All right Monty would you be as nice as to explain this seemingly fucked-up logic, to me.
Makes sense to me. Israel isn’t taking over the west bank and gaza to assimilate it and plunder it’s ‘wealth’.
It is a police action to protect their citizens.
And it’s justified.
Among a shitload of other things Israel is partaking in both. Assimilation in the territories are going at full speed. As is the plundering of wealth. Land (and Water) are often the only thing Palsetinians (or most Arabs) have to their name. However, the state of Israel loves to have both.
It is a tool of oppression and it an ethnic clensing technique.
It is (by any defintion) NOT justified
Ethnic cleansing my ass. Israel is just indiscrimately killing palestinians because they have no right to exist? No, that’s what palestinians do to Israelis.
When Palenstinians stop murdering babies, maybe they will see some peace.
Among other grave and serious war crimes Israel is not only killing Palestinians, but they are systematically chasing them from the land. This IS Ethnic Cleansing.
Baby murders, eh? Sigh…
Cite?
Israel has a huge Palestinian population, who are treated as equal citizens.
Sigh indeed. Are you disputing the fact the terrorist palestinians target all civilians, including babies?
Forever fighting ignorance? Try fighting your own for a change.
I think if december were pro-Palestinian, he would have started this thread.
From my (admittedly somewhat limited) understanding of the situation over there, I’ve gotta side with Monty on this. I don’t see anything untrue about it.
Well, it’s sort of interesting that the first two sites that you reference are from an Israeli watchdog organization (apparently containing members of the Knesset) that is trying to change the country’s policy towards Palestinians. An organization that, instead of being ruthlessly suppressed, has a readily available website. And this in a country that is randomly rocked by explosions caused by the group that it is representing So your effort to paint all Israelis with the same broad brush seems to be defeated by your own cites. My impression is of a country whose trend towards a more liberal relationship towards Palestinians has been derailed by violent extremists.
As for the last cite, this concerns a water dispute between Lebanon and Israel concerning a border river. Not only is it not particularly relevant to your argument regarding Palestinians, but it’s not at all clear from the article who is culpable. My reading is that the Lebanese are the ones making the play for the water – the legal question is whether they are taking more or less than is allowed by treaty and what the remedy should be if they are taking more.
Efrem: You call my statement of fact fucked up logic and then go on and post in this thread outright bs by accusing Israel of perpetrating a holocaust. You’re obviously deluding yourself if you think that Israel is doing such a thing when, in fact, it’s the terrorists Israel’s protecting themselves from who are bent on eradicating Israel.
Israel’s actions in the West Bank are purely motivated by the need to provide security to its people. Given, it may be rather overzealous at times, but Israel has never been interested in annexing the entire west bank.
If they were, it would be very easy for the Israeli military to expel the entire Palestinian population with a large-scale military operation. Note that Israel has NEVER made an offensive strike on the West Bank without prior provocation in the form of a terrorist attack (or a war).
Also, if Israel wants water (and hence fertile land) so badly, why would they bother to build a massive multi-million dollar water carrier system in the Negev to creative farms in the middle of a desert?
And as for disputes over water, at one point Syria actually made plans to redirect the Jordan River, which supplies Israel with about 95% of its fresh water.
Israel has always acted reponsively - very rarely (if ever) have they ever made a first strike, which would of course be necessary if they intended to steal vast tracts of land and water.
Does this include the Settlements? I can’t see how they would increase security for anyone.
jjimm-
Did you even read your own “cite”?
Israel didn’t even exist at the beginning of 1948. How could Israel make an offensive strike when it hadn’t even been declared a state?
[sub]BUZzzzz wrong answer try again[/sub]
Technically speaking, jjimm, your “Ahem” is irrelevant because it took place before May 14 of that year, therefore before the establishment of the State of Israel.
The "massacre at Deir Yassin" is described here http://www.etzel.org.il/english/ac17.htm. Rather than a massacre, it appears to have been a pitched battle where the Irgun resistance made attempts to minimize civilian casualties; warning them to evacuate. (In fact, there's a strong parallel to this year's Jenin's "massacre" in that the Arab casualties and supposed Jewish atrocities were deliberately exaggerated in order to win sympathy.)
I find this source to be credible because it does little to minimize many of the other terrorist acts of the Irgun, many of them quite bloody and discreditable. The whole document makes for interesting, but rather grim reading.
jjimm, could you explain the relevance of your quote? As has already been pointed out, Isreal did not exist at the time as an organized nation, and something of a de facto state of war existed at the time, arguably due to the Arab refusal of UN resolution 181, but leaving that aside, I’m still not sure why you included what you did. Your quoted source specifically mentions five locations: Deir Yassin, Negev, Galilee, West Jerusalem, and the coastal plain. You apparently bring this up as evidence against ScryeR’s claim. However ScryeR specifically mentioned the West Bank, and none of your five locations are inside of it. (Of course, at the time the West Bank didn’t exist, but none of those locations are in the area that came to be the West Bank.)
My motivation was just to contest the word ‘NEVER’. However, I apologise for misrepresenting State action in the West Bank. Although, of course, certain individuals involved did then become part of the Israeli state.
See Benny Morris accounts in re the period, Deir Yassine etc. Respected Israeli historian, I have in the past cited to on these issues, look it up. As I recall, his materials do not match the above characterization.
To the point, to characterize Israeli forces as not being occupying but there as a “police force” borders on the absurd and is at best disingenous double speak.
The large presence of settlers and work on expanding settlements well beyond 1967 borders, with the attendant military forces to protect both continued expansion of settlements in the occupied territories
One may have whatever opinion in regards to the necessity of settlements, their efficacity etc., however by any reasonable understanding and meaning it is occupation. A simple test is all that is necessary – were attacks on 1967 territories to cease tomorrow, would Israeli authorities still desire/need/require security presence in the Occupied Territories for these settlements? The answer is very clearly yes. Mealy mouthed acceptance of propaganda aside.
I assume you are referencing me here.
Of course the Israeli army is an occupying force. An occupying force there performing a police action to protect themselves from terrorists.
It’s still not the same as Germany occupying France.
No, it is not the same as Germany occupying France, but then I never mentioned such a thing, no matter how much you may like that disingenous straw man. It rather more ressembles France occupying Algeria, and regardless of the history of how the occupation of the territories came about, the fact remains that there is far more than a “police action” going on – unless we adopt the very most tenditious aspects of new speak or allow that any occupying force engages in “police action.” There is a guerrilla war, or perhaps several, going on.
Building settlements in the West Bank and Gaza does nothing to improve Israel’s security. In fact, by creating a patchwork of Israeli-occupied land, it produces a security nightmare. All it does is put a lot more targets in harm’s way.
There can only be one goal to continuing to build Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, and that goal is to take over that territory permanently. Whether you think this is justified or not is a separate question, but it’s a bit disingenuous to claim that it’s just part of a course of action necessary to stop suicide bombers.