Gaza Strip - Page 11

On January 12 2009 20:13 VanDerMeyde wrote: Zorglub!: So what are UN saying about this 1967 land ? And the apartheid wall, what is said about that ? (Hint: Haag)

I dont know, you tell me?

Well the point here Zorglub is that Israel is not respecting the court in Haags desicion over the apartheid wall and they are not respecting UN-resolution 242 about the illegal land they stole from 1967.

These 2 things, among many other, are the reason why civilian Israeli is suffering from bad decisions made by their politicians. Israeli politicians are in my eyes more interested in securing more land for Israel than protecting its own citizens

To me its extremly hillarious that some people say "Israel is definding itself" when you look at that map. It looks more like Palestines trying to defend itself from someone who want ALL THEIR LAND. EVERYTHING. And I bet they are gonna get it all too. Sometime in my lifetime Israel will get the entire land for theirself and the palestine people are doomed because the important people in Israel, the guys that makes the important decisions - politicians and army generals DONT GIVE A FUCK ABOUT ISRAELI OR PALESTINIAN CIVILIAN. All they are interested in is more for theirself. A few israeli civilian and hundreds suffering they live just fine with.

Well I really have my doubts that Hamas would respect any Haag or UN decision either, because when religion is involved common sense and logic goes out the window.

But they need the land and apartheid wall to help secure their citizens, when the wall was not there Hamas did suicide bombings in Israel, and Hamas rockets fire further and further so they also need a buffer zone to get out of reach of rockets

On January 12 2009 18:36 TedHastings wrote: Show nested quote + On January 12 2009 17:19 Roman wrote: can someone give me some history info. present day Israel belonged to Britian before WWII? It was then 'given' to the Jews? How was this new country created, as in who were considered citizens, it was a democracy yes? what sparked the first conflict between the arab nations and Israel? The area referred to as "Palestine" was under the control of the Ottoman Empire during WW1 and following their defeat it was put under British rule. As a result partly of WW2 Britain decided they didn't need the hassle of dealing with it and tasked the UN with deciding what to do with it. The UN's suggestion was to establish two states in the area, one for Jews fleeing Europe (there was also a minority already present in the area) and another for the Arab population. The Jews agreed with this plan but the Arabs rejected it, so the UN just gave the Jews the land. As soon as Israel was created, I think even the first day of its existence or something, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq attacked it to try to keep it from ever existing (Arab-Israeli War of 1948). Israel won and as a result of the conflict established what most people today refer to as their "pre-1967 borders". In 1967 Egypt, Syria and Jordan kicked out UN peacekeepers and tarted massing troops along their borders with Israel. Israel pre-emptively attacked and as a result of this conflict (Six-Day War) gained the Golan Heights, Sinai Peninsula, West Bank and Gaza Strip, of which they have returned Sinai to Egypt and Golan Heights to Syria but retain the other two. After losing twice in conventional wars with Israel, the Arab opposition decided to switch tactics and that's when groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and formerly the PLO rose to prominence. edit: Basically it comes down to the UN and Western powers thinking they can just arbitrarily split up random parts of the world, Arab leadership stubbornly refusing to accept any Jewish state in the Middle East, and the Israelis severely overreacting to repeated Arab aggression.

I see, thanks for taking the time to respond. When you say Arabs rejected the deal, was there a referendum that the people living there voted on or something? What did the Arabs living in the region propose instead? How was the government set up previously, a British appointed magistrate or something?

VanDerMeyde please comment on the post below, I would like your view because I know the exact same thing is happening in Norway as witnessed in the Oslo pro israeli protest a few days ago

On January 12 2009 19:49 Zorglub wrote: Also it does not help my sympathy for radical muslims that these guys were burning danish flags, raging the streets in Denmark and all over the world attacking police and destroying private property, bombing our embassy and killing people because a danish newspaper printed stupid cartoon pictures of muhammed. They also celebrated all over the world and here in Denmark when 3000 innocent civilians lost their lives in 9/11. But I have never ever seen them protest when muslim terrorists kill thousands of innocent civilians in terrorist attacks in europe or when muslims kill other muslims like in Iraq. Here is a recent protest in Denmark over the Israeli conflict: "down down Denmark" "down down democracy" and nazi sieg heil greetings, these are the people we offered asylum in our country and we pay each of them $3000 a month for doing nothing, free healtcare, pensions, education etc.

rioting isn't cool, but jesus christ they were provoked.. peaceful demonstration against israels invasion supposed to be held at 7, then pro-israelites decide to have a demonstration in favour of israels invasion at 5.. I remember when I was demonstrating against the war in iraq some guys from the right wing racist party of norway decided to walk in the same demo supporting the invasion.. I didnt resort to violence as I am a very nonviolent guy but I was pissed off as fuck..

not saying that rioting is acceptable (especially not in this scenario) but I almost get the impression the pro-israelites wanted that to happen because it makes demonizing the anti-israelites significantly easier.. riots happening when theres a topic as tense as this where both parties involved have demonstrations at almost the same time is predictable as fuck, and whomever decided that the pro-invasion demonstration should happen 2 hours before the against-invasion demo should certainly feel bad about his lack of judgement.. (not be blamed for the riots - but fuck, theres no point in being as antagonizing as you possibly can be. )

i mean, from the point of view of some of these demonstrators, these people were demonstrating in favour of killing civilians. then you add a large amount of people whom are just looking for an excuse to riot into the mix (plenty of these in oslo), you dont have to be a rocket scientist to understand what is going to happen.

On January 12 2009 20:39 Zorglub wrote: Well I really have my doubts that Hamas would respect any Haag or UN decision either, because when religion is involved common sense and logic goes out the window. But they need the land and apartheid wall to help secure their citizens, when the wall was not there Hamas did suicide bombings in Israel, and Hamas rockets fire further and further so they also need a buffer zone to get out of reach of rockets

This is yet to be discovered, but interesting that you chose to compare Israeli politicians with someone you said is a "Terrorist-organisation". Finally a thinking pro-israeli!

1. Does this wall secure the civilian Israeli, which is my impression that most "pro-israel" guys dont give a fuck about anyway ? No, because this wall is escalating the hatred. Extremists are sending rockets now instead of suicide bombers
2. How to handle Hamas and get peace for civilian Israeli I feel i already have talked about in earlier post (about how to get peace in the middle easy post, arguments that "pro-israel" guys never ever comment lol)
3. The Court in Haag and UN disagrees that this wall help secure your ciziens because the wall escalades the hatred for extremists + its 100% illegal to build a wall like that on stolen land

About your post:

What Eriador said basicly

On January 12 2009 20:27 VanDerMeyde wrote: [Israel] are not respecting UN-resolution 242 about the illegal land they stole from 1967

Your language here does not describe the situation 100% accurately, is inflammatory and betrays your bias.

On January 12 2009 20:58 Liquid`Drone wrote: rioting isn't cool, but jesus christ they were provoked.. peaceful demonstration against israels invasion supposed to be held at 7, then pro-israelites decide to have a demonstration in favour of israels invasion at 5..

So having an opposition demonstration occur in the time slot immediately preceding your own is adequate provocation for a riot, but having radical militants blow themselves up and/or launch rockets into your urban centers does not justify building a wall and establishing checkpoints between their territory and yours?

On January 12 2009 21:10 TedHastings wrote: Show nested quote + On January 12 2009 20:27 VanDerMeyde wrote: [Israel] are not respecting UN-resolution 242 about the illegal land they stole from 1967 Your language here does not describe the situation 100% accurately, is inflammatory and betrays your bias.   On January 12 2009 20:58 Liquid`Drone wrote: rioting isn't cool, but jesus christ they were provoked.. peaceful demonstration against israels invasion supposed to be held at 7, then pro-israelites decide to have a demonstration in favour of israels invasion at 5.. So having an opposition demonstration occur in the time slot immediately preceding your own is adequate provocation for a riot, but having radical militants blow themselves up and/or launch rockets into your urban centers does not justify building a wall and establishing checkpoints between their territory and yours?

I dont care if im not 100% politically correct in a poker forum. Its my personal opinion that most israeli politicians and most guys calling themself "pro-israel" doesnt give a fuck about civilians on either side of the conflict.

On January 12 2009 21:00 VanDerMeyde wrote: Show nested quote + On January 12 2009 20:39 Zorglub wrote: Well I really have my doubts that Hamas would respect any Haag or UN decision either, because when religion is involved common sense and logic goes out the window. But they need the land and apartheid wall to help secure their citizens, when the wall was not there Hamas did suicide bombings in Israel, and Hamas rockets fire further and further so they also need a buffer zone to get out of reach of rockets 1. Does this wall secure the civilian Israeli, which is my impression that most "pro-israel" guys dont give a fuck about anyway ? No, because this wall is escalating the hatred. Extremists are sending rockets now instead of suicide bombers 2. How to handle Hamas and get peace for civilian Israeli I feel i already have talked about in earlier post (about how to get peace in the middle easy post, arguments that "pro-israel" guys never ever comment lol) 3. The Court in Haag and UN disagrees that this wall help secure your ciziens because the wall escalades the hatred for extremists + its 100% illegal to build a wall like that on stolen land

1. Well before the wall Hamas blew up many civilians in busses and restaurants, after the wall 3 people lost their lives because of rockets, sounds like it is safer to me.

2. Do you really think it is possible to make peace with someone who will not be satisfied before you are dead and gone?

3.The wall stopped the suicide bombings + they did not steal it, the land was given to them, and how long do you have to live in a place before it is your place?

Maybe Denmark should start sending rockets in to Norway and reclaim our land and oil, would that make sense to you?

On January 12 2009 20:44 Roman wrote: I see, thanks for taking the time to respond. When you say Arabs rejected the deal, was there a referendum that the people living there voted on or something? What did the Arabs living in the region propose instead? How was the government set up previously, a British appointed magistrate or something?

I don't think there was a referendum, I think the decision was made by a coalition of the Arab governments in the region, and I would imagine there was input from whatever organization represented those living in the affected area, but I would have to look it up. Again, this goes back to one of my main pints that the Arab leadership has generally not acted in the best interest of the Palestinian civilians and constitutes the main barrier to an effective two-state compromise. The Arabs wanted the area to be made into one state which would be controlled by the majority non-Jewish population. Based on analysis of treatment of minority groups within neighboring Arab states (Kurds in Iraq or Turkey for example) one can imagine how this situation might have played out for the Jews. The government under Britain was run by British appointees, and I believe the Arabs had been unsuccessfully advocating for increased autonomy for some time.

On January 12 2009 21:14 VanDerMeyde wrote: I dont care if im not 100% politically correct in a poker forum. Its my personal opinion that most israeli politicians and most guys calling themself "pro-israel" doesnt give a fuck about civilians on either side of the conflict

Well when you choose to ignore the complexities of the situation by referring to the land as "stolen" it casts your entire position into doubt. Not to mention your assertion that the pro-Israel camp doesn't care about civilians is made somewhat ridiculous by the fact, unmentioned by you, that Hamas very clearly does not.

"1. Well before the wall Hamas blew up many civilians in busses and restaurants, after the wall 3 people lost their lives because of rockets, sounds like it is safer to me."

8000 rockets, you didnt mention all the people getting severe damage, nor did u mention all the fear civilian israeli has to live with on a daily basis in certain areas. Haag / UN and numerous others have already given Israel a much better solution to solve this problem than building some apartheid wall. Read history ! Build bridges, not walls!

"2. Do you really think it is possible to make peace with someone who will not be satisfied before you are dead and gone?"

What is the alternative ? 40 new years of this failed strategy by Israel and giving more power and more support for extremists for every day ?

"3.The wall stopped the suicide bombings + they did not steal it, the land was given to them, and how long do you have to live in a place before it is your place? "

UN and Haag disagrees sir. (resolution 242)

"Maybe Denmark should start sending rockets in to Norway and reclaim our land and oil, would that make sense to you?"

If Norway was building apartheid walls in Denmark, killing thousands of your people, blokkading all your cities which lead to horrible conditions for your people, torture danish prisoners++++, I would understand if you did

On January 12 2009 21:21 TedHastings wrote: Show nested quote + On January 12 2009 21:14 VanDerMeyde wrote: I dont care if im not 100% politically correct in a poker forum. Its my personal opinion that most israeli politicians and most guys calling themself "pro-israel" doesnt give a fuck about civilians on either side of the conflict Well when you choose to ignore the complexities of the situation by referring to the land as "stolen" it casts your entire position into doubt. Not to mention your assertion that the pro-Israel camp doesn't care about civilians is made somewhat ridiculous by the fact, unmentioned by you, that Hamas very clearly does not.

- UN-resolution 242 says this occupied land is to be given back to the palestines
- Israel is placing settlers on this land, which is a war crime.

Im suprised you didnt know this, but I guess when you live in USA the jewish lobby will not let this kind of important information get into your news channels...

My point is that the arguments most "pro-israel" people give, is supporting Israeli actions such as settlers and apartheid wall, will only making conditions for CIVILIAN ISRAELI worse and therefor I find that a lot of "pro-israel" supporters, especially people never been in Israel, dont even deserve to call themself "pro-israel" since they clearly dont give a fuck about civilians anyway.

On January 12 2009 21:10 TedHastings wrote: Show nested quote + On January 12 2009 20:27 VanDerMeyde wrote: [Israel] are not respecting UN-resolution 242 about the illegal land they stole from 1967 Your language here does not describe the situation 100% accurately, is inflammatory and betrays your bias.   On January 12 2009 20:58 Liquid`Drone wrote: rioting isn't cool, but jesus christ they were provoked.. peaceful demonstration against israels invasion supposed to be held at 7, then pro-israelites decide to have a demonstration in favour of israels invasion at 5.. So having an opposition demonstration occur in the time slot immediately preceding your own is adequate provocation for a riot, but having radical militants blow themselves up and/or launch rockets into your urban centers does not justify building a wall and establishing checkpoints between their territory and yours?

the checkpoints are not only between "palestinian" and "israelian" territory.. they're also blocking the movement between palestinian and palestinian territory..

and christ, read my posts.. I did not say the riots were okay. I said they were not. but I also said that they were extremely predictable and should not surprise anyone. it's like, if a bank decides to stop having their money in a vault, but instead decides to leave it in large bags outside their bank with the text "this is all our money, please don't take it"
its inevitable that someone is going to take the money, but that does not mean that taking the money is okay. the bank should still be criticized for leaving their money outside the bank. likewise, the pro-invastion demonstrations should have found a better moment to hold their demonstrations than 2 hours before a massive anti-invasion demonstration was planned, because it's extremely predictable that there will be a clash to a larger or smaller degree..

On January 12 2009 19:57 TedHastings wrote: Sheitan neither of us are 100% correct. The UN acknowledged in their recommendation the right of the Jews to the land assigned to he Jewish state. They then later recognized Israel as a nation with the borders defined by the 1948 war. So while you are correct that the UN didn't "just give the Jews the land" as I asserted, the Jews didn't "take it by force" either. And nobody agrees to an international Jerusalem so that point is essentially irrelevant.

Well violence between jews and arabs in Palestine were going on for decades before the war was "officially" declared, violence between armed zionist groups and arab militia that is. But the casus belli is when the jews declared independence and as it's stated: "On May 14, 1948, the day before the end of the British Mandate, the Jewish Agency proclaimed independence, naming the country Israel. The following day five Arab countries – Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq –invaded Israel, launching the 1948 Arab-Israeli War." Like i said im not defending blindly the palestinians and the pro-arab groups, but the facts are the jews, thanks to massive lobbying, gained the land of Israel AND de facto, triggered war.

Also, the arab coalition rejected the UN proposal but did not intend in the first place to attack Israel, Egypt/Syria/Jordan/Lebanon/Iraq invaded Israel when the Israelian government declared its independence, which was actually an unilateral decision.

Did you even read resolution 242? It can be interpreted in many ways, Israel should give up the land in exchange for peace, but they never got peace so why would they give up the land yet?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242

Zorglub, UN has numerous amount of times stated that Israel must withdraw (?) (damn my english sucks) to their original borders from 1967. One of the resolutions typically pointed to is 242

This is what UN is working for exactly what you describe. Trading the borders for peace is what is needed to be done if this conflict is to EVER END. What is the alternative ?

Yeah they do that to save the face and berate Israelis for the exactions they commit on a daily basis directly or indirectly like the sabra and shatila massacre.

For people interested, i copied/pasted this article:

What happened at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in 1982?
On September 16, 1982 the Lebanese Christian Phalangist militia entered the Beruit refugee camps called Sabra and Shatila. Their mission was authorized by the Israeli IDF, under the command of Defense Minister Ariel Sharon, that held the territory around Beruit at that point in time as a result of the June 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. The Phalangists were looking for PLO fighters who, it was feared, had avoided evacuation from Beruit by hiding among the refugees. There were estimates of perhaps 200 armed men in the camps working out of the countless bunkers built by the PLO over the years, and stocked with generous reserves of ammunition.

The Phalangists, whose Maronite Christian president, Bachir Gemayel, had just been assassinated on September 14, entered the camps on the afternoon of the 16th and carried out a 62-hour rampage of rape and murder until Saturday morning, September 18th. They were motivated by revenge for the Gemayel killing and also for the years of brutality Lebanese suffered at the hands of Palestinians during the PLO occupation of Lebanon. [Later information revealed that Gemayel was assassinated by the Syrians, who opposed his alliance with the Israelis, and not by the PLO].

When Israeli soldiers were alerted to the massacre and ordered the Phalangists out, they found hundreds dead, including as many as 35 women and children. The rest were men: Palestinians, Lebanese, Pakistanis, Iranians, Syrians and Algerians. This was a small toll when compared to the tens of thousand who had died in the years of civil war and fighting with the PLO in Lebanon, but these deaths kindled crys of outrage in Israel, and internationally outside the Middle East. Curiously, there was little protest at the time in the Arab world, although "Sabra-Shatila" has now become a mantra of the Palestinian Arabs as a code word for their allegations of Israeli brutality. Most protests were (and are) directed at the Israelis, not the the Phalangists, who perpetrated the crime.

Estimates of the number killed range from 460 according to the Lebanese police, to 700-800 calculated by Israeli intelligence. Palestinians claim 3,000 to 3,500 dead and call the action "genocide".

When the scale of the massacre became known and photographs of the bodies in the refugee camps began to be published in the world press, Israel was held directly responsible for the atrocity. The Israeli public was shocked. On September 25, a huge demonstration of 300,000 Israelis was held in Tel Aviv demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Menahem Begin and Sharon and the establishment of a judicial commission of inquiry to investigate the massacre.

A commission was appointed to investigate, headed by Supreme Court President Yitzhak Kahan, and its members included Supreme Court Justice Aharon Barak and Major General (Res.) Yona Efrat. The Kahan Commission issued its report on February 8, 1983. With regard to Sharon, the panel recommended that he:

... draw the appropriate personal conclusions arising out of the defects revealed with regard to the manner in which he discharged the duties of his office" - in other words, that he resign; or, if necessary, that the prime minister exercise his authority to remove a minister from office.
The key paragraphs relating to Sharon's responsibility are these:

In our view, the minister of defense made a grave mistake when he ignored the danger of acts of revenge and bloodshed by the Phalangists against the population in the refugee camps ... It is our view that responsibility is to be imputed to the minister of defense for having disregarded the danger of acts of vengeance and bloodshed by the Phalangists against the population of the refugee camps, and having failed to take this danger into account when he decided to move the Phalangists into the camps.


In addition, responsibility is to be imputed to the minister of defense for not ordering appropriate measures for preventing or reducing the danger of massacre as a condition for the Phalangists' entry into the camps. These blunders constitute the non-fulfillment of a duty with which the defense minister was charged.
Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said of the Kahan Commission:

[It was] a great tribute to Israeli democracy... There are very few governments in the world that one can imagine making such a public investigation of such a difficult and shameful episode.
Although Sharon insists that he had received no intelligence and could not have known that the Phalangists were about to commit a massacre in the camps, he was forced to resign his post as Defense Minister and faced widespread public opprobrium that nearly ended his political career. Sharon is still asking for release of all classified documents from the Kahan Commission, saying he would be vindicated if they were released. Elie Hobeika, the Phalangist leader directly responsible for carrying out the massacres (and other gruesome acts over the years) became a crucial ally of Syrian subjugation of Lebanon, and had a long career until he was killed in a massive bomb attack at his house in a Beirut suburb in January 2002.

In May 1985, Muslim militiamen attacked the Shatila and Burj-el Barajneh Palestinian refugee camps. According to UN officials, 635 were killed and 2,500 wounded. There is no record of any protests or public investigation.

In 2001, Palestinian survivors of the massacre demanded that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon be indicted on war crime charges in Belgium under a 1993 Belgian law that allows this type of complaint to be filed by non-nationals. This case is unlikly to proceed since, under international law, heads of state and prime ministers cannot be brought to trial while serving. There may also be other legal barriers based on Belgian non-conformity with international law and that would deny them jurisdiction.

International law experts believe it is highly unlikely Sharon will be brought to trial, given the rulings contained in the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, which deals with the protection of people in times of war. Sanctions apply only to a person who either has committed the acts himself or has ordered them to be committed, not the kind of indirect responsibility Sharon is alleged to have.

On the question of a failure to act to prevent a war crime, the International Committee of the Red Cross' interpretation of the Geneva Convention suggests no legal responsibility is incurred by those who do not intervene to prevent or to put an end to a breach of the convention.