture.

Didnt stop them in Lebanon though did it.

In 1949 we DId become party to the 4th Geneva Convention but we also believe that the Demos, which only occurred outside of the Greenline, did not fall under the Convention ANYWAY since there had never been any state there other than the Jewish State. Occupying one's own land? From this perspective there is no issue whatsoever.

Then how come Palestinians are placed under military curfew constantly and the Jewish populations are treated completely differently, even when they do things like throw stones at soldiers and human rights workers? How come Palestinians are made to wait at Checkpoints, and Jews aren't, surely this is evidence of an occupation, just one that doesn't apply to Jews

However the practice was only seen as an Israeli practice, although as stated more than a dozen other Mid-Eastern nations practicve it, and it generated incredibly bad PR for the nation. So, it was nixed.

Demolitions today have noo conflict whatsoever with the Genevas, or any other treaty or norms since they only effect those domiciles sitting atop smuggling tunnels, bomb factories, or those built illegaly, permitlessly, and uninspected as with any modern nation.

Yes but in the UK homes aren't demolished just because there are tunnels underneath them or with squatters in them. Have you heard of "squatters rights?" If a building was demolished even one without a permit, and there happened to be people inside, as part of a national policy, there would be a national outcry.

"Settlements are also illegal.":Again, there has never been a single nation in existence there, EXCEPT for the Jewish One so the word "Settlement," other than referring to the specific post 67 movement means nothing.The lack of soveriegnity prevents any violation of any law.

Morally speaking, they are and have always been Jewish land despite the present Arab majority.

That is such a load of crap, once again defending the indefensible.

Tactically, they were envisioned to serve as a security belt in areas relinquished by then avowed enemies Jordan and Egypt.

"Disporportionate use of force also is illegal.": Itis called Assymetrical Warfare and is not only an accepted but standard doctrine. It ha nothing at all to do with illegality. An armed force is allowed under law to use the neccessary strength needed to accomplish specific objectives.

The world's third most powerful army fighting a few home made rockets, you are right it is asymmetrical.

IF the collateral damage outweighs the intended benefit of an operation, then Laws are broken. To date we have not broken them.

So a hundred and ten palestinians killed (many on the West bank and therefore nothing to do with rockets in Gaza) in response to less than ten Israelis dying is not "outweighing the intended benefit"??

"Collective punishment is also illegal.": Yes,it is and that is why we do not engage in it.

"Gaza is used to test new weapons,also illegal.": Used to test? Um, no it is certainly not. We introduce new equipment into our operations all the time but that has nothing to do with testing which has taken place long before anyone in he field gets theri hands on it.

Umm what about this then?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/oct/17/israel1
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=new+israeli+mystery+weapon+dime&hl=en&safe=off&start=30&sa=N

"Israel has been warned countless times, to no avail.": By who? Entities who commit warcrimes are not "warned," they are indicted. An NGO warns us? Oooooooh, hiver me timbers. Better get out the spinach.

See, the Tribunal operates on actual legal principles and not public opinion although such opinion seems to determine who gets their come uppance. If Israel were at all deserving, with its PR image, we would see plenty of trials. No reason, no indictment.

How come Amnesty international have defined Israel's actions as "breaking the fourth Geneva Convention" and "war crimes" then?

Or are Amnesty International a biased, anti-semetic organisation?

"Countless UN Resolutions.": Gneral Assembly Resolutions mean as much as a legal brief, i.e.: not a thing. The UN is the sum of its members. Members who are technically at war with Israel athor countless resolutions , refuse to recognise the UN Ratification that brought Israel into existence and guaranteed its continued existence, and then expect Israel to jump through their ideological hoops when they athor spurious nonsense.

Yeah so there was a UN resolution bringing Israel into existence, which presumably was accepted by the majority of UN members, so what makes this UN resolution valid and the others not?

 

[rachamim18]

Frog: "Explain this.": How does it conflict with the info I provided. A disgruntled Brit (imagine that) filed one such frivilous suit and the police are obligated to follow through, just as your libel laws are pretty much unique. One would think though, that if the law had a leg to stand on, the UK would simply follow up with the Hague but of course that did not happen, did it?

Do you know who filed the suit? "A PALESTINIAN ACTIVIST GROUP." Hmmmm.

The EU does not bar Israeli anything. It DOES do so for HAMAS though.You are misled about Belgium. It has a law similar to the UK's and some clown tried to indict Sharon but it was tossed out. There is no danger for anyone there, except citizens who must live among clowns who file frivilous suits.

Indict Sharon but leave the Phalangists who killed in Sabra and Shatilla (not one Israeli was there) sit in their villas. Whatever.


"US is well know for vetoing anything against srael in the UN.": And Arab nations are well known for bring non-sensical Gen. Assembly Resolutions against Israel. Good that the US holds a Security CVouncil Seat and has that ideological bent currently. In the end it will not change anything, one itoa, one way or another. See, the UN does not see International Law as its main priority.

It created a token Human Rights Commission, revamped it and in its first year all but one cae were involving Israel the nation with the highest rating in all of that part of Asia. Makes great sense.

It ratifies Israel into being, then half a century later tells the world that Zionsism is Racism. Riiiiiiight. We take it so seriously.

The UN is not only corrupt, especially under its former "leader," old Kofi, but are accomplices to murder, rapists by the hundres, and shills for terrorists so it is of no great consequence.

 

[rachamim18]

Frog: "It would be natural to read that Israelis have hatred of 'Palestinians' encoded in their DNA?":As much as has been said already in some circles, soemtimes as is and often dressed up in PC type "anti-Israeli criticism."

"How come Frog does not know that Israel was subjected to a 9 year campaign of bombing?": Turn on the news, it has been going on since 1920.

know that your comment was in relation to your point about Serbia and Kosovo, but that wa sone point that stuck out. I will get to the rest later, or tomorrow depending since I have to go on a 700 kilometer (round trip) to the only real city on this island to get some plane tickets. I WILL get to it though.

 

[frogwoman]

Frog: "Explain this.": How does it conflict with the info I provided. A disgruntled Brit (imagine that) filed one such frivilous suit and the police are obligated to follow through, just as your libel laws are pretty much unique. One would think though, that if the law had a leg to stand on, the UK would simply follow up with the Hague but of course that did not happen, did it?

Did you even read the link I sent you? It wasn't by a Palestinian activist, it was brought by a British lawyer acting on behalf of Palestinian victims of house demolitions - house demolitions which you claim are legal and in accordance with international law. It was a British court that issued a warrant for the guy's arrest, it wasn't a bunch of cranks like you are implying.

Why shouldn't Britain have a law like this? Can you tell me what is wrong with it unless it's just the fact that you don't like the idea of Israelis getting arrested?

The British police haven't gone over to Israel to arrest any of these people have they?

I'm sure if that had been a Palestinian war criminal you would have been all over it saying what a good idea this law was, but how lax the police were and how this showed British bias against Israel, that it was becoming a dangerous place for Jews, etc ...

Do you know who filed the suit? "A PALESTINIAN ACTIVIST GROUP." Hmmmm.

The EU does not bar Israeli anything. It DOES do so for HAMAS though.You are misled about Belgium. It has a law similar to the UK's and some clown tried to indict Sharon but it was tossed out. There is no danger for anyone there, except citizens who must live among clowns who file frivilous suits.

How come the EU also cut off funding to the Palestinian Authority when Hamas got to power if it's that "anti-Israel"?

So on one hand Britain is the one country with its crazy laws that's crazy enough to do this, and is "unique" but then you say that Belgium has a similar law which is pursued by a bunch of "clowns" ...

Indict Sharon but leave the Phalangists who killed in Sabra and Shatilla (not one Israeli was there) sit in their villas. Whatever.

Right, but we know who was funding the Phalangists don't we

"US is well know for vetoing anything against srael in the UN.": And Arab nations are well known for bring non-sensical Gen. Assembly Resolutions against Israel. Good that the US holds a Security CVouncil Seat and has that ideological bent currently. In the end it will not change anything, one itoa, one way or another. See, the UN does not see International Law as its main priority.

Obviously not.

It created a token Human Rights Commission, revamped it and in its first year all but one cae were involving Israel the nation with the highest rating in all of that part of Asia. Makes great sense.

Yeah the Human Rights Commission with such paragons of virtue on it as Saudi Arabia and China. I know about all that. I study this stuff.

However, this does not justify Israel's violation of UN resolutions, or human rights in general.

It ratifies Israel into being, then half a century later tells the world that Zionsism is Racism. Riiiiiiight. We take it so seriously.

But you took the resolution authorising Israel's independence seriously, and presumably you take the action the UN has authorised against Iran seriously as well?

The UN is not only corrupt, especially under its former "leader," old Kofi, but are accomplices to murder, rapists by the hundres, and shills for terrorists so it is of no great consequence.

What about Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and virtually every other major human rights NGO in the world? Are they of "any great consequence"?

 

[frogwoman]

Frog: "It would be natural to read that Israelis have hatred of 'Palestinians' encoded in their DNA?":As much as has been said already in some circles, soemtimes as is and often dressed up in PC type "anti-Israeli criticism."

You mean disgusting, neo-Nazi websites like S****f***t. You would never find Israelis being described on TV, in any magazine or in any newspaper in the UK in that manner, which is of course a good thing.

No newspaper or mainstream media outlet would run a story describing Israelis in such a despicable manner and you know it. There have been countless investigations trying to prove or disprove the claim that the BBC for example is biased, and most news organisations, even those critical of Israel, tend to tread very carefully about it (look how the story about Vilnai and the "holocaust" was pulled from the BBC website a few hours later - did the same happen after similar remarks by the Iranian president? Of course not!)

"How come Frog does not know that Israel was subjected to a 9 year campaign of bombing?": Turn on the news, it has been going on since 1920.

I'm not talking about attacks by Palestinians or individual Arab states.

When has a collection of powerful countries from the international community attacked Israel in "response" to an Israeli atrocity, and occupied its territory, and then forcibly declared a part of it independent without consulting the Israelis, leaving Israeli civilians open to attack and living in a country where most people were hostile to them?

know that your comment was in relation to your point about Serbia and Kosovo, but that wa sone point that stuck out. I will get to the rest later, or tomorrow depending since I have to go on a 700 kilometer (round trip) to the only real city on this island to get some plane tickets. I WILL get to it though.

Have a nice trip

 

[frogwoman]

Frog:"Was Russia justified in maltreatment of Jews because Jews had only been there 9 generations, thus offering Russia the right (among others) to deny land to Jews?": Jews never claimed that they were the true Russians, entered cafes and detonated TNT strapped to themselves, or created

They only started blowing people up in retaliation for Israeli attacks, and what about the "Jewish" terrorists of the Stern Gang and Irgun that helped found the state of Israel?

But the entire basis for your argument is because you say that we do not owe loyalty to a country like Russia seeing as our families probably only lived there for nine generations or something. Surely despite the actions of a minority, it can never be justified to pursue deliberate policies of targetting civilians.

And some Russian nationalists today say (and I do NOT agree btw) that that is exactly what happened, that the Jews illegally came into Russia, that the Russians were justified in the treatment of the Jews because of the fact that many oligarchs are Jewish and their economic policies have pushed many Russians towards poverty and that the Bolsheviks who overthrew Russia's government were Jewish themselves, so they would say that "Jews were responsible for terrorism".

How is your idea that all Palestinians are responsible for what happened and do not have a right to live on the land any different from their theories?

Oh and funnily enough I've never seen Palestinian groups apart from a handful of fanatics with

manifestos calling for complete genocide of the Russian People so that Jews could have their rightful land free of fake Russians. AGAIN< a different dynamic with a non-senscial analogy.

Every country I bring up with the same behaviour, or similar behaviour to Israel, you're always going to say you can't compare the two by finding some spurious reason for it.

"Roman atrocities hold little relevance because it happened so long ago.": No, because it offers the truth about who actually lived on the land first, a claim made by both groups, and something considered quite important to alot of people.

It also caused the Diaspora, which caused our 2000 years of continuous persecution, and thus caused our return under legal UN Ratification. All pieces of the same puzzle.

If 2000 years ago is of no concern, either is 60 years because one cannot pick a number out of a hat and say this is when the history begins or ends. ALL facts must be considered.

No they shouldn't. What happened 2000 years ago is not relevant to the policies of Israel as it is today, sorry, seeing as nobody who lived 2000 years ago is actually alive any more. What about when Muslims bring up the Crusades as an excuse for launching terrorist attacks against, say, Spain, and what about the Muslims that have expressed a wish to bring Spain back under Islamic control? Is what happened in the Crusades any kind of an excuse for attacking civilians and blowing shit up?

I completely understand why people support Israel and how history impacts the way things are, but I don't think events 2000 years ago can be used as any kind of justification for anything a country in the 21st century does ...

 

[rachamim18]

Frog: Back. Ahhhh...and even more posts. Good. I like that. Let me pick up where I left off.

"How come most EU nations refuse to invokve themselves in Israeli/Arab issues for fear of offending (etc) Israel?": You missed the ditty about recognising Hezbollah as a legitamate organisation which should not be outlawed in any way.

Guess you forgot that they run the southern Gazan Border Crossing?

The March 2nd Official Condemnation of Israel's actions with relation to Gaza?

The EU is no friend to us but they do have vested economic interests as in the EUIAA (EU-Israel Association Agreement) concerning Free Trade (obviously they have the advantage with that one considering gross numbers).

"Why does the EU only give a small amount of AID to the PA, nothing like the amount given to Israel by the US?": You are again confusing 2 different dynamics. Very simply put, for brevity's sake? The EU actually has more money and manpower invested in the issue than you seem to know ( as demonstrated by my previous response to you concerning this dynamic, in this post).

Aside from that, the EU really gains nothing from the PA tactically. Economically the "Palestinians" are their own worst enemy so they have nothing to offer the EU. Militarily the PA offrs nothing to the EU. Why get involved at all? Why is the EU not promoting all their humantiarian efforts (and they ineed engage in many in both Gaza and the "WB") there and not, say, Chechnya where they actually could gain some tangible benefits due to the Russian involvement?

The EU does more than it should, by far and as stated, is actually pro-Arab asie from economics in one tiny sector.

"Meet many people who do not know the difference between Israeli and Jew.": I would agree save exchanging "Difference" with "Different nuamce." However, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? I cannot see where I brought up, or you brought up anything having to do with that or anything connected to that. Please explain.

"Disengenuous crap. You cannot argue the 'Settlement' issue by defining it or arguing semantics.": Um, it has EVERYTHING to do with it. For exampe, as stated to the point of tediousness, my family lived in Hebron from the Biblical Era up until 1929. now, if my family had attempted to or had moved back to any part of Hebron after 1967, even my Dad's own house, I and my family would be labeled "Settlers," both by you and popular (here anyway) definition.

Defining a situation is essential.

"More often than not, Arabs are refused permission to build.": First, our govt. owns almost 96% of all land in our nation. Israelis of all backgrounds most often get ednied permission. Everything must be in order.

Secondly, aside from that AND the "Territories," both Arab groups often apply, when applying to build on land they hold no deed to, or land owned by the Israeli Govt. (it owns land in the "Territories" under municipal custodianship, so it is not actually ownership but stewardship. The end result however is one and the same.

As stated, within Israel almost all land is owned b the govt., and most is reserved for this, that, or the other. If you do not have a deed, how could you expect to buiold on land you then claim to own. What govt. would simply allow people to build on any undeveloped municipal land?

Then, if the land is in private hands, but an applicant holds no clear deed, they can forget any kind of building and that goes, again, for all people regardless of ethnicity. It is called common sense. You do not want more headaches nor do you want to give away others' property.

 

[rachamim18]

Frog:"Americans building on someone else's land, meaning Arabs' land,is ok then? Even their garden?": First, If a Jew is born in America as I myself happened to be by a strke of happenstance, does that make them American suddenly? I for one say no as you probably could surmise.

In any event, whatever title he or she now applies to themself, they are Jews and their ancestors are the indgenous people of that land...not an Arab who at the very least is an usurper, an invader from Hejaz and who has an 82% chance of being descended from, or being from an adjacent Arab nation.

Finaly, new construction in the "WB" is illegal under current Israel policy, meaning "Israeli-Jewish" construction. Talk about lack of rights....hmmmm....Why? Because it is being ceded and the govt., the Israeli govt. does not want to pay out for the demolition of said property nor incite Arabs to more needless violence over a moot issue.

The only legal construction is for the maintenance and natural expansion of existing "Settlements," all of which (save those within the up to 6% of preserved "WB" land) will be ceed to the PA anyway.
Again, you raise an isue that really no longer has currency, sort of like calling Israel "Occupier" in relation to Gaza.

"See how funny, if not so tragic, it is to claim 'historical precedence' by building new habitacions on someone else's land?": Let me ask you if you will me permit me to, do you own a ahouse? Any land? How about China invades and you flee for your life as they burn everything in sight.

You are made nationless, no passport, no acceptance, more often than not hounded and even subject to mass atrocities, and then because of a changing geopolitcal climate, and because enough of your fomer neighbours agree, you are able to return to your country.

Now however Chinese people live in your unburned home. they have 5 children born since moving there. these 5 kids see and believe with all their heart and soul that this house is in reality their home. Their first memories are there. Grandma is buried down the road. All their memories are of this home and area.

However, when challenged by the current authorities, the Chinese family cannot provide a deed or any other proof of legal ownership.

Both of you lack it albeit from different circumstances. But you both take on each other in court over the property. Who should the judge decide for? Usually, it will be decided based on prior posessionship if, as I often state, all other things are equal.

Should it then matter that your children have been born in America because you fled Chinese invasion of your area? They should be denied the right to return home if you die and they hold American citizenship?

"But since Romans held the UK, or most of it, as a part of their empire so many thousands of years ago, it would be ok for Itlanais to come and build on Frog's property.": First, because I like facts, most Itlaians have nothing to do with ancient Rome.

Secondly, Rome was the invader in Britain, not sitting there already! So, Rome is equal to Arabs in your analogy and to answer it finally, no they certainly do not have a right to build on your property since they are usurpers, just like Arabs (mind you, not "Palestinians," but alll Arabs outside al Hejaz).

"Most of Jordan was not n the Mandate.": Actually, almost all of it was but that is not the point. You are falling victim to propaganda. the point would not be whether Jordan was comprised mostly of land outside the Mandate, but that it was also comprised by most of the land intended for the envisioned and offered nation of "Palestine."

That it was comprised of Syrian land or not is not the issue, the issue is that it was cmprised of most of the offered nation!

As for youe "source's" claims, all of Syria, or what is now Syria was part of the French Mandate. The French did not create Jordan, the UK did and only did so out of its share of the Mandate.

THERE WAS talk of a federated state comprised of Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon but that was by Arabs before any of it was created and that is what spawned the notion of "Southern Syria.": Souhern Syria by the way is the term used by both Syrians, at that time, and "Palestinians" to describe the intended province that would have encompassed the ENIRE British Mandate of "Palestine" and present day Jordan since Jordan in essence IS "Palestine."

Its population is not comprised of people with direct roots in Syria (although often once or twice removed generationally speaking). It s almost entirely comprised of Arasbs who identify themelves as "PAlestinians," and perhaps rightly so since the term has been coopted by British Mandated Arabs from that sector.

It is ironic that you would use the term "Southern Syrian" in your post because that was what the "Palestinians" called "PAlestine."

 

[rachamim18]

Frog:"Whether or not 'Palestine' is Jordan does not change the facts really.": It sure does. It has all to do with it. If "Palestinians" claim they are stateless and refuse to acknowledge their Peoples' responsibility in refusing statehood for 3 generations, then they MUST be looking at the fact that almost all the land inteded for that same state was lopped off by the Brits and give to a family from what is now Saudi Arabia (actually they come directly from al Hejaz in a nice piece of irony).

"Basically Rachamim is saying that Jew is synonymous with indigenous in relation to the land in contention." NOT basicallly, totally. not Samaritans who came as Assyrian captives to usurp us, forcibly imported by the King of Assyria.

Not the Druse whose existence only dates to the Middle Ages.

Not the Circassians who came as Ottoman slaves but whose origin lies in eastern Europe and Central Asia.

Not the Bedua who gladly admit they have migrated from Arabia.

Not the Armenians who of course hai from Armenia.

Etc.

Etc.

and

Atc.

Who should be incuded? Arabs? Most of whom whose fmilies have less than 150 years on the land? Viallges like the 12 in Galilee founded 70 years ago by Syrians fleeing "French persecution in that portion of the Mandate? Whose existence only dates to 800 BCE? When Jews have been there for 4500 years?

"Every Jews has the right to come to Israel, hen some "Palestinians" cannot.": First, not every Jew can come. Only thoe who have not been convicted of murder, rape, or are certifably insane and trhis because in the mid 1950s Israel modified a law that is called "The Rght of Return."

Do you know why this law exists? Because the UN MAndated that it should be a Jewish Homeland, the only one in existence. There are 32 Arab Nations, plus the "Territories." There are 56 nations in the Arab League plus the "Territories." ONLY ONE JEWISH STATE.

You know, this is kind of ironic. I was responding to you in this thrad this morning when I had to leave to go ook a flight. In this country this almost always must be done in person no matter the airline. I was all set on flying the flag airline of Abu Dhabi, with a layover in that nation on my way to the States.

I had neglected to bring my US Passport with me as planned, because we kind of dushed out of the house fot eh roughly 680 km round trip. Obviously we could not then go home to get it so I was forced to produce my Israeli one.

What is the point? Abu Dhabi, and Arab Nation, forbids Jews from entering its borders. Not Israelis, Jews. Aside from that nugget, my Israeli passport regardless of my ethnicity or religion will bar me as well and was forced to then book on Cathay at a much, much higher price.

Just a personal tidbit yes, but the point is this: You complain about a right Manadated by the UN. This is a right that does not discriminate. Anyone may come to Israel, even "Palestinians," as long as they and any other visitor does not have a negative Profile. However, there is nothing I can do to get into any of the Emirates, nor a couple of other Islamic Nations amd/or Arab Nations.

"Even if every Jews has no connection at all to Israel, they are included in the Right of Return.": First of all, as stated above, that is not true. However, EVERY Jews DOES have a direct connection to the land and itis in their DNA. DNA obtains a mutation upon rewrite and this mutation is then included in the standard makeup. This mutation is then used as a marker to determine geographical connections in conjunction with corroborative anthropological and/or archaelogical proof.

Jews come in all shapes, sizes, and colours, there is no such thing as a "Jewish Look," athough we do have an innate sense of who a Jew is and is not pon meeting strangers, sort of a strange ability but most claim to have it and I myself certainly do.

Yet all these different Jews ALL share common ancestry. Yes, all humankind does as well but Jews do so at a much late date, almost 5000 years ago, and from that point on have maintained a highly, hghly unusual sense of cohesion both genticaqlly and culturally.

So, what is the point? More ethnic grandstanding? Nop. The point is that no matter the Jew or his or her passport cover, they are DIRECTLY connected to the land and will always be even if Arabs do finally kill us all.

"Rich American going to the 'WB'.": First, as I have told you before, most "Settlers" ae actually Mizrachi and Sephardi. Most went there for economic reasons and not for any kind of ultra nationalism or messianic religious observance.

Secondly, why would you assume anyone was rich? Not too many rich people there at all. They struggle more than most Israelis now that their inducements and incentives have been reduced to scraps.

Finally, it is suprising to hear a Jew stereotype other Jews as "Rich." Although I am well off now I grew up bone dry as did many Jews I happen to know.


"Rachamim is forgetting that the Zionist Movement justified possesion of Israel based on the Torah...." No offence but you reallly, really need to study the political ideology because you have no idea on this one. Do you even know how Modern Zionism began?

It began in Ameria with a Sephardic Jew named Mordechai Manuel Noah who bought an island in the St. Lawrence River between the US and Canada, Grand Island and envisioned it as the Homeland of the Jews.

Needless to say he was not too successful.

However the formalised ideology is traced to the Jewish German philosopher Moses Hess. Guess what? He was a contemporary of Marx and like his associate was a proponenet of the coalescing ideology to be known as communism.

From that point until early 20th Century Ce there was no religious Zionism as a formalised ideology. How did that strain come about? Rav Kook. Even until 1949 most relgious Jews despsised Zionists, and many Zionists found their brothers distatsteful.

Religious Jewry, organisationally, such as Agudat, beileved that statehood should wait until the Messianic Advent. There are still many who hate Israel based on this schism which has healed alot and yet still exists.

Religious Jews DO believe the Torah promises us this land and yet many religious Jews reject a secular Jewish State, which by the way, is exactly what Israel is.

"Where Jews originated.": I already explained this one to you in depth. It was Iraq but they have 4500 yeras in what is now Israel, Gaza, and the "WB."

 

[rachamim18]

Frog:"Many lived there before Jews so why should Jews get the land.": I am a bid sad. It seems that you are not actually reading my posts in their entirety, or at least not comprehending them. I already explained, anyone living there before the Jews has been extinct for thousands of years.

If a Phoenician who iriginated in Greece suddenly washed up on shore in his boat, and was able to introduece others who then formed a cohesive and viable culture than by all means, give the entire land to them. Or just maybe they will pity id and give us land like we do the Arabs, and then we can repy them with rocket attacks and human bombs. Great idea.

"Why isn;t the Jewish homeland in Iraq since Jews actually originated there?": Because we had no affiliation with the land as nomads. We then , in time, gradually conquered the land we now claim and anyone then living there was made extinct long ago.


"House demolitions are always illegal under Interntional Law.": Please demonstrate how this is since I took time enough to show you the legal standpoint in opposition to your claim.

"Illegal epecially when people are in them.": Nicce, except you obviously have no idea how we operate. Homes are searched intensively before a Demo begins, even calling occuiupants mobiles to ascertain their exact locations.

The Demos here people die occur in places like Jenin when it is part of actual militaty ops. We have a doctrine called Mouseholeing and it is completely legal.

"What makes then legal?": Sorry, but again I think that you are not reading my posts. I explained why they are legall in my previous post.

"Stoning women for being raped.": Where did that happen? No offence but you are very confused. Israel does no such thing. Some Arabs Do commit Honour Killings and when convicted serve lenghtly sentences. This does not happen in Arab Nations in which it is a legal act (most nations).

Even when illegal like in Jordan, it is uneforced.

However stoning woman only happens in one Arab Nation on an official basis, Arabia. It s not a norm but an abberration in terms of figures.

Because soemthing IS a norm does not make it infallible, it just allows a person such as yourself to know the proper context so that you may understand the viewpoint of the entity practicing it.

"Israel is supposed to be the best nation in the region.": Nope, just the highest per capita figures in many crucial areas as well as having the highest level of personal freedom. It does not make the nation Angelic and perfect. It is a nation of humans and while the practice no longer takes place, I know for a fact that it worked. We have the intel that proves it. The practice in turn drove SOME militant groups to change their iperating procedue, etc.

"Int eh UK homes are no demolished when squatters live in them, simply because they are there.": And ntierh does it happen in Israel. Only when a building was built without permits and is uninspected making it dangerous to all in it and around it. Bit different.

"Not demolished when tunnels are underneath it.": Smuggling tunnels? Used for terrorism? Sure, just kills unarmed Brasilian immigrants.

"Does the UK send people to jail for soemthing a relative did?": No and neither does Israel. However, like the UK, we do incarcerate those who purposely withhold information that couldhave prevented tragic loss of lives due to terrorism.

We also incarcerate those who are accomplice in other ways.

Want to continue that one?


"The world's 3rd most powerul army.": First, you got ths one incorrect as wel. 3rd most powerful and 1st in both combat time and ability but that is just my bragging (smile).

Actually, if we were so brutal for being the 3rd largest military and fightin a "few homade rockets," we would have klled hundreds of thousands in Gaza. It is the most densely populated place on Earth in many parts. That we do not even kill a thousand everytime we operate bespeaks our care and intent.

"Few homemade rockets.": That have killed more than 30. so what if someone made them outwide a munitions plant. Which by the way, they do have factrories that manfacture the 3 through 6 series so your point does not make sense. In fact, many of our ops are aimed at those very factories that are placed in highly populated areas hoping for PR value.


"Israel demolishes homes of bombers who walked by the homes,etc.": first that is utter nonsense. Second, the practice ended almost 3 years ago, even for them. Only tunnels are subject to the practice, or bomb factories.Of course we sih to give bobmbers al the rights that we can (as if).

"But Demos did not stop in Lebanon did they.": Again, a doctrine called Mouseholing. Please study it a bit more than you did Assymerical Warfare which merely earned a tongue in cheek comment.

If you truly wish to understand a perspecxtive you must study a much as possible about it. I want to understand HAMAS? I read its Charter and everything I can about it.

This does not mean you need to go to War College but that you merely need to examine a doctrine before you can offer valid concdemnation of it.

"110 'Palestinians' in Gaza dying because of a smaller number of Israeli casualties is "worthwhile outcome?": Again, please study the doctrine...as well as Gazan demographics and its geopolitical dynamic.

 

[rachamim18]

Frog: "How come 'Palestinians' are placed under curfew?": Again, because we are forced to admisniter the lands rejected by their former colonial masters of Egypt and Jordan.

The curfew itself is directly related to offeincive and violent actions and threats against Israel and its people. night is when most smart tacticians stage attacks. Curfews do alot to eliminate threat.

"Why are Jews in the 'WB' treated diffeently like not arrested when throwing stones?": A little less than 800 are in jail so please study the issue. Secondly, the reason why you see the army look as if it is doing nothing is because the Border police have had the responsibility in such things.

The IDF merely is mandated to protect both groups. If one throws rocks against the other the IDF tries to prevent either wide from either escalating and to assist Border as and if requested.

"How come "Palestinians are made to wait at Checkpints and Jews aren't.": First, ALL people wait at Checkpoints., Within Israel itself they must go through more than you could imagine. In the "WB" it is true that they are often waved through but then there is incredible volume and commanders wsh to epedite things a soon as possible. can tell you though that at PA run Points which are actually more numerous on the "WB," the converse happens but you do not see angry people talking about THAT.

 

[rachamim18]

Frog: "Guradian article.": AGAIN, the GUARDIAN, and that should say it all. As fr the Google link, look...The same "Sources" claimed that there were literally thousands of dead Arabs including children and preganant wmen whose fetuses who had been carved out lying under the camp rubble in Jenin. Result? Arafat lied to the world.

Same sources told everyone how Israel uses radioacticity against Arabs. Result? Lie. We can do this all day. If it were all true you would see the Hague, the UN, not the Guardian whining about fantasies.

I explain to you that Amnesty is an NGO and you aks me why they have accused Israel of something. Instead of reminding you that you have failed to grasp the irony, I will ask you to use common sense and ask yourself this: If Amnesty has poroof, why not make a ega case instead of trying to create media controversy?

"Amnesty is anti-Jewish.": I do not think so but I do know hat they are anti-Israeli.

"Why is the UN Resolution bringing Israel into existence vald, when those condemning Israel are not?": Great question. Too bad you mis the orinoy. Again, why would Israe ever obey the dctums of an entity that refuses to recognise the very basic resolution that brought Israel into existence?!?

You deny I exist and yet try to dictate my internal policy? Please think about it.

 

[frogwoman]

I'll reply to the rest of them later but I did not "stereotype other Jews as rich" .

I was making the point that someone who CHOOSES to come to Israel from America (or Britain for that matter, or Canada, or anywhere else in the Western world) that has no reason to come, not being a victim of discrimination, not being a victim of persecution as Jews are in Eastern Europe, Central Asia or Argentina, and being in a, shall we say, "comfortable" financial situation, has no more right to the land than a Palestinian who already lives in it and has done for centuries.

 

[rachamim18]

Frog:"Does Rachamim read links sent?": ALL OF THEM.

"It was not an Arab Activist but rather victims f Demos who filed.": It was one particular Activist at trhe "PAlestinian Cente for Human Rights" who brough it. I would think that you would know this?

Furthermore, did it not occur to you that your own govt. did not agree with the case? Fear of storming a plane? Our air security carry 22s...Maybe I am not allowed to een say that but there it is. Auto equipped UK Forces are afraid of 2 guys with 22s? Riiiiiight.

If there had been say, a wanted drug dealer or terrorist on board, who refused to deplane, what would have happened. The case was nonsense and it shows how fuc%#d up the UK is. A country that is still colonialist, albit in the modern vein, trying to enforce a domestic law that has no legal basis in the real world.

"Why should the UK not have a lw allowing for the arrest of War Crime suspects in issues not nvolving the UK one iota.": Beccause the UK s not a world body. It has no right to do nything but bring its case before the International Tribunal. It, a nation holding Scotland, Wales, Las Malvinas, and others is throwing stones? Hmmm.


"Does Rachamim not like Israelis getting arrested?": Depends for what crime? By whom? And finally, legitamacy. Homohpobe George Galloway now sets national policy?

"Have UK Police gone to Israel to arrest anyone?": Surely you are joking. We could wipe the floor with anything British, no offence to people from the UK but the idea is ludicrous. To be serious though, it is against International Law for them to do so, so that is something to mull over.


"IF the IDF General had been an Arab terrorist Rachamim would have thought differently.": Terrorism is against International Law and I would have loved it had your nation actually had ball& enough to arrest a Jewish terrorist, no need for just Arab. ALl terrorists are pieces of shi& that should be dealt with swiftly no matter the ideological bent.

Problem with your contentions though are that Israel has not broekn any such laws or El Al would not be flying. I mean, do you realise that I mself was a Captain who served in every war since Peace for Galilee? Do you think I never supervised Demos or ordered men to do it?

When I was a Command Sgt. which was actually my ran for most of my Service I was in charge of 22 houses in Rafah (camp not city) and am damn proud of it. They presented a direct threat to my men and other Israelis. The houses were along a line in a No-go zone and were sniper nests. Should I be arrested? In your mind it must be so but then I travel the world.

Just got back from Thaiand and Cambodia, and am now going to HK and the States. I bounce all over and not a worry to be had because F I were to be arrestedby some headline grabbing left leaning law office order, I would gladly fight it and beait down.

All armies in the world demolish property. If it s 100 meters from a road where many attacks happen, and the owner does not rectify it within a tmnely fashion, it is coming down and will smile as the Ds do their job. It is standard procedure anywhere in the world.

What you are talking about and what that General did are 2 different things. He is not accused of taking part in apunative action, but operating in standard procedure.

 

[rachamim18]

Frog: "Funding the Phalangists.": For a brief period of time, yes. I do believe however that you are confusing the SLA with the Phalangists. The Phalangists were not clients but tactical allies, the SLA were our proxies. The original SLA Commander WAS a Phalangist for a while, and always a smpathiser but it was a mixed group of Shia and Christains of all denominations, not just Maronites.

"Taking UN Resolutions that brokered Israel's existence and against Iran seriuously, but not the 'Zionism = Racism' one seriously." The first two? One, Iran, was a Security Council Resolutions that directly seeks to neutralise a nation that directly threatens Israel's verry existence.

The second, Israel's ratification?, itis separate from the Resolution which we are referring to. The Resolution, #181,deals with the Partition,etc. and of course because it in effect inited creation of the nation, was of great benefit to Israel.

181 is a prerequisite for anything coming later. Why should Israel unequivocally follow the wishes of nations that not only reject this pre-requisire Resolution acknoledging the creation og Israel, ths stating in this rejection that Israel does not exist? Your reasoning makes no sene.

The third? The one on Zionism? #3379? It is authored by these same nations, Arab Nations who do not recognise that Israel even exists, let alone a few of them still maintaining a State of Declared War with Israel. Why shoul Israel ever follow a non-binding Resolution, authored by entities that declaed war on it and continue to do so, and who say that it does not even exist?

In any event, what is there to obey about #3379? It is not a dictum but merely opinion, a statement. One that is totally nonsensical.


"Are NGOS like Human Rights Watch/HRW and Amnesty International corrupt like the UN?": Not in my opinion, just ideologically bent and thus worthless as an arbiter of world opinion.

"Arabs only started blowing themselves up in revenge for Israeli attacks.": So that makes it right? It is not even correct let alone a rationalisation. HAMAS the first? They claim it is because a Jewish terrorist attacked Muslim worhsipers in Hebron.

I actually knew and respected that Terrorist, Dr. Baruch Golstein. I knew him because he was a Major in my Brigade. He was also a fellow Kahanist.however, hate all terrorism and that is why I find your rationalisation sad. If I could, would pave over his memeorial in Hebron (memroial taken care of by the Kahanists).

His actions did spark the first "Suicide Bombing" when Goldstein killed 29 Muslim Arabs.

HAMAS returned the action with the "Suicide Bombing" in Afula, that same year, 1994, and killed 8. Revenge? In 3 years from that first attack? They killed just over 300. So no, I do not think revenge is an ecuse.

Some say it is revenge for "Occupation" but that is utter garbage. If you read the HAMAS Charter you will see why.


"What about Irgun,etc.": They weere often despised by us and our own peope turned in members of those organisations to be hung even though neither Jewish group used it against civilains almost always.

I also want to remind you that it all began in 1920 with the Arab extermination of 2 Jewish villages. Jews did not respond until 1936, and even then usually focused on the British.

 

[frogwoman]

If amnesty international is "anti-Israel" then shouldn't you ask why it is instead of insulting it, and not simply repeat propaganda from the Israeli government? Do you think it's anti-Chinese as well by the way, with all those reports about Tibet?

 

[frogwoman]

Frog: "Funding the Phalangists.": For a brief period of time, yes. I do believe however that you are confusing the SLA with the Phalangists. The Phalangists were not clients but tactical allies, the SLA were our proxies. The original SLA Commander WAS a Phalangist for a while, and always a smpathiser but it was a mixed group of Shia and Christains of all denominations, not just Maronites.

"Taking UN Resolutions that brokered Israel's existence and against Iran seriuously, but not the 'Zionism = Racism' one seriously." The first two? One, Iran, was a Security Council Resolutions that directly seeks to neutralise a nation that directly threatens Israel's verry existence.

Right, so seeing as Israel hasn't ruled out the use of force against Iran, and has a nuclear bomb, a resolution declaring zionism to be racism isn't "neutralising a nation that directly threatens Iran's very existence"?

 

[rachamim18]

"Ask why Amnesty is anti-Israel instead of insulting it.": First, that is not neccessary. The question would only be mandatory if I thought that Israel offered just cause. As one who has served in most of the areas discussed in this thread and who himself speaks Arabic first, it is enough that I know most of their "reporting" is mere unadulterated b.s.

Secondly, it is quite clear that the reason is the group's distinct ideology.,

Charging Israel with "Destruction of Hope" because it operates border Checkpoints (they claim all Points do so but in not making any distinction between the 4 types of Points they made a huge gaffe, not to mention other laughable nonsense in this same report) is something that should be Internationally criticised itself!

Let us also, while we are at it, talk about HRW since I do believe you have used their "charges" as a basis for somethings you have stated. Claiming that Hezbollah did NOT use human shields to protect themselves from any Israeli military response is a gross joke! Their whole operational structure and procedure depends entirely on this.

Criticising Israel for "Attacking civilain Infrastructure" is nonsense since not only is it basic and standard operating procedure and doctrine that is used by all militaries that are able, bar none (since it saves many more lives than takes), but the group had bt one, VERY short (think 3 paragraph) report on Hzbollah's ISCRIMINATE use of force and its purposeful goal of inflicting non-military damage and death!!!

The idea that simply because Israel is perceived as being stronger , better equipped, or anything else you want to add, so that they should only then operate in the exact same manner as the agggressrs (Hezbollah) is insane?

Should Israel, in order to utilise "porportionate force" aim for only non-military objectives more than 9/10ths of the time is criminal in thought and you mimic the Amnesty Reports acccusing Israel of using disportionate response!

The truth is, they also accuse us of breaking International Law and that is patently absurd. As at least one brief has noted, RAF bombers were told to bomb centers of each town in order to inflict as much damage of Infrastructure as possible in WWII and noone would suggest that they had broken minimum standards.

Whether you agree with the group's STATED ultimate goal or not, there is no way a more than retarded person can make such a claim. A "military" entity that refuses to wear uniforms except in PR related events (although I personally engaged at east 2 men who were wearing pitch perfect IDF uniforms that they probably took from dead Israelis, that launches missiles from apartment buildings, who stores and manufactures weapons inside of mixed use structures does nothing if it does not use Shields.

So why the obsession? It is a Leftist organisation with a clearly continued Leftist agenda. Founded by a Labour Party member (from the UK of course) and staffed by Communist Party leaders.

Organisational Structure is patently based on Communist ideology, "3s?" Please, it is quite transparent and the group used to make no secret about its Leftist path.


"Israel and Iran." Israel ALLEGEDLY has nukes. However, not only has Israel NEVER threatened to use them against Iran, even if they did have them, they have never been aggresive towards Iran.

Iran is a nation whose ruling party has publicly declared the American cartoon "Tom and Jerry" to be a Jewish attempt at world domination.

It is a nation whose leader regularly denies the Holocaust, whose govt. keeps its Jews as dhimmi, who trumps up charges against its 50 odd thousand Jewish Community when saying more than a dozen members were spies for Israel...and then admitting that they fabricated it (Hmmmm, kind of like ISM,et l, a pattern emerges)...And all Israel says is that it will defend ITSELF against attack...not mentioning any threats to Iran or its existence.

In WWII, the Holocaust, the Axis shared a united ideology (although not enforced even remotely the same in all the nations). This meant many nations, and many sympathetic nations were sharing the commonality of being distinctly anti-Jewish, if not murderous.

A person living in Poland might very well think that their and their neighbours' opinions were the International majority, as you seem to do about the opinion popular in the UK, but of course they would have been laughably naive, right? Most of the world does not share your opinon, in fact your current govt. disarees directly as you must know.

 

[frogwoman]

Frog:"Americans building on someone else's land, meaning Arabs' land,is ok then? Even their garden?": First, If a Jew is born in America as I myself happened to be by a strke of happenstance, does that make them American suddenly? I for one say no as you probably could surmise.

Yeah it makes them an American Jew. It doesn't mean that they're the same as every other American but they're still American if they or their parents, grandparents etc were born there, doesn't it? How is someone not American if they are Jewish, that is just like what anti-semites say, that Jews can't be citizens of or considered part of the "host country" and are almost a separate species.

In any event, whatever title he or she now applies to themself, they are Jews and their ancestors are the indgenous people of that land...not an Arab who at the very least is an usurper, an invader from Hejaz and who has an 82% chance of being descended from, or being from an adjacent Arab nation.

I am sorry but that is bollocks. What about people who convert to Judaism? The right of return doesn't state that "anyone who descended from Jews who lived in Israel thousands of years ago and are genetically related to the Israel's original inhabitants have a right to go back to Israel". It says that any Jew has the right to return to Israel and a Jew can be a convert, or a descendant from other converts who have nothing to do with Israel (as happened in what is now Germany and many Scandinavian countries before the advent of Christianity, when Jews travelled to Europe for trade and married the original inhabitants and introduced people to Judaism).

Just because someone is Jewish it doesn't automatically mean they are related to the Biblical people of Israel in their DNA and even if they are then there is nothing that makes them more "entitled" to the land than the Palestinains.

"See how funny, if not so tragic, it is to claim 'historical precedence' by building new habitacions on someone else's land?": Let me ask you if you will me permit me to, do you own a ahouse? Any land? How about China invades and you flee for your life as they burn everything in sight.

You are made nationless, no passport, no acceptance, more often than not hounded and even subject to mass atrocities, and then because of a changing geopolitcal climate, and because enough of your fomer neighbours agree, you are able to return to your country.

Now however Chinese people live in your unburned home. they have 5 children born since moving there. these 5 kids see and believe with all their heart and soul that this house is in reality their home. Their first memories are there. Grandma is buried down the road. All their memories are of this home and area.

Your analogy is flawed because you are talking about something that happened two thousand years ago as if it happened to Jews today. I agree that the situation in your analogy would be intolerable but that is NOT WHAT HAPPENED is it??

If I was burned out of my house by Christians and Romans in 70 AD, and led a hellish existence for the rest of my life, as the Jews of that time did, the fact is that in 1948 I would not have been alive would I? I would be dead. And in 1948 there is little likelihood that a house from two thousand years ago would still be standing

However, when challenged by the current authorities, the Chinese family cannot provide a deed or any other proof of legal ownership.

Its such a flawed analogy that there really isn't any point debating about it.

Both of you lack it albeit from different circumstances. But you both take on each other in court over the property. Who should the judge decide for? Usually, it will be decided based on prior posessionship if, as I often state, all other things are equal.

Should it then matter that your children have been born in America because you fled Chinese invasion of your area? They should be denied the right to return home if you die and they hold American citizenship?

Precisely the same argument you are using could be used for the Palestinian refugees.

"But since Romans held the UK, or most of it, as a part of their empire so many thousands of years ago, it would be ok for Itlanais to come and build on Frog's property.": First, because I like facts, most Itlaians have nothing to do with ancient Rome.

Secondly, Rome was the invader in Britain, not sitting there already! So, Rome is equal to Arabs in your analogy and to answer it finally, no they certainly do not have a right to build on your property since they are usurpers, just like Arabs (mind you, not "Palestinians," but alll Arabs outside al Hejaz).

But Jews were also the invader in Palestine according to the Torah (which is the document that states that the Jews have a right to the land) so how is it any different

And most modern Jews aren't the direct descendants of the ancient Israelites, sure they probably are related to them distantly, but I'd imagine it would be in the same way as modern day Italians are related to Romans. Anyway why does it make a difference who is related to who? Isn't that just an argument based on nationalism?

I'd be pretty pissed off if I was living in a house and then someone turned up and claimed that they had a right to build a house based on something that happened thousands of years ago, and I had to go and live somewhere else

 

[rachamim18]

Frog: "American Jew.": The converse say, a "Jewish American." If merely for safety's sake, a Jew must always remember that they are foremost Jewish. One must remember what happened to "Germans of Jewish descent or the Hebrew persuasion."

"How can a person be Jewish and not American if born in America,etc?": Easily. America could not give a damn about the Jews save for the perceived vote. I do know Jews who consider themselves American but then they could not tell you the first thing about the culture.

America sent boatloads of Jews to die in camps, voted against Israel, worked against it until 67, has been detrimental to Israel at time since 67 (granted Jew is not synonymous with Israel or Israeli but as Israel IS the Jewish Nation...), and although it no longer allows barring Jews from cafes and hotels, or allows university quotas on them as they did just a generation ago, thee is a high level of anti-Jewish thought and action there.

"What about Jewish converts.": They ARE allowed the Right ONLY if converted according to orthadoxy. This is law. However, to address your point, if a person converts to being a Jew, they obviously almost always will marry a Jew, as will their children and so the convert and its progeny are absorbed back into the bloodline within a couple of generations. I have a convert wife. G-D willing w will have children and by the time I have great grandchildren by them, they will be 100% Jewish if you want to look at it from that view.

The only reason the genetic link is important is for two reasons: I) It proves Jews constitute more than a religion...and II) Specific markers prove we came from the land in question despite our different physical appearances. This in turn is important because enemies state that we are neither a People 9thus negating the need for a nation), nor do we have a connection to the land.

I have been to speeches and rallies where some say Zionists are white colonisers oppressing people of colour. Ridiculous nonsense. That is why it is important.

"Analogy is flawed.": Not at all. First, as have told you, in that part of the world people count in millenia, not decades. Arabs do it, we do it. It is truth no matter if you like the date or not.

As for "not being alive in 1948." Why? You think noone ever survived rough treatment? My mom survived Dachau so people can survive things you cannot even imagine. Rome was brutal but Jews also served Rome. It was not mechanised genocide, nor genocide at all, simply military occupation.

"Could use the analogy to favour Arabs." Except they came after us, so that they occupy our land....just like the Chinese family in that very simple analogy. Not to mention were afforded their own Right of Return already and refused it almost to a person.

 

[rachamim18]

Frog: How is it different since the Torah says Jews were invaders?": Jews settled over the course of a millenia according to most scientists, in 2 distinct but separate waves. We won by assimilating other cultures, and it was not until we were in the period of Judges that we even had any real military power (and even then it was trivial).

"Most modern Jews are not direct descendants of the Israelites.": Absolutely correct sister. We are directly descended from Judeans.Please look into genetic science, especially Y Chromosomal Modalities.

"Argument based on nationalism.": And nationalism is evil because?

"Pissed if Frog lived in a house.": That is not what happened at all. If you held a deed, a real deed, you would keep your house regardless of anyone showing up.

If instead you only had lived there for a couple of generations as have almost all Arabs with no real connection to the land save those couple of generations, and were still offered more than 70% of the land to build your own nation on, you got a damned good deal, right?

 

[frogwoman]

Frog: "American Jew.": The converse say, a "Jewish American." If merely for safety's sake, a Jew must always remember that they are foremost Jewish. One must remember what happened to "Germans of Jewish descent or the Hebrew persuasion."

"How can a person be Jewish and not American if born in America,etc?": Easily. America could not give a damn about the Jews save for the perceived vote. I do know Jews who consider themselves American but then they could not tell you the first thing about the culture.

America sent boatloads of Jews to die in camps, voted against Israel, worked against it until 67, has been detrimental to Israel at time since 67 (granted Jew is not synonymous with Israel or Israeli but as Israel IS the Jewish Nation...), and although it no longer allows barring Jews from cafes and hotels, or allows university quotas on them as they did just a generation ago, thee is a high level of anti-Jewish thought and action there.

"What about Jewish converts.": They ARE allowed the Right ONLY if converted according to orthadoxy. This is law. However, to address your point, if a person converts to being a Jew, they obviously almost always will marry a Jew, as will their children and so the convert and its progeny are absorbed back into the bloodline within a couple of generations. I have a convert wife. G-D willing w will have children and by the time I have great grandchildren by them, they will be 100% Jewish if you want to look at it from that view.

The only reason the genetic link is important is for two reasons: I) It proves Jews constitute more than a religion...and II) Specific markers prove we came from the land in question despite our different physical appearances. This in turn is important because enemies state that we are neither a People 9thus negating the need for a nation), nor do we have a connection to the land.

I have been to speeches and rallies where some say Zionists are white colonisers oppressing people of colour. Ridiculous nonsense. That is why it is important.

"Analogy is flawed.": Not at all. First, as have told you, in that part of the world people count in millenia, not decades. Arabs do it, we do it. It is truth no matter if you like the date or not.

As for "not being alive in 1948." Why? You think noone ever survived rough treatment? My mom survived Dachau so people can survive things you cannot even imagine. Rome was brutal but Jews also served Rome. It was not mechanised genocide, nor genocide at all, simply military occupation.

"Could use the analogy to favour Arabs." Except they came after us, so that they occupy our land....just like the Chinese family in that very simple analogy. Not to mention were afforded their own Right of Return already and refused it almost to a person.

Why do you attach so much importance to genetics and stuff? Who cares who's related to who? And didnt they find that the Palestinians and Jews are very closely related, which disproves the claim that they were "invaders"?

I was making the point that someone who was driven out of Jerusalem in 70 AD would not be alive in 1948, for the reason that nobody lives that long. Nobody. I'm not trying to say all the stuff that happened to Jews never happened, but you made a highly emotional analogy about people fleeing from their homes and then the same person returning home to find that several generations of Chinese families have moved in. I'm arguing that it wouldn't be the same person. The Jews coming back to Israel would most likely never have been to Israel and would have had little connection to it as an actual place except in their religion as a homeland.

I really dont see how your justifications are actually worth anything to be honest. It's like China declaring that it has the right to do whatever it wants with Tibet because "Tibet was a part of China long before most other countries existed".

 

[frogwoman]

Frog: How is it different since the Torah says Jews were invaders?": Jews settled over the course of a millenia according to most scientists, in 2 distinct but separate waves. We won by assimilating other cultures, and it was not until we were in the period of Judges that we even had any real military power (and even then it was trivial).

"Most modern Jews are not direct descendants of the Israelites.": Absolutely correct sister. We are directly descended from Judeans.Please look into genetic science, especially Y Chromosomal Modalities.

"Argument based on nationalism.": And nationalism is evil because?

"Pissed if Frog lived in a house.": That is not what happened at all. If you held a deed, a real deed, you would keep your house regardless of anyone showing up.

If instead you only had lived there for a couple of generations as have almost all Arabs with no real connection to the land save those couple of generations, and were still offered more than 70% of the land to build your own nation on, you got a damned good deal, right?

How does only living there for a few generations not give you a real connection to the land?

What would happen if the BNP took power and decided to make Britain a "Christian state" and decided that anyone without connections to the land going back at least two hundred years had to leave? Does this mean that they would be justified in doing so even if millions of people had to leave? After all if they've only been there a few hundred years then who cares, right? They obviously dont have a deep connection with the land

I'm sorry but if any other country tries these lines of argument, nobody takes them seriously and for good reason. How is it any different with Israel?

Nationalism might not always be "evil" but you can't use it to prove anything, and you can't use it to justify the actions of a state, based on what happened thousands of years ago, i mean what about what happens now :|