|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 14, 2013 18:44:11 GMT
This is so repetitive that it generally goes unnoticed.
Israel launches a ground invasion of Gaza, the Palestinians respond with rocket fire or mortar fire, the Israelis launch an air strike, and the new reports it as Israel air strike responding to an attack by the Palestinians in Gaza.
|
|
|
|
Post by fred on Nov 16, 2013 0:03:05 GMT
Too many people don't want peace.
The Israeli government's only interest is keeping the occupied lands.
Some on the Palestinian side's only interest is the total destruction of Israel and killing as many Jews as possible.
That basically means; there will never be peace.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 16, 2013 13:15:21 GMT
Too many people don't want peace. The Israeli government's only interest is keeping the occupied lands. Some on the Palestinian side's only interest is the total destruction of Israel and killing as many Jews as possible. That basically means; there will never be peace.
Some Palestinian leaders do endorse the destruction of Israel citing the fact that the creation of Israel itself over 60 years ago violated the Rights of the Palestinians. Israel has been complicit in the perpetuation of this issue by refusing to allow a Right of Return and the access to unbiased courts by those, or their heirs, that lost property based upon the confiscation of their lands by Israel. No "redress of grievances" has occurred since the founding of Israel which perpetuates the complaints based upon the violation of the Rights of the Person for Palestinians at the hands of Zionists during the founding of Israel.
Some Israel leaders intentionally mislead the Israeli citizens by claiming that Israel has a right of occupation to lands placed under military control by the Israeli military in 1967. Their dishonesty of the political leadership perpetuates the problem.
To achieve the peace that most Israelis and Palestinians seek requires compliance with the two primary provisions UN Security Council Resolution 242. If the Palestinian and Israeli leadership wants peace then both must embrace the provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 242 and convince the populations to support that resolution. It has always contained the criteria for a just and lasting peace between the Israeli people and the Palestinian people.
It is some, not all of, the leadership on both sides that are preventing the peace and not the people themselves.
What really annoyed me though was the misrepresentation in the title of the news story though. Israel launches and armed incursion and yet the title of the article implies that the Palestinians started the conflict by launching an unprovoked mortar attack. The press misleading the reader is a reprehensible act IMHO.
|
|
|
|
Post by iolo on Nov 16, 2013 13:50:50 GMT
Too many people don't want peace. The Israeli government's only interest is keeping the occupied lands. Some on the Palestinian side's only interest is the total destruction of Israel and killing as many Jews as possible. That basically means; there will never be peace.
Some Palestinian leaders do endorse the destruction of Israel citing the fact that the creation of Israel itself over 60 years ago violated the Rights of the Palestinians. Israel has been complicit in the perpetuation of this issue by refusing to allow a Right of Return and the access to unbiased courts by those, or their heirs, that lost property based upon the confiscation of their lands by Israel. No "redress of grievances" has occurred since the founding of Israel which perpetuates the complaints based upon the violation of the Rights of the Person for Palestinians at the hands of Zionists during the founding of Israel.
Some Israel leaders intentionally mislead the Israeli citizens by claiming that Israel has a right of occupation to lands placed under military control by the Israeli military in 1967. Their dishonesty of the political leadership perpetuates the problem.
To achieve the peace that most Israelis and Palestinians seek requires compliance with the two primary provisions UN Security Council Resolution 242. If the Palestinian and Israeli leadership wants peace then both must embrace the provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 242 and convince the populations to support that resolution. It has always contained the criteria for a just and lasting peace between the Israeli people and the Palestinian people.
It is some, not all of, the leadership on both sides that are preventing the peace and not the people themselves.
What really annoyed me though was the misrepresentation in the title of the news story though. Israel launches and armed incursion and yet the title of the article implies that the Palestinians started the conflict by launching an unprovoked mortar attack. The press misleading the reader is a reprehensible act IMHO.
I suppose that anyone decent wants the elimination of the racist state of 'Israel', just as they wanted the elimination of the Third Reich, racist South Africa and Smith's Nazi Rhodesia. That doesn't mean, despite all the Nazi propaganda, that they want the destruction of any people. That assumption is just the tedious old Goebbels-game. |
|
|
|
Post by iolo on Nov 16, 2013 13:53:38 GMT
Too many people don't want peace. The Israeli government's only interest is keeping the occupied lands. Some on the Palestinian side's only interest is the total destruction of Israel and killing as many Jews as possible. That basically means; there will never be peace.
Some Palestinian leaders do endorse the destruction of Israel citing the fact that the creation of Israel itself over 60 years ago violated the Rights of the Palestinians. Israel has been complicit in the perpetuation of this issue by refusing to allow a Right of Return and the access to unbiased courts by those, or their heirs, that lost property based upon the confiscation of their lands by Israel. No "redress of grievances" has occurred since the founding of Israel which perpetuates the complaints based upon the violation of the Rights of the Person for Palestinians at the hands of Zionists during the founding of Israel.
Some Israel leaders intentionally mislead the Israeli citizens by claiming that Israel has a right of occupation to lands placed under military control by the Israeli military in 1967. Their dishonesty of the political leadership perpetuates the problem.
To achieve the peace that most Israelis and Palestinians seek requires compliance with the two primary provisions UN Security Council Resolution 242. If the Palestinian and Israeli leadership wants peace then both must embrace the provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 242 and convince the populations to support that resolution. It has always contained the criteria for a just and lasting peace between the Israeli people and the Palestinian people.
It is some, not all of, the leadership on both sides that are preventing the peace and not the people themselves.
What really annoyed me though was the misrepresentation in the title of the news story though. Israel launches and armed incursion and yet the title of the article implies that the Palestinians started the conflict by launching an unprovoked mortar attack. The press misleading the reader is a reprehensible act IMHO.
I suppose that all decent people want the elimination of the racist state of 'Israel', just as they wanted the end of the Third Reich, Racist South Africa and Smith's Nazi Rhodesia. That doesn't mean, of course, that they want the elimination of any people. That is just the standard old Goebbels-game. |
|
|
|
Post by fred on Nov 16, 2013 23:47:15 GMT
Too many people don't want peace. The Israeli government's only interest is keeping the occupied lands. Some on the Palestinian side's only interest is the total destruction of Israel and killing as many Jews as possible. That basically means; there will never be peace.
....It is some, not all of, the leadership on both sides that are preventing the peace and not the people themselves.
What really annoyed me though was the misrepresentation in the title of the news story though. Israel launches and armed incursion and yet the title of the article implies that the Palestinians started the conflict by launching an unprovoked mortar attack. The press misleading the reader is a reprehensible act IMHO.
I agree, the vast majority probably do want to live in peace but those in power do not. Sadly, the 'too many people' I mentioned in my earlier post are these people. As for who fired first, it looks as if it was the Israeli mini invasion that set this one off but neither side exactly impresses me. I really wish the idiots who want to fight would all be given guns, dumped in a two mile square area, suitably walled off, and let the idiots kill each other until they worked out how bloody daft they were. That way, we might all live better lives. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 17, 2013 4:37:40 GMT
As for who fired first, it looks as if it was the Israeli mini invasion that set this one off but neither side exactly impresses me. |
|
|
|
Post by fred on Nov 17, 2013 12:08:50 GMT
As for who fired first, it looks as if it was the Israeli mini invasion that set this one off but neither side exactly impresses me. That's pretty common when it comes to Israel/Palestine stories. |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Nov 18, 2013 19:52:53 GMT
Too many people don't want peace. The Israeli government's only interest is keeping the occupied lands. Some on the Palestinian side's only interest is the total destruction of Israel and killing as many Jews as possible. That basically means; there will never be peace.
Some Palestinian leaders do endorse the destruction of Israel citing the fact that the creation of Israel itself over 60 years ago violated the Rights of the Palestinians. Israel has been complicit in the perpetuation of this issue by refusing to allow a Right of Return and the access to unbiased courts by those, or their heirs, that lost property based upon the confiscation of their lands by Israel. No "redress of grievances" has occurred since the founding of Israel which perpetuates the complaints based upon the violation of the Rights of the Person for Palestinians at the hands of Zionists during the founding of Israel.
Some Israel leaders intentionally mislead the Israeli citizens by claiming that Israel has a right of occupation to lands placed under military control by the Israeli military in 1967. Their dishonesty of the political leadership perpetuates the problem.
To achieve the peace that most Israelis and Palestinians seek requires compliance with the two primary provisions UN Security Council Resolution 242. If the Palestinian and Israeli leadership wants peace then both must embrace the provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 242 and convince the populations to support that resolution. It has always contained the criteria for a just and lasting peace between the Israeli people and the Palestinian people.
It is some, not all of, the leadership on both sides that are preventing the peace and not the people themselves.
What really annoyed me though was the misrepresentation in the title of the news story though. Israel launches and armed incursion and yet the title of the article implies that the Palestinians started the conflict by launching an unprovoked mortar attack. The press misleading the reader is a reprehensible act IMHO.
The so-called "Right of Return," by including the descendants of those displaced about 65 years ago also, would simply overwhelm Israel; it would cease to be, for all practical purposes, the Jewish State that it was intended to be. And I have no problem with any country's acquiring lands in a war, lost by the aggressor. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 18, 2013 21:28:53 GMT
The so-called "Right of Return," by including the descendants of those displaced about 65 years ago also, would simply overwhelm Israel; it would cease to be, for all practical purposes, the Jewish State that it was intended to be. And I have no problem with any country's acquiring lands in a war, lost by the aggressor.
Had it not been from the forced and coerced expulsion of the resident Arab population by European immigrant Zionist Jews the nation of Israel would not exist. It was only by forcing hundreds of thousands of Arabs out of the territory with acts of terrorism and murder were the Jews able to secure the votes necessary for the Israeli Declaration of Independence.
The problem with the second statement is that predominately there have been two "expansions" of territory by Israel with the first being in 1948-49 and the second in 1967 and the Zionist Israeli Jews were the aggressors in both cases. In 1948 the Arab nations came to the defense of the Palestinians that had been forcefully evicted from their homeland by the Zionist Jews and in 1967 it was Israel that launched the invasion of Egypt, Jordan and Syria and, that according to Mosha Dayan, was provoking the conflict with the goal of acquiring territory by conquest.
Of course it had previously established in the 20th Century that the acquisition of territory by war was no longer acceptable in a modern world.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Nov 19, 2013 15:01:46 GMT
The so-called "Right of Return," by including the descendants of those displaced about 65 years ago also, would simply overwhelm Israel; it would cease to be, for all practical purposes, the Jewish State that it was intended to be. And I have no problem with any country's acquiring lands in a war, lost by the aggressor.
Had it not been from the forced and coerced expulsion of the resident Arab population by European immigrant Zionist Jews the nation of Israel would not exist. It was only by forcing hundreds of thousands of Arabs out of the territory with acts of terrorism and murder were the Jews able to secure the votes necessary for the Israeli Declaration of Independence.
The problem with the second statement is that predominately there have been two "expansions" of territory by Israel with the first being in 1948-49 and the second in 1967 and the Zionist Israeli Jews were the aggressors in both cases. In 1948 the Arab nations came to the defense of the Palestinians that had been forcefully evicted from their homeland by the Zionist Jews and in 1967 it was Israel that launched the invasion of Egypt, Jordan and Syria and, that according to Mosha Dayan, was provoking the conflict with the goal of acquiring territory by conquest.
Of course it had previously established in the 20th Century that the acquisition of territory by war was no longer acceptable in a modern world.
(1) Since Arab troops had been massed along Israel's borders, the Gulf of Aqaba had been blocked, and UNEF troops had been ejected from the buffer zones, it does not seem altogether unreasonable that Israel would have considered itself in jeopardy, and therefore attacked the offending Arab states. (2) The use of the passive voice--and with no discernable antecedent ("Of course, it had previusly been established [by whom?] in the 20th Century that the acquisition of territory by war was no longer acceptable in a modern world") strikes me as quite unimpressive. If the country acquiring that territory had been the aggressor (as, say, was the case with Germany's acquiring Poland in WWII), this principle might make some sense. Otherwise, no. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 20, 2013 9:57:43 GMT
(1) Since Arab troops had been massed along Israel's borders, the Gulf of Aqaba had been blocked, and UNEF troops had been ejected from the buffer zones, it does not seem altogether unreasonable that Israel would have considered itself in jeopardy, and therefore attacked the offending Arab states. (2) The use of the passive voice--and with no discernable antecedent ("Of course, it had previusly been established [by whom?] in the 20th Century that the acquisition of territory by war was no longer acceptable in a modern world") strikes me as quite unimpressive. If the country acquiring that territory had been the aggressor (as, say, was the case with Germany's acquiring Poland in WWII), this principle might make some sense. Otherwise, no.
Pre-emptive offensive military actions are NOT authorized under Article 51 and, in fact, only after a nation is actually attacked does a nation or collective group of nations have the authorization to use "defensive" (not offensive) military actions in defense of it's territory.
Egypt never attacked Israel and wasn't even presenting a serious military threat as most Egyptian military forces weren't even in the Sinai Peninsula at the time. Egypt did require the US Peacekeepers to withdraw citing the fact that the Israelis were threatening an invasion and that Egyptian would not be able to protect them from an Israeli invasion of the Sinai.
The Gulf of Acaba is divided territorial waters between Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Egypt could not close the Saudi Arabian territorial waters. In most discussion this is referred to as the closing of the Straits of Tiran which is at the end of the Gulf of Acaba and is also shared territorial waters by Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Of historical significance is the fact that Israel hadn't used the Straits of Tiran for many years preceding the conflict and, in theory, even if Israel wanted to use the waterway it could so long as it stayed in the Saudi Arabian territorial waters. The real point is that the closure of the Staits of Tiran was a fabricated issue by the Israelis that didn't use that waterway for commerce and not a single Israeli ship was ever prevented from entering the Straits because Israel didn't use it.
Please note that principle that territory could not be obtained by war was demonstrated many times before 1967. It was demonstrated in WW II related to Japan, Italy and Germany. Even Britain was denied the acquisition of territory as early as the end of WW I when it was made the "Mandatory" over Palestine and Tran-Jordan, previously a part of the Turkish Empire, but was denied colonial status of those lands it had occupied by military force in WW I. Later in the Korean War where invading North Korean and later Chinese military occupation of South Korea was stopped. I'm sure there are many other examples of this principle being enforced after WW II but I'm too lazy to look them up.
We should, on a final note, recognize the fact that Israel was a member of the Geneva Conventions where Article 49 effectively prohibited the acquisition of territory by war as civilian populations were prohibited from relocating to any territory of military occupation. A "civilian" government could not be established in a territory based upon the military occupation by war that effectively prohibits acquisition of the territory as civilians are prohibited from immigrating to the territory under military occupation.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Nov 21, 2013 0:23:57 GMT
(1) Since Arab troops had been massed along Israel's borders, the Gulf of Aqaba had been blocked, and UNEF troops had been ejected from the buffer zones, it does not seem altogether unreasonable that Israel would have considered itself in jeopardy, and therefore attacked the offending Arab states. (2) The use of the passive voice--and with no discernable antecedent ("Of course, it had previusly been established [by whom?] in the 20th Century that the acquisition of territory by war was no longer acceptable in a modern world") strikes me as quite unimpressive. If the country acquiring that territory had been the aggressor (as, say, was the case with Germany's acquiring Poland in WWII), this principle might make some sense. Otherwise, no.
Pre-emptive offensive military actions are NOT authorized under Article 51 and, in fact, only after a nation is actually attacked does a nation or collective group of nations have the authorization to use "defensive" (not offensive) military actions in defense of it's territory.
Egypt never attacked Israel and wasn't even presenting a serious military threat as most Egyptian military forces weren't even in the Sinai Peninsula at the time. Egypt did require the US Peacekeepers to withdraw citing the fact that the Israelis were threatening an invasion and that Egyptian would not be able to protect them from an Israeli invasion of the Sinai.
The Gulf of Acaba is divided territorial waters between Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Egypt could not close the Saudi Arabian territorial waters. In most discussion this is referred to as the closing of the Straits of Tiran which is at the end of the Gulf of Acaba and is also shared territorial waters by Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Of historical significance is the fact that Israel hadn't used the Straits of Tiran for many years preceding the conflict and, in theory, even if Israel wanted to use the waterway it could so long as it stayed in the Saudi Arabian territorial waters. The real point is that the closure of the Staits of Tiran was a fabricated issue by the Israelis that didn't use that waterway for commerce and not a single Israeli ship was ever prevented from entering the Straits because Israel didn't use it.
Please note that principle that territory could not be obtained by war was demonstrated many times before 1967. It was demonstrated in WW II related to Japan, Italy and Germany. Even Britain was denied the acquisition of territory as early as the end of WW I when it was made the "Mandatory" over Palestine and Tran-Jordan, previously a part of the Turkish Empire, but was denied colonial status of those lands it had occupied by military force in WW I. Later in the Korean War where invading North Korean and later Chinese military occupation of South Korea was stopped. I'm sure there are many other examples of this principle being enforced after WW II but I'm too lazy to look them up.
We should, on a final note, recognize the fact that Israel was a member of the Geneva Conventions where Article 49 effectively prohibited the acquisition of territory by war as civilian populations were prohibited from relocating to any territory of military occupation. A "civilian" government could not be established in a territory based upon the military occupation by war that effectively prohibits acquisition of the territory as civilians are prohibited from immigrating to the territory under military occupation.
(1) The current prejudice against pre-emptive warfare is probably the direct result of the Iraq War, as regarding which, many people now believe that Iraq never possessed any WMD (although I continue to believe that it did, and may have simply spirited those weapons across the border--perhaps to Syria). To suggest that an innocent country should wait until it is attacked to respond--even though it appears evident that it is about to be attacked--is, effectively, to suggest that it should agree to unnecessary casualties, as well as to an inferior military posture. (2) The fact that territories could not be kept that were acquired through wars of aggression is really irrelevant to the point at hand. (3) I have never been much of a fan of the Geneva Conventions, the World Court, or the UN--to put it mildly. (Yes, the one weakness to my position is the fact that Israel was actually created by the UN--a body that I deeply deplore. As a 1960s-era bumper sticker phrased it, we should get the UN out of the US, and get the US out of the UN.) |
|
|
|
Post by Leo on Nov 21, 2013 4:09:29 GMT
(1) The current prejudice against pre-emptive warfare is probably the direct result of the Iraq War, as regarding which, many people now believe that Iraq never possessed any WMD (although I continue to believe that it did, and may have simply spirited those weapons across the border--perhaps to Syria). To suggest that an innocent country should wait until it is attacked to respond--even though it appears evident that it is about to be attacked--is, effectively, to suggest that it should agree to unnecessary casualties, as well as to an inferior military posture. (2) The fact that territories could not be kept that were acquired through wars of aggression is really irrelevant to the point at hand. (3) I have never been much of a fan of the Geneva Conventions, the World Court, or the UN--to put it mildly. (Yes, the one weakness to my position is the fact that Israel was actually created by the UN--a body that I deeply deplore. As a 1960s-era bumper sticker phrased it, we should get the UN out of the US, and get the US out of the UN.)
You negate the estalished facts that (a) the UN inspectors found no evidence of WMD in Iraq pre the invasion, and (b) the ISG's Duelfer Report, consisting of a 1,400-member international team organized by the Pentagon and Central Intelligence Agency to hunt for the alleged stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological agents, and any supporting research programs and infrastructure that could be used to develop WMD, which categorically stated that no such weapons were found.
You negate the time-honoured tradition of self-defence, and justify the actions of aggressors ranging from Genghis Khan to Hitler and Stalin.
You negate the established tenet of International Law that the acquisition of territory through wars of aggression are illegitimate and a breach of said law.
You scorn the international instruments of cooperation and justice, as well as the protocols which aim to protect innocents from the depredations of war, and by so doing, you justify the rule of 'might is right'.
What a credit you are to your nation - your compatriots must be so proud!
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 21, 2013 14:16:57 GMT
There is only one real identifiable flaw with the United Nations and that is the veto power of the five permanent members that has been abused for nefarious political purposes by those permanent members historically.
Because of the use and/or threat of veto by the permanent members the actions of the United Nations have been subjected to hypocrisy. Because of the "veto" all nations are not being subjected to the same standards. N Korea, for example, is subjected to severe economic sanctions because it is a rouge nuclear weapon nation while Pakistan, India, and Israel that are also rogue nuclear weapon nations are not. Iran that doesn't even have nuclear weapons is being subjected to severe economic sanctions while we ignore Pakistan, India and Israel.
Even when it comes to the World Court that was established by the United Nations the hypocrisy continues because of the veto power of the five permanent members.
Slobodan Milosevic was subjected to prosecution for war crimes and crimes against humanity by the World Court while President Bush, that authorize 'enhanced interrogation techniques' that were torture under US and International law and that resulted in several cases of murder of POW's that constituted war crimes and crimes against humanity, was not brought before the Court and prosecuted. When the US government failed to prosecute Bush for violations of US Statutory law and the US Constitution (the nation has first opportunity to prosecute) the World Court then had jurisdiction. I don't believe anyone can argue that torturing a prisoner of war to death doesn't constitutes a war crime and yet Bush authorized torture that resulted in murder but was never held accountable by a court of law.
Historically Israel has used chemical weapons and has targeted civilian refugee camps (including one UN refugee camp) in the past and yet not one case has been prosecuted for these war crimes and crimes against humanity because of the veto power of the United States. Israel has authorized international assassination in direct violation of International Law (the US does this as well) and no one has been brought to justice related to it because of the US veto power on the Security Council.
That hypocrisy by the United Nations Security Council permanent members with veto power really is inexcusable and it is that hypocrisy that not only results in the failure of the United Nations to fulfill it's Mission Statement and goals but that actually leads to tyranny by the United Nations.
|
|
