How ya diddling?

Posted by: keymaker

How ya diddling? - 01/02/09 09:39 AM

That was his catchphrase as a stand up comedian, Alexei Sayle, but now he has a new one <--- that some people here are not going to like...

km
Posted by: FSM

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/02/09 09:52 AM

i didn't know which one was him. i like Annie Lennox, though. beautiful singing voice. i wish she had sang her segment.

look, i don't think anyone here is cheering the Israelis on with these attacks. personally, i think the Palestinians screwed up by indiscriminately lobbying missiles into Israel, but the response has been too harsh. then again, you can't expect Israel to sit back and ignore missiles. as i noted earlier, it sux all around.
Posted by: DLC

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/02/09 09:57 AM

Originally Posted By: FSM
i think the Palestinians screwed up by indiscriminately lobbying missiles into Israel, but the response has been too harsh. then again, you can't expect Israel to sit back and ignore missiles. as i noted earlier, it sux all around.


DITTO !!!

crazy
Posted by: keymaker

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/02/09 09:57 AM

FYI he was the bearded Jewish guy who spoke second in the sequence and denied that the attacks on Gaza were being conducted 'in our name'. As a comedian, incidentally, very funny! But that's another matter.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/02/09 10:03 AM

Quote:
DITTO !!!

Ditto what though? 'Ditto and Israel should withdraw from the occupied territories? Or 'Ditto and Israel should carry on in occupation?' And don't start talking about fnK%!g road maps either.

km
Posted by: FSM

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/02/09 11:14 AM

Ditto that it's screwed up all around.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/02/09 11:19 AM

Quote:
Ditto that it's screwed up all around.

Yeah, but that's effectively taking sides with Israel. I've said what's required for neutrality often enough - the enforcement of international law, it's not a lot to ask.

km
Posted by: DLC

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/02/09 11:25 AM

Look Key... I think Israel has made mistakes... illegally occupying lands that they weren't supposed to,
.... and Hamas has made many mistakes - suicide bombers, random missile lobbing... and others.

NO ONE is without fault; it sux all around. That's my Ditto !

It's like Bosnia and Serbia conflict in the 1990's, or the Congo massacres ... all were ruthless and all were at fault.

How is faulting BOTH, taking sides with Israel ? That's illogical.
I'd like BOTH sides to live in Peace, but many won't let that happen - each keeps thinking they can get the upper hand.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/02/09 11:46 AM

Quote:
How is faulting BOTH, taking sides with Israel ?]

Because non-resolution of the problem allows it to both continue and extend the occupation with the benefit of US supplied military might.

The picture became clear, if it wasn't already, when extremists shot their own Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin on 4 November 1995, that Israel doesn't even want a settlement but wants to subjugate the Palestinians for as long as it can mesmerise Americans into believing that it does. Rabin wasn't an accident you know - it was calculated cold-blooded execution of an Israeli war hero and genuine statesman who wanted peace.

km
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/02/09 12:03 PM

Blaming the Israelis and giving Hamas a pass does not provide a resolution to the problem.
Blaming Hamas and giving Israel a pass does not provide a resolution.
Blaming everybody does not provide a resolution.

So what exactly is your constant pointing fingers and assigning blame supposed to achieve in the goal of resolving this problem? Your constant "I call for...." gets nowhere near a resolution. Action is needed, I would propose that such action should stem from the UN, but as has been noted by many, that organisation is not of a mind to DO anything, but merely jump on the finger pointing, blame assigning bandwagon.
Posted by: steveg

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/02/09 12:05 PM

Your bias is showing. Again. When someone says both parties are wrong, most people would interpret that as meaning they believe both parties are wrong. DOH! But only in the keymaker's way is the only way world would it mean that one side is favored over the other with the implication, of course, being that only the player you have a beef with can be wrong, automatically rendering the other player right. *yawn*

How very convenient for you. How very entertaining* for us.


*In a droll sort of way.
Posted by: eckhard

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/02/09 12:09 PM


As main supplier/supporter of Israel, it behooves the USA to assume the role of peacemaker.

Saying that both are at fault is tacit approval for what Israel is doing. After all, what's a bunch of low-tech rockets compared to that effective killing machine your tax Dollars have been paying for?
On one side of the border a house with a single hole in it. On the other cityscapes the likes of which haven't been seen since Dresden and Nakasaki.
Saying that both sides made mistakes is close to allowing Hitler the same excuse in 1944.

Over the past decades, Israel has become the evil little brother to bumbling Uncle Sam in how it deals with conflicts.
I am quite anxious to see Obama take action.
He can't just stay with the status quo, or he'll have lost all credibility before the game even starts for him.

One might also consider some international opinions, which hold that there is a strong internal reason for Israel to start a new war right now. War minister Barak (funny, eh?) and the evil lady who just failed reaching the top, are preparing for an election.
Cynical? You bet!
Nothing like sending the troops into a defenceless and headless nation fragment and creating havock. All in self defence!

Makes you sick!

and for carp, if he reads this .... those civilians who are being killed, don't live in spacious sub-divisions, where harbouring a terrorist would be a matter of choice, but in apartment blocks so crowded that most western people would choke. Those people have no influence on what happens five stories below them!






Posted by: keymaker

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/02/09 12:28 PM

Quote:
So what exactly is your constant pointing fingers and assigning blame supposed to achieve in the goal of resolving this problem? Your constant "I call for...." gets nowhere near a resolution. Action is needed, I would propose that such action should stem from the UN...

Oh, very original... the only trouble is that I spelled out exactly what was required two days ago, as if I hadn't done so after the Lebanon arocities in 2006, when I said:

"What's required then is a UN Resolution to establish an international force to take control in Israel and the establishment of a Gaza Genocide Tribunal to try all suspects in a neutral country such as Holland."

Nobody's going to be fooled by yours or anybody's cynical critiicism of the UN when it's the US veto that torpedoes constuctive action every time.

I call again for all suspected war criminals to be arrested and put on trial at a Gaza Genocide Tribunal to be established at the UN - this time without US prevarication or abuse of process.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/02/09 12:37 PM

Quote:
When someone says both parties are wrong, most people would interpret that as meaning they believe both parties are wrong. DOH! But only in the keymaker's way is the only way world would it mean that one side is favored over the other

Don't make a fool of yourself Steve because that's what you're going to if you want to deny what I've stated in clear terms on these boards. It's also rather foolish to suggest an equal division of blame when one side is illegally annexing the land of the other and when there's such a disparity in human loss.

km
Posted by: FSM

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/02/09 12:45 PM

i certainly didn't vote for Obama to see him stick with the status quo in this conflict. i want to see action that can start the this region down a road towards peace. fingers crossed.
Posted by: steveg

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/02/09 12:51 PM

Quote:
Don't make a fool of yourself Steve
I wouldn't dream of stealing your act.

Let Hamas show a real interest in a peaceful solution. A mutually beneficial solution. Let them belay their belligerent and antagonistic behavior and make a legitimate case for a resolution and a return of at least some of their land, and maybe just maybe Israel wouldn't be so predisposed to kick their asses into next month. Just maybe there wouldn't be anything for Israel to over-react to.

I've got to believe that the notion of wiping Israel off the map appeals to you. Yeah, let 'em go back to wandering in the desert for another 1,000 years. Perfect!
Posted by: keymaker

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/02/09 12:56 PM

Quote:
I've got to believe that the notion of wiping Israel off the map appeals to you.

Why do you say that?

km
Posted by: macdavid

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/02/09 01:06 PM

you can't expect Israel to sit back and ignore missiles.

But you can expect the Palestinians to sit back and ignore the rape and plunder of their homeland??? Their homes being stolen??? Being walled off into "reservations"???

Oh, yes, I forgot. They did get better plumbing and public sanitation out of the deal! ... a comment which I personally heard an Israeli make to a Jerusalem Arabic family back in 1971 as justification for their Occupation of Palestine. Some trade-off!
Posted by: DLC

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/02/09 01:24 PM

I DO agree the US should take a more active role in peacemaking, but don't expect anything out of the current bozo... 18 days he's history as President - NOT that it would matter... he hasn't done anything in 8 years, but create wars ! shocked

I DO think when Israel occupied Palestinian land - we should have put our foot down, and done all we could to stop it (i.e. non-violently = negotiations, etc.). I don't think we did squat then- just let it slide. There does need to be more evenhandedness of the situation from our end, but that doesn't excuse Hamas for their atrocities either.
Posted by: steveg

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/02/09 01:25 PM

Would answering that question serve any purpose other than giving you something else to deny or reject? No, I think I'll adopt six's very wise strategy of simply avoiding any further one-sided conversations with you.

I fully expect you to interpret my disengagement as your having won the debate*. I look at it as popping Advil prophylactically, and putting my time to better use.


*Careful when you spike the ball in the end zone. Wouldn't want an errant bounce to cause any more nut numbness.
Posted by: FSM

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/02/09 01:33 PM

for the last few years, the Palestinians have been fractured by conflict between Fatah and Hamas. this is an internal struggle. in essence, the Gaza strip is now controlled by Hamas and the West Bank by Fatah. keep in mind that Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of the State of Israel. now, since Hamas actually won an election they should receive some credence in talks with Israel . . . but how do you hold peace talks when your charter calls for you to destroy Israel? and because of that charter, Israel considers Hamas to be a terrorist organization. i can only imagine what George Bush would do to a group that he considers to be terrorists. oh wait, i don't have to imagine. eek

i would love to see peace, but i just don't know if Hamas and Israel can ever see each other in that light. until they can imagine it, our efforts will likely not materialize any better now than in the history of this conflict.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/02/09 01:54 PM

Quote:
. . . but how do you hold peace talks when your charter calls for you to destroy Israel?

That's their problem - basically sit around a table and discuss everything.

Quote:
i can only imagine what George Bush would do to a group that he considers to be terrorists. oh wait, i don't have to imagine.

Open up a concentration camp and then expect Britain and everyone else to get him off the hook when it turns out all the'yre all innocent?

To be honest blaming Hamas when they've been in power for only 18 months of the 60 years that Israel and the US have failed to get to a settlement is a bit rich. Fatah recognised Israel's right to exist under Yasser Arafat and it made not the slightest bit of difference.

km
Posted by: FSM

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/02/09 02:17 PM

i clearly see Hamas as standing for something contrary to peace. but please don't jump to conclusions and give me the position that i think Israel or Fatah could achieve peace were it not for Hamas. i think the people of Palestine have indicated by electing Hamas that even the citizens don't want to achieve peace at this time. none of us think Israel is trying to achieve peace given their heavy handed tactics currently being employed. when i said it sucks all around, i meant it. i am sorry you continue to want to create a straw man to battle here.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/02/09 02:41 PM

Quote:
i think the people of Palestine have indicated by electing Hamas that even the citizens don't want to achieve peace at this time.

Okay Irish Republicans didn't want peace electing members of Sinn Fein, black South Africans didn't want peace electing members of the ANC and Palestinians don't want peace electing members of Hamas - they prefer being slaughtered in their homes, let's leave it at that.

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/02/09 02:47 PM

The problem in that comparison is that both the political arm of the IRA and the AMC were able to accept living peaceably with the opposition -- and in time came to come to terms with them. Hamas has indicated so such predilection. To be honest, neither has that hard-line Israelis.

Back to square one.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/02/09 02:58 PM

Quote:
The problem in that comparison is that both the political arm of the IRA and the AMC were able to accept living peaceably with the opposition

Noope - the problem with that is that both the IRA and the ANC specifically rejected any such commitment prior to talks. Fatah under Yasser Arafat made such a commitment and it got him nowhere.

Quote:
Back to square one.

Not really, I'm on square two.

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/02/09 03:06 PM

Quote:
Saying that both are at fault is tacit approval for what Israel is doing.


Garbage. It's an acceptance of reality.

I'm not thrilled of our nation's blanket support of Israel. But to say that to recognize both sides' complicity in continuing this conflict is equivalent to support of one side or the other is ridiculous. The situation simply isn't that simple.

I'm sorry, but the history of this conflict is rife with examples of both sides' determination not to live with each other. To demonize one side while absolving the atrocities of the other simply plays into the dynamics of both parties -- which is to continue the conflict until their side "wins" -- which is the main reason this has gone on for so long.

Yes,it does make one sick. But until *both* sides determine that it is in their best interests to coexist with each other not much is going to happen to resolve the situation peaceably ...

Unfortunately, the responsibility cannot be pinned to just one side of the issue ...

As for Obama: he may end up to disappoint, but he regardless represents the best hope for a more even-handed approach in US policy that has come along for decades. It may not be a great hope, but a hope nonetheless. At least give him a chance to do the right thing before writing him off ...
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/02/09 03:10 PM

Quote:
Noope - the problem with that is that both the IRA and the ANC specifically rejected any such commitment prior to talks.


To the contrary, if neither had expressed such an interest, no progress would have been made. Or are you saying that "we reject ever living with you in peace" is a viable bargaining position? Certainly the resolutions in Ireland and South Africa would have gone nowhere if that were the case.
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/02/09 03:13 PM

Quote:
No, I think I'll adopt six's very wise strategy of simply avoiding any further one-sided conversations with you.


Shoot. Too late. For some reason some masochistic side of me just refuses to stay away from the debate ...

Masochist to the Sadist: "Hit me! Hit me!"
Sadist to the Masochist: "No ... no ..."

;-)
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/02/09 03:20 PM

Quote:
I call again for all suspected war criminals to be arrested and put on trial at a Gaza Genocide Tribunal


Call it something like the "middle east atrocities tribunal" and hold all those accountable on both sides to trial and I'll agree with you wholeheartedly ... or better yet, just call in an "international tribunal" and have done with -- why politicize the process with a biased name?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/02/09 03:32 PM

Quote:
To the contrary, if neither had expressed such an interest, no progress would have been made.

Why not? In both cases there was a willingness to talk without pre-conditions which is why there was a breakthrough. The IRA only gave up its arms long after Stormont was re-established as the seat of political power in Northern Ireland.

In South Africa Nelson Mandela served 27 years for refusing to deny the armed struggle against apartheid. It was only when the Botha government agreed to accept his terms of talks without pre-conditions that a settlement was reached and he was freed. I linked Mandela's defiant speech at his trial earlier in the Silly Sods thread so here <--- it is again...

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/02/09 03:35 PM

LOL. I suppose, this being winter and all, that it's only natural to want to play with Frosty The No-Man. grin Me? I'm just gonna toast my feets by the fire for a while.

Actually, though, these threads do have an almost Escher-esque quality to them. Does this feel somewhat familiar? laugh
Posted by: keymaker

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/02/09 03:37 PM

Call it whatever you like - just don't veto it.

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/02/09 03:43 PM

Quote:
Why not?


Because behind all those talks -- preconditions or no -- was the ulimate willingness to live peacefully with the other side, given the right conditions ...

If the discussions had opened with: "We demand no preconditions to talk, and by the way we wish to see you wiped of the face of the earth regardless", nothing would have been achieved.
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/02/09 03:45 PM

In my opinion, no country should have the right of veto in the UN ... might make things a bit more *gasp* democratic.

Alas, it (the Security Council) was set-up as a power base for the permanent members ...
Posted by: eckhard

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/02/09 04:04 PM


Wrong.
When people say "both sides are wrong" they also imply there's some kind of balancing justice.

For decades now, Israel has destabilized what's left of Palestine, depriving the people of any means of self determination. Demanding "Palestine Officials" to keep the lid on is pure cynicism.

Hold back the huge support payments and watch how soon Israel will be coming to the negotiation table.




Posted by: eckhard

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/02/09 04:18 PM

Originally Posted By: steveg

Let Hamas show a real interest in a peaceful solution. A mutually beneficial solution. .... I've got to believe that the notion of wiping Israel off the map appeals to you.


Perhaps, if Israel (and the rest of the west) had treated Hamas as the democratically elected representatives of the Palestinian people - which they were and are - there could have been a chance for a peaceful solution.

If anyone needs to prove their sincerity, it is the Israelis.

And that remark about km favouring "wiping Israel off the map" (a misquote), is off base. Why resort to personal attacks?






Posted by: steveg

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/02/09 04:28 PM

Wrong yourself.

When people say "both sides are wrong," they imply shared blame. Period. Being wrong is like being pregnant. Either you is or you isn't. It's not a matter of degree.

Israel's over-reaction is as wrong as Hamas provocation. Hamas knew what was coming. They knew Israel would respond with 100 times the force, and they knew what the result would be. To them, the PR aspect is more valuable on the world stage than the innocent lives they used as pawns. And you and others have bought into it unwaveringly.

Yeah, Israel should have just sucked it up and kept it's guns holstered. Ah, but then what would you have had to bitch about this week? Who's arrest could have been demanded. What tribunals demanded?

Neither side is interested in peace. One wants the other removed from existence. The other is determined to prevent it at any cost. One is as wrong and as crazy as the other.
Posted by: Celandine

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/02/09 04:36 PM

The Israelis intentionally choose to use the
Emotionally Loaded Phrase "Destruction Of Israel"
because it conjures the Horrors of the Holocaust.

Please try to wrap your head around the fact that
the "CHARTER" States that Israel will no longer
OWN the Land if the Palestinians Outnumber them.

IOW To "Wipe Israel off the Map" would simply
entail redrawing the maps & changing the names.

Well it WOULD Have, had they not committed DECADES
of atrocities & deprivation upon the inhabitants... eek


Posted by: six_of_one

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/02/09 04:39 PM

Quote:
Perhaps, if Israel (and the rest of the west) had treated Hamas as the democratically elected representatives of the Palestinian people - which they were and are - there could have been a chance for a peaceful solution.


And perhaps if Hamas didn't have a standing commitment to the elimination of its neighbor, the West might have an opening to establish such relations. It's tough to have a peaceful solution between two parties when at least one of them basically stands for the total eradication of the other. In this case I'm convinced there are factions on both sides holding such convictions, which makes the situation even more untenable ...

But you're right, much easier to simply blame just the one side for the mess and be done with things =P
Posted by: Celandine

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/02/09 04:45 PM

Gah! still harping on that one string lyre.

GET REAL!
That's a BS ""Smoking Gun as a Mushroom Cloud" argument.

Iraq didn't have Weapons of Mass Destruction
AND NEITHER DOES THE HAMAS!!!!!!!
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/02/09 04:53 PM

Yeah, that whole "they should learn to live together peacefully" thing can get pretty tedious, I admit. But good luck finding a solution otherwise.
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/02/09 05:00 PM

Quote:
Does this feel somewhat familiar?


It does, but it's missing the part where Escher supports cold-blooded murder. That would make it perfect.
Posted by: Celandine

UP THE REBELS! - 01/02/09 05:03 PM

[video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynWjYHP91gA[/video]

I doano about YOU, but if OUR country were under
attack & subjugation I'd do exactly what the
"Founding Fathers" did to throw off the Yoke of
Oppression from the OCCUPYING FORCES:

Meet in secret, foment revolution, or as the Dutch
did... throw their sabots (wooden shoes) into the
gears to confound the oppressors at every turn.
Or what the AmIndians did, die on their feet rather
than bow under the lash in humiliation, yep, and lob
home-made rockets over the fences the enemy erects
as a statement of defiance, if not a show of force.



Posted by: keymaker

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/02/09 05:05 PM

Quote:
that whole "they should learn to live together peacefully" thing can get pretty tedious, I admit. But good luck finding a solution otherwise.

I thought you and I were agreed that all suspected war criminals should be put on trial? That's got to help.

km


Posted by: six_of_one

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/02/09 05:33 PM

Yes but first things first -- tough to put people on trial when you physically can't get to them. There's a reason most war crimes trials have happened post-conflict.

I'm all for it it you can a) get an indictment and b) actually get the accused to a court. But I don't really expect that to happen when the Israelis obviously only pay attention to international law when it's convenient for them ... and I really don't know how an international court would take possession of a Palestinian defendant -- I doubt Hamas or any other group would voluntarily turn anybody over ...
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: UP THE REBELS! - 01/02/09 05:39 PM

Last I checked most of the engagements of the Revolution were of combatant units vs. combatant units ... the difference here, obviously, are that there's a LOT of civilian casualties as "collateral" damage if not outright targeting of civilian populations as a means of terror campaigns ...

I could be wrong, though, and war foments atrocities regardless of era -- I'm sure savagery against civilians is not unique to the modern era ...

And yeah the genocidal actions against the American Indians were insupportable. Still doesn't justify those of today against different persons, though ...
Posted by: Celandine

2 Sides To Everything - 01/02/09 06:30 PM


Mixed News From Both Sides

...just to give you a feel to
the opposing points of view.

Posted by: six_of_one

Re: 2 Sides To Everything - 01/02/09 07:07 PM

What makes you think those are views opposing my own?
Posted by: Celandine

Re: 2 Sides To Everything - 01/02/09 07:55 PM


I don't
I meant opposing PoV to each other.

Reading AlJeezera AND The Debka File
reads like a real 'He Said'/'She Said'
when it comes down to points of view.

Reading a History Book & The Jewish
Virtual Library
's accounts are more so.

Posted by: Celandine

Re: 2 Sides To Everything - 01/02/09 08:14 PM

Throw the Bible is for a real
"Through The Looking Glass" account:
A book written by a guy that was raised in
the Egyptian Royal Household and Schooled in
the "Mysteries" of the Priesthood ("How to Control
the Unwashed Masses 101") ...and as a Stone-Cutter wink
and Voila' suddenly you have the first (AND ONLY) person
to ever see and talk directly to GOD , who says God instructed
him to go forth and take what ever he wants and kill anyone that
tries to oppose him... LOL No wonder everybody wants to push this
loud-mouthed cracker into a nearest large body of very deep water! grin
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: 2 Sides To Everything - 01/02/09 08:44 PM

So, something that has mystified me for, like, ever now: do you have a program that counts characters or something that makes your posts so graphically interesting?

Either that or there's an obsession there that might be a little worrying ;-)

Aside from that -- what does this have anything to do with this little subthread in which we are enmeshed?

Love the running kitty though ;-D
Posted by: keymaker

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/03/09 12:22 AM

Quote:
Quote:
Saying that both are at fault is tacit approval for what Israel is doing.

Garbage. It's an acceptance of reality.

Well the reality is that Israel is occupying Palestinian land and refusing to give it up. Palestinians have a right to use force to recover it. So, no, both sides aren't at fault - only Israel is.

Quote:
until *both* sides determine that it is in their best interests to coexist with each other not much is going to happen to resolve the situation peaceably ...

Do you mean coexist within ever-moving boundaries or the 1948 fixed ones?

Quote:
Unfortunately, the responsibility cannot be pinned to just one side of the issue ...

Unfortunately it can because Israel is occupying Palestinian land. You wouldn't like it if someone took your land away so start trying to say it's alright for the Arabs.

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/03/09 03:33 AM

Quote:
Well the reality is that Israel is occupying Palestinian land and refusing to give it up. Palestinians have a right to use force to recover it. So, no, both sides aren't at fault - only Israel is.


And that reduction to absurdly simple terms is what feeds the violence -- "I am right, only you are wrong".

Do you really expect that line of reasoning to lead to any kind of peace in a region where both cultures have existed for thousands of years? In a land who's "ownership" has been the source of debate since time immemorial, do you really think "its all mine, you don't have the right to even exist here" is the solution?

Again: until both Israelis and Palestinians come to accept the right of each other to exist in the region, nothing productive is going to happen. And the notion that any one side feels it can absolve itself from responsibility for everything that has happened there -- that the other is exclusively to blame -- only serves as an excuse to continue the violence ...

Seriously. "So, no, both sides aren't at fault - only [insert your opponent here] is" is *exactly* the kind of thinking that allows the atrocities on both sides to continue ...

Quote:
Do you mean coexist within ever-moving boundaries or the 1948 fixed ones?


How about no boundaries at all? Let's start with the concept that both peoples have a right to exist in the region *at all*, which would be a huge leap forward, and work from there. Borders don't mean much when factions on both sides want *all* of the land and deny the other's right to even breathe air on it ...

Personally, I'd love to see the two peoples re-integrate, into one single state of which each could take ownership and pride, and embrace their common heritage rather than fight over their differences ... but that's probably idealistic pie-in-the-sky stuff at this point given the amount of animosity generated of the the past decades ... and, of course, the idea that the only the other guy is to blame for the violence that has happened ...
Posted by: keymaker

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/03/09 04:35 AM

Quote:
And that reduction to absurdly simple terms is what feeds the violence -- "I am right, only you are wrong".

Oh alright then, if we send Eckhard over to Alexandria to take away your back garden and he gives you a bloody good hiding when you try to get it back - that'll be both your faults.

Quote:
Do you really expect that line of reasoning to lead to any kind of peace in a region where both cultures have existed for thousands of years? In a land who's "ownership" has been the source of debate since time immemorial...

Thousands of years have got nothing to do with it... the debate about who owns what was settled in 1948 by UN Res 181.

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/03/09 06:00 AM

Quote:
Oh alright then, if we send Eckhard over to Alexandria to take away your back garden and he gives you a bloody good hiding when you try to get it back - that'll be both your faults.


Assuming he has a legal right to the garden (i.e, mandate from the UN, as you sate below) and I nonetheless wage several wars to oust him from it completely, during which he also occupies the back porch, which makes me even more upset that I can't possibly do anything else but to plant bombs in local cafes, blow up city busses and indiscriminately rocket the local neighborhood in reply, making life generally miserable for everybody for decades ... yes I can see where I'm completely blameless in the whole affair ...

Now, to be sure, Eck is acting the right ass in his own way during all of this -- worse than me in very many ways. But that still doesn't remove the responsibility I have for my part in the festivities or the fact that not only do I not want to live peacefully with Eck even if he returned to his mandated part of the garden, I don't want him to even exist ...

So, yes, "both your faults" sums it up pretty nicely ...

Quote:
Thousands of years have got nothing to do with it ... the debate about who owns what was settled in 1948 by UN Res 181.


You might want to tell that to Hamas, several other armed groups and a large part of the Arab world in general -- they seem to have missed the memo ...
Posted by: keymaker

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/03/09 06:10 AM

Quote:
Assuming he has a legal right to the garden...

That's the whole point - he doesn't have a legal right to your garden. No wonder you're getting the middle east wrong if you're getting rights and parties the wrong way around.

km


Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/03/09 06:37 AM

Feel you were missing out on some masochismm in the new year, eh? grin

It's obvious you picked the losing side here, as Celendine pointed out, it's all Moses' fault. If he hadn't lead the slaves out of Egypt and taken Canaan by force, all the troubles in the ME wouldn't exist today. The Israelites should have been content with being slaves of the Egyptians, and waited for 6000 years until the UN came into existance and demanded that slavery end. crazy
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/03/09 06:45 AM

Quote:
That's the whole point - he doesn't have a legal right to your garden. No wonder you're getting the middle east wrong if you're getting rights and parties the wrong way around.


Er ... 181, which you referenced, establishes legal boundaries for both Jewish and Arab states in Palestine. Hence Eck's claim in our little exercise to a portion of the garden would be legal =P

Just using your sources, dude ...

Unless, of course, you don't recognize the partition scheme, in which case we're back to the >1,000-year deal in regards ownership ;-)

Regardless, Eck's legal claim to the garden or no, I'm still responsible for injuries and deaths I inflict on innocent civilians, especially if I'm *intentionally* targeting them, which would be a war crime ...
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/03/09 06:58 AM

Heh -- Key's posts are "the Kramer" of these boards for me:



"He is a loathesome, offensive brute. Yet, I cannot look away."
Posted by: keymaker

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/03/09 07:19 AM

Quote:
81, which you referenced, establishes legal boundaries

Exactly... so how long have we got to wait for you to condemn the illegal settlements?

Quote:
Just using your sources, dude

No you're using your own sources... my sources say that Israel has to vacate its West Bank settements just as a trespasser would have to vacate your garden. It's not one rule for Americans and another one for Arabs you know.

Quote:
Unless, of course, you don't recognize the partition scheme

That's the whole point - everyone does apart from Israel and a rather ill-informed or racist element of public opinion in the States.

It's now clear from your attempt to obfuscate the obvious - bluffing over the IRA and ANC and getting it wrong and now trying to confuse the clear requirements of international law that you don't mind Israel taking Arab gardens away from Palestinians as long as no one takes your garden away.

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/03/09 07:42 AM

Quote:
Exactly... so how long have we got to wait for you to condemn the illegal settlements?


I always have ... and what do settlements have to do with each party taking responsibility for their actions? The settlements are illegal -- that doesn't absolve anybody from their responsibilities under international law as a result ...

Quote:
my sources say that Israel has to vacate its West Bank settements just as a trespasser would have to vacate your garden.


In the scenario I proposed, my back porch = illegal settlements; the garden = legal boundaries ...

Quote:
That's the whole point


The point *I* was making is that both sides are responsible for their actions. You seem to veering into other areas to make other points that don't really relate ...

Quote:
It's now clear from your attempt to obfuscate the obvious - bluffing over the IRA and ANC and getting it wrong and now trying to confuse the clear requirements of international law


Now you're just babbling ...

Quote:
that you don't mind Israel taking Arab gardens away from Palestinians as long as no one takes your garden away.


Remember in another post where I said "You're just going to see what you want to see in what I wrote and throw the rest away -- if not all of it completely -- and recast the rest in your own bizarre light anyways"?

This is one of those times.
Posted by: Mactico

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/03/09 07:48 AM

I enjoyed to read the anti-israel, antijews,antiUSA commentaries:

"Israel have one of the most powerful army in the world"

"Jews dominate the banks"

"The Jews have influence in the USA Government"

"Israel is the country that receives more economic aid from USA"

Instead I read in my community bulletin:

"The rabbi resigned, we need to look for a new rabbi"

"Kosher meat prices rise"

"The monthly membership price rise"

Your commentaries are music to my eyes.

BTW km, maybe is a good idea to hire for new rabbi one of these RabbisI am sure you we liked them, and we can save money in security for our Synagogue and School.


Posted by: steveg

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/03/09 08:03 AM

Of course, the fact that UN Res 181 was accepted by Palestinian Jews and rejected by Palestinian Arabs and the Arab states, and that Israel was attacked by them before the ink was dry is of no consequence.

Must be nice to live such a cut and dried existence, eh? Oy vey! crazy
Posted by: keymaker

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/03/09 08:17 AM

Quote:
I enjoyed to read the anti-israel, antijews,antiUSA commentaries... ""Israel blah, blah blah...music to my eyes.":

Okay there are a lot of quotations there that give the impression that you're quoting me so I think you need to make it clear that you're not doing so.

I don't know what all the Rabbi, synagogue stuff was about at the end of your post so perhaps you could clarify that as well?

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/03/09 08:24 AM

Quote:
Of course, the fact that UN Res 181 was accepted by Palestinian Jews and rejected by Palestinian Arabs and the Arab states, and that Israel was attacked by them before the ink was dry is of no consequence.

As I said before it was rejected by the Israeli leader of his day Ben-Gurion but as it happens you're quite right - it's not open to anybody to reject the terms of a UN Resolution other than by rescission of it by another one.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/03/09 08:34 AM

Quote:
Now you're just babbling ...

No that was you... your attempt to distinguish Hamas from the IRA and ANC in the context of unconditional talks was entirely bogus.

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/03/09 12:27 PM

Quote:
No that was you...


As I said, you only seem to see what you want to see ...

Quote:
your attempt to distinguish Hamas from the IRA and ANC in the context of unconditional talks was entirely bogus.


Since we never even discussed the conditionality of whatever talks there might be, I find it difficult to see how an argument I never attempted to make could be called "bogus" ...

The comparison I did make was the willingness, at the end, of the IRA to live peaceably with the English, and of the ANC to become "victorious" by working from within the system they wanted to change rather than try to destroy it by force of arms ... vs. Hamas and hard-line Israelis who right now disavow the other's right to even exist.

The peace that now exists in the first two instances required a large attitudinal shift by the combating parties; no such change has happened so far in the latter example and is the main reason there are no hints of peace there so far ...
Posted by: keymaker

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/03/09 01:09 PM

Quote:
As I said, you only seem to see what you want to see ...

Not really - what I'm seeing are crimes against humanity which is what I don't what to see.

Quote:
I find it difficult to see how an argument I never attempted to make could be called "bogus"

Keep trying... try reading the thread again.

The comparison I did make was the willingness, at the end, of the IRA to live peaceably with the English...[/quote]
Unconditional talks don't depend on what happens in the end -you're getting confused with conditional talks.

Quote:
The peace that now exists in the first two instances required a large attitudinal shift by the combating parties; no such change has happened so far in the latter example and is the main reason there are no hints of peace there so far ...

You keep saying that but it's historically inaccurate. It was the talks themselves that brought about the shift. The IRA continued bombing even while talking and as I said before the the ANC refused to renounce violence for 27 years after Mandela's conviction until a settlement was reached. If you want to wait until Israel adopts an attitudinal shift it should be pretty obvious to you after 60 years of failure that you'll wait for ever - which is what Israel wants of course.

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/03/09 01:51 PM

Quote:
You keep saying that but it's historically inaccurate. It was the talks themselves that brought about the shift.


In what way is it inaccurate? We both agree a shift in viewpoint was needed in order to successfully negotiate a lasting peace -- Sinn Fein and even the IRA itself condemned the bombings during the peace talks, and that rejection helped cement the eventual peace; the ANC, as you say after 27 years, finally adopted more peaceful methods of working within the system to effect the change they wanted ...

This contrasting with the current intransigence on both extreme Israeli/Palestinian factions, which seem not at all interested in living together peacefully, even conceptually ...

Given that you seem to agree that an attitudinal shift was required on the parts of the IRA and the English government, of the ANC and the South African government in order to achieve their respective peaces, I really don't see what your issue is here ...
Posted by: eckhard

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/03/09 02:24 PM

Originally Posted By: steveg
Ah, but then what would you have had to bitch about this week? Who's arrest could have been demanded. What tribunals demanded?


Apart from the personal stuff you insist on using, your argument doesn't cut it.
Just because someone says that both are to blame doesn't make it so.

besides, the Israelis starting these wars are acting extremely short-sighted, while the Palestinians are in for the long run.
The Israelis are digging their own graves. Withing 20-30 years, the Jewish population within israel will lose their majority status and the entire Zionist plan of a Jewish State will have become a moot issue.
And since this process will be taking place inside their own borders, they can't even nuke their way out of it.

Meanwhile, many thousands of smart Israelis are leaving the country for safer grounds.

That "blame them both" cop-out reminds me of a doggie incident a few months ago. Walking my miniature Schnauzer Spookie, who is a lamb, we met a young lady with some terrier, whom she clearly wasn't able to control. he came toward Spookie like a dervish, and for the first time ever, I was concerned that she would get seriously hurt. As I shouted to the lady, to reel in that dog of her's, she answered "Takes two to Tango!"

Yeah.




Posted by: keymaker

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/03/09 02:54 PM

Quote:
In what way is it inaccurate?

The British and South African governments agreed to talks with the IRA and ANC respectively while those groups reserved the right to revert to violence. As it happens there was a ceasefire in those cases which, since they were successfully resolved, should be taken as the required model for the commencement of talks in the Middle East.

Quote:
This contrasting with the current intransigence on both extreme Israeli/Palestinian factions, which seem not at all interested in living together peacefully, even conceptually ...

I believe this where you're going wrong - it's Israel that's refusing talks with Hamas not the other way around.

Quote:
Given that you seem to agree that an attitudinal shift was required on the parts of the IRA and the English government.

Well, an attitudinal shift may be desirable but international law should still be enforced against those who believe they have some kind of choice about breaking it. Strangely enough, if that happened, you could then expect to see the attitudinal shift.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/03/09 03:07 PM

Quote:
Apart from the personal stuff you insist on using, your argument doesn't cut it.

The two things go together of course... Steve invariably resorts to personal abuse WHEN his arguments don't cut it - which is quite often.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/03/09 03:20 PM

It does take two to Tango or tangle, if you prefer. I stand by my premise that Hamas has gone out of it's way to provoke, And it's no secret that, like any cookie-cutter terrorist organization, they nestle themselves in amongst civilian populations, deliberately putting innocent non-combatants in harms' way.

I do blame them both. You label it a cop-out because you only want to know from your own POV and because it's much simpler to attribute a white hat to one party and a black hat to the other. And I guess you see terrorists you know, bus-bombers, suicide bombers, rocket lobbers, your-non-existence-is-our-charter devotees as wearing the white hat. Hey, good luck with that.
Posted by: carp

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/03/09 03:47 PM

Quote:
the Israelis starting these wars are acting extremely short-sighted,


Really how so ? your terribly misguided maybe because of those bias links ?

1 - Israeli forces ""thwarts" 6 Hamas Gunmen planing on kidnapping Israeli solders , during the treaty , in a preemptive raid

2 - Hamas responds with a week long rocket attack <-- Israel warns to stop the attacks

3 - Israel responds after a week with a attack on Hamas rocket launching sites and Hamas leader homes

I said before that I too don't agree with Israel heavy hand , but even so it still did not stop Hamas rocket attacks . So now it leds into a ground invasion what else can they do ? ?


Posted by: keymaker

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/03/09 03:55 PM

Quote:
I said before that I too don't agree with Israel heavy hand

You mean the genocide? Does your disapproval extend to wanting prosecutions?

Quote:
So now it leds into a ground invasion what else can they do ? ?

Vacate the illegal settlements?

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/03/09 04:03 PM

Quote:
The British and South African governments agreed to talks with the IRA and ANC respectively while those groups reserved the right to revert to violence.


And how is this at odds with the narrative I described? The key is the attitudinal shift from victory through force as their primary goals to ones of negotiated peaceful coexistence. Although they reserved the right to revert to violence, the important change was the shift to concentrate on peaceful settlements rather than continue to focus on armed resistance ...

Quote:
I believe this where you're going wrong - it's Israel that's refusing talks with Hamas not the other way around.


The last I had read, Hamas' conditions for talking with Israel were that Israel had to basically cave to all of Hamas' demands before Hamas would even consider sitting down at the table -- not exactly attractive preconditions for the Israelis to accept I would think ... and I believe Hamas' ultimate goal remains the removal of Israel completely, no? Not exactly a "love thy neighbor" position ...

Of course, the hard-line Israeli insistence on further settlement expansion and heavy-handed military tactics is equally intractable, hence my proposition that movement from both current positions will have to happen before any serious peace can realistically be considered ...

Quote:
Well, an attitudinal shift may be desirable but international law should still be enforced against those who believe they have some kind of choice about breaking it.


I don't see where the two are mutually exclusive, although since I maintain a sustainable peace is impossible if neither side really wants it, I'll say the attitude shifts would be more of a requirement than a desire ;-)
Posted by: keymaker

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/03/09 04:20 PM

Quote:
movement from both current positions will have to happen before any serious peace can realistically be considered ...

So how do you explain the success story of South Africa when Nelson Mandela didn't move?

km
Posted by: carp

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/03/09 04:37 PM

Quote:
You mean the genocide? Does your disapproval extend to wanting prosecutions?


Only if it includes all terrorist leaders as well.

Quote:
Vacate the illegal settlements?


You mean vacate the land Israel won during the conquest of defending themselves in the 67 Egypt , Syrian and Jordan invasion ? ? Like the American Indians who fought bravely also lost their war but now they have a "State with in a State" to do what they want with it but must live peaceful and not lobb rockets or commit terrorist acts. Palestinians could learn something from them

Give back the land ? I think not or at-lease with some conditions that Israel needs for security which Palestine would never agree to and the security that Israel wants is something that Palestine could never give to begin with. Remember its just not Hamas or the PLO there are many many splinter factions that they have no control over that commit terrorist acts against Israel even when they are in peace talks <-- some groups simply don't want peace of any kind

Heres what I think.

a - Hamas must have control over terrorist factions <-- otherwise Israel will never give back any land.

b - Hamas must allow joint Israeli Intelligence to work together to curd rival terrorist factions

c - Hamas must agree that Israel does have the right to exist

d - Israel should reconsider "Jordan's" offer of donated land <-- If I remember correctly some 20 years ago , Jordan made an offer to Israel for some 5,000 square miles of land in exchange for Palestinian land .

Bottom Line;
Israel is keeping the Palestinian Land "won during the war" to have some sort of control - since Hamas and the then PLO seems not have had any or can even guarantee some sort of security as a good neighbor to Israel. Like having Osama living next door but if he is renting that home from you , you can do spot inspections for weapons and bombs
Posted by: FSM

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/03/09 04:53 PM

Hamas played a big role in this current conflict, but the over aggression is likely a result of the Israeli PM fearing a loss in the upcoming elections.
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/03/09 05:35 PM

Mandela didn't need to to move -- he always was more in favor of a non-violent solution to apartheid, although he and the ANC did end-up having to resort to armed resistance in the face of worsening treatment by the government. After his release from prison he was clear that although he still held armed resistance as an option, his desire was a peaceful settlement and coexistence with the white minority ...

And, of course, Mandela's armed resistance didn't indiscriminately target civilians; rather went after government and military installations. And his ultimate goal wasn't the elimination of the state or the government, just their repressive policies ...

Mandela could always conceive of living peacefully with his foes if they dismantled Apartheid, so his attitude didn't need much shifting in that direction ... the big shift in this case came from the government side, with DeKlerk undoing much of Botha's policies and of course releasing Mandela and others and legalizing the ANC's existence ...

They key, again, is that both side ended-up desiring peace, so it was able to happen ... without that mutual desire, who knows how long the conflict would have continued?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/03/09 05:40 PM

Interesting response, carp, so I might come back on some of it later on but just to take a few points at a time...

Quote:
Quote:
You mean the genocide? Does your disapproval extend to wanting prosecutions?

Only if it includes all terrorist leaders as well.

So you're against the summary execution of terror suspects because you want to see them put on trial?

Quote:
Give back the land ? I think not or at-lease with some conditions that Israel needs for security...

But land annexations are contrary to international law. Maybe you didn't know that but on the assumption that it's true would you accept that Israel MUST vacate the occupied land without pre-conditions? People are going to get very confused if you support international law on one issue but refute on another.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/03/09 06:02 PM

Quote:
Mandela didn't need to to move -- he always was more in favor of a non-violent solution to apartheid

So is Hamas - it's Israel that's in favour of apartheid and violent solutions - correct?

Quote:
And, of course, Mandela's armed resistance didn't indiscriminately target civilians;

Which is laudable... but unfortunately Israel does and on a much grander scale than any one else ever has.

Quote:
They key, again, is that both side ended-up desiring peace, so it was able to happen ... without that mutual desire, who knows how long the conflict would have continued?

Not for ever because there were worldwide sanctions. In the case of Israel however there are no such sanctions because you lot think the most important thing in the world are US elections - to hell with Arabs - correct?

km


Posted by: carp

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/03/09 06:09 PM

Quote:
So you're against the summary execution of terror suspects because you want to see them put on trial?


Yes if they are captured - normally suicide bombers are not - but you can get their leaders for supporting them.

Quote:
But land annexations are contrary to international law.


We were annexed do you even know what your about ??

Again like I said many times before the UN is a Paper Tiger and does nothing but create even more problems by all these "International Laws" and Mandates and does nothing to enforce it <--- UN should be disbanded immediately and save the planet from a world of hurt.

Quote:
assumption that it's true would you accept that Israel MUST vacate the occupied land without pre-conditions?


NO thats not what I said - I said Israel is not going to give back the land that it "WON" fair and square for defending itself in battle - Only if Palestine can give Israel a guarantee security which it cannot.

Your confused with land WON in battle from land that is just occupied , like a neighbor takes over your garden without a fight. You lose you lose , Palestine should have chosen their friends wisely and not the losers . If Palestine chosen instead to offer Israel peace and guaranteed security , they would have gotten their land back decades ago.


Posted by: six_of_one

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/03/09 06:28 PM

Quote:
So is Hamas - it's Israel that's in favour of apartheid and violent solutions - correct?


Last time I checked, Hamas' main goal is the elimination of Israel as a state and the transformation of all Palestine into an Islamic Arab state of their own. Hamas officials have also in the past outright stated that for them peace with Israel is impossible and that jihad is the only solution. Given that and the indiscriminate nature of Hamas' methods I would have to disagree that it favors a peaceful coexistence with Israel or that it has thus far demonstrated a desire for non-violence in pursuit of its goals.

So, no, it is not correct that only Israel favors violent solutions ...

Quote:
but unfortunately Israel does and on a much grander scale than any one else ever has.


Which again does nothing to absolve Hamas' responsibility for doing the same thing ...

Quote:
In the case of Israel however there are no such sanctions because you lot think the most important thing in the world are US elections - to hell with Arabs - correct?


If by "you lot" you refer to government foreign policy so far, I would have to say it's been up and down in terms of fairness towards the Palestinians, with an especially low dip over the past eight years in particular ...

If you mean to include me personally in that "lot", I'd have to say to hell with hard-line factions of both Israel and Palestine and let everyone else live their lives in peace ... but unfortunately I don't get much say in the matter.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/03/09 06:36 PM

Quote:
Quote:
So you're against the summary execution of terror suspects because you want to see them put on trial?

Yes if they are captured - normally suicide bombers are not - but you can get their leaders for supporting them.

Who said anything about suicide bombers?

Quote:
Quote:
But land annexations are contrary to international law.

We were annexed...

So what? You mean because you were annexed everybody else has to be? You seem to have a rather inflated opinion of US importance - the prohibition of land annexations was decided by the entire world community after WWII.

Quote:
Again like I said many times before the UN is a Paper Tiger and does nothing but create even more problems by all these "International Laws" and Mandates and does nothing to enforce it <--- UN should be disbanded immediately and save the planet from a world of hurt.

Hmmnwell yeah but you're taking sides with Hamas now - that UN resolutions don't count - that supports their argument that Israel doesn't exist.

Quote:
Quote:
on the assumption that it's true would you accept that Israel MUST vacate the occupied land without pre-conditions?

NO thats not what I said...

I know - its what you should have said. Alright then - you don't have to give up your garden to baseball playing trespassers but Arabs have to give up their gardens to lawless armed fanatics because the United States has racist policies.

Quote:
Your confused with land WON in battle from land that is just occupied

That's your confusion - I've posted the prohibitions often enough, you should try reading them sometime.

km

Posted by: keymaker

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/04/09 01:16 AM

Quote:
Last time I checked, Hamas' main goal is the elimination of Israel as a state and the transformation of all Palestine into an Islamic Arab state of their own.

Although that's a politically acceptable position having regard to the history of Israel I'm personally in favour of trying to bring Hamas around into accepting it which I believe would be possible if Israel vacates the occupied land and accepts the right of Palestinians to elect their own government. We persuaded Irish republicans to abandon the elimination of Northern Ireland as its goal except by peaceful means so we have to hope and that Hamas can be similarly persuaded to do likewise in unconditional talks similar to those that worked in NI.

Quote:
Last time I checked, Hamas' main goal is the elimination of Israel as a state and the transformation of all Palestine into an Islamic Arab state of their own. Hamas officials have also in the past outright stated that for them peace with Israel is impossible and that jihad is the only solution. Given that and the indiscriminate nature of Hamas' methods I would have to disagree that it favors a peaceful coexistence with Israel or that it has thus far demonstrated a desire for non-violence in pursuit of its goals.

Flawed reasoning I'm afraid... Hamas action is a response to the illegal annexation of its land and other abuses not the elimination of Israel. This is also where you're hypocrisy comes in - you want the right to bring action against trespassers in your garden whom you decide you can't coexist with and you expect that to be upheld by your courts and enforced but you don't want enforcement of the resolutions that require Israel to vacate Palestinian land.

So, yes, it's CORRECT to say that only Israel favours violent solutions. Hamas favours the enforcement of existing UN resolutions OVER violent solutions. In this context whilst Hamas has demonstrated it's desire for peaceful co-existence by honouring successive ceasefires Israel has demonstrated it's violent contempt for peace by breaking them. Whereas Israel is choosing violence as a first option to defend illegal settlements Hamas is choosing violence as a last resort.

km
Posted by: eckhard

sorry, but that's obscene! - 01/04/09 01:38 AM

Originally Posted By: carp
Like the American Indians who fought bravely also lost their war but now they have a "State with in a State" to do what they want with it but must live peaceful and not lobb rockets or commit terrorist acts. Palestinians could learn something from them


You mean, genocide, ethnic cleansing (there was no fair war!) and consequent ghettoization should serve as pattern?
I have news for you, it already is!
However, unlike those Indians, who never had a chance and have effectively lost everything, the Palestinians have at least as long a history as the Jews and won't become Tourism exhibits, like their unfortunate US counterparts.
They are growing in numbers ..... in a few decades, they'll outnumber Israelis.
So, while it may seem silly of the Hamas, to lop those toy rockets, but in the longer view, which people in that region have, it Israel which is digging her own grave,




Posted by: six_of_one

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/04/09 02:38 AM

Quote:
I'm personally in favour of trying to bring Hamas around into accepting it which I believe would be possible if Israel vacates the occupied land and accepts the right of Palestinians to elect their own government.


That would be the change I'm referring to. Also,of course, the hard-line Israelis would need to change their position on continued expansion of settlements, as you mention ...

Quote:
but you don't want enforcement of the resolutions that require Israel to vacate Palestinian land.


It would be hypocrisy if that's what I thought -- but since I have always supported the removal of Settlements in occupied land, and have stated such many times on these boards, your supposition is erroneous ...

Quote:
So, yes, it's CORRECT to say that only Israel favours violent solutions.


I'm obviously going to disagree, but at this point it's simply going to be a circular argument, much like the one about who broke which cease-fire first: it depends largely on who's version of the "truth" one wishes to believe. Rather than buy completely into one side's story or the other's, I chose to believe that the truth really lies somewhere in between the two absolutes of the other guy being exclusively responsible. In my experience reality turns out more often than not to be just too complex and nuanced -- especially with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict -- for simple reduction to black-and-white to apply ...
Posted by: keymaker

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/04/09 02:59 AM

Quote:
It would be hypocrisy if that's what I thought -- but since I have always supported the removal of Settlements in occupied land, and have stated such many times on these boards, your supposition is erroneous

Well, what you said in this thread was:

until *both* sides determine that it is in their best interests to coexist with each other not much is going to happen to resolve the situation peaceably ...

That gives Israel the option of keeping the settlements does it not? All they have to do is decline peaceful co-existence (as they have been doing for 60 years). In the States by contrast the law of trespass requires people to get off your land straight away precisely BECAUSE you're unwilling to peacefully co-exist with them in your garden.

Quote:
In my experience reality turns out more often than not to be just too complex and nuanced -- especially with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict -- for simple reduction to black-and-white to apply

Unless of course you're in the States and want a trespasser removed from your land in which case everything is quite straightforward. Black and white, no nuanced complications there because the law has to be upheld whether the jerks like it or not.

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/04/09 04:49 AM

Quote:
until *both* sides determine that it is in their best interests to coexist with each other not much is going to happen to resolve the situation peaceably ...


And from THAT you derived that I didn't support removal of Israeli settlements from occupied land??

Quote:
That gives Israel the option of keeping the settlements does it not?


Not if they want to resolve the conflict peacably, no, it's not an option in my view ...

Quote:
All they have to do is decline peaceful co-existence


Er ... not if they want to, um ... coexist ... peacefully ... which is kind of my point. Attitude change. Is this concept really that difficult to grasp?

Quote:
Unless of course you're in the States and want a trespasser removed from your land in which case everything is quite straightforward. Black and white, no nuanced complications there because the law has to be upheld whether the jerks like it or not.


Yes. Did you know here in the States, since everything is black-and-white and so clear cut, we don't even have a court system to resolve disputes? Things never get to even a hearing since only one side is always so obviously and so clearly in the wrong that it's just a waste of time ever bothering with a deliberative process -- the police simply cart-off the accused guilty party. No muddling with "complexity" or "nuance" here -- it's really quite straight forward.

The system was invented by the recent President Bush. Huge success. True story.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/04/09 05:02 AM

Quote:
Quote:
All they have to do is decline peaceful co-existence

Er ... not if they want to, um ... coexist ... peacefully

Yeah but what it if they don't though? What if they prefer perpetual armed conflict in which they have the advantage as the price for hanging on to Palestinian land? 60 years of it so far, shooting their own prime minister, breaking ceasefires, fomenting hate, hmwell it's all beginning to look a little... d'you get my drift?

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/04/09 05:19 AM

Quote:
Yeah but what it if they don't though?


Your guess is as good as mine (although mine might be less one-sided ;-). If either side doesn't want peace, though, its going to be awfully hard to come by ...
Posted by: steveg

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/04/09 05:32 AM

And apparently it's just as black and white in the ME, since both Israel and Hamas are each absolutely convinced that they are completely right while the other is completely wrong. Israel to Hamas: You are wrong and you must go! Hamas to Israel: You are wrong and you must go! Seems simple enough to me.

Oh, but wait... doesn't that sorta kinda indicate dual complicity? And doesn't it really underscore what's been going on in that region since way before 1948? This mess is as ideological, as emotional, and dammit, as personal as it is legal or illegal! The reason there's been no lasting solution is because of sheer momentum. It's like stopping a two-mile-long freight train within 20 feet.

I really am tired of all the hollow bluster about UN Resolutions and international laws and prosecutions because this mess precedes such civil posturing and rhetoric by so many decades and with so much weight that the law no matter how important and logical and well-intended just can't exert enough gravitational pull to cause any lasting results.

It comes down to the momentum of the dispute vs. the inertia of the law. Guess which force will prevail for a long time to come.

Waiting for the cries of "That means you support Israel!" And if my POV demonstrates support for Israel, I can only deduce that those who level that indictment must support Hamas. Hmmmmm... we both feel our positions are correct and the other must be wrong. Something familiar about that...
Posted by: carp

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/04/09 10:39 AM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
Quote:
So you're against the summary execution of terror suspects because you want to see them put on trial?

Yes if they are captured - normally suicide bombers are not - but you can get their leaders for supporting them.

Who said anything about suicide bombers?

Quote:
Quote:
But land annexations are contrary to international law.

We were annexed...

So what? You mean because you were annexed everybody else has to be? You seem to have a rather inflated opinion of US importance - the prohibition of land annexations was decided by the entire world community after WWII.

Quote:
Again like I said many times before the UN is a Paper Tiger and does nothing but create even more problems by all these "International Laws" and Mandates and does nothing to enforce it <--- UN should be disbanded immediately and save the planet from a world of hurt.

Hmmnwell yeah but you're taking sides with Hamas now - that UN resolutions don't count - that supports their argument that Israel doesn't exist.

Quote:
Quote:
on the assumption that it's true would you accept that Israel MUST vacate the occupied land without pre-conditions?

NO thats not what I said...

I know - its what you should have said. Alright then - you don't have to give up your garden to baseball playing trespassers but Arabs have to give up their gardens to lawless armed fanatics because the United States has racist policies.

Quote:
Your confused with land WON in battle from land that is just occupied

That's your confusion - I've posted the prohibitions often enough, you should try reading them sometime.

km



km
Your response was complete gibberish ?
Posted by: carp

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/04/09 10:49 AM

Quote:
I really am tired of all the hollow bluster about UN Resolutions and international laws and prosecutions because this mess precedes such civil posturing and rhetoric by so many decades and with so much weight that the law


Right Steve

km loves to spout out , and the UN does nothing , in fact what have they done so far in this crisis = NOTHING . What will the UN do ? create more mandates and then continue to do nothing to enforce it.

There is one thing that both sides seem to agree on is that there needs to be a 3rd party peace keeping force on the boarders . Arab League seems to be the right choice since the UN does nothing.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/04/09 10:52 AM

Quote:
km Your response was complete gibberish ?

In what way? I asked you a question about suspected terrorists and you answered with some gibberish about suicide bombers?

km
Posted by: carp

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/04/09 10:56 AM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
km Your response was complete gibberish ?

In what way? I asked you a question about suspected terrorists and you answered with some gibberish about suicide bombers?

km


Here was my answer

Yes if they are captured - normally suicide bombers are not - but you can get their leaders for supporting them.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/04/09 11:00 AM

There's a reason that the UN doesn't do much . . . it was designed not to do much. If you give five different nations the right to veto any action that the collective will of the global community wants to take, then you're guaranteeing that nothing will get done. So if you really want the UN to become what it might be, a world government, then the first thing that has to happen is to strip away the veto from the super-sovereign nations, the "big five." Of course, none of those nations would accept that move.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/04/09 11:08 AM

Quote:
Yes if they are captured - normally suicide bombers are not...

A dash is conjunctive - you should have put a full stop there instead if you wanted to make disjunctive.

Anyway to run with what you actually meant - what should happen if someone does summarily execute a suspected terrorist instead of organising a trial - should they be prosecuted for murder?

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/04/09 11:28 AM

Quote:
it was designed not to do much. If you give five different nations the right to veto any action that the collective will of the global community wants to take, then you're guaranteeing that nothing will get done

Yeah, that can be so frustrating... if by some fluke the Security Council does unanimously agree on something should it be observed by everyone?

km


Posted by: carp

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/04/09 11:34 AM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
it was designed not to do much. If you give five different nations the right to veto any action that the collective will of the global community wants to take, then you're guaranteeing that nothing will get done

Yeah, that can be so frustrating... if by some fluke the Security Council does unanimously agree on something should it be observed by everyone?

km




Thats the whole point - they don't have the means to enforce it , so why anyone would observe it ?
Posted by: carp

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/04/09 11:42 AM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
Yes if they are captured - normally suicide bombers are not...

A dash is conjunctive - you should have put a full stop there instead if you wanted to make disjunctive.

Anyway to run with what you actually meant - what should happen if someone does summarily execute a suspected terrorist instead of organising a trial - should they be prosecuted for murder?

km


In the post response box I cannot easily see the full stop "." so if you notice I tend to use a dash instead more often , maybe I'll use a double stop ..

Define your use of "summarily execute"
Posted by: keymaker

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/04/09 12:20 PM

Quote:
I cannot easily see the full stop

I wasn't meaning to sound critical - just explaining why I misunderstood your meaning.

Quote:
Define your use of "summarily execute"

Killing someone without due process - like firing a rocket at someone praying in a mosque for example.

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/04/09 12:51 PM

Alternatively, if everyone observed it, there wouldn't be the need for any enforcement, n'est pas?

Of course, the chances of *everyone* agreeing to observe any single law is vanishingly small, hence the need for an effective enforcement mechanism ... which, as you point out, the UN currently lacks ...
Posted by: MikeSellers

Subject line change - 01/04/09 12:54 PM

Gawd, I'm so sick of seeing "How ya diddling" in the new posts list. Makes me think this is a thread about child molesters.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/04/09 01:10 PM

Quote:
Of course, the chances of *everyone* agreeing to observe any single law is vanishingly small, hence the need for an effective enforcement mechanism ... which, as you point out, the UN currently lacks ...

Not as I point out, no, as you pointed out, wrongly, because the enforcement mechanisms are all there as Milosevic found out. All it takes is for the nations to vote for collective military action for example or for a tribunal to put suspects on trial.

The question I asked is whether, once the SC unanimously decides on something whether all the nations have to observe it?

km
Posted by: Mactico

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/04/09 01:50 PM

Quote:
Killing someone without due process - like firing a rocket at someone praying in a mosque for example


Praying for a right target for rockets just launched from the same mosque, to Israel civilians homes.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/04/09 01:59 PM

Quote:
Quote:
Killing someone without due process - like firing a rocket at someone praying in a mosque for example

Praying for a right target...

Ah, yeah that's not allowed.

km
Posted by: carp

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/04/09 02:16 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
I cannot easily see the full stop

I wasn't meaning to sound critical - just explaining why I misunderstood your meaning.

Quote:
Define your use of "summarily execute"

Killing someone without due process - like firing a rocket at someone praying in a mosque for example.

km


Thats called "collateral damage" I knew you were miss using the word summarily

Definition;
Quote:
collateral damage Unintentional or incidental injury or damage to persons or objects that would not be lawful military targets in the circumstances ruling at the time. Such damage is not unlawful so long as it is not excessive in light of the overall military advantage anticipated from the attack. (Joint Publication 3-60)
Intent is the key element in understanding the military definition as it relates to target selection and prosecution. Collateral damage is damage aside from that which was intended. Since the dawn of precision guided munitions, military "targeteers" and operations personnel have gone to great lengths to minimize collateral damage.

Posted by: keymaker

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/04/09 02:22 PM

Quote:
Thats called "collateral damage" I knew you were miss using the word summarily

No. If you fire a rocket at someone with intent and they die it's called a "summary execution". You're getting confused with the situation where a death is unintended.

km
Posted by: carp

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/04/09 02:29 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
Thats called "collateral damage" I knew you were miss using the word summarily

No. If you fire a rocket at someone with intent and they die it's called a "summary execution". You're getting confused with the situation where a death is unintended.

km


Then I agree with you Hamas was firing rockets at Israel before they retaliated then yes it would be murder.
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/04/09 02:58 PM

Quote:
Not as I point out


I wasn't responding here to any statement you made, but to Carp's ...

Regardless, the UN has no enforcement mechanism -- such as a police or military force -- of its own. The legal mechanism is there, but the physical police/military mechanism to back it up is lacking. It needs the voluntary participation of the member states' militaries to even come close to such a force, and the efficacy of that scheme, while occasionally successful, obviously offers little deterrent for states/groups that wish to to completely ignore UN resolutions ... I mean, obviously Israel is right this instant quaking in its boots at the the thought that a UN force might actually compel them to observe UN resolutions, right?

To be truly effective, the UN would need a credible force neither beholding to nor relying upon any single nation's support, under the direct control of the UN itself rather than of single or collective member states ... basically a world police/military organization. But I don't think at this time very many governments would cede ultimate authority to such an entity ...

Quote:
The question I asked is whether, once the SC unanimously decides on something whether all the nations have to observe it?


In a legal sense, yes, that would be the idea. In a practical sense, given that there is no real credible deterrent from them doing so, I'd say they are able to observe or ignore UN edicts as they please ...
Posted by: keymaker

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/04/09 09:03 PM

Quote:
I wasn't responding here to any statement you made, but to Carp's ...

Sorry, I got my wires crossed on that for some reason.

Quote:
In a legal sense, yes, that would be the idea. In a practical sense, given that there is no real credible deterrent from them doing so, I'd say they are able to observe or ignore UN edicts as they please ...

Try telling that to Afghan villagers who have lost loved ones in a bombing raid. There was a credible deterrent for Sadam to comply with UN Resolutions requiring destruction of wmd's wasn't there because if he didn't there was going to be a UN approved invasion. When in fact he did comply and the deterrent was seen to have worked France, Russia and China said that no further action was required - do you remember? Then there was Kosovo - credible deterrent. Afghanistan, credible deterrent. Israel, incredible deterrent because of US hypocrisy and double standards?

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/05/09 12:42 AM

Quote:
When in fact he did comply and the deterrent was seen to have worked France, Russia and China said that no further action was required - do you remember?


Yes, I do. And since the UN had no credible means to enforce it's decision, the US was able to proceed with its own agenda regardless without fear of consequence from the UN ...

Quote:
Israel, incredible deterrent because of US hypocrisy and double standards?


Which in that case proves my point: in order for the UN to have a universal credible enforcement of it's edicts it cannot be dependent upon any single country or group of countries for its efficacy. It has to a) eliminate the right of any permanent member to veto the decisions of the majority and b) have an independent means of physical enforcement to assure those decisions ... neither of which currently exist.

I would also stipulate that in such a case provisions must also be made to protect minority rights from a potential tyranny of a majority ...

Kosovo was a mixed bag in that the official UN-mandated military force was pretty much impotent in attempting to protect the rights and lives of the minority and the innocent ...

And your example of Afghanistan is flawed because obviously there are elements which still effectively chose to ignore UN resolutions ...
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/05/09 12:46 AM

Er ... so Hamas' firing rockets at civilian populations and some civilians die, it's a summary execution, yes?

I'd even go further and propose that even the targeting is a crime -- which is clearly stated by international law ...

You can't have the law apply to just one side you know ...
Posted by: keymaker

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/05/09 01:00 AM

Quote:
so Hamas' firing rockets at civilian populations and some civilians die, it's a summary execution, yes?

Arguably, yes. They may have a defence to any charges but that would be for prosecutors to assess and ultimately for the court to decide in the event of prosecution.

Quote:
You can't have the law apply to just one side you know ...

Quite so... which is why I apply it equally to both sides.

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/05/09 01:42 AM

Quote:
Arguably, yes.


So the arguablity (if that's even a word) applies equally to Israeli actions, yes?

Quote:
Quite so... which is why I apply it equally to both sides.


Odd. Your calls for Palestinian extremist atrocities to be be prosecuted have been markedly rare.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/05/09 10:58 AM

Quote:
So the arguablity (if that's even a word) applies equally to Israeli actions, yes?

Well we know from Israel's public statements that the suspects will plead 'not guilty' to genocide on the grounds that their actions were in lawful self-defence. Most of us feel that such an argument wouldn't be upheld but of course each count will have to be considered on its merits.

Quote:
Odd. Your calls for Palestinian extremist atrocities to be be prosecuted have been markedly rare.

Not really - I've repeatedly called for suspected war criminals to be put on trial even in this very thread. Since Israeli deaths and injuries are markedly rare compared to Palestinian ones it's usually more relevant one way than the other. Of course the defence of lawful force in self-defence and recovery of land is more obviously applicable to the Palestinian case than to Israeli's but the prosecutors will obviously assess whom to charge and whom not - and what the parties choose to argue at trial is obviously up to them.

In general however I agree with you - let's fast track this one... get the multinational force agreed at the UN and establish the Tribunal then the Security Council can take legal advice and issue the warrants of arrest - that will probably take about two months. Then there's compilation of the evidence and preparation of the indictments which would probably take another 2 months and of course the suspects would need a couple of months to consult their counsel and prepare their defence.

Shoot - what have we got - we'd probably be into August before all parties would be ready but, well, let's go for July if possible and fall back to August if for any reason there are any delays?

km
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/05/09 11:30 AM

While it's possible to accept - lawful force in self-defence and recovery of land - isn't there still an overriding unlawful application of force in play also. Targetting civilians is unlawful. While it can be suggested that firing unguided munitions into a city is not specifically targetting - more akin to V1/V2 delivery systems in WWII - there is a general acceptance that there is expectation of civilian casualties in such delivery methods.

For example firing a gun into the air (though now covered in many US cities as unlawful), allowed for the possibility of casualties and a person could be prosecuted should someone be hit by their bullet. Similarly drink/drive laws tend to stem from the possibility of causing death, in spite of the fact that a defendant may claim "no intent" to cause harm, the act of driving a vehicle while intoxicated invalidates that no intent claim.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/05/09 11:50 AM

Quote:
Yes, I do. And since the UN had no credible means to enforce it's decision, the US was able to proceed with its own agenda regardless without fear of consequence from the UN ...

But its decision was enforced. UN Res 687 required weapons inspectors to destroy or render harmless Iraq's arsenal of wmd's which was achieved by the late Dr David Kelly on location between 1991 - 1998. Since he achieved the UN's objective there was nothing left to enforce. What the US did while all the world looked on in incredulity was attempt to enforce the unenforceable - just about the most idiotic adventure in foreign affairs that anyone could remember.

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/05/09 01:49 PM

In this case I was thinking more about the obvious lack of UN support for the invasion itself and that a resolution specifically supporting an invasion failed miserably. I'm my view the Iraq invasion was in direct contravention of the will of the UN ... but perhaps that's a poor example since that was more of a case of the UN's inability to enforce its opposition to an action -- a "non-resolution" if you will -- rather than that of failing to be able to enforce an edict passed by the SC ...

Probably Israel's ability to flagrantly disregard UN resolutions with little or no meaningful consequence is a better example of what I'm talking about ...
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/05/09 01:52 PM

I'd love to see all of that happen, but have doubts they way things are currently set-up at the UN that much, if any of it, will ...

For one: the US still has veto power.
Posted by: carp

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/05/09 02:08 PM

Right Llewelyn
I,ll post this again since it seemed to miss some people

Quote:
collateral damage Unintentional or incidental injury or damage to persons or objects that would not be lawful military targets in the circumstances ruling at the time. Such damage is not unlawful so long as it is not excessive in light of the overall military advantage anticipated from the attack. (Joint Publication 3-60)
Intent is the key element in understanding the military definition as it relates to target selection and prosecution. Collateral damage is damage aside from that which was intended. Since the dawn of precision guided munitions, military "targeteers" and operations personnel have gone to great lengths to minimize collateral damage.


1 - Israel "intent" is Hamas targets and weapon storage facilities lawful targets by the definition = collateral damage which is not unlawful <-- However who decides what is excessive ? ? and I don't see the use of precision guided munitions either but still their "intent" is military targets Hamas.

2 - Hamas "intent" in relation to firing rockets is to summarily execute civilians , since there is no specific target or a military target = murder

Another missed used word is "Occupation"

Quote:
Art. 42.
Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
Art. 43.
The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.


In short by the legal definition there is NO occupation of Palestinian land

1 - Gaza Strip is controlled by "Hamas" which was elected .. Keep in mind that since 2005 there is no Israeli boots in Gaza

2 - West Bank is controlled by "Fatah" .. However Israel does have a small force in the West Bank and oddly the West Bank is relatively quiet compared to Gaza who does not have a Israeli force stationed inside its boarders .. Fatah and Hamas are bitter rivals with Fatah being the more moderate of the two - ever heard of there can only be one president at a time ?

The convolution;
Israel does control the airspace , the shipping lanes and the boarders of both Gaza and the West Bank .. Simply the Palestinians are not free to come and go as they please and to have free trade for goods and services <-- but this is not occupation the better word would be "Oppression" ..

a - Israel intent;
Is to control Hamas and Fatah ability to gain , tanks , heavy artillery and more larger and sophisticated rockets and missiles ..

b - Hamas intent;
IS more open boarders and free trade and that would be a good for the peace process - However Hamas did demonstrate by the use of digging tunnels into Egypt to ferret into Gaza , rockets , mortars , ammunition . So what would have happened if there was free trade ? Simply Israel don't want to give them to much rope , but is it right ?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/05/09 02:47 PM

Quote:
Probably Israel's ability to flagrantly disregard UN resolutions with little or no meaningful consequence is a better example of what I'm talking about ...

We all know that nations on the SC can veto action necessary to discourage genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. When the victims of those crimes retaliate for want of due process with acts intended to deter repetition the fault for that backlash lies with the nation making irresponsible use of the veto. A nation that can see nothing wrong in such appalling crimes can't really complain when similar debauchery is visited upon themselves.

km
Posted by: carp

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/05/09 07:35 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
Probably Israel's ability to flagrantly disregard UN resolutions with little or no meaningful consequence is a better example of what I'm talking about ...

We all know that nations on the SC can veto action necessary to discourage genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. When the victims of those crimes retaliate for want of due process with acts intended to deter repetition the fault for that backlash lies with the nation making irresponsible use of the veto. A nation that can see nothing wrong in such appalling crimes can't really complain when similar debauchery is visited upon themselves.

km


Until the UN and the SC "small arm of the UN" can effectively enforce its "will" .. Please stop reinforcing a Paper Tiger that means obsoletely NOTHING ..
Posted by: keymaker

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/05/09 11:29 PM

Quote:
Until the UN and the SC "small arm of the UN" can effectively enforce its "will" .. Please stop reinforcing a Paper Tiger that means obsoletely NOTHING .

You missed the point, carp... the SC can and does enforce its will and did so in the manner I've illustrated in relation to Sadam, Kosovo, and Afghanistan for example.

When the UNSC declines to inhibit genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity by reason of a nation exercising the veto then it's the nation not the UN that's to blame for the consequences. Since the veto isn't always abused I believe you must logically concede that the UN does NOT mean "absolutely NOTHING".

Oh alright then, the UN means absolutely nothing so Res 181 and Israel don't exist... everyone made a mistake apart from Hamas and carp... whistle

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: How ya diddling? - 01/08/09 11:39 PM

Quote:
Israel's over-reaction is as wrong as Hamas provocation.

Ah, but using force to recover your own land is not provocation is it - not by our standards. Applying a different standard to Arabs is a racist position. Oh, and the Palestinians are entitled to ALL of the land back, not some of it as you tried to suggest earlier.

km