[Athens]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Children as shields won't work anymore.

Of course not, Israel couldn't care less if its a old man, woman or kid they kill. They just want blood for blood.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

I've seen little evidence of a "civilian population" in Gaza

Now we know you're clueless!! If the Palestinians had 1,2 million armed soldiers, Israel would have been overrun years ago. Hint: anyone that doesn't have a gun in their hand is NOT fair game. I see plenty of those people on TV. You cannot morally or legally kill people because they voted for a party you don't like. This is precisely the reason why the Israeli civilian population is not fair game. What you are talking about doing is committing genocide, plain and simple. Your hatred for Arabs doesn't render them inhuman and the act of slaughtering them any more acceptable.

Originally Posted by MacNStein

No gov't has taken land in the 20th century ? And don't give me that "Int'l law" bullsh!t, Int'l law is a joke.

You name a post-UN war for me where an invader has acquired land through the war. International law is not the joke you think it is. No country would recognise a greater Israel if it tried to acquire the Occupied Territories through invasion. You're living in the dark ages.

If Israel started the kind of all out war against Palestinians that you're talking about, aside from the moral irony of the descendants of the victims of the holocaust causing a holocaust, Israel would face international condemnation, war crimes tribunals and quite possibly military action from some of its current allies. If Israel managed to win that war, it would still be no closer to a solution since the expanded state of Israel would not be recognised by anyone. The pressure would be even stronger on Israel to create a Palestinian state.

That's what you're too thick-headed to realise. That violence only prolongs the inevitable. Over-reacting the way Israel just did, makes it more difficult for Israel to survive.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Troll

Now we know you're clueless!! If the Palestinians had 1,2 million armed soldiers, Israel would have been overrun years ago. Hint: anyone that doesn't have a gun in their hand is NOT fair game. I see plenty of those people on TV. You cannot morally or legally kill people because they voted for a party you don't like. This is precisely the reason why the Israeli civilian population is not fair game. What you are talking about doing is committing genocide, plain and simple. Your hatred for Arabs doesn't render them inhuman and the act of slaughtering them any more acceptable.
You name a post-UN war for me where an invader has acquired land through the war. International law is not the joke you think it is. No country would recognise a greater Israel if it tried to acquire the Occupied Territories through invasion. You're living in the dark ages.

If Israel started the kind of all out war against Palestinians that you're talking about, aside from the moral irony of the descendants of the victims of the holocaust causing a holocaust, Israel would face international condemnation, war crimes tribunals and quite possibly military action from some of its current allies. If Israel managed to win that war, it would still be no closer to a solution since the expanded state of Israel would not be recognised by anyone. The pressure would be even stronger on Israel to create a Palestinian state.

That's what you're too thick-headed to realise. That violence only prolongs the inevitable. Over-reacting the way Israel just did, makes it more difficult for Israel to survive.

You completely missed the meat of what I was saying, why am I not surprised? Get your head out of your legal ass and see what's really going on.

It's over, and Palestine will be gone in 2-3 years, along with anyone else in the ME who continues aggression against Israel. Their days are numbered.

Yes, International law is a joke, and so are you.

[Sky Captain]

More that Switzerland ignores out of Palestine

[yakkiebah]

Palestinian militants or uh... civilians?

Funerals don't deter Gaza youth

Palestinian civilians casualties are simply used as a political tool. To fool the international community. Wich apparently is working to a certain height.

[eklipse]

Precisely who does have the moral standing to criticize Israel? - the Zionists and their sympathizers have somehow managed to dismiss the opinion of pretty much everyone from the Swiss, to the UN, to Mandela, to Tutu, to Gandhi and so on.

Whose condemnation would actually make Israel stop and think?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by eklipse

Precisely who does have the moral standing to criticize Israel? - the Zionists and their sympathizers have somehow managed to dismiss the opinion of pretty much everyone from the Swiss, to the UN, to Mandela, to Tutu, to Gandhi and so on.

Whose condemnation would actually make Israel stop and think?

Whose condemnation would make the Palestinians stop and think?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by eklipse

Precisely who does have the moral standing to criticize Israel? - the Zionists and their sympathizers have somehow managed to dismiss the opinion of pretty much everyone from the Swiss, to the UN, to Mandela, to Tutu, to Gandhi and so on.

Whose condemnation would actually make Israel stop and think?

I think the only condemnation that could make a effect is one coming from there masters the USA.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Whose condemnation would make the Palestinians stop and think?

Why should they stop, they are only trying to protect there homes, families and land which was wrongfully taken from them by the Orginal UN.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Athens

Why should they stop, they are only trying to protect there homes, families and land which was wrongfully taken from them by the Orginal UN.

Protect their families by strapping bombs to them? Brilliant!

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

So, now you're putting limitations, removing half the century from the equation? Nice.

What is it with you guys?

OK. Skip WWII and just remove Israel from the list.

[Monique]

Golda Meir said once how do you deal with people that want to exterminate you.

Well you exterminate them first says Monique.

The palestanian army are the teenagers, the women and they can be the most vicious soldiers that ever existed and they want to exterminate all the Jews off the planet. They have no humaterian values and they would murder anything that move and have the name Jew attach to it.

And it is not about hating Arabs it is about hating terrorists.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Protect their families by strapping bombs to them? Brilliant!

Um I dont think they strap bombs on them, I think those that fight for the cause strap it on themselves. And it is Brilliant, its about the only effective weapon they have against a much more powerful, more aggressive military.

[ink]

Originally Posted by Athens

Typical Yank, and you wonder why the world dont like America much.

Seriously.

What's Switzerland going to do about it?

Is this the extent of their power, or are they going to send in coalition troops to defend Palestine?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by ink

Seriously.

What's Switzerland going to do about it?

Is this the extent of their power, or are they going to send in coalition troops to defend Palestine?

Maybe the US should just back off totally let Israel fend for its self. As long as the US is the mighty protector of Israel, no one can do a thing.

[Sky Captain]

The US is the only reason Israel hasn't anniahlated "Palestine". Not the other way around.

[Sky Captain]

Originally Posted by Athens

Of course not, Palestine couldn't care less if its a old man, woman or kid they kill. They just want to kill for the sake of killing.

Fixanated™

[Troll]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

You completely missed the meat of what I was saying, why am I not surprised? Get your head out of your legal ass and see what's really going on.

It's over, and Palestine will be gone in 2-3 years, along with anyone else in the ME who continues aggression against Israel. Their days are numbered.

Yes, International law is a joke, and so are you.

No, I didn't miss the meat of what you are saying at all. I understand EXACTLY what you're doing. Because I've seen it done before by countless other xenophobes. You're taking a nice big pot, labeling it "Terrorist Murderers" and shoving every Palestinian man, woman and child in there irrespective of who or what they are. And now you're standing next to the pot with your stick of dynamite trying to convince us that blowing up the 1.2 million residents of Gaza that you've shoved in your pot is the only way. Well, you need to wake up and smell the coffee because the world has stood by and watched this happen before and it won't stand by and watch this time.

You couldn't find the example we asked you for because it doesn't exist. I don't care what you think the role of international law is in the process - the fact is that the world no longer accepts genocide and it no longer accepts conquest of territory by invasion. So you can give up your dream of exterminating the Palestinians and taking their territory for Israeli lebensraum. It ain't gonna happen. Not in the next 2-3 years; not ever. If you honestly believe that to be a possibility, then you're completely delusional, my friend. The rest of the world is committed to a Palestinian state - even Israel is. That's the end game whether your like it or not.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Athens

Maybe the US should just back off totally let Israel fend for its self. As long as the US is the mighty protector of Israel, no one can do a thing.

That's absolutely what should happen. If Israel and the Palestinians can't decide to make peace themselves, let them fight it out - but make sure it's a fair fight.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

The US is the only reason Israel hasn't anniahlated "Palestine". Not the other way around.

Yes, without question the US has held Israel back from destroying Palestine. However, the US also shields Israel from international pressure regarding Palestine.

[Sky Captain]

Shields? How?

[evfish84]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

Shields? How?

I think they are one of or even the only country that does not condemn Israel at nearly every UN meeting.

[ink]

Originally Posted by Athens

Maybe the US should just back off totally let Israel fend for its self. As long as the US is the mighty protector of Israel, no one can do a thing.

Who makes sure that Iran and Syria let Palestine fend for itself?

And... what does "fending for itself" have to do with anything? Should a stronger country be able to conquer a weaker other country at will? It sounds like you only want a fair fight that Israel loses, or would you allow Israel to have a state after it "defeats" the Palestinians in a "fair" war?

Originally Posted by Troll

make sure it's a fair fight.

How?

The UN has sanctioned the state of Israel, and the Palestinians (among others) do not agree with the state, and so they lash out with terrorism. Nothing Israel seems to do has any effect; if they "give in" (eg, Gaza), then they legitimize terrorism in the minds of the Palestinians (see the Hamas election). If they retaliate, then they are criticized by the Swiss (oh no!).

The only solution, if you can call it that, seems to be shutting down Israel and giving it to the Palestinians.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

Shields? How?

Since 1972, the US has been the heaviest user of the UN Security Council veto (between 1946 and 1972, the Soviet Union held that title) and since 1989 has used it's veto 13 times, 11 of which were on Security Council resolutions against Israel.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Troll

The rest of the world is committed to a Palestinian state - even Israel is. That's the end game whether your like it or not.

Everyone is committed, except the Palestinians, it seems.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Since 1972, the US has been the heaviest user of the UN Security Council veto (between 1946 and 1972, the Soviet Union held that title) and since 1989 has used it's veto 13 times, 11 of which were on Security Council resolutions against Israel.

No kidding, that's the because a large portion of the UN is made up of crap countries, look into it sometime. If there's 6 KKK members in a room of 10 people, I wouldn't exactly want to be a black man in that room if they were going to vote on anything. The same goes for Israel and the crapload of islamic countries which are all against it.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by Athens

Typical Yank, and you wonder why the world dont like America much.

Switzerland

And my question still remains. Can Swizterland do anything about it ? Are the Swiss powerful, anybody could kick their asses probably, when was the last time they even fought a war ?

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

The US is the only reason Israel hasn't anniahlated "Palestine". Not the other way around.

True, the US is the one that is restraining Israel. One day the gloves will come off.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by Athens

Um I dont think they strap bombs on them, I think those that fight for the cause strap it on themselves. And it is Brilliant, its about the only effective weapon they have against a much more powerful, more aggressive military.

It's working out real well for them. What's the ratio of the dead ?

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by Troll

That's absolutely what should happen. If Israel and the Palestinians can't decide to make peace themselves, let them fight it out - but make sure it's a fair fight.

Fair, LOL. This is not a stupid game. Israel didn't have fair odds when the arabs invaded after the state was founded. If palestinians want to attack a much stronger Israel, then that's Darwin's law being acted out.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by PacHead

No kidding, that's the because a large portion of the UN is made up of crap countries, look into it sometime. If there's 6 KKK members in a room of 10 people, I wouldn't exactly want to be a black man in that room if they were going to vote on anything. The same goes for Israel and the crapload of islamic countries which are all against it.

So, currently there are 15 people in the room. How many of them are Islamic?

Hint: There are 5 permanent members, none of which are Islamic. Of the remaining 10, Africa, Asia, Latin America, Western Europe, and Eastern Europe each get to choose members from their region. The Security Council has a mandate of one Islamic country, from either Asia or Africa, who only have 4 members between the two of them.

Even if in the unlikely event that Asia and Africa were to select all Islamic members, it would be difficult to define 4 Islamics in a room of 15 people as a "crapload of islamic countries".

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

So, currently there are 15 people in the room. How many of them are Islamic?

Hint: There are 5 permanent members, none of which are Islamic. Of the remaining 10, Africa, Asia, Latin America, Western Europe, and Eastern Europe each get to choose members from their region. The Security Council has a mandate of one Islamic country, from either Asia or Africa, who only have 4 members between the two of them.

Even if in the unlikely event that Asia and Africa were to select all Islamic members, it would be difficult to define 4 Islamics in a room of 15 people as a "crapload of islamic countries".

I'm talking about the UN in general, the general assembly and their ridiculous resolutions. Luckily no Islamic country is a permament member of the security council and no Islamic country has any veto vote in the security council.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Everyone is committed, except the Palestinians, it seems.

Yeah, that's Israel's stock excuse. It's been saying that for the last 50 years. It's always 'their' fault.

The point is that everyone knows what the outcome will be. All you're doing by killing each other is moving your pawns around the board. Things need to move faster and to my mind, the best way of making things move faster is to stop selling guns to both sides. I support the calls for anti-apartheid sanctions against Israel - economic, military and cultural. I want Israel out of international sport, I want a ban on arms sales, I want a ban on investment and a ban on the sale of Israeli products. I also want a ban on all but humanitarian aid to the Palestinians, and the same kinds of economic, military and cultural sanctions reserved for Israel to apply to the Palestinians.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by PacHead

I'm talking about the UN in general, the general assembly and their ridiculous resolutions. Luckily no Islamic country is a permament member of the security council and no Islamic country has any veto vote in the security council.

But Wiskedjak was talking about the security-council, and there since 1972 eleven resolutions would have been passed against Israel, woudn't there have been the vetoes of the US.


Taliesin

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Troll

Yeah, that's Israel's stock excuse. It's been saying that for the last 50 years. It's always 'their' fault.

The point is that everyone knows what the outcome will be. All you're doing by killing each other is moving your pawns around the board. Things need to move faster and to my mind, the best way of making things move faster is to stop selling guns to both sides. I support the calls for anti-apartheid sanctions against Israel - economic, military and cultural. I want Israel out of international sport, I want a ban on arms sales, I want a ban on investment and a ban on the sale of Israeli products. I also want a ban on all but humanitarian aid to the Palestinians, and the same kinds of economic, military and cultural sanctions reserved for Israel to apply to the Palestinians.

If they ever could say "yes" to an agreement, or follow through on the terms of the agreement, they might have shown some commitment.

But instead, it's always the same. No recognition of Israel. No Peace with Israel. No negotiations with Israel.

Even with Oslo, where we thought they had recognized Israel, they hadn't. They later said that they had agreed to consider recognizing Israel and decided against it.

And the problem with your proposal to ban Israel entirely, and ban all but 'humanitarian aid' to the palestinians is this: the palestinians have always had no difficultly using 'humanitarian aid' for corruption, both in form of payments to leaders and in the form of using funds for attacks. You want to cut off the attacks, cut off the 'humanitarian aid.'

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by vmarks

If they ever could say "yes" to an agreement, or follow through on the terms of the agreement, they might have shown some commitment.

But instead, it's always the same. No recognition of Israel. No Peace with Israel. No negotiations with Israel.

Even with Oslo, where we thought they had recognized Israel, they hadn't. They later said that they had agreed to consider recognizing Israel and decided against it.

And the problem with your proposal to ban Israel entirely, and ban all but 'humanitarian aid' to the palestinians is this: the palestinians have always had no difficultly using 'humanitarian aid' for corruption, both in form of payments to leaders and in the form of using funds for attacks. You want to cut off the attacks, cut off the 'humanitarian aid.'

So now you are proposing starving a whole nation.

Ethnic cleansing and starving a whole nation on your list of proposals so far. What's next?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by PacHead

I'm talking about the UN in general, the general assembly and their ridiculous resolutions.

Such as those ridiculous resolutions against Iraq?

[Troll]

Originally Posted by vmarks

If they ever could say "yes" to an agreement, or follow through on the terms of the agreement, they might have shown some commitment.

But instead, it's always the same. No recognition of Israel. No Peace with Israel. No negotiations with Israel.

Even with Oslo, where we thought they had recognized Israel, they hadn't. They later said that they had agreed to consider recognizing Israel and decided against it.

And the problem with your proposal to ban Israel entirely, and ban all but 'humanitarian aid' to the palestinians is this: the palestinians have always had no difficultly using 'humanitarian aid' for corruption, both in form of payments to leaders and in the form of using funds for attacks. You want to cut off the attacks, cut off the 'humanitarian aid.'

Who's "they" in all of your sentences?

[analogika]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

So now you are proposing starving a whole nation.

Ethnic cleansing and starving a whole nation on your list of proposals so far. What's next?

That's an Endlösung for the Palästinenserfrage.

There is no "next" after that.

That's what "Endlösung" means.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

So now you are proposing starving a whole nation.

Ethnic cleansing and starving a whole nation on your list of proposals so far. What's next?

Not me.
I do not propose ethnic cleansing or starving.

Placing sanctions and limitations on groups of people was Troll's proposal.

I simply asked how he intends to prevent money that is intended for humanitarian aid from being used for warfare.

That's a question that the EU or the IMF or any other world body that contributes humanitarian has been unable to answer so far.

Since he's proposing shutting out people from participating in the world, let him answer.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Troll

Things need to move faster and to my mind, the best way of making things move faster is to stop selling guns to both sides. I support the calls for anti-apartheid sanctions against Israel - economic, military and cultural. I want Israel out of international sport, I want a ban on arms sales, I want a ban on investment and a ban on the sale of Israeli products. I also want a ban on all but humanitarian aid to the Palestinians, and the same kinds of economic, military and cultural sanctions reserved for Israel to apply to the Palestinians.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Such as those ridiculous resolutions against Iraq?

Yes, the UN is mostly useless. The US had to take the lead in dealing with Iraq, because the UN is comprised of spineless weasels.

[analogika]

The US is one of the most influential, if not THE most influential, members of the UN.

Interesting you'd call them "spineless weasels".

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by analogika

The US is one of the most influential, if not THE most influential, members of the UN.

Interesting you'd call them "spineless weasels".

Yes, the UN in general is spineless weasels, a largely ineffective organisation plagued by corruption. I'd like to see the UN building blown up (with nobody inside of it). The US doesn't need the UN.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by vmarks

I simply asked how he intends to prevent money that is intended for humanitarian aid from being used for warfare.

Send medicines and food rather than money. Sanctions have been effectively implemented before.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by PacHead

The US doesn't need the UN.

When it comes to corruption, the US Government makes the UN look like amateurs.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Not me.
I do not propose ethnic cleansing or starving.

vmarks in another thread:

Arabs living west of the Jordan river who wish to be Palestinians can move to Gaza.

I simply asked how he intends to prevent money that is intended for humanitarian aid from being used for warfare.

Where did you "ask" that? I can't see it in your post.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

vmarks in another thread:


Where did you "ask" that? I can't see it in your post.

Ethnic cleansing was when the Israelis vacated Gaza, so that Gaza is now free of any Jews.

Stating that if people wish to build a state, they can build it where they currently have sovereignty and their seat of government is just sense, not cleansing. If they wish to remain where they are in the West Bank, fine with me, they'll just not be Palestinians, they'll be Israelis.

The fact that you can't read what I posed is your own problem. Troll managed to answer it.

His answer is, send medicines and food rather than money.

I have to ask in return, why hasn't that step been done before now? The EU and IMF have both considered the problem of money for aid being used for weapons and violence by the Palestinians- what kept them from implementing the answer you propose?

[ink]

Originally Posted by vmarks

I have to ask in return, why hasn't that step been done before now? The EU and IMF have both considered the problem of money for aid being used for weapons and violence by the Palestinians- what kept them from implementing the answer you propose?

Because the Palestinian state will fall apart without money; so sending food and medicine could be a short-term help, but it's a long-term death sentence. Taking such an action means that one doesn't really belive in the long-term feasability of the state.

BTW, there is precious little money going to Palestine at the moment (thanks mostly to the pride of the Hamas leadership, in my opinion). Something is going to break, and it's not too far away from happening. Israel is in Lebanon right now, thanks to Hezbollah... stay tuned.

[ink]

Originally Posted by Troll

I support the calls for anti-apartheid sanctions against Israel - economic, military and cultural. I want Israel out of international sport, I want a ban on arms sales, I want a ban on investment and a ban on the sale of Israeli products. I also want a ban on all but humanitarian aid to the Palestinians, and the same kinds of economic, military and cultural sanctions reserved for Israel to apply to the Palestinians.

And what of the nuclear weapons and F-16s that Israel already poseses? Are you going to arm Palestine to make it "fair" first?