The Middle East part 2

[Placebo 29]

Following which, the Israeli PM promptly issued a 48hr post restriction to the Israeli justice minister.  

LMAO and he got off lightly

[miles teg 1]

2. The death of those pals was horrible. The death of that Israeli woman and her 4 or so kids too.

Did your American tax dollars pay for the weapons and ammo that killed her too?  

That money probably came from Canada.

You're joking, right?  Canadian tax dollars are not paying for the weapons of terrorists.

Billybob2002 is eager to point out that both sides do horrible things, but he doesn't "give a fuck" that his taxes directly sponsor at least half of that horror.

Sadly, Billybob's attitude is similar to that of the majority of Americans.  That is that we are NOT supporting terror.  What we are supporting is the right for Israel to DEFEND itself against these terrorist savages and that its a shame that Israel must do so in such a brutal fashion but that these bad Arabs have to be punished severely for terrorism.  

Here's the basic attitude:  

Israelies=good guys in white hats who are reluctant to oppress these mad Arab people.  They are Jews and thus are GOD'S CHOSEN PEOPLE and we CAN NOT go against them unless we wish to anger God/Jesus.  

Arabs- Savage, uncivilized religious fanatics hell bent on the destruction of Israel and who hate America.  They need FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY and the American Way (and *cough*Christianity*cough*) brought to them to civilize them and make them more like Americans or at least, like our slightly less backwards European cousins.  

LOL!

Of coarse those are generalities and not all Americans think that way, but thats the general perception spread in the media and in many Church's across the United States.

However interestingly enough, Black American church's to not always follow this trend here in America.  During a string of hate crimes against Muslims here where I live, it was ironic that the ONLY church's that came out publicly in support of the Islamic community were predominantly black Christian church's.    Not a single white, asian, or hispanic pastor came out to support the Islamic community against hate crimes.  

That was sickening.

But it illustrates the attitude of most Americans towards not just Arabs but Muslims in general.  

Most Americans (and most Europeans for that matter) are clueless when it comes to how to deal with Islamic extremism.

They just know that we have to kill 'em all.

At least the Europeans (aside from the British) are little bit more intelligent in combatting terrorists and tend to be more subtle and focused about it.

The War on Terrorism needs to be a much more covert war.... sadly however American politicians always want to make political hay from it and thus like big spectacular military operations that shows that they support kicking terrorist ass around the world.  Most of the American public supports this.  Until that attitude changes I think we're going to be fighting ALOT of wars in the Middle East and will likely soon face a massive nuclear attack.  

The only Republican senator, worth a damn, Republican Sen. Richard G. Lugar (chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee), bravely spoke out last week and this week against Bush's policy.  This Senator is an incredibly smart man, and sees whats coming in the future which is more and far more horrific terrorist attacks.

In the article below he ABSOLUTELY NAILS THE PROBLEM on the head.  He is the first powerful Republican leader I've heard speak out intelligently on how to fight the war on terror.  God, I wish this man was running for President.  I'd vote for him in a heartbeat as he seems to have a much better grasp of the problem of terrorism then either Bush or Kerry.   At any rate, as you can see, not all Republicans are idiots.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tm....lugar_5

Quote[/b] ]

By MARK PRATT, Associated Press Writer

MEDFORD, Mass. - Republican Sen. Richard G. Lugar said the United States isn't doing enough to stave off terrorism and criticized President Bush for failing to offer solid plans for Iraq's future.

Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Saturday the nation must prevent terrorism from taking root around the world by "repairing and building alliances," increasing trade, supporting democracy, addressing regional conflicts and controlling weapons of mass destruction.

Unless the country commits itself to such measures, "we are likely to experience acts of catastrophic terrorism that would undermine our economy, damage our society and kill hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people," the Indiana senator said during an appearance at the Fletcher School at Tufts University.

Lugar said military might alone isn't enough to eradicate terrorism.

"To win the war against terrorism, the United States must assign U.S. economic and diplomatic capabilities the same strategic priority that we assign to military capabilities," he said.

He later added, "Military action is necessary to defeat serious and immediate threats to our national security. But the war on terrorism will not be won through attrition — particularly since military action will often breed more terrorists and more resentment of the United States."

Lugar, who was awarded the Dean's Medal for distinguished service in international affairs, said it's still unclear how much control the Iraqi people will have over their nation's security when power is transferred to them June 30.

"I am very hopeful that the president and his administration will articulate precisely what is going to happen as much as they can, day by day, as opposed to a generalization," he said.

It's not the first time that Lugar has criticized Bush, a fellow Republican. In 2003, Lugar and Sen. Joseph Biden, the committee's top Democrat, warned that the Bush administration had not given enough consideration to what would happen in Iraq after the fighting ended.

Also Saturday, Lugar blamed the Bush and Clinton administrations for not adequately funding the foreign affairs budget, noting that the military's budget is more than 13 times what the nation spends for diplomacy.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Apollo 0]

The Israeli justice minister, a Holocaust survivor , sparked controversy yesterday when he appeared to compare the demolition of homes in the Gaza Strip to Nazi atrocities during the second world war.[/u]

While i won't compare israeli politics to nazism simply as it isn't a very social acceptable term.

Ill try to use term's in my oppinion piece that are socially acceptable.

IMO ,the root of escalation of the conflict lies in how much Jew's expand in pressence and thrive in region's traditionally held by an other "cultural group" ,such expansion often ,even almost always triggers conflict as portions/certain social layers of the traditional inhabitants don't want a new and potentially dangerous expanionist political/cultural group on their territory.

History has proven that where new a and culturaly very different group enters in mass territory of an other group most likely conflict wil arise ,even worse such a conflict can influence a whole region or worse in a more globalized world: 2 complete culture's ,this depending on the ferocity and of the conflict ,this  on itself depending on the rate of expansion ,the cultural difference ,political structure ,and the possible will of the different groups to build a multicultural society where conflict is limited.

The return of the jewish people to Palestine after the holocoast is in historical terms easy to compare to a "people's move".In rate it was relative fast ,if you consider there are about 5 million jewish in Israel of it's total 6.5 million population

compared to few 10.000's before the holocoast ,The majority of jewish population in Israel got there by immigration or were born from an immigrant family.

The incentive of the "jewish state" was to create an explicit state for Jews and not for other non jewish cultural groups. (ethnic jews ,as for ex. christian jews are accepted as jew to in civil rights)

To create this state in the middle of a region populated by an other cutural group considered "uncivilized" ,thus easy to colonize ,with force if nessecary ,as if they were some tribe of pagan's somewhere on the vast empty territory ripe for colonization.With force annexation's of territory's for the majority held by an other cultural group ,not even granting that group certain civil rights.

On moral grounds of territorial claims of an 4000 years old age , to colonize "uncivilzed regions" and because an % percentage of their cultural group was ethnicly cleansed in the holocoast.

Neither of these grounds are really moraly justifiable in a modern day context.

Yes sure the Holocoast was a tragic episode of world history ,but their are numerous cases of ethnic cleansing in history , That doesn't mean it grants a cultural group the right to claim a region traditionaly held by an other group.How would America feel if for ex million's of refugee's of different cultural group's would immigrate to their country and actually claim an own exclusive ethnic state on Traditional U.S soil.

Yes over 4000 years ago their has been a brief existance of a small Isreal ,but if all country's would dig up comparable territorial claims of the last 400 years it would easily mean some world wars.

Terrorism is in theory in the western world regarded as the most filthy form of warfare ,as such that any person that comits an act of terroism can not be justified in their act.

This however doesn't mean that In Palestine there are no educated person's in existance that want to strive for containing and even reacting on agression by Israeli on a millitarily conventional way ,however due to lack of material they are often not as lethal as suicide bombers who target civilian's to and kill them in large groups ,and even if Palestinians are succesfull in an act of conventional warfare they are often marked as "terrorists".

Israel is In war with the Palestinian's ,maybe not official but practicly the situation is escalated to a war level.This war is fought on moral grounds that Israel has the right to defend itself against Palestinian terrorism.However in their opperation's the Jew's rarely limit theirselfs to just exclusivly containing Palestinian terrorists.They control strategic ground in Pelestinian territory ,by means of fortificated settlements , checkpoints ,or a full blown "security fence". They forcibly displace inhabitants of whole towns in newly annexed territory's.They hold millitary opperation's deep into Palestinian territory with a high amount of civilian casualty's (about 3X more than Palestinian terrorists kill Jewish civilian's) and especially with a very suspicious amount of infrastructural destruction.Many Palestinian's ,simple ordinary people ,live in Terror due to the Israeli agression onto them ,their homes or their family's.

Israel is a traditionally expansionist state in Palestine,and never stepped of this elan.It won't stop until it holds all of their traditional claims on Palestine ,their is definatly no chance from the normal expansionist rate of the last fifty years that makes me conclude that israel will stop this expansionism.

The fact that a relative minority of Palestinians commit "terrorist" action's on Jewish civilians is an easy excuse for Israel to act and expand beyond the norm's of certain international treaty's.In reality ,the toll of this conflict has always been MUCH higher for the Palestinians than for the Jews.

Sir Richard G. Luger efficiantly discribe's the nessecary steps to minimize the conflict on the long term.Even if Palestinians and israeli decide to bild piece ,it will probably be a process of decades before the 2 people will be truly able to live next to eachother withought ethnic conflict.There is no option to ending or atleast minimilizing the conflict than to try to build peace ,and sacrifices will have to be made to achieve it.

Though IMO the most effeciant method to building piece is to build up eachothers economy and to make it depend on eachother and stronger by more fluent trade.Economic dependancy has often proven to be an excelent peace maker ,just envision the European union.

[Colossus 2]

BBC News

Quote[/b] ]UN rules against Israeli barrier

Palestinians say the barrier divides their communities

The International Court of Justice has ruled that Israel's West Bank barrier is illegal and construction of it should be stopped immediately.

The ruling said the barrier's construction was "tantamount to annexation" and impeded the Palestinian right to self-determination.

Israel insists the barrier is needed to keep out West Bank militants. The Palestinians consider it a land grab.

The court's decision is not binding, but can serve as a basis for UN action.

Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat hailed the ruling as a "victory for the Palestinian people".

"We salute this decision condemning the racist wall," Mr Arafat told reporters at his West Bank headquarters.

Israel has said it will not accept the non-binding judgement, and that the barrier has already served its stated purpose by preventing suicide bomb attacks.

"I believe that after all the rancour dies, this resolution will find its place in the garbage can of history," said Raanan Gissin, a senior aide to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

"The court has made an unjust ruling denying Israel its right of self-defence."

The court in The Hague unanimously rejected Israel's argument that it has no right to rule on the legality of the barrier.

'Fait accompli'

Several countries, including the US and UK, had argued the court should stay out of the issue, warning that any opinion it gives could interfere with the Middle East peace process.

"We do not believe that that's the appropriate forum to resolve what is a political issue," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

The ICJ began issuing its ruling at 1300GMT - the reading lasted about two hours.

Reading the ruling, Court President Shi Jiuyong of China said the court was not convinced the barrier's construction was the only means to achieve Israel's aim of protecting its people from suicide attacks.

The construction of the wall created a fait accompli which could become permanent, it added.

"It would be tantamount to de facto annexation," Mr Shi said.

"That construction, along with measures previously taken, thus severely impeded the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination."

The current route of the barrier cannot be justified for military needs, he added.

The court ruled that:

-the construction and its associated regime was contrary to international law;

-Israel was under obligation to cease construction and dismantle the wall;

-Israel should compensate owners of land seized to construct the barrier and those harmed by the barrier;

-all states are under obligation not to recognise the situation and ensure Israel's compliance with international law;

-the UN should consider what further action to take.

One of the 15 members of the court, US Judge Thomas Buergenthal, dissented from all of the above findings.

The court has spent five months considering the issue of the barrier at the request of the UN General Assembly.

BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus says the real question is what, if anything, will change now that the barrier has been declared illegal.

Arab governments are likely to seek an emergency session of the UN General Assembly to try to secure a resolution endorsing the court's decision.

But experts caution against any expectation of tough UN action - not least because of the US veto in the Security Council.

Much of the 640km (400-mile) barrier, started in 2002, is being built on territory Israel occupied in 1967, rather than along the internationally recognised boundary between Israel and the West Bank.

Palestinians say the network of walls, fences and ditches is taking away their land and dividing their communities, separating people from schools or workplaces.

CNN

[denoir 0]

World reactions:[bBC]

Quote[/b] ]

---------------------------------------------------

ISRAEL

"The only decision that matters for the government is the verdict of the [israeli] supreme court".

Israeli Justice Minister Tommy Lapid

"This criminal terrorism has left over the last three-and-a-half years nearly 1,000 [israeli] people dead and tens of thousands wounded in more than 20,000 attacks. No country would have acted differently in the face of such a criminal campaign. Since the erection of the barrier, the number of victims has fallen substantially. The barrier is working."

Israeli government statement

"This is going to go to the UN General Assembly. They can decide anything there. They can say that the earth is flat. It won't make it legal, it won't make it true and it won't make it just."

Israeli Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu

"The real barrier is the Palestinian terrorism. The only way to remove the barrier is to stop that terrorism, and this can be done, as the court said, by negotiations based on the roadmap. This ruling will bring comfort to those who think they do not need the roadmap."

Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Arthur Lenk

---------------------------------------------------

PALESTINIANS

"I consider today a historic day... They said it has to be torn down and we say that we must tear it down."

Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei

"This is an excellent decision. We thank the court in The Hague. This is a victory for the Palestinian people and for all the free peoples of the world."

Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat

"The international community, notably the United States, should be on the side of international legitimacy and stop dealing with Israel as a state above the law."

Palestinian Negotiations Minister Saeb Erekat

---------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL

"We do not believe that that's the appropriate forum to resolve what is a political issue. This is an issue that should be resolved through the process that has been put in place, specifically the road map."

US President George Bush's spokesman

"We have underlined that the wall not only results in confiscation of Palestinian land and causes untold humanitarian and economic hardship, but also could prejudge future negotiations and hinder a just political solution to the conflict."

EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana

"After the legal picture has become clear, the international community should consider how to get Israel to abide by international law."

Spokesman for Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa

IMO it was a pretty clear case as it wasn't being built on Israel's territory. Had they built inside the borders of Israel, it would have still been a sad monument over the failed peace process, but it would have been legal.

The traditional consequence of this would be US vetoing any UN decision on the subject. It might now, just might be more interesting this round. The US is fairly busy sucking up to other security council nations (to get Iraq support), so they might abstain from a vote. In that case the situation can get really interesting.

[quicksand 0]

The whole conflict is of such a complicated nature that I am still not sure if I am on the right way to fully comprehense it, there are just so many sides to the story.

On this mather,I was filled with disgust after seeing one of Sharon close advisors on CNN replying on a very worried tone:

I am beginning to suspect the Court of Justice wants to deny Israel`s right to existance

I honestly hope this is not the manner the Isreali government combats criticism,with childlish remarks and groundless retorics

[Balschoiw 0]

Den Haag is anti-semitic, you know...

That will be next.

Avon ?

[Monkey Lib Front 10]

the ruling they gave to my knowledge is an advisement to the Israeli Gov't.

[InqWiper 0]

Why dont they just build the wall along the border, then Im sure noone would have a problem with it?

They cant just build a wall in the middle of another country?

[Postduifje 0]

Den Haag is anti-semitic, you know...

I was there yesterday, didn't saw any anti-Israelian protests or anything. I'm pretty sure the overall population of Den Haag isn't raging against the Jews you know...

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]I'm pretty sure the overall population of Den Haag isn't raging against the Jewish population you know...

Yes I certainly know

It was ironic.

Wait for the israelian reactions. They will tell you that they are afraid of a rising anti-semitic attitude in europe that is reflected in the courts decision...

[InqWiper 0]

I think trying to act "small and innocent in this scary world" wont be something that will fool anyone and make them feel bad. You cant yell anticemite every time someone doesnt agree with you. I realize most of them probably dont but the ones who do are really pathetic.

[Apollo 0]

Though this fence is supposedly for "security" ,it is very doubtfull that this fence can provide the security from suicide bombers that Israel wants.

However ,it clearlty annexes part's of Pallestinian territory (wich "supposedly" would be given back when the conflict is over) ,this annexation of territory goes toghether with the displacement of Palestinian civilian ,Palestinians who most likely will end up in refugee camps where Pallestinian terrorists organizations for a large part recruit their bombers.

[bn880 5]

IMO it was a pretty clear case as it wasn't being built on Israel's territory. Had they built inside the borders of Israel, it would have still been a sad monument over the failed peace process, but it would have been legal.

The traditional consequence of this would be US vetoing any UN decision on the subject. It might now, just might be more interesting this round. The US is fairly busy sucking up to other security council nations (to get Iraq support), so they might abstain from a vote. In that case the situation can get really interesting.

I concurr, and I am someone who wanted to see a wall inside Israeli territory to shut both sides up, even if it meant hardship for the limited amount of Palestinians working Inside Israel. I think the result from the insane placement of this current wall is similar to the one from WWII created by Germans to segregate Jews, it creates immense and intolerable hardship, and I think people faced with this will fight with every ounce of energy.

[Apollo 0]

Quote[/b] ]I think trying to act "small and innocent in this scary world" wont be something that will fool anyone and make them feel bad. You cant yell anticemite every time someone doesnt agree with you. I realize most of them probably dont but the ones who do are really pathetic.

I think most Israeli's are well educated and fairly intelligent people ,most Israeli's i met on forum's were very good debaters.

i don't think they will go as far as calling Den Haag antisemite ,however they usually seriously question European politics and their support for the Palestinians. (While the U.S for ex. stands more behind Isreal)

I remember when my country Belgium started it's own human rights court and some people came to put a complaint on Ariel Sharon for war crimes. (Sabra and Chatilla (sp?))

Not that we were called Antisemite's by the Israeli ,but they din't exactly throw nice words to us neither those days.  

[edc 0]

It is sad that the Palestinians make it necessary for Israel to have to have a protective device such as this. If/when the Palestinians get it through there thick heads that killing innocent men, women and vowing to destroy Israel will accomplish them nothing, than Israel would have no need for something like this. But until that day comes Israel needs, and will have this wall. And AFAIK, it's not to totally stop people, it's just to make it easier to keep militants from sneaking in. People can still comes and go, they just have to go through the checkpoints.

Its also sad that the very Euro-controlled Hague has used this as an opportunity to expresss their dislike of Israel(I didn't say Jews necessarily, just Israel as a country), and their support for Palestinian militants and terrorists.

[bn880 5]

I think you are misinformed _greately_. there are two sides of the story, and I side more with the Palestinians in their frustration at this wall.

[edc 0]

And I side with Israelis who just wants to be left alone and not have to worry about their loved ones being killed by a suicide bomber.

[Donnervogel 0]

It is sad that the Palestinians make it necessary for Israel to have to have a protective device such as this. If/when the Palestinians get it through there thick heads that killing innocent men, women and vowing to destroy Israel will accomplish them nothing, than Israel would have no need for something like this. But until that day comes Israel needs, and will have this wall. And AFAIK, it's not to totally stop people, it's just to make it easier to keep militants from sneaking in. People can still comes and go, they just have to go through the checkpoints.

hehe naive.

Anyhow. What is illegal is not the wall itself. It's that the wall is build deep into palestinian territory. And IMHO must pretty clear to anyone who thinks a bit about it that this is illegal. Noone says Israel can't protect itself. It can. But you can't justifiy to practically steal land from the palestinians, cut them off from hospitals and take away their agricultural land with self defense.

[bn880 5]

And I side with Israelis who just wants to be left alone and not have to worry about their loved ones being killed by a suicide bomber.

No way man, they have settlements, they assasinate Palestinians, and they built the wall INSIDE Palestinian territory and right through their cities... it is not a way to look for peace, it is a way to bring Palestinians into a cage and frustrate them.

If Israel wants peace it has it, in a year Israel can get peace with Palestinians. Whether their Jewish extremists will then take on terrorist attacks inside Israel is another issue.

Edit: but you are correct, most Israelis do want what you jsut said, and they want to act to achieve peace... it's the extremists and their government that doesn't get it.

[Apollo 0]

Quote[/b] ]And I side with Israelis who just wants to be left alone and not have to worry about their loved ones being killed by a suicide bomber.

But it's also Israel's colonization policy that over decade's has displaced so many people from their own towns and chased them into refugee camps where they live in poverty and surrounded by Israeli troops that often make incursions into these camps with a large infrastructual dammage as result. (asside from the toll among innocent civilians)

This is a war of infrastructure to ,it's kinda rediculous how you can see a Palestinian town one day and a day later a whole Israeli collony has been planted 500 meters from it ,pre-fab buildings brought there on trucks complete with fortifications for the settlers to defend themselfs.One day a refugee camp ,next day a Israeli checkpoint.Yes i might be exagurating ,but if you check the evolution of Israeli expansion in Palestine the last decade's then it's a steady expansion for Israel.

[Akira 0]

Related but not really related at all:

Quote[/b] ] While noting that Steven Spielberg has been trying to keep a secrecy lid on his next movie for DreamWorks, today's (Friday) Wall Street Journal reports that information about the film, which, it said, is expected to be his most important since Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan, has begun leaking out. According to the newspaper, the film is likely to be titled Vengeance and will star Eric Bana (Hulk, Troy) as an agent for Israel's secret service, the Mossad, hunting down the Palestinian terrorists who murdered 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972. Marvin Levy, Spielberg's publicist, denied that security on the set of the movie was the primary reason why the studio was refusing to release any information about it. Security, Levy said, "is just another factor, but not the primary reason" for secrecy.

[edc 0]

If the Palestinian leadership truly wanted peace, then they would support this, as it would make it easier for Israel to stop the militant/terrorist Palestinians who Arafat claims he can't control. I don't see how assasinating terrorists gives the terrorists the right to kill innocent civilians. If the Palestinian leadership would take action against these people than Israel would not have to. Arafat doesn't give a damn about the Israelis, or the Palestinians. The only person he's trying to help is himself. Many of those settlements which are supposely illegal are being dismantled by the Israeli government. And on the topic of the Palestinians being chased from their land during the 1948 war, well maybe if they hadn't attacked Israel then they wouldn't have been. They chose to gamble and strike at Israel, and they lost. Very simple. And a lot of their land was taken by surrounding Arab countries.

PS: The way this is going this should probably be merged in the the Middle East thread.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Its also sad that the very Euro-controlled Hague has used this as an opportunity to expresss their dislike of Israel

That´s nonsense. Noone controls Haag. Law does , basic international law. And to say that they wanted to express their dislike of Israel is bull. Absolutely bull.

Quote[/b] ]and their support for Palestinian militants and terrorists

Heh ?

[denoir 0]

And I side with Israelis who just wants to be left alone and not have to worry about their loved ones being killed by a suicide bomber.

Ok, but why not build it in their own back yard? What they are doing is like Mexico annexing a part of Texas. If they want to buld a wall, it's sad - but fine, it's their right. But they should build it on their own territory.