Has Hamas' victory changed the rules of engagement for Israel? [Archive]

Listerine

01-28-2006, 08:32 PM

If the majority of voters voted for Hamas, can they be considered an innocent populace with regard to Hamas' future actions? I realize that the second question is particularly tricky as a positive answer might remove the innocent status from Americans as well.
No, it is mostly tricky because taking the election of Hamas over Fatah as a preference for Hamas' more extreme past actions is overly simplistic at this time. It would be like saying that the Italian election of Cicciolina was an expression of genuine belief that porn stars are the best qualified for governing.

I do believe that the reformation of Hamas into something more moderate, and also less corrupt than Fatah, is the Pals' last and only chance. As much as I might disagree with you or some others on certain aspects of the creation of Israel and 1967 :blah:, I think the answer to your last question is: (if...) they will and they should.

Fun King ded

01-29-2006, 02:47 AM

The more ligitimate Hamas becomes the better for Israel. Hamas already had defacto local control to do bombings, etc. against Israel. Now they are ligitimate the have something to lose and at least something to distract them from blowing up Israeli buses.

thing

01-29-2006, 11:36 PM

BBC is reporting that the EU is threatening to "withhold" ~$600 million is aid, in addition to the ~$400 million the USA is threatening to not give. Seems to me that part of the issue the Palestinians were voting against was a political machine that requires a billion dollars a year to accomplish nothing of value to the people governed.

I can understand and respect that.

Hamas is calling this "blackmail" and claiming it can make the difference up from the Muslim world. Maybe they can. If so, great for them. But it does seem to me a crisis on the Palestinian side, and a direct result of the election.

That's the problem with democracy, isn't it? Sometimes you don't have good choices. The Palestinian people decided to take the risk of elevated violence over continuing to accept incompetence and corruption from Fatah.

My view at this point is that the Hamas victory validates the Israeli policy of "unilateralism". Why work with Fatah when Fatah couldn't disarm Hamas? Why work with Hamas when they won't disarm themselves?

Perhaps Hamas will be "pragmatic", by which I understand people to mean they'll continue the cease-fire. Perhaps they'll even crack down on the militias that they don't outright control, to guarantee the continuance of the cease-fire. If so, it's not a negative development.

But I'm not optimistic.

E. Blackadder

01-30-2006, 12:09 AM

Hamas is calling this "blackmail" and claiming it can make the difference up from the Muslim world.
$25,000 at a time, by blowing themselves up, maybe. Otherwise, no.

EweTupper

01-30-2006, 07:43 AM

An interesting question that I've been thinking about. Without any context I'd say "Yes, Israeli actions can be considered a legitimate response to a neighboring gov'ts acts of war".

However. . .

Its not like Israel has been holding back*, not using force simply because there wasn't a legitimate gov't to direct it against. Everyone involved has known the score for only too long. An election that formalizes Hamas' already tacit leadership role is little more than a symbol. A powerful symbol, yes, but still little more than that.

*nor should they have been

2pac Shakur

01-30-2006, 10:31 AM

Anyone think any of Hamas' actions have to do with the horrible conditions the Pals are subject to every day? The checkpoints, curfews, etc?

Or is it just that Pals are genetically pre-disposed to violence?

Y2Mozz

01-30-2006, 10:51 AM

Anyone think any of Hamas' actions have to do with the horrible conditions the Pals deserve? The checkpoints, curfews, etc?

Or is it just that Pals are culturally pre-disposed to violence?IFYQ2PS

2pac Shakur

01-30-2006, 10:53 AM

Feif

01-30-2006, 11:02 AM

Y2Mozz

01-30-2006, 11:03 AM

So the Pals are culturally pre-disposed to violence? And the Israelis, I'm guessing, are culturally pre-disposed to peace?

And to verify, you are saying the curfews, etc. that the Pals live under, are all things they deserve.

That sum up Y2's view?
You can really learn a lot on a message board if you try.

Thanks.I'm not saying that the Israelis are predisposed to anything. I am saying that religion is playing a big factor, especially with the fanatical version of Islam preached by Hamas, Fatah, et al.

But once Hamas straightens them out with shari'a, as they've said they will, everything will be okay.

And have the Pals done anything to deserve good treatment from Israel? do they not deserve to be closely monitored?

Mayor Quimby

01-30-2006, 11:11 AM

If Hamas is now a legitimate government and they continue to carry out terrorist attacks, can Israel declare war?
Make no mistake: there may not be an official, politically legitimate war between these two groups; but they've been at war for hundreds of years. But the fact that Hamas is now the "official" gummint, this makes it the logical next step to move from using the military to police the Pals to using the military to declare war on them.

Anyone think any of Hamas' actions have to do with the horrible conditions the Pals are subject to every day? The checkpoints, curfews, etc?

It's a chicken-egg argument. Are they blowing s**t up because they're mad at the checkpoints and curfews, or are they being given checkpoints and curfews because they keep blowing s**t up? It's probably both. Ultimately though, this is about not about such periphery as checkpoints: it's about power. Right now Israel has power, and they want to keep it; the Pals don't have power, and they want to seize it.

Fun King ded

01-30-2006, 11:17 AM

Ultimately though, this is not about such periphery as checkpoints: it's about power. Right now Israel has power, and they want to keep it; the Pals don't have power, and they want to seize it.

Excellent analysis.

2pac Shakur

01-30-2006, 11:29 AM

Yes, they are pre-disposed to it. Israelis are pre-disposed to survival.
The curfews, etc. are deserved. You don't see Israelis strapping on explosives, marching into a pizza shop, shouting out that God is great, and blowing themselves up together with civilians.

Maybe if they were subject to some of the same conditions as the Pals, and didn't get a multi-billion dollar military courtesy of Uncle Sam, they would.
Or, maybe it's just that Pals are genetically pre-disposed.

Mayor Quimby

01-30-2006, 11:32 AM

Maybe if they were subject to some of the same conditions as the Pals, and didn't get a multi-billion dollar military courtesy of Uncle Sam, they would.
Or, maybe it's just that Pals are genetically pre-disposed.
Or maybe it's just that you like to use strawman arguments that no one ever proposed.

Feif

01-30-2006, 12:36 PM

Maybe if they were subject to some of the same conditions as the Pals, and didn't get a multi-billion dollar military courtesy of Uncle Sam, they would..
Or maybe Israelis are actually decent human beings, who don't want to kill innocent people, and most of the Palis are indecent human beings who do want to kill innocent people.

ACCtuary

01-30-2006, 12:46 PM

So the Pals are culturally pre-disposed to violence? And the Israelis, I'm guessing, are culturally pre-disposed to peace?

And to verify, you are saying the curfews, etc. that the Pals live under, are all things they deserve.

That sum up Y2's view?
You can really learn a lot on a message board if you try.

Thanks.
And mine too.

Which side started hostilities when Israel came into being? Yes, I would say this is true. But if I wanted to be charitable, I could say that most Pals are more peace loving and educated than their Arab Neighbors (which isn't saying much) and have been misled, and duped by their own leadership, which aims to destroy Israel rather than make life better for their own people.

A Jew who seeks peace is a hero. An Arab who seeks peace is shot.
(Regrettably Rabin's assasination has destroyed this generalization).

whisper

01-30-2006, 12:49 PM

3-edged sword?

Otherwise, an interesting op-ed.

Democracy's three-edged sword

Published January 29, 2006

Second-term inaugural speeches tend to be little but hot air--cameras capture a president's warm breath as wisps of gray fog in chill air. So George W. Bush startled the White House press corps last January when he actually said something newsworthy.

It was in this speech that the president committed his administration to the spread of democracy "in every nation and culture," in countries ruled by our enemies and allies alike: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world. America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one."

But was that mere noble blather? Supporters and critics of Bush's robust (the latter group would say pushy) foreign policy wondered what would happen if, say, the long hapless Palestinians held an election--and Hamas terrorists won? Would Bush's attitudes and platitudes fold like pup tents in a West Bank windstorm?

Now, of course, comes that test. A triumphant Hamas in the Palestinian election is Bush's nightmare. So far, the president is sticking to the pothole theory of democracy he laid out last March: "Maybe some [terrorists] will run for office and say, `Vote for me, I look forward to blowing up America.' But I think people who generally run for office say, `Vote for me, I'm looking forward to fixing your potholes or making sure you've got bread on the table.'" On Thursday he described Hamas' victory as a populist demand for honest government and better services.

The hope here is that all Americans see the Palestinian vote as no less legitimate, no less desirable, than last week's election in Canada--or the November mid-term election here. Urging people to speak their minds isn't the same as embracing what they say. If the Palestinian vote is an affront to U.S. hopes and a menace to our allies in Israel, it's also a forced opportunity to appreciate democracy's three-edged sword:

- Yes, democracy is the ballot-box embodiment of freedom. For an American audience, no civics lesson needed. But as those democracies help people value and protect the governments they build, the world is likely to be a safer place.

- Bush knew that the global spread of voting rights--certified last month by the pro-democracy group Freedom House--would lead to outcomes antithetical to American foreign policy. Rather than hide from that inevitability, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has warmed to it. She has warned China, Saudi Arabia, Russia and other of Washington's autocratic friends that the U.S. push for democracy affects them too. Often, this is an unwelcome message; Egypt, where President Hosni Mubarak would rather pay lip service to democracy than guarantee it, has been especially resistant to history's march.

- The sword's third edge is just as vexing: The democracy agenda often clashes with other priorities. The Washington Post explained Wednesday how the Pentagon, eager to keep a U.S. base in Uzbekistan, opposed strong U.S. criticism of the regime there for massacring hundreds of protesters in Andijan. (In the end, even a restrained U.S. response angered President Islam Karimov, who expelled our military.) A senior U.S. official told the newspaper that rival priorities "come into conflict every day," with Bush's 2005 speech "a weapon in the hands of everyone in the administration who is pushing for a stronger and stronger democracy agenda."

Often that agenda prevails. In Kyrgyzstan--where, the Post says, the head of the Coalition for Democracy and Civil Society quotes Bush's speech at length--the U.S. not only funded pro-democracy groups, but also provided generators to print an opposition newspaper before last year's revolution.

From Belarus to Zimbabwe, America's policy of democracy inspires opponents of autocrats; East African newspapers demand to know why Bush hasn't yet ousted the local despots.

The problem with inspiration, of course, is that it raises expectations--overseas and here at home. As the president warned last January, "when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own." Now, the Palestinian soul has spoken. Bush must live by those words. And Hamas has to fix the potholes.

E. Blackadder

01-30-2006, 01:20 PM

I heard that Hamas is demanding that Israel remove the stripes from their flag.

That sounds like a reasonable first issue to take on. :roll:
Next they'll ask Israel to remove the star from the flag, too.

monet

01-30-2006, 01:53 PM

Did Hitler get elected?

That Chavez guy in Venezuela is not good for his country either.

Democracy does not always work. I bet there are some here in America who agree based on the present administration.

The advantage, however, is that peaceful regime change CAN happen every election. To that extent leaders should be accountable to the electorate.

By saying you believe in democracy is not to be so naive as to say that someone bad or someone who you won't want to deal with will never be elected.

Harry

01-30-2006, 02:12 PM

A Jew who seeks peace is a hero. An Arab who seeks peace is shot.
(Regrettably Rabin's assasination has destroyed this generalization).

So why do you continue to repeat it?

Harry

01-30-2006, 02:13 PM

Or maybe Israelis are actually decent human beings, who don't want to kill innocent people, and most of the Palis are indecent human beings who do want to kill innocent people.

:roll:

ACCtuary

01-30-2006, 02:48 PM

So why do you continue to repeat it?

Because I think it is still generally true. The risks facing a peace-minded Arab are far higher than the risks facing a peace minded Jew.

ClashCityRocker

01-30-2006, 02:49 PM

Anyone think any of Hamas' actions have to do with the horrible conditions the Pals are subject to every day? The checkpoints, curfews, etc?

Yes I do. But since when does that justify killing innocent civilians?

Harry

01-30-2006, 03:02 PM

Yes I do. But since when does that justify killing innocent civilians?

Is killing innocent civilians ever justified?

ACCtuary

01-30-2006, 03:11 PM

Is killing innocent civilians ever justified?

It's never justified, but Arabs continue to exploit this by hiding militants behind human shields. So long as they do this, they'll have more civilian casualties than they should.

ACCtuary

01-30-2006, 03:14 PM

Next they'll ask Israel to remove the star from the flag, too.

No...No.....Why would Israel want a duplicate of the French Flag?
(Sorry, too easy)

Feif

01-30-2006, 03:15 PM

It's never justified, but Arabs continue to exploit this by hiding militants behind human shields. So long as they do this, they'll have more civilian casualties than they should.
Just to slightly differ with you on one point, I don't think you can honestly call them "human shields". The people there in these regions welcome in the militants, and help hide them. Can you really cal these people "civilians"? I think they qualify as militants themselves.

Harry

01-30-2006, 03:30 PM

Just to slightly differ with you on one point, I don't think you can honestly call them "human shields". The people there in these regions welcome in the militants, and help hide them. Can you really cal these people "civilians"? I think they qualify as militants themselves.

Someone else around here sounds kind of militant...

Feif

01-30-2006, 03:35 PM

One thing I really don't get. The UN originally divided the land into 2 parts, one for a Jewish state (Israel) and one for a Palestinian state. Israel declared itself a n independent state, but the Pali section was taken over and annexed by Jordan, wasn't it? Then, in 1967, Israel captured that land from Jordan. Seems to me that if the Palis should have a complaint about anyone, it's Jordan, not Israel. Why did Jordan take their land away?

2pac Shakur

01-30-2006, 04:52 PM

You're trying to insert logic into an argument about why Palestinians should hate Jordan instead of Israel?

Jordan operates the checkpoints/enforces curfews?

ACCtuary

01-30-2006, 04:59 PM

You're trying to insert logic into an argument about why Palestinians should hate Jordan instead of Israel?

They shouldn't hate anybody. They should hold Jordan responsible for their current situation.

Jordan operates the checkpoints/enforces curfews?

Jordan failed to negotiate with Israel for an orderly transfer of the West Bank (of the what River?) land. Had they done so, there would be a Palestinian state today with no curfews. You see only the present and not the consquences of deliberate Arab neglect to score PR points rather than help the Palestinians they claim to care so much about.

2pac Shakur

01-30-2006, 05:07 PM

They shouldn't hate anybody. They should hold Jordan responsible for their current situation.

Jordan failed to negotiate with Israel for an orderly transfer of the West Bank (of the what River?) land. Had they done so, there would be a Palestinian state today with no curfews. You see only the present and not the consquences of deliberate Arab neglect to score PR points rather than help the Palestinians they claim to care so much about.

Well, if I'm some poor farmer, my wife were pregnant, and she was held up at a checkpoint by a bunch of Israeli soldiers, I'm not gonna hold Jordan responsible.

If my school is closed for the month by the Israeli army, I'm not gonna hold Jordan responsible.

That'd be like holding Iraq responsible for 9/11.

ACCtuary

01-30-2006, 05:18 PM

Well, if I'm some poor farmer, my wife were pregnant, and she was held up at a checkpoint by a bunch of Israeli soldiers, I'm not gonna hold Jordan responsible.

If my school is closed for the month by the Israeli army, I'm not gonna hold Jordan responsible.

And what if, hypothetically, a woman disgused as pregnant tried to smuggle bombs into Israel? I'll be the first to agree that random checkpoints aren't any fun.

I hear you suggesting that we are lashing out at an inappropriate target (Iraq) for a massacre we suffered earlier and you are pointing out that the average Pal in the street will also lash out at the easiest most visible target. Did I understand your point as you intended?

Certainly, the average Pali will see Israel as the problem. No argument there. But the street-level view isn't the truth unless you connect it with the higher level actions using a sound educational system. Indeed, if you don't teach them in your schools that Jordan was responsible for hanging you out to dry with the Israelis then of course they're going to blame the most visible effect.

And I'm sure they don't teach any self responsbility - that the idignities of hightened security - just might be a consequence of the depraved acts of terrorism perpetrated by their leaders.

I'm sure the Israelis are who they hate because it's too hard to admit that those who were supposed to help you let you down. They would have a Palestinian state now (and much bigger than then 1967 borders) if
* they hadn't left their homes
* they hadn't initiated hostilities against Israel
* at the promise of leaders of countries like Jordan.

Without negating your point about the peasant farmer and his wife, Palestinian and Jordanian authorities must bear some responsibility for the current state of affairs.

Harry

01-30-2006, 05:31 PM

And what if, hypothetically, a woman disgused as pregnant tried to smuggle bombs into Israel?

They should kidnap her husband and children. And burn her house down.

ACCtuary

01-30-2006, 05:33 PM

They should kidnap her husband and children. And burn her house down.

Actually, I was only suggesting that they be more careful with pregnant women at security checkpoints. I think your comment was unnecessarily inflammatory and sets back our attempt to debate and listen to one another.

But certainly interrogating her family about what they might know is appropriate in regard to attempted mass murder. If you want to be inflammatory and call an arrest a kidnapping, go ahead. With Hamas in power, the entire population will now have to be regarded as hostile.

whisper

01-30-2006, 05:35 PM

All that said, Hamas being elected essentially ends any hope for reasonable goals on the peace front. They had to know that Hamas would not renounce their claim that they believe Israel should be destroyed, and they had to know that Israel would never have serious discussions with them.

I'm sure there are those that would have said the same thing about Sinn Fein.

Its easy to be an extremist when you're a outsider. Now that Hammas is the government, Hammas may find that their views aren't compatible with running a country.

Lets not give the peace process an undue burial. Lets see if Hammas grows up and engages the world, or holds its extermist views as more important.

Harry

01-30-2006, 05:39 PM

Actually, I was only suggesting that they be more careful with pregnant women at security checkpoints. I think your comment was unnecessarily inflammatory and sets back our attempt to debate and listen to one another.

But certainly interrogating her family about what they might know is appropriate in regard to attempted murder. If you want to be inflammatory and call an arrest a kidnapping, go ahead. With Hamas in power, as Feif points out, the entire population will now have to be regarded as hostile.

Maybe, but their is plenty of inflammatory stuff being thrown around, both ways. 2pac's point is simply that on a personal level, the Palestinians have much more reason to be angry at Israelis. Bringing up what happened 40, 50, 60 years ago and suggesting that the current generation of Palestinians should be angry at Jordan is silly when all they've know is Israeli occupation and abuse (from their perspective).

(The kidnapping part was more about the recent US story.) But bulldozing homes is ridiculous.

monet

01-30-2006, 05:42 PM

But bulldozing homes is ridiculous.

Is it more ridiculous than blowing up women and children on a bus?

Harry

01-30-2006, 05:43 PM

Is it more ridiculous than blowing up women and children on a bus?

No, but your question is. :roll:

monet

01-30-2006, 05:45 PM

No, but your question is. :roll:

Wasn't the bulldozing of homes a reaction to the former?

monet

01-30-2006, 06:01 PM

They bulldozed John Holmes?

http://www.epinions.com/images/opti/32/e7/pr-Small_Appliances-Holmes_Fan_HA-CP7-resized200.jpg

Feif

01-30-2006, 06:20 PM

Harry

01-30-2006, 06:32 PM

Feif = Imus?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060130/media_nm/media_canada_dc

Y2Mozz

01-30-2006, 07:44 PM

The regulator said most complaints it received after New York-based Imus made comments during the live broadcast of Palestinian leader
Yasser Arafat's funeral cited a comment that most Palestinians might be upset "because Arafat stole billions of dollars from them, and they are all eating dirt. And the fat, big wife is living in Paris."

-- What's factually wrong with that statement?

2pac Shakur

01-30-2006, 08:04 PM

Y2Mozz

01-30-2006, 08:18 PM

Probably. But they're not up in arms about Imus's statements regarding Jews.

ACCtuary

01-30-2006, 08:42 PM

Just for the record, when I brought up Jordan, it was not to make a point about their treatment. It was about who the land really belongs to. The Palis say it is their land, and they want it back, because Israel stole it from them. This is not true. Jordan stole it from them. If they had kept it, and not entered into any wars with Israel, they'd still have it. Israel didn't steal anything from them. Jordan did.

Jordan definitely reneged on their responsibility to the Palestinians, but the current facts are that Israel, not Jordan effectively controls the West Bank. Now, Jordan's role comes in the form of repatriating some of the Palis and taking financial responsibility for reconstruction once a peace accord is made.

ACCtuary

01-30-2006, 08:44 PM

Feif = Imus?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060130/media_nm/media_canada_dc

And Imagine Imus gets all that money without having to pass a single actuarial exam. It's almost unfair!

ACCtuary

01-30-2006, 08:45 PM

Just to slightly differ with you on one point, I don't think you can honestly call them "human shields". The people there in these regions welcome in the militants, and help hide them. Can you really cal these people "civilians"? I think they qualify as militants themselves.

Acknowledged. I was thinking of Lebanon, not the WB when I wrote that.

2pac Shakur

01-31-2006, 11:31 AM

Maybe, but their is plenty of inflammatory stuff being thrown around, both ways. 2pac's point is simply that on a personal level, the Palestinians have much more reason to be angry at Israelis. Bringing up what happened 40, 50, 60 years ago and suggesting that the current generation of Palestinians should be angry at Jordan is silly when all they've know is Israeli occupation and abuse (from their perspective).

As the votes were counted in the Palestinian election and the scale of Hamas's landslide became apparent to the world, Aya al-Astal drifted away from her home and wandered towards the fence along the border between the Gaza strip and Israel.

The nine-year-old girl's parents realised she was gone as they watched the election results on television. They do not know precisely what happened, but the Israeli army later said Aya was behaving in a suspicious manner reminiscent of a terrorist - she got too close to the border fence - and so a soldier fired several bullets into the child, hitting her in the neck and blowing open her stomach.

Aya was the second child killed by the Israeli army last week. Soldiers near Ramallah shot 13-year-old Munadel Abu Aaalia in the back as he walked along a road reserved for Jewish settlers with two friends. The army said the boys planned to throw rocks at Israeli cars, which the military defines as terrorism.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1697825,00.html

You know whose fault that was?
Jordan's.

Hamas is responsible for the murder of more than 400 Israelis. But since it declared a ceasefire a year ago the group has killed one Israeli, according to the Israeli government's own figures. Sasson Nuriel was kidnapped in September and forced to record a video demanding the release of prisoners. Hamas said it shot him when the army got close to finding him.

Hamas also carried out a suicide bombing at Beer Sheva bus station in August that seriously wounded two security guards, and it was behind some of the attacks by rudimentary rockets fired from Gaza into Israel that frequently terrify but rarely kill. Hamas said it launched the rockets in response to Israeli attacks.

Feif

01-31-2006, 12:15 PM

You know whose fault that was?
Jordan's.
No, it's the fault of stupid terrorists who make Israel act this way. If the Palis didn't air videos of children wired up to explosive vests, and go in and blow themselves up, Israel wouldn't have to suspect everyone.

Harry

01-31-2006, 12:35 PM

No, it's the fault of stupid terrorists who make Israel act this way. If the Palis didn't air videos of children wired up to explosive vests, and go in and blow themselves up, Israel wouldn't have to suspect everyone.

What is the age of the youngest known suicide bomber so far?

Feif

01-31-2006, 12:45 PM

What is the age of the youngest known suicide bomber so far?
Not sure. But there are pictures of kids who look about 4 years old wired with vests.

2pac Shakur

01-31-2006, 01:15 PM

No, it's the fault of stupid terrorists who make Israel act this way. If the Palis didn't air videos of children wired up to explosive vests, and go in and blow themselves up, Israel wouldn't have to suspect everyone.

Who makes the terrorists act the way they do?
Genetics?

2pac Shakur

01-31-2006, 01:16 PM

Not sure. But there are pictures of kids who look about 4 years old wired with vests.

Israel should shoot those pictures.

Y2Mozz

01-31-2006, 01:16 PM

Who makes the terrorists act the way they do?
Genetics?For the 1000th time, culture. :bat:

Harry

01-31-2006, 01:22 PM

Israel should shoot those pictures.

:rofl:

Feif

01-31-2006, 01:26 PM

Israel should shoot those pictures.
No, they should shoot the kids in the pictures.

Harry

01-31-2006, 02:27 PM

No, they should shoot the kids in the pictures.

And apparently any other kid they see walking.

Gee, I can't understand why there isn't peace in the Middle East.

2pac Shakur

01-31-2006, 02:42 PM

And apparently any other kid they see walking.

Gee, I can't understand why there isn't peace in the Middle East.

It's because of the culture of violence in the Pal territories.

Y2Mozz

01-31-2006, 02:43 PM

Have Hamas and Al-Aqsa used children before?

Do they preach to children that killing Israelis is good?

Y2Mozz

01-31-2006, 02:44 PM

It's because of the culture of violence in the Pal territories.
:notworth:

I figured that if I kept saying it, it would sink in.

:beer: on me.

Harry

01-31-2006, 03:04 PM

Have Hamas and Al-Aqsa used children before?

Do they preach to children that killing Israelis is good?

Has Israel used children before?

http://www.child-soldiers.org/document_get.php?id=945

2pac Shakur

01-31-2006, 03:28 PM

Has Israel used children before?

http://www.child-soldiers.org/document_get.php?id=945

Yea, but if Israel does it, it is becaue of the Pals' culture of violence.
I hear that is the cause of 9/11, and actuaries being overweight, too.

Feif

01-31-2006, 03:43 PM

Has Israel used children before?

http://www.child-soldiers.org/document_get.php?id=945
Israel is giving their children military training. Training them NOT to target civilians. Not strapping explosives to them and sending them onto busses and into pizza stores to blow themselves up. I think there's a difference.

2pac Shakur

01-31-2006, 03:44 PM

Israel is giving their children military training. Training them NOT to target civilians. Not strapping explosives to them and sending them onto busses and into pizza stores to blow themselves up. I think there's a difference.

Was shooting that 9 year old girl part of their training?

Feif

01-31-2006, 03:45 PM

Was shooting that 9 year old girl part of their training?
Yes, because the Palis showed them that every person, even a child, can be a terrorist, and Israel can't take chances with it.

2pac Shakur

01-31-2006, 03:46 PM

Yes, because the Palis showed them that every person, even a child, can be a terrorist, and Israel can't take chances with it.

So everything that ever happens is the Pals fault?

Feif

01-31-2006, 03:48 PM

So everything that ever happens is the Pals fault?
Everything? No. Most things? Probably. They stoop to terror tactics, and because of that, Israel has to treat them as such. Them they blame Israel. Stupid. Don't use terror tactics, then you can live in peace!

2pac Shakur

01-31-2006, 03:49 PM

Yes, because the Palis showed them that every person, even a child, can be a terrorist, and Israel can't take chances with it.

And I like the way you called the dead 9 year old girl "it".

2pac Shakur

01-31-2006, 03:50 PM

Everything? No. Most things? Probably. They stoop to terror tactics, and because of that, Israel has to treat them as such. Them they blame Israel. Stupid. Don't use terror tactics, then you can live in peace!

Israeli soldier shoots a 9 year old girl for walking in the wrong place. That's just an expected reaction.
Now, if a relative, or friend of hers decides to take some sort of retaliatory action, then that is terrorism.

Sum things up?

Ronald Reagan

01-31-2006, 04:27 PM

Everything? No. Most things? Probably. They stoop to terror tactics, and because of that, Israel has to treat them as such. Them they blame Israel. Stupid. Don't use terror tactics, then you can live in peace!

Give the pals nukes, and all the other american weapons, then we'll see who fights with dirty methods.

Killing with a clean missile is no less evil than killing with a bomb, gun, or rock. It just indicates that murderer has money.

Feif

01-31-2006, 04:31 PM

Give the pals nukes, and all the other american weapons, then we'll see who fights with dirty methods.

Killing with a clean missile is no less evil than killing with a bomb, gun, or rock. It just indicates that murderer has money.
If you target civilians, then you are correct. Israel does not target civilians. Palis do. Pali civilians get killed because they go where they know Israeli strikes will hit so that they can generate negative PR, so people like you and 2pac can claim the things you do.

2pac Shakur

01-31-2006, 04:33 PM

If you target civilians, then you are correct. Israel does not target civilians. Palis do. Pali civilians get killed because they go where they know Israeli strikes will hit so that they can generate negative PR, so people like you and 2pac can claim the things you do.

If Israel never targets civilians, and Pals only target civilians, how is it that the Israeli side kills more civilians EVERY year?

(here comes the old hiding behind women and children line)

ACCtuary

01-31-2006, 05:16 PM

If Israel never targets civilians, and Pals only target civilians, how is it that the Israeli side kills more civilians EVERY year?

(here comes the old hiding behind women and children line)

Can't really say that, as the Palis have sent their women out to blow themselves up as well.

Old means Tupac is tired of hearing it, not that it isn't true. And the Pals are counting some of its murderers as civilians. My workday is over, so here I am. :cool:

ACCtuary

01-31-2006, 05:21 PM

2pac Shakur

01-31-2006, 05:28 PM

Can't really say that, as the Palis have sent their women out to blow themselves up as well.

Old means Tupac is tired of hearing it, not that it isn't true. And the Pals are counting some of its murderers as civilians. My workday is over, so here I am. :cool:

123 Israeli children have been killed by Palestinians and 705 Palestinian children have been killed by Israelis since September 29, 2000.

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/children.html

That difference can't be explained away by women bombers.
And the only person I've ever seen hide behind women and children is W on 9/11.

Harry

01-31-2006, 05:32 PM

Can't really say that, as the Palis have sent their women out to blow themselves up as well.

Old means Tupac is tired of hearing it, not that it isn't true. And the Pals are counting some of its murderers as civilians. My workday is over, so here I am. :cool:

So if Israel is sending their children for military training, aren't they then targets? Couldn't Palestinians then use Feif's logic and consider all Israelis a threat?

ACCtuary

01-31-2006, 05:32 PM

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/children.html

That difference can't be explained away by women bombers.
And the only person I've ever seen hide behind women and children is W on 9/11.

I wasn't actually stating that it could. Just that they do use this as a tactic. Israel doesn't.

I think the simplest explanation is that the Palis live in more crowded conditions than Israelis do and this means that firefights are more likely statistically to kill pali civilians than Israelis. Given that most combat occurs in the Occupied territories, and that a fraction of all casualties in urban combat will be innocent, this would account for the discrepancy.

ACCtuary

01-31-2006, 05:34 PM

So if Israel is sending their children for military training, aren't they then targets? Couldn't Palestinians then use Feif's logic and consider all Israelis a threat?

That document you quote is not stating that Israel sends teens into military training - just that they volunteer to help out in non-combat roles.

And who funds the organization that wrote that, anyway.

ACCtuary

01-31-2006, 05:35 PM

So if Israel is sending their children for military training, aren't they then targets? Couldn't Palestinians then use Feif's logic and consider all Israelis a threat?

Who told you Palestinians use logic? From the very beginning, they have made it clear that anybody living on Israeli soil is the enemy. Since they fight a total war, so should Israel. Considering what they actually deserve, Israel has shown remarkable restraint.

2pac Shakur

01-31-2006, 05:38 PM

Security checkpoints? Why aren't they going to Jordan for jobs instead of Israel.

Just getting around the Pal territories - not going into Israel - involves checkpoints. I guess that's Jordan's fault?

Oh, and if we gave Jordan as much as we give Israel, the Pals probably would go to Jordan for jobs.

2pac Shakur

01-31-2006, 05:39 PM

I wasn't actually stating that it could. Just that they do use this as a tactic. Israel doesn't.

I think the simplest explanation is that the Palis live in more crowded conditions than Israelis do and this means that firefights are more likely statistically to kill pali civilians than Israelis. Given that most combat occurs in the Occupied territories, and that a fraction of all casualties in urban combat will be innocent, this would account for the discrepancy.

Yes.
The simplest explanation is that Israel is good, only tries to do good, and those evil Pals make them kill civilians, even though they really don't want to. Meanwhile, Pals want to kill civilians, and would kill more if they could.

Yes. Simple.

ACCtuary

01-31-2006, 05:42 PM

Yes.
The simplest explanation is that Israel is good, only tries to do good, and those evil Pals make them kill civilians, even though they really don't want to. Meanwhile, Pals want to kill civilians, and would kill more if they could.

Yes. Simple.

No, I'm being more impersonal than that. Merely that in war, since most of these are fought where the Palis live, they are getting more civilian casualties. It's just a proportional to density type of argument.

I do agree with your last sentence though. Just keep blowing up those shopping malls and coffee houses. Sure to win your murderous buddies the sympathy of the world.

ACCtuary

01-31-2006, 05:44 PM

Just getting around the Pal territories - not going into Israel - involves checkpoints. I guess that's Jordan's fault?

Oh, and if we gave Jordan as much as we give Israel, the Pals probably would go to Jordan for jobs.

Ask yourself how the Pal territories came into being and what they would look like today if the Arabs (prseumably for the benefit of the Palis) never tried to eliminate Israel. Ergo, the Arabs must bear responsibility for the poor conditions the Palis live in.

And we do give Jordan nearly as much as Israel. The real crime is that the Arabs give very little to the Palis for development because why? They want to wait until Israel is destroyed.

THE CURRENT STATE OF THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES EXISTS PRECISELY BECAUSE NO ARAB NATION WANTED TO HELP GOVERN IT. LEAVING THE DIRTY WORK TO GUESS WHO?

The ineffective Arab armies could not destroy Israel. So the Arab gov'ts keep the Palis miserable so they can be used as a weapon against Israel.

So, there are enough funds for terroristic raids.

Fun King ded

01-31-2006, 06:32 PM

THE CURRENT STATE OF THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES EXISTS PRECISELY BECAUSE NO ARAB NATION WANTED TO HELP GOVERN IT. LEAVING THE DIRTY WORK TO GUESS WHO?
Are you saying Israel would let Syria or S.A. into the west bank to take over occupation so Israel doesn't have to?

thing

01-31-2006, 06:38 PM

It's almost an axiom that any thread about Israel and the PLO is going to degenerate into a bickering match about who bears more of the blame. Nonetheless, I thought I'd try dragging this one back to the original question by asking:

yo, 2upe! what is your take on the causes of and likely effects of the Hamas victory in the elections? Why did Fatah come up short in the vote at this juncture, do you think?

Utopial

01-31-2006, 07:54 PM

i dont see what the problem is with the USA giving more aid to Israel (of course the most equitable/unrealistic is a world tax system)

Arab nations rarely help out non arab nations, especially not Israel. Jews control a large amount of the USA's wealth so what is wrong with them helping out their relatives rather than helping the people trying to kill their relatives?

Israel targets trouble making situations to neutralise the enemy - e.g. potential suicide bombers and known organisers of suicide bombings (hammas leaders). This results in civilian deaths of pals cause the targets hide amongst them.
ie Israel has a purpose of limiting their casualties. (defence) - yeh maybe they kill extra pals through purposely not being careful but that's cause they consider saving Israeli lives as more important than Pals

Palestinians kill indiscriminately with more of a purpose to provoke or stimulate. (attack)
they arent attacking in a way to neutralise the enemy.

1967 war started the same way - provoke by arabs, defence by Israel.

2pac Shakur

01-31-2006, 07:58 PM

ie Israel has a purpose of limiting their casualties. (defence) - yeh maybe they kill extra pals through purposely not being careful but that's cause they consider saving Israeli lives as more important than Pals

Palestinians kill indiscriminately with more of a purpose to provoke or stimulate. (attack)
they arent attacking in a way to neutralise the enemy.

Again, if this is true, doesn't it seem odd that Israel kills more civilians than the Pals do? It happens every year.

Apparently, if the Pals want to be more efficient at killing civilians (which is what people here say is all they want to do), they should buy some fancy Israeli weapons, and try to reduce civilian casualties. Look at how well that's worked for Israel!

2pac Shakur

01-31-2006, 08:02 PM

yo, 2upe! what is your take on the causes of and likely effects of the Hamas victory in the elections? Why did Fatah come up short in the vote at this juncture, do you think?

First of all, I'm not sure how legitimate these elections are. I'm not saying they were rigged, but I don't know. Time will tell.
That being said...

I think that if this is a legitimate result, then it is the Pals basically telling the rest of the world (and USA/Israel in particular) that they will choose their leaders based on who THEY want. Not who they are told they should want.

Utopial

01-31-2006, 08:20 PM

Again, if this is true, doesn't it seem odd that Israel kills more civilians than the Pals do? It happens every year.

Apparently, if the Pals want to be more efficient at killing civilians (which is what people here say is all they want to do), they should buy some fancy Israeli weapons, and try to reduce civilian casualties. Look at how well that's worked for Israel!

i doubt pals are actually aiming at maximising killings, just provoking through the occassional attack. the number of israelis killed isnt important, just the fact that israelis were killed meets their political purpose

Israel kills heaps cause they dont wanna take any chances at jeopardising their safety. panic stricken attacks. they're literally terrified

2pac Shakur

01-31-2006, 08:22 PM

Israel kills heaps cause they dont wanna take any chances at jeopardising their safety. panic stricken attacks. they're literally terrified

Come again?

Utopial

01-31-2006, 08:29 PM

why i think hammas won the election is directly related to an explanation for muslim terrorism i saw in a doco:

1 hammas suicide bombs israelis
2 israelis get islamophobic and start treating muslims/pals bad
3 hammas tells pals that this is evidence that israelis were evil after all
4 pals start agreeing more with hammas and support more attacks on them
5 goto 1

the hatred was already heavily embedded, but support will probably always swing towards the suicide bombers for this reason

Utopial

01-31-2006, 08:36 PM

Come again?

when someone is scared enough, theyll shoot anything that moves

israelis are, naturally, desperately scared of being killed and so will do anything to prevent it - including shooting someone who poses less than a 0.1% chance of being a suicide bomber or taking out a hammas leader even if it means 15 pal civilians must also be taken out with him

2pac Shakur

01-31-2006, 08:39 PM

when someone is scared enough, theyll shoot anything that moves

israelis are, naturally, desperately scared of being killed and so will do anything to prevent it - including shooting someone who poses less than a 0.1% chance of being a suicide bomber or taking out a hammas leader even if it means 15 pal civilians must also be taken out with him

They're even scared from way up in their airplanes?

2pac Shakur

01-31-2006, 08:41 PM

Utopial

01-31-2006, 08:52 PM

They're even scared from way up in their airplanes?

military acts on behalf of govt who acts on behalf of the scared population

2pac Shakur

01-31-2006, 08:55 PM

military acts on behalf of govt who acts on behalf of the scared population

Are suicide bombers scared?

Utopial

01-31-2006, 09:03 PM

Are suicide bombers scared?

fear is one of the 3 primary emotions and encompasses anger, hatred, etc. so yes, everyone in violent situations is scared

2pac Shakur

01-31-2006, 09:08 PM

fear is one of the 3 primary emotions and encompasses anger, hatred, etc. so yes, everyone in violent situations is scared

So, it's not really just Pals showing disregard for the Israelis.
It's 2 sides that are scared of each other.
I can agree with that.

thing

01-31-2006, 11:07 PM

First of all, I'm not sure how legitimate these elections are. I'm not saying they were rigged, but I don't know. Time will tell.
That being said...

I think that if this is a legitimate result, then it is the Pals basically telling the rest of the world (and USA/Israel in particular) that they will choose their leaders based on who THEY want. Not who they are told they should want.

Thanks for answering.

The thought that the election might be rigged seems counter intuitive to me, since it was Fatah that was in the best position to stuff the ballot boxes. But you may be right that Hamas got some of the FU vote in reaction to the Jerusalem ballot restrictions, etc.

Why, even though they're a largely secularized society, they went for the Islamic fundamentalists (and the consequent crackdowns on the selling of beer and exposure of women's flesh that has already started)... that's bothersome. But I think it has more to do with a disgust at the corruption of Fatah than a desire for the destruction of Israel.

Feif

02-01-2006, 08:33 AM

Are suicide bombers scared?
Suicide bombers are Islamic radicals. They are told that if they blow themselves up to kill Israelis, they go straight o heaven and get the 70 or so virgins (not sure of the exact number). They are actually looking forward to killing themselves. They believe God is on their side. Why should they be scared?

ACCtuary

02-01-2006, 08:37 AM

Are you saying Israel would let Syria or S.A. into the west bank to take over occupation so Israel doesn't have to?

Administration might be a fairer word since an Arab administration would not have been hostile. Help them set up a government. They should have done this in 1967.

Utopial

02-01-2006, 08:38 AM

the pilots and bombers arent scared
but the people who order them are

ACCtuary

02-01-2006, 08:45 AM

. Jews control a large amount of the USA's wealth ...

Care to back this up with actual facts? I would very much like to see this debate not be clouded by perceptions of undue Jewish influence on US affairs.

Assertions like this must be challenged. They are the seeds of virulent anti-semitism.

ACCtuary

02-01-2006, 08:47 AM

Are you saying Israel would let Syria or S.A. into the west bank to take over occupation so Israel doesn't have to?

This is backed up by historical fact. Israel called for negotiations on this precise matter and got no answer.

2pac Shakur

02-01-2006, 10:25 AM

Suicide bombers are Islamic radicals. They are told that if they blow themselves up to kill Israelis, they go straight o heaven and get the 70 or so virgins (not sure of the exact number). They are actually looking forward to killing themselves. They believe God is on their side. Why should they be scared?

What do those settlers that won't leave believe?
Do they think God is on their side?
Or are only Muslims crazy like that?

Feif

02-01-2006, 12:16 PM

What do those settlers that won't leave believe?
Do they think God is on their side?
Or are only Muslims crazy like that?
They don't go around killing people because God is on their side.

Harry

02-01-2006, 12:25 PM

They don't go around killing people because God is on their side.
:lol: Only if someone tries to claim the land that God gave to his chosen people.

Y2Mozz

02-01-2006, 12:29 PM

I agree with Harry.

I need a shower. :(

Harry

02-01-2006, 12:30 PM

I agree with Harry.

I need a shower. :(

It's good to get dirty once in a while. :-D

Y2Mozz

02-01-2006, 12:33 PM

Are you coming on to me?

Fun King ded

02-01-2006, 01:07 PM

This is backed up by historical fact. Israel called for negotiations on this precise matter and got no answer. I did not know that, but I will take your word for it. Do you think today an Israeli leader could or would propose allowing an Arab state into the occupied territories to administrate. I am assuming the new administration would take over all military presence in those territories. (why else would they be willing to do it)

Feif

02-01-2006, 01:12 PM

:lol: Only if someone tries to claim the land that God gave to his chosen people.
No, they were voted that land by the UN. They took more of it by conquest (which is an old discussion which I don't want to have again please.) If someone tries to kick them off the land which is rightfully theirs, they have a right to defend themselves. God has nothing to do with that.

ACCtuary

02-01-2006, 01:34 PM

I did not know that, but I will take your word for it. Do you think today an Israeli leader could or would propose allowing an Arab state into the occupied territories to administrate. I am assuming the new administration would take over all military presence in those territories. (why else would they be willing to do it)

I don't know, but could it be worse than Hamas? For the record, I am not advocating that a foreign government should take over administration of the West Bank at this point. I wish that had happened, but it's too late now. The Palis want self-determination, not foreign rule.

Titania

02-01-2006, 01:52 PM

No, they were voted that land by the UN. They took more of it by conquest (which is an old discussion which I don't want to have again please.) quick question that I'm sure has been asked before...

...how come it's OK for Israel to take land by conquest, but not OK for Iraq to try to annex Kuwait?

ACCtuary

02-01-2006, 01:57 PM

quick question that I'm sure has been asked before...

...how come it's OK for Israel to take land by conquest, but not OK for Iraq to try to annex Kuwait?

I don't know if 'OK' is the word. I would much prefer peace to war and conquest.

Because the Arabs, not Israel, were the aggressor. It is appropriate to remove from aggressors access to the land they used to attack. The situation in Israel is particularly sensitive because there were no secure borders at the time. The partition solution would only work if both sides were peaceful. The Arabs weren't, so Israel could not permit them to have the same land back as if the attack never happened.

To be honest, I don't know why Israel does not claim the entire West Bank as rightfully theirs. Probably just a practical matter of not wanting to govern the Arabs.

Harry

02-01-2006, 02:01 PM

I don't know if 'OK' is the word. I would much prefer peace to war and conquest.

Because the Arabs, not Israel, were the aggressor. It is appropriate to remove from aggressors access to the land they used to attack. The situation in Israel is particularly sensitive because there were no secure borders at the time. The partition solution would only work if both sides were peaceful. The Arabs weren't, so Israel could not permit them to have the same land back as if the attack never happened.

To be honest, I don't know why Israel does not claim the entire West Bank as rightfully theirs. Probably just a practical matter of not wanting to govern the Arabs.

More likely a practical matter of continuing to receive funding from the US.

Fun King ded

02-01-2006, 02:10 PM

Much worse. Israel would have a hostile legitimate government to comat and Hamas as a "terrorist" organization continuing to operate outside of the rules.

Hamas as a legitimate organization, elected, recognized by other nations as the ruling party, has no choice but to play by the rules. State sponsored terrorism is easier to combat. Also, they will be bogged down with the mundane issues of staying in power and running a country.

As I see it: The US should immediately start detailed negotiations with Hamas, offering money support, etc. Hamas will have to make the choice, deal with the devil or lose power. The US must be careful not to make too harsh or absolute demands (long drawn out negotiations are best).

Israel needs to wait - give Hamas time to "gain control" of the people. They never gave Arafat enough power to actually maintain control (I'm not commenting on whether this is agood or bad choice, jsut that it left Arafat a loop hole to claim he could not control due to lack of power)

If the above happens and Hamas continues to embrace terrorism then a regime change will be warranted by the UN.

ACCtuary

02-01-2006, 02:12 PM

More likely a practical matter of continuing to receive funding from the US.

OK - but if they didn't receive funding while surrounding Arab nations did, then what would happen.

Funding is there, but I'm sure Israel would prefer to spend it in other ways than governing a hostile population.

Are you suggesting that if American funding dried up, so would the occupation? Maybe, but all of Israel might topple as well since the balance of power would tip too much in favor of the Arabs. Is that what you want?

ACCtuary

02-01-2006, 02:16 PM

If the above happens and Hamas continues to embrace terrorism then a regime change will be warranted by the UN.

Provided they don't chicken out like they did with Iraq.

This is the standard argument that Hamas actually has the power so we should negotiate with them since they will honor their agreements (just like Saddam did after GWI) I tend to favor this type of Realpolitik, but most other Jews do not.

How should Israel react? If I were PM, I would be fortifying my borders, and doing whatever I can to limit Palis coming into the country.

Feif

02-01-2006, 02:20 PM

quick question that I'm sure has been asked before...

...how come it's OK for Israel to take land by conquest, but not OK for Iraq to try to annex Kuwait?
Because at the time, nobody tried and succeeded in taking the land away from Israel. Had Russia come in to fight Israel, and kicked them out of the land there, Israel wouldn't have the right to it, Russia would. If Russia wanted, they could have given it back to Jordan.
In Iraq, the US didn't want Iraq to have the land. So they went it, and Iraq lost the war. If you lose the war, you didn't conquer anything. You may have for a time, but it was conquered back.
It all depends on who is willing to fight whom. If someone had helped the arab countries in 1967, and Israel had lost they had occupied, they wouldn't have a claim to them. But nobody did, so they do.

Harry

02-01-2006, 02:21 PM

OK - but if they didn't receive funding while surrounding Arab nations did, then what would happen.

Funding is there, but I'm sure Israel would prefer to spend it in other ways than governing a hostile population.

Are you suggesting that if American funding dried up, so would the occupation? Maybe, but all of Israel might topple as well since the balance of power would tip too much in favor of the Arabs. Is that what you want?

No I don't want that.

I'm suggesting that American funding should be more directly tied to Israel's actions. The money should be conditional. We should force our will and make both sides see the light.

Feif

02-01-2006, 02:22 PM

Maybe we can take all the funding we're not giving to Hamas now and pay off the deficit?

Titania

02-01-2006, 02:27 PM

I don't know if 'OK' is the word. I would much prefer peace to war and conquest.

Because the Arabs, not Israel, were the aggressor. It is appropriate to remove from aggressors access to the land they used to attack. The situation in Israel is particularly sensitive because there were no secure borders at the time. The partition solution would only work if both sides were peaceful. The Arabs weren't, so Israel could not permit them to have the same land back as if the attack never happened.

To be honest, I don't know why Israel does not claim the entire West Bank as rightfully theirs. Probably just a practical matter of not wanting to govern the Arabs.
So, if Kuwait has attacked Iraq first, the US would not have gotten involved?

Titania

02-01-2006, 02:27 PM

Maybe we can take all the funding we're not giving to Hamas now and pay off the deficit?No where near enough...add in all the money we give to Israel and now we're talking.

Titania

02-01-2006, 02:28 PM

Because at the time, nobody tried and succeeded in taking the land away from Israel. Had Russia come in to fight Israel, and kicked them out of the land there, Israel wouldn't have the right to it, Russia would. If Russia wanted, they could have given it back to Jordan.
In Iraq, the US didn't want Iraq to have the land. So they went it, and Iraq lost the war. If you lose the war, you didn't conquer anything. You may have for a time, but it was conquered back.
It all depends on who is willing to fight whom. If someone had helped the arab countries in 1967, and Israel had lost they had occupied, they wouldn't have a claim to them. But nobody did, so they do.
My question was more along the lines of...why did the US get involved in the case of Iraq's conquest efforts but not Israels?

Harry

02-01-2006, 02:29 PM

My question was more along the lines of...why did the US get involved in the case of Iraq's conquest efforts but not Israels?

Remember, it's not about oil.

Y2Mozz

02-01-2006, 02:30 PM

My question was more along the lines of...why did the US get involved in the case of Iraq's conquest efforts but not Israels?Because Iraq was the aggressor and Israel wasn't?

Titania

02-01-2006, 02:32 PM

Because Iraq was the aggressor and Israel wasn't?
So, as I asked above, if Kuwait had attacked Iraq, we wouldn't have gotten involved?

Feif

02-01-2006, 03:16 PM

My question was more along the lines of...why did the US get involved in the case of Iraq's conquest efforts but not Israels?
Maybe because Saddam was an idiot who was obviously unstable and dangerous, and the US didn't want him to get started with taking over land, so they stopped him early? Israel is a democratic country, a lot better looking to the US than any government in the area there.

ACCtuary

02-01-2006, 03:18 PM

So, as I asked above, if Kuwait had attacked Iraq, we wouldn't have gotten involved?

That's like saying if Guatemala attacked Mexico. I mean, it's so out of the realm of possibility it is not worth considering.

Feif

02-01-2006, 03:19 PM

No where near enough...add in all the money we give to Israel and now we're talking.
I didn't mean the whole thing, I meant parts of it. A lot of the money the US gives to Israel is in exchange for services to the US. Israel is a leading researcher in new weapons and electronics, they sent over counter-terrorism experts to the US after 9/11... you think it's all free? The US pays them for it. What "services" to the arab countries give the US? Don't say oil, I saw something recently that in Iraq it costs something like 25 cents a gallon. The only nation I can think of is Saudi Arabia which lets the US station troops there.

ACCtuary

02-01-2006, 04:13 PM

I didn't mean the whole thing, I meant parts of it. A lot of the money the US gives to Israel is in exchange for services to the US. Israel is a leading researcher in new weapons and electronics, they sent over counter-terrorism experts to the US after 9/11... you think it's all free? The US pays them for it. What "services" to the arab countries give the US? Don't say oil, I saw something recently that in Iraq it costs something like 25 cents a gallon. The only nation I can think of is Saudi Arabia which lets the US station troops there.

And you have to keep this in context to how much money Israel's enemies give to the Arabs, esp. during the Soviet era, how much WE give to Arab nations, esp. Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Jordan.

Titania, I think you view our aid picture to Israel completely in isolation. You see these large numbers going out and you appear very alarmed by this. First, Money to Israel is a very small percentage of our foreign aid budget. Also, the situation in the Middle East does not exist in isolation of the larger neighboring or western powers. This notion that if we all kept our money out of the middle east, the situation would resolve peacefully is purely academic.

Do you see Israel as a foreign intrusion that is supported by external imperialist resources?

2pac Shakur

02-01-2006, 04:19 PM

That's like saying if Guatemala attacked Mexico. I mean, it's so out of the realm of possibility it is not worth considering.

How about if Iraq attacked Iran?

2pac Shakur

02-01-2006, 04:22 PM

No, they were voted that land by the UN. They took more of it by conquest (which is an old discussion which I don't want to have again please.) If someone tries to kick them off the land which is rightfully theirs, they have a right to defend themselves. God has nothing to do with that.

Yup.
I bet if you ask the settlers that are weeping as they are being dragged from their settlements why they are so upset, they'll say:

"We love the UN, this is an affront to the UN's will. How can we accept this? We were chosen by the UN to live here. Why has the UN foresaken us?"

They would definitely not bring up G_d.

Feif

02-01-2006, 04:24 PM

Yup.
I bet if you ask the settlers that are weeping as they are being dragged from their settlements why they are so upset, they'll say:

"We love the UN, this is an affront to the UN's will. How can we accept this? We were chosen by the UN to live here. Why has the UN foresaken us?"

They would definitely not bring up G_d.
But they're not going onto Pali land and killing Palis in the name of God, are they?

Harry

02-01-2006, 04:25 PM

But they're not going onto Pali land and killing Palis in the name of God, are they?

The Palis think so.

Feif

02-01-2006, 04:27 PM

The Palis think so.
Palis think that Israelis are going into Pali towns, unprovoked, and blowing themselves up? Stupider than I thought...

Harry

02-01-2006, 04:32 PM

Palis think that Israelis are going into Pali towns, unprovoked, and blowing themselves up? Stupider than I thought...

Palis think that Israelis occupy Pali land because God told them too. When Palis are killed on that land by Israelis, they put 2 and 2 together.

2pac Shakur

02-01-2006, 04:36 PM

But they're not going onto Pali land and killing Palis in the name of God, are they?

Yes.

Harry

02-01-2006, 05:14 PM

So how does this tax thing work over there?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060201/ts_nm/mideast_dc;_ylt=ArwnkqPtM9TNwQct7oOScq9Z.3QA;_ylu= X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

Feif

02-02-2006, 09:05 AM

Yes.
Well, I guess if you count the fact that Jews believe that if someone tries to kill you, you should kill him first before he can kill you, then yes, they do kill them in the name of God. But they don't go into Pali land and target civilians. The land they go into isn't even Pali land. It's Israeli land, taken by right of conquest.

Titania

02-02-2006, 09:18 AM

Titania, I think you view our aid picture to Israel completely in isolation. You see these large numbers going out and you appear very alarmed by this. First, Money to Israel is a very small percentage of our foreign aid budget. No.

http://www.irc-online.org/content/commentary/2005/0501aid.php

Leading the list of top economic aid recipients in 2004 was Iraq, which received $18.5 billion—more than the total USAID budget prior to 2002. Next comes Israel ($2.6 billion), followed by Egypt and Afghanistan, both of which received approximately $1.8 billion. Other top recipients were Colombia, Jordan, Pakistan, Peru, Bolivia, Turkey, Sudan, and Indonesia.
Most of the aid we give is military grant money:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html

Israel, a wealthy country with a fierce military, still gets a huge chunk of aid. Take out Iraq, and that's a significant chunk of our aid budget. I predict that, in 2007 when we are no longer giving aid to Iraq, Israel will continue to top the list.

Also, the situation in the Middle East does not exist in isolation of the larger neighboring or western powers. This notion that if we all kept our money out of the middle east, the situation would resolve peacefully is purely academic.

Do you see Israel as a foreign intrusion that is supported by external imperialist resources?Pretty much, yeah.

ACCtuary

02-02-2006, 09:54 AM

Pretty much, yeah.

Well, now I know where you stand. I hope someday you will reconsider the premise on which you came to your unfortunate (for me) conclusion, but I know that won't be soon.

You probably still don't see how your brand of Israel criticism is anti-Jewish. You protested vigorously last year when I pointed how strong anti-Jewish feeling lies behind apparently dispassionate criticism of Israel. Now I have your most recent post for an example. In my view, you are denying Israel's right to exist when you make this assertion. Virtually identical statements about how Israel was an imperialist entity that has no right to be there were issued by Syria's PM after the first wave of attacks. And you ignore the facts about how Israel was actually settled, preferring to pretend the myth that the Jews pushed the Arabs off their land.

Perhaps someday when Arabs and people like you admit Israel's right to exist, Israel won't need a military aid budget. Until then, goodbye, Titania.

2pac Shakur

02-02-2006, 10:49 AM

Well, I guess if you count the fact that Jews believe that if someone tries to kill you, you should kill him first before he can kill you, then yes, they do kill them in the name of God. But they don't go into Pali land and target civilians. The land they go into isn't even Pali land. It's Israeli land, taken by right of conquest.

It's never happened?

Titania

02-02-2006, 11:03 AM

Well, now I know where you stand. I hope someday you will reconsider the premise on which you came to your unfortunate (for me) conclusion, but I know that won't be soon.

You probably still don't see how your brand of Israel criticism is anti-Jewish. You protested vigorously last year when I pointed how strong anti-Jewish feeling lies behind apparently dispassionate criticism of Israel. Now I have your most recent post for an example. In my view, you are denying Israel's right to exist when you make this assertion. Virtually identical statements about how Israel was an imperialist entity that has no right to be there were issued by Syria's PM after the first wave of attacks. And you ignore the facts about how Israel was actually settled, preferring to pretend the myth that the Jews pushed the Arabs off their land.

Perhaps someday when Arabs and people like you admit Israel's right to exist, Israel won't need a military aid budget. Until then, goodbye, Titania.
I'm an anti-Semite because I don't think my country should be shoring up a country with an already fierce military that can clearly defend itself.

:roll:

If I felt that Jews were inferior people, I'd agree with you.

But to me Isreal is an artificial creation...if it weren't for US and European intervention, it wouldn't exist. I'm not sure why Israel gets special attention in this regard, except that there are a lot of Jewish folks in the US and Europe who are able to use their influence. If there were a lot of Tutsis or Hutus or whatever in the US and Europe with influence, I bet the genocide in Rwanda would not have happened.

Israel does now exist because of action by the UN and support from the US and Europe over the last 60 years or so. Why do we keep having to go to war and give huge sums of money to a very wealthy and powerful country? Is it truly the case that the Arab world destroy Israel if we weren't involved? Maybe 30 or 40 years ago that was true. Is it true now?

For the record none of my comments were meant to offend anyone.

I also oppose our support of Saudi Arabia...does that mean I hate Muslims, too?

2pac Shakur

02-02-2006, 11:06 AM

I'm an anti-Semite because I don't think my country should be shoring up a country with an already fierce military that can clearly defend itself.

Welcome to my world.
Anti-semite.

ACCtuary

02-02-2006, 11:08 AM

I'm an anti-Semite because I don't think my country should be shoring up a country with an already fierce military that can clearly defend itself.

:roll:

If I felt that Jews were inferior people, I'd agree with you.

But to me Isreal is an artificial creation...if it weren't for US and European intervention, it wouldn't exist. I'm not sure why Israel gets special attention in this regard, except that there are a lot of Jewish folks in the US and Europe who are able to use their influence. If there were a lot of Tutsis or Hutus or whatever in the US and Europe with influence, I bet the genocide in Rwanda would not have happened.

So now, Israel is a nation supported by a minority with undue influence. Keep going. You've got 'Zionist Entity' and 'Jewish Influence' in your rhetorical toolkit. You're two for two now. I would have been willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you make it harder.

Antisemitism is more than the belief that the Jews are an inferior people. In modern times, completely denying Israel's right to exist is considered a form of antisemitism. (As we agreed before, Merely criticising Israel's policy is not necessarily antisemitic).

What I heard is that you went beyond that and said that Israel is an alien entity. So, would it be fair to say that because Israel is a foreign entity that has no right to be in the Middle East, that Arab armies were merely defending their land and homes when they tried to wipe Palestine clean from Jews?

I would very much like to be wrong in this issue. You were usually wililng to listen carefully to an opposing POV. You cannot say you like us and simultaneously say we have no right to a homeland considering what Christians have put us through for the past 2000 years.

Israel did not always have a 'fierce military' and only miraculously defeated armies, supplied by foreign powers as well, I may add. Are you saying you would be in favor of an arms ban to Israel in 1948? Israel would not need a fierce military if not surrounded by hateful neighbors who deny her right to exist, as you appear to be doing.

I know you will never be an ally of Israel. But I wish you would reconsider your stance and recognize that Israel has a right to exist in the location it is in now. Israel did not simply push Arabs off their land, and the degree of military aid you oppose would not have been necessary without intense Soviet buildup of the Arabs.

And I disagree, especially with the Iranian Arms buildup, that Israel would easily defend itself against another simultaneous attack that it had in 1948. I'm sure Israel itself would love to make peace with its neighbors and live without militarization. Too bad the Arabs do not agree.

In conclusion, a world without this military aid would endanger Israel and the lives of many Jews. This is why I see your criticism of such aid as dangerous. Maybe in peaceful world I could see your POV but not in the world that Israel finds itself in now.

Titania

02-02-2006, 11:12 AM

Antisemitism is more than the belief that the Jews are an inferior people. Completely denying Israel's right to exist is considered a form of antisemitism. (Merely criticising Israel's policy is not necessarily antisemitic).

What I heard is that you went beyond that and said that Israel is an alien entity. So, would it be fair to say that because Israel is a foreign entity that has no right to be in the Middle East, that Arab armies were merely defending their land and homes when they tried to wipe Palestine clean from Jews?

I would very much like to be wrong in this issue. Believe me. You cannot say you like us and simultaneously say we have no right to a homeland considering what Christians have put us through for the past 2000 years.
1) how does my opposition to my country's foreign aid policy mean I don't think Israel doesn't have a right to exist? Israel has every right to defend itself. I just don't think that the US needs to be involved at this point.
2) I have NO idea what Christian crimes against Jews have to do with any of this.

You asked me if Israel is an alien entity...that was somewhat of a loaded question. I answered in the affirmative without realizing what your question meant to you.

Here is my understanding of the creation of Isreal...

There were Jews and Arabs living in the area, not altogether peacefully. The UN promulgated that the in that location a Jewish nation be created. The Arabs were given a choice to live there, partition, they chose partition, then started a series of wars with Israel through which Israel captured more land.

I don't understand how this isn't an artificial creation of foreign powers.

Kenshiro

02-02-2006, 11:19 AM

2pac Shakur

02-02-2006, 11:21 AM

We give money to Israel and other countries in the middle east so we can control them and keep the peace. If we, and other countries with similar interests, stopped doing so, I would suspsect there would be a large war in the region.

Nice how we care so much about the Middle East instead of, I don't know, anywhere else in the world. Probably has nothing to do with oil. Just our love for peace.

And weird how the one area we care so much about keeping the peace is one of the least peaceful areas in the world. Yet you somehow consider that proof that our methods are working.

Also, most of our aid is military aid. I'm not sure how sending in a bunch of weapons to one side is supposed to keep the peace. Maybe a war is peace kind of thing.

Titania

02-02-2006, 11:24 AM

ACCtuary

02-02-2006, 11:38 AM

1) how does my opposition to my country's foreign aid policy mean I don't think Israel doesn't have a right to exist? Israel has every right to defend itself. I just don't think that the US needs to be involved at this point.
2) I have NO idea what Christian crimes against Jews have to do with any of this.

You asked me if Israel is an alien entity...that was somewhat of a loaded question. I answered in the affirmative without realizing what your question meant to you.

Very eloquently phrased.

Apparently you seem to care that you did not intend to answer such a loaded question, and if it were phrased differently, you may have been more aware of its importance.

Here is my understanding of the creation of Israel...

There were Jews and Arabs living in the area, not altogether peacefully. The UN promulgated that the in that location a Jewish nation be created. The Arabs were given a choice to live there, partition, they chose partition, then started a series of wars with Israel through which Israel captured more land.

IFYQ

My understanding is they rejected partition and that is why the wars started.

I don't understand how this isn't an artificial creation of foreign powers.
I agree with you that the Arab war of extermination was very much a creation of foreign powers that necessitated foreign aid. And I still feel that without such aid, the Arabs would amass a superior military advantage - and indeed they are seeking it.

[Trivia Department: Interestingly, Palestine was under an Arms embargo in 1947-48 from the US. Want to guess where Israel got its weaponry?]

Issue #2 has to do with the issue of why couldn't we have put a Jewish state elsewehere besides Palestine. But I'll leave that aspect alone for now, if you'll do the same.

You say At this point in time. I was asking you in the context of 1948 where answers such as yours have a very different meaning than perhaps the one you intended. OK. So you are not saying the war to exterminate Israel was justified? Are you saying that Israel has a right to exist in its current location?

And I still disagree with you that Israel can maintain itself in the face of foreign enemies without such aid. You have a higher opinion of Israel's ability than I do.

But we can disagree civil-ly. I read your original statement as I"srael should not exist because if it had a right to exist it would not need aid. Since I am opposed to aid, I am opposed to Israel's existence."

Please correct me where I'm wrong here so we can have a better understanding of each other's position.

Titania

02-02-2006, 12:46 PM

But we can disagree civil-ly. I read your original statement as I"srael should not exist because if it had a right to exist it would not need aid. Since I am opposed to aid, I am opposed to Israel's existence."

Please correct me where I'm wrong here so we can have a better understanding of each other's position.
I think our main point of disagreement is that Israel needs US aid to defend itself.

Since I don't believe this, I don't connect Israel's existance to US aid.

I think at one point Israel needed help...just as I think that at one point Affirmative Action programs were needed here in the US.

thing

02-02-2006, 02:11 PM

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/foreign_aid.html

for your reading pleasure...

short version: economic aid to Israel has been being phased out for nearly a decade, tied to a smaller increase in military aid, which carries the requirement that ~75% of the military aid go to purchases from US companies so it's really something of a military-industrial-complex welfare arrangement. From this summary it's unclear how much, if any, of the aid to Israel nowadays is actually debt forgiveness from the 70's/early 80's loans.

Titania

02-02-2006, 02:22 PM

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/foreign_aid.html

for your reading pleasure... Thanks. That makes me feel better....except...

short version: economic aid to Israel has been being phased out for nearly a decade, tied to a smaller increase in military aid, which carries the requirement that ~75% of the military aid go to purchases from US companies so it's really something of a military-industrial-complex welfare arrangement. ...this makes me feel worse (not not because it's Israel, just because it's wrong.)

doubter

02-03-2006, 10:21 AM

It looks like Hamas still refuses to recognize Israel:

yahoo news (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060203/ts_nm/mideast_dc)

GAZA (Reuters) - Defying international pressure, the militant Islamic group Hamas said on Friday it would never recognize Israel but might be willing to negotiate terms for a temporary truce with the Jewish state. . . .

They have said they might heed a truce with Israel as an interim measure that could include the establishment of a Palestinian state in the Gaza Strip and occupied West Bank, but would not abandon a long-term goal to destroy Israel.

If, as the official government, you state that your long term goal is to destroy a country, isn't this the same as a declaration of war? If so, is Israel now justified to conduct preventative military strikes to destroy Hamas?

Y2Mozz

02-03-2006, 10:29 AM

Absolutely.

Harry

02-03-2006, 10:32 AM

It looks like Hamas still refuses to recognize Israel:

yahoo news (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060203/ts_nm/mideast_dc)

. . .

If, as the official government, you state that your long term goal is to destroy a country, isn't this the same as a declaration of war? If so, is Israel now justified to conduct preventative military strikes to destroy Hamas?

Not if they aren't really a threat.

Feif

02-03-2006, 10:32 AM

Look, we will never recognize you. We are willing to have a temporary cease fire because we aren't capable of running the nation we were elected to run, because we don't know how! Our purpose is to kill people, not govern people. So give us some time to get used to that, without attacking us. After that, we can go back to trying to kill you. But until then, please leave us alone. We won't be able to kill you later if you kill us now.
PS We still hate you.
Yes, Israel is justified.

Titania

02-03-2006, 10:49 AM

If, as the official government, you state that your long term goal is to destroy a country, isn't this the same as a declaration of war? If so, is Israel now justified to conduct preventative military strikes to destroy Hamas?
I think it's the fact that they're willing to abide by a truce that negates the declaration of war.

doubter

02-03-2006, 10:54 AM

So, Titania, what you are saying is that since Hamas says they will abide by a truce until they are strong enough to attack (notice the terms temporary and interim), Israel should wait for the attack?

If this is what you are saying, how big does the attack have to be before you feel Israel is justified in responding? For example, do the failed suicide bombings this week (IDF forces caught them at the border) justify a response, or does it have to be a successful bombing. If it is a successful bombing, how many civilians need to be killed? Or is just one bombing not enough?

Harry

02-03-2006, 10:55 AM

So how does this tax thing work over there?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060201/ts_nm/mideast_dc;_ylt=ArwnkqPtM9TNwQct7oOScq9Z.3QA;_ylu= X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

:bump:

Titania

02-03-2006, 10:56 AM

I think that Israel has the right to seek out the perpetrators of the bombings and arrest them, or kill them if necessary.

I think that Israel has the right to investigate whether these (or any future) bombing were condoned/overlooked/sanctioned/enabled by the new Hamas government, and, if so, Israel has a right to retaliate against the official government and it's securitiy forces, in addition to any civilian radical cells identified.

When people are discussing a "war," I'm not sure what that means. If it means rolling tanks into civilian neighborhoods and marketplaces, I'm not sure what would ever justify that.

Tim><

02-03-2006, 10:58 AM

:bump:Is this really a big deal? The incoming government has a stated goal to destroy Israel and you expect them to keep up the welfare?

Tim><

02-03-2006, 10:59 AM

Titania

02-03-2006, 11:00 AM

What sort of retaliation do you envision?
mass arrests.

Harry

02-03-2006, 11:00 AM

Is this really a big deal? The incoming government has a stated goal to destroy Israel and you expect them to keep up the welfare?

I was seriously asking what it meant. Lighten up.

thing

02-03-2006, 02:36 PM

I was seriously asking what it meant.

I don't know for sure, but I imagine it has something to do with Israeli control over the ports, meaning that they're in a position to collect the tariffs.

When I first heard they were considering withholding the payments, I thought that doing so was a mistake. I'm not so sure anymore, given Hamas's position of "we'll maintain the cease fire while we're reloading".

The real problem is that the PA is run at such a deficit that even the delay of payment constitutes a crisis for them. Of course, that's due to Fatah's chronic graft and mismanagement. Hamas doesn't have a chance to do better if they don't have any funding, but I don't think they'd best get any funding if their top priority is still the destruction of Israel.

2pac Shakur

02-03-2006, 02:38 PM

mass arrests.

How should the Pals react when Israel kills some Pal civilians?

Tim><

02-03-2006, 03:48 PM

mass arrests.On what scale? Also, how do you arrest people on foreign soil without an army?

2pac Shakur

02-14-2006, 03:05 PM

Israel has in effect "annexed" the Jordan Valley, or eastern strip of the West Bank, by severely restricting the movements of Palestinians inside it, it was claimed yesterday.

The accusation was made by B'tselem, a leading Israeli human rights organisation, following investigations by B'tselem and the newspaper Ha'aretz which showed that some 200,000 Palestinian West Bank residents are systematically prevented from entering the Jordan Valley area, including farmers seeking to cultivate their own land and seasonal farm workers who used to work there regularly.

The Jordan Valley is politically highly sensitive because by remaining under Israeli control it would further substantially restrict the scale of any Palestinian state. Ehud Olmert, the acting Prime Minister, while being careful not to be specific about the fate of Israeli settlements in the area when he foreshadowed further West Bank withdrawals last week, has made it clear that Israel would maintain control of the border with Jordan.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article345298.ece

Obviously Jordan's fault.

Feif

02-15-2006, 08:41 AM

Jordan has in effect annexed the land set aside for an Arab state by the UN vote to partition the territory of Palestine. Not only that, but after telling arab residents of Palestine to run from the Jews establishing a state there, Jordan and other arab countries refused to allow these so-called "refugees" to live in their countries. Experts speculate that their hope is that in the long run, these "refugees" will cause Israel many problems, as they hope to incite further hatred of Jews and their state in these "refugees". The also hope that being so caught up in their hate for the Jews and the state of Israel, they will fail to realize that the real cause for their problems is their arab "brothers" who convinced them to leave their homes, then refused to help them when their plan failed.
Obviously Israel's fault.

Titania

02-15-2006, 08:57 AM

On what scale? To the extent that they've captured most of the leadership responsible. People related to the leadership or otherwise not involved should not be arrested. Also, how do you arrest people on foreign soil without an army?I don't think I said "no army," maybe I did, I didn't read back in this thread and it's been a while.

What I don't think is appropriate is sending tanks and/or helicopter gunships into public civilian areas. There should be an effort to minimize the trauma to the average Palestinian while making the arrests.

2pac Shakur

03-01-2006, 10:56 PM

At the Hizma junction, which is for Israelis only, the "seam administration of the Defense Ministry has not yet hung the signs that it already hung on the road leading from the settlement of Ma'aleh Adumim to Jerusalem. The signs are hung alongside the road and at the military checkpoint, and say, in Hebrew and Arabic, "Passage is for Israelis only. Transporting and/or movement of people who are not Israelis is forbidden through this passage."

The yellow signs explain who is an Israeli. The definition is in the major general's order, and is the standard definition used in military orders declaring "a closed military area" to Palestinians, where only Israelis are allowed to enter. "An Israeli," says the order and the sign, "is a resident of Israel, someone whose residency is in the region [meaning the occupied territory - A.H.] and is an Israeli citizen [a settler - A.H.] or one who is eligible to become an immigrant according to the Law of Return-1950 and someone who is not a resident of the region but has a valid entry permit to Israel [a tourist - A.H.]

A military source confirmed to Haaretz that a decision has been made to allow Palestinians who work for international organizations to travel, with their foreign co-workers, through two passages designated for Israelis only "instead of making them go to the ends of the earth" to passages designated for Palestinians only. The problem with the separate passages is not only that they are remote and distant, as the military source admits; the problem is not only the wasted time involved in reaching those passages, the revolving doors that suddenly are locked, the humiliating crowdedness, the alienating technological devices or that most of the "passages" effectively legitimize more land expropriation and annexation of Palestinian territory to Israel. The problem is that they are another building block in the policy of separate development for Jews and non-Jews, another expression of the mentality that cloaks itself in security but whose real purpose is to preserve the hegemonic privileges of Jews, at the expense of the Palestinians in the territories conquered from them.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/685675.html