Netanyahu Slams Ban Ki-Moon's 'Occupation' Remarks

Oct 14, 2014 20:26:11 GMT pjohns1873 said:

I think this says it perfectly.

As Prime Minister Netanyahu noted on another occasion recently, Israel uses its rockets to protect its civilians; whereas Hamas does precisely the opposite.  (I think that is what is typically known as human shields.)

I was reading an article on the British Parlament recognizing Palestine as a nation and in passing the story mentioned that during the recent Israeli-Gaza conflict that over 2,000 Gazans were killed by the IDF and they were almost all civilians while 70 Israelis were killed  by Hamas and almost all were members of the IDF. It didn't give a breakdown is it wasn't the actual subject of the story.  

I don't care how we try to put spin on this it still doesn't sit right.

We might also note that Israel has been imposing an land, air, and sea blockade against Gaza and a blockade is an act of war. Basically since 2007 when the blockades were imposed Israel has been at war against Gaza.  

Oct 15, 2014 4:58:35 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Oct 15, 2014 2:35:13 GMT ShivaTD said:

I was reading an article on the British Parlament recognizing Palestine as a nation and in passing the story mentioned that during the recent Israeli-Gaza conflict that over 2,000 Gazans were killed by the IDF and they were almost all civilians while 70 Israelis were killed  by Hamas and almost all were members of the IDF. It didn't give a breakdown is it wasn't the actual subject of the story.  

I don't care how we try to put spin on this it still doesn't sit right.

We might also note that Israel has been imposing an land, air, and sea blockade against Gaza and a blockade is an act of war. Basically since 2007 when the blockades were imposed Israel has been at war against Gaza.  

It is hardly mere "spin" to note that Hamas militants--rather, Hamas thugs--have been stationing their weapons in civilian areas, and even refusing to allow Palestinian civilians to leave, so that they may be killed; and may, therefore, serve as propaganda tools for Hamas' "cause."

The blockade you mention is for the explicit purpose of keeping weapons (or weapons-to-be) from being smuggled into Gaza.  Cargo is inspected, and then allowed to pass through, if it does not contain material with which rockets might be built (to be launched against Israel). 

It is not "spin" to also state that Israel has been militarily occupying E Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Golan Heights for almost half a century and illegally allowing it's civilian population to immigrate into those territories in violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Conventions (that Israel has a treaty obligation to comply with). United Nations (UN) Secretary General Ban Ki-moon was absolutely accurate and correct when he stated, “We must not lose sight of the root causes of the recent hostilities: A restrictive occupation that has lasted almost half a century, the continued denial of Palestinian rights and the lack of tangible progress in peace negotiations.”

I'm no fan of Hamas but Hamas has agreed to terminate it's long standing position calling for the destruction if Israel contained in it's Charter if Israel will join the Palestinians in a mutually agreeable peace treaty based upon international laws and treaties previously established and that Israel is a party to.

The Palestinian Authority, in the peace negotiations with Israel, has promised to terminate "all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of [Israel and Israel's] right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." The Palestinian Authority has gone further in proposing not just the "establishment of demilitarized zones" predominately in Palestinian territory but also the stationing of neutral (NATO) military forces within these demilitarized zones to ensure the peace and non-aggression of either side.

In return the Palestinian Authority requires the "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the [1967[ conflict."

Hamas, like it or not as an organization, has also agreed to the above provisions that are being negotiated on behalf of the Palestinian People by the Palestinian Authority with Israel.

Yes, these are the expressed provisions that the UN Security Council unanimously approved in 1967 under Resolution 242. 

www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/un242.htm

If Israel wants peace with the Palestinians, including Hamas, all it has to do is comply with the explicit provisions of UNSC 242.

Oct 15, 2014 20:51:32 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Oct 15, 2014 12:45:52 GMT ShivaTD said:

It is not "spin" to also state that Israel has been militarily occupying E Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Golan Heights for almost half a century and illegally allowing it's civilian population to immigrate into those territories in violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Conventions (that Israel has a treaty obligation to comply with). United Nations (UN) Secretary General Ban Ki-moon was absolutely accurate and correct when he stated, “We must not lose sight of the root causes of the recent hostilities: A restrictive occupation that has lasted almost half a century, the continued denial of Palestinian rights and the lack of tangible progress in peace negotiations.”

I'm no fan of Hamas but Hamas has agreed to terminate it's long standing position calling for the destruction if Israel contained in it's Charter if Israel will join the Palestinians in a mutually agreeable peace treaty based upon international laws and treaties previously established and that Israel is a party to.

The Palestinian Authority, in the peace negotiations with Israel, has promised to terminate "all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of [Israel and Israel's] right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." The Palestinian Authority has gone further in proposing not just the "establishment of demilitarized zones" predominately in Palestinian territory but also the stationing of neutral (NATO) military forces within these demilitarized zones to ensure the peace and non-aggression of either side.

In return the Palestinian Authority requires the "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the [1967[ conflict."

Hamas, like it or not as an organization, has also agreed to the above provisions that are being negotiated on behalf of the Palestinian People by the Palestinian Authority with Israel.

Yes, these are the expressed provisions that the UN Security Council unanimously approved in 1967 under Resolution 242. 

www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/un242.htm

If Israel wants peace with the Palestinians, including Hamas, all it has to do is comply with the explicit provisions of UNSC 242.

Unsurprisingly, Ban Ki-moon is another Root Causer. (But what better type might reasonably be expected from the UN?)

And his words, in any case, cannot excuse the fact that Hamas uses its citizens as human shields; which is very different from the way Israel acts in this regard.

And I certainly would not regard a country that has legitimately won territory from its enemy, following that enemy's act of aggression, as a mere "occupi[er]."

In UN Security Council Resolution 242, which was unanimously approved, it established "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" of any kind. It doesn't differentate between "offensive" and "defensive" wars. Additionally in 1967 it was Israel that invaded Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. Israel, not Egypt, Syria or Jordan was the aggressor in 1967 so your point it moot.

Except for the Israeli propaganda I haven't read that Hamas uses "human shields" and I don't believe the people of Gaza would support Hamas if it did. We can also note that Netanyahu's chacterization of Hamas rockets landing harmlessly in the desert as being an attack on the civilian population is grossly misleading. Few Hamas rockets ever land in the civilian areas of Israel at all (where IDF forces are also located).

If you want to address a problem you have to address the root cause. Addressing just the symptoms of a problem does not resolve the problem. By way of analogy giving a person with brain cancer morphine to ease the pain doesn't cure the brain cancer. 

Oct 18, 2014 0:19:00 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Oct 16, 2014 13:08:03 GMT ShivaTD said:

In UN Security Council Resolution 242, which was unanimously approved, it established "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" of any kind. It doesn't differentate between "offensive" and "defensive" wars. Additionally in 1967 it was Israel that invaded Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. Israel, not Egypt, Syria or Jordan was the aggressor in 1967 so your point it moot.

Except for the Israeli propaganda I haven't read that Hamas uses "human shields" and I don't believe the people of Gaza would support Hamas if it did. We can also note that Netanyahu's chacterization of Hamas rockets landing harmlessly in the desert as being an attack on the civilian population is grossly misleading. Few Hamas rockets ever land in the civilian areas of Israel at all (where IDF forces are also located).

If you want to address a problem you have to address the root cause. Addressing just the symptoms of a problem does not resolve the problem. By way of analogy giving a person with brain cancer morphine to ease the pain doesn't cure the brain cancer. 

I have previously noted my severe distaste for the UN, what with its anti-Israel (and anti-US) bias. I would about as readily consider the pontifications of the Grand Cyclops of the Ku Klux Klan as I would consider the pontifications of the UN.

As concerning the Six-Day War in 1967, I find the following analysis relevant:

[W]hen the military forces of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, as well as Iraq, began to mobilize and make obvious preparations for war, Israel felt forced to act in self-defence.

On June 5, 1967, Israel launched a pre-emptive ground attack on Egypt, along with coordinated air strikes that effectively destroyed the air forces of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq on the ground.

So the "pre-emptive attack" by Israel was entirely in its own self-defense.

And it is not just Israeli "propaganda" that notes Hamas' use of human shields. This is from the Daily Mail:  UK's www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2753176/Hamas-DID-use-schools-hospitals-Gaza-Strip-human-shields-launch-rocket-attacks-Israel-admits-says-mistake.html

Even more interesting is this article from the New York Post:  www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2753176/Hamas-DID-use-schools-hospitals-Gaza-Strip-human-shields-launch-rocket-attacks-Israel-admits-says-mistake.html

Even Daniel Kohn of the left-leaning Huffington Post admits the following: 

Although Israel is arguably fighting a war against a democratically-elected government in Gaza, it does not adhere to the traditional rules of engagement considering the fact that the people of Gaza elected terrorists as their head of state.

To put it in terms parallel to this side of the globe, imagine the Ku Klux Klan winning elections in New Mexico and then proceeding to fire rockets in order to provoke a war with Mexico.

The government is using its Palestinian population as human shields, plain and simple.

Here is the link:  www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-kohn/operation-human-shield_b_157837.html

By the way, as concerning your analogy: One should not attempt to address the "root cause" of brain cancer, or any other form of cancer, but rather treat it. For instance, cigarette smoking is often the "root cause" of lung cancer. But the doctor cannot undo what has already been done; he (or she) can simply try to end the disease.

Apparently, you consider Israel (as it is presently constituted) to be a sort of malignancy.

Well, I do not.

The treaty between Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Iraq was a "self-defense" treaty and the military forces being gathered together by these countries (predominately Egypt) were expressly for the purpose of self-defense should Israel invade. There was absolutely no intent on the part of Egypt to invade Israel and it was militarily incapable of doing so. I've also read, although I don't have the source at hand, that Mosad had "moles" deep inside the Egyptian military and knew for a fact that Egypt had absolutely no intentions of launching an attack against Israel in 1967. I've also read that Mosha Dayan stated that the border conflict between Israel and Syria, where Dayan was the Israeli military commander, were being provoked by Israel and not Syria.

In spite of the saber-rattling rhetoric from both sides prior to the Israeli invasion in 1967 of Egypt there were no intentions by Egypt, Jordan, Syria or Iraq to ever invade Israel.

This still ignores the fact that the acquisition of territory by war of any kind is inadmissible and that the immigration of Israeli citizens into the territories occupied by the Israeli military in 1967 is in direct violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Conventions that Israel is a volunarty member of.

Israel is not the problem. Zionism, which is identical in all fundamental respects to the political ideology of ISIS and the Nazis, is the problem.   

Oct 19, 2014 4:23:49 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Oct 18, 2014 11:56:28 GMT ShivaTD said:

The treaty between Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Iraq was a "self-defense" treaty and the military forces being gathered together by these countries (predominately Egypt) were expressly for the purpose of self-defense should Israel invade. There was absolutely no intent on the part of Egypt to invade Israel and it was militarily incapable of doing so. I've also read, although I don't have the source at hand, that Mosad had "moles" deep inside the Egyptian military and knew for a fact that Egypt had absolutely no intentions of launching an attack against Israel in 1967. I've also read that Mosha Dayan stated that the border conflict between Israel and Syria, where Dayan was the Israeli military commander, were being provoked by Israel and not Syria.

In spite of the saber-rattling rhetoric from both sides prior to the Israeli invasion in 1967 of Egypt there were no intentions by Egypt, Jordan, Syria or Iraq to ever invade Israel.

This still ignores the fact that the acquisition of territory by war of any kind is inadmissible and that the immigration of Israeli citizens into the territories occupied by the Israeli military in 1967 is in direct violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Conventions that Israel is a volunarty member of.

 

Israel is not the problem. Zionism, which is identical in all fundamental respects to the political ideology of ISIS and the Nazis, is the problem.   

Wikipedia defines "Zionism" as "a nationalist movement of Jews and Jewish culture that supports the creation of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the Land of Israel."  Exactly why that should be a "problem"--especially considering the historical fact of the Holocaust, which led to the development of the Jewish state--I have no idea.

If Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq had absolutely "no intentions...to ever invade Israel," it seems passing strange that they amassed troops on Israel's border. (The excuse that this was merely for "the purpose of self-defense should Israel invade" begs the question: Why would any reasonable person suppose that this was ever a real possibility?)

You are aware of the fact that there are more non-Jewish Zionists (advocates of the Jewish State of Israel) in the United States alone than there are Jews in the entire world aren't you? Zionism is a political ideology that is not limited to the Jewish People and it is also based upon "Race/Religion/Ethnic Heritage" just like ISIS and the former Nazi political ideologies.

In 1967 Israel was threatening to go to war with Egypt just like it's been threatening to go to war against Iran in recent years.

Oct 20, 2014 2:41:27 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Oct 19, 2014 10:29:16 GMT ShivaTD said:

You are aware of the fact that there are more non-Jewish Zionists (advocates of the Jewish State of Israel) in the United States alone than there are Jews in the entire world aren't you? Zionism is a political ideology that is not limited to the Jewish People and it is also based upon "Race/Religion/Ethnic Heritage" just like ISIS and the former Nazi political ideologies.

In 1967 Israel was threatening to go to war with Egypt just like it's been threatening to go to war against Iran in recent years.

What threats did Israel's leadership make (supposedly) in 1967 that would have indicated that it was on the verge of starting a war with its neighbors?

As Prime Minister Netanyahu recently noted, at the UN, Nazism was based upon the idea of a master race; all others were to be exterminated. 

ISIS is based upon the idea of a master religion; again, all others are to be exterminated (or forced to convert; or else pay an oppressive tax, known as the jizya.)

Israel is based upon neither the idea of a master race nor the idea of a master religion.  Rather, it is a response to the horrid historical event known as the Holocaust:  Jews would never again be rendered defenseless.  (It is, of course, possible to debate whether placing so many Jews in such a small space might make their annihilation easier, rather than harder.  But that is a practical question, rather than a philosophical one.) 

While it is hard to dig up documentation of the threats being made by Israel prior to the 1967 war we can note the following:

On May 19, U Thant called statements attributed to Israeli leaders "so threatening as to be particularly inflammatory in the sense that they could only heighten emotions and thereby increase tensions on the other side of the lines." 

www.forthepeaceofjerusalem.com/the-six-day-war.html

The linked summary above also gives some great insight as it points out that Israel had already been provoking military conflicts with Syria and had been launching military operations into Jordan before the 6-Day War. It also points out several reasons why Egypt was seriously concerned about an Israeli invasion based upon false intelligence from the USSR. Finally, when Nassar found out those reports were false he was actually more interested in withdrawing his military from the Sinai but didn't do so for internal political reasons unrelated to Israel at all. The historical evidence clearly establishes that Egypt was not planning on any invasion of Israel when Israel invaded Egypt. It simply wasn't going to happen in spite of any rhetoric to the contrary.  

There is no fundamental difference between "White Supremacy" and "Islamic Supremacy" and "Jewish Supremacy" and clearly Israel is a nation based upon "Jewish Supremacy" established by the Israeli Declaration of Independence. The Nazi political ideology was not based upon all other people being "exterminated" and the "Holocaust" didn't even begin until about 1942. The Nazi political ideology was eventually rationalized into embracing a policy of genocide but that was not the original political ideology. ISIS is already rationalizing genecide based upon Islamic religious/political ideology and Zionism could also rationalize genocide based upon the Zionist political ideology.

What are the Zionist leaders like Netanyaho going to do when the Arab citizens of Israel outnumber the Jews and want to vote to remove the provisions that Israel is a Jewish State and turn it into an Islamic State? There are already Zionists advocating that the Arabs living in Palestinian territory be forced to leave (identical to the original goal of the Nazis when it came to European Jews during the 1930's) and we would assume murdered if they refuse to leave.    

As far as Israel goes it is certainly based upon a belief that the Jews should be the master race of Israel. That is clearly established by the Israeli Declaration of Independence and the fact that Israel forced non-Jews to leave "Israel" and even resorted to many documented cases murder to achieve this in the past.