They're at it again...

[Azred]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Since the LON came along, and on into the UN, there is no right of conquest. It is not a valid way to expand borders or add colonies any longer. It is illegal. The three buffer areas are illegal, and Israel has been reprimanded. The only real problem is no one will enforce the Rule of Law here. Call them buffers, call them occupied territories, call them what you will -- but they are NOT Israel. Besides, buffer... pffft, really? Yeah, the buffer is the tail wagging the dog, in case we hadn't noticed. Israel would do much better with a tightly-controlled border, keeping Jews and Palestinians each to their land. But, they want the LAND -- it is a LAND GRAB. It is unseemly, deplorable, and if the Palestinians had lighter skin people just might care.

I still say step back and let the two sides fight it out. Israel will win and then they will have to live with the consequences of their victory. Since they won't listen to reason, let them listen to their conscience (assuming they have one); unfortunately, Israel would probably be able to rationalize almost any action. They're both insane.

[Skunk]

Israel plays by the international laws, they COULD have taken over their enemies lands and everything that comes with it.

Just between you and me, I'll share a small secret with you.


In 1964 Israel began diverting *massive* amounts of water from the Jordan river into the Negev Desert. This action threatened the very survival of half of the Syrian countryside (water being a somewhat valuable asset in a arid region).

Syria, realising that it faced a potential catastrophe on an epic scale appealed to Israel to stop the work. Israel refused.

Syria responded by quickly beginning its own work on the river to prevent the loss of water that would have been caused by the Israeli work. Israel responded to this with military strikes at the Syrian waterproject site. A small border conflict ensued which lasted until:

1967 - Eygypt realising that the small states of Syria was about to be destroyed decided to impose sanctions and to forbid any ships bound to or leaving Israel from entering its territorial waters (its sovereign right).

In response, Israeli Prime Minister Dayan publicly stated to Egypt, Syria and Jordan (who was also losing water as a result of Israel's water project), that a diplomatic solution could be found and that war, far from being inevitable was unlikely and that he would *not* launch a first strike.

Eygyt, Syria and Jordan reacted by scaling down their troop activity on the borders of Israel when suddenly (and without warning), Israel launched a massive and simultaneous airstrike on all three countries destryong more than 300 Eyptian, 50 Syrian and 20 Jordanian aircraft while they were still on the ground.

Israel then launched a ground offensive on to the territories of those countries and routed their troops who were now without air support. At the end of the conflict, Israel refused to hand back the territory that it had seized from them.


Now, you are right in thinking that Israel was not breaking international law by building the water project - although it was a provocation that would inevitably lead to war. Without water, not only do people die, but so does their agriculture - Syria and Jordan *had* to react or die of thirst.

On the other hand, the attacks on its neighbours was unquestionably both illegal and without any justification. There was *no* need for Israel to 'Pearl harbour' its neighbours - it was a murderous act outside international law.

Since 1967, Israel has repeated violated international law in the way that it suppresses the Palestinian people. It has seized their land, evicted them from their homes, used the military against civilians, engaged in collective punishment, instigated racist laws... the list is endless and puts it almost on a par with the way that Saddam Hussein treated the Shi'ite population.

It is not for nothing that the UN made 65 resolutions calling for Israel to return to international law. Had it not been for the US's vetos of further resolutions, that list would number more than a hundred! (Which makes Saddam Hussein's Iraq look like a really nice and innocent little country).

[ 08-22-2003, 03:41 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

[johnny]

Oh, i'm sorry, i didn't know that those poor innocent Arabs were so oppressed by those evil Israeli's. Nice historical facts you have there Skunk, but aren't you forgetting something ? You're taklking about the sixties, but do you remember the first years of the state of Israel ? When they were invaded by the combined forces of no less than 6 Arab nations. Egypt, Syria, Transjordan (later Jordan), Lebanon, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. In addition, local Arab Palestinian forces also fought the Israelis.

I'd say that must have given them a feeling they were not very welcome in the region, don't you think ? If the israeli's are coming down hard on the Arabs, they have brought it on themselves. They were the ones who opened fire, the Israeli's only returned the favour.

[Donut]

Originally posted by Sir Taliesin: Plus just go back and ask all those Freedom Fighters that died in Hebron at the beginning of the latest occupation by the Israelis. They are a "dead" example of what I am talking about.

True, but if Israel has already killed every Palistinian man, woman & child who would they take reprisals against?

[Donut]

My solution:

Take the first born son of every Palestinian family and execute them!

No, wait, that's been done before somewhere.

I know - let's have "The Final Solution", genocide on a scale not seen since the 1940's. Now that would be "The Final Irony"

[Ar-Cunin]

Originally posted by Donut: My solution: Take the first born son of every Palestinian family and execute them! No, wait, that's been done before somewhere. I know - let's have "The Final Solution", genocide on a scale not seen since the 1940's. Now that would be "The Final Irony"

nice [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: TL didn't misstate anything. And, he unfortunately had a post deleted somehow. Since the LON came along, and on into the UN, there is no right of conquest. It is not a valid way to expand borders or add colonies any longer. It is illegal. The three buffer areas are illegal, and Israel has been reprimanded. The only real problem is no one will enforce the Rule of Law here. Call them buffers, call them occupied territories, call them what you will -- but they are NOT Israel. Besides, buffer... pffft, really? Yeah, the buffer is the tail wagging the dog, in case we hadn't noticed. Israel would do much better with a tightly-controlled border, keeping Jews and Palestinians each to their land. But, they want the LAND -- it is a LAND GRAB. It is unseemly, deplorable, and if the Palestinians had lighter skin people just might care.

Well I never saw your deleted post unfortunately and in the post that I DID see, you were acting like I said that the "Buffer Zones" were legal and all I said was that the land they hold from the LON and UK is theirs legally....and I never said that their creating a buffer zone was "legal" just understandable after what they went thru. If I were to start killing off your family one by one and attacking you i your home...Im pretty sure you would create your own "buffer zone" to protect them the "law" be damned.

I am also not claiming any moral or other kind of superiority on the israeli side of things....just stating that If I were them, I would do the same thing wether distant nations agreed with it or not. No one likes to have to fight a battle on his home soil. As for the "World" not caring because of the Palistinian skin color...I think thats complete and utter nonsense.


[ 08-22-2003, 08:39 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Nice history lesson Skunk [img]smile.gif[/img] you forgot to mention WHY Israel was taking the water and diverting it to the Negev....it was so they could survive. The land that Israel received from the LON and UK was not the land they were promised but instead barren waste lands..they were forced to divert water in order to grow food to live. So facing starvation themselves or letting soemone else worry...they chose to live. Again a completely understandable situation. I also believe that Syria was a little less...."Innocent" than your post would have us believe. I recall several slaughters of innocent civilian communities on the border that had no military value whatsoever.

[WillowIX]

But what Skunk's post does prove is that both sides are guilty as h--l! I wonder how many sentences we could end up with in a trial.

Abbas is doing what he can. Arresting the military extremists is a good start. Now if only the Israel leaders just became a little less trigger happy.

Originally posted by WillowIX: But what Skunk's post does prove is that both sides are guilty as h--l! I wonder how many sentences we could end up with in a trial. Abbas is doing what he can. Arresting the military extremists is a good start. Now if only the Israel leaders just became a little less trigger happy.

Trigger happy hmmmmm...ok how many innocent men women and children are permitted to be killed and maimed before they have a right to strike back?

I suppose your number would be quite a lot higher than mine. I loose any sense of need for restraint after the first bus load. How many bus loads should they wait for before striking back?

This may sound like Im being sarcastic...but Im not, it is a serious question. How many of your citizens should you be willing to sacrifice before retaliating? It is a good question.

As for the trial idea...would be an interesting idea. But I believe that the whole thing would have to revolve around which nation/nations attacked which first...and since the Arab League attacked first about 1 hour after the Nation of Israel was created....we have the answer to the chicken and egg thing here....



[ 08-22-2003, 10:39 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]