Text of Hamas / Islamic Jihad Cease Fire Conditions

The whole point of US administrations is to create the illusion of a peace process so Israel can continue its illegal expansion of their illegitimate state.

I don't really see anything outrageous about those demands.

Israel is currently holding around 10,000 political prisoners in a concentration camp in the Negev desert. They hold men, women and children without charges or on trumped up charges. Palestinians have every right to demand their release. Not only that, this should be an issue for activists in this country because once again we are paying for these concentration camps for Palestinians.

I don't know about the rest of you out there with a working brain, but have you noticed, as I have, that with respect to the so-called road map, just as all of them before it, the big spin these days is there will be peace if the Palestinians stop attacking Israel.

Now why is it, I wonder, that we never hear there will be peace when the IDF takes its murderous presence ouf out Palestinian towns and villages? When they will stop killing civilians, so-called militants, demolishing homes, destroying farms, re-routing water, etc?

Very curious, isn't it?

That the mainstream media chooses to present this Occupation from Israel's perspective exclusively is highly illuminating...

"the big spin these days is there will be peace if the Palestinians stop attacking Israel. "

Wow. You're right. There will be peace while the Palestinians continue to attack Israel. You're so fucking brilliant it's a wonder you're not at the negotiating table with Arafat. You could help him develop his plans to pray with Saddam Hussein in Jerusalem with his million martyrs exploding around them.

Can't fault your enthusiasm, though. I'd like to see a picture of you burning an Ameri-Jewish flag while screaming your muslim headscarf off, ala Rachel Corrie.

It certainly won't fly over our heads as quickly as an Israeli missile headed for a busy Gaza street.

Very telling

Why does Hamas and Fatah exist anyway?
Because the Palestinian do not have a superior army like that of the Israelis.
They need something for defense..
Defense from what you might ask????
If you care at all about this terrible situation take the time to read the following:
Click Here > http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=329333&group=webcast
Preview:
The Separation Wall - A Report from Yedioth Ahronot (english)
Michael McGehee 9:31am Sat Jun 28 '03 (Modified on 1:56am Sun Jun 29 '03)
article#329333
""See, not all Jews are bad! This was taken from the Yesh Gvul website, a group of brave jewish soldiers who refuse to serve in the "occupied territories.”"
"“The Separation Wall - A Report from Yedioth Ahronot”"
“”On the face of it, the logic hasn't changed: this fence is meant purely to prevent suicide bombers from infiltrating, not to set the country's borders. In practice, the fence's course has been changed over and over, each time biting off more of the West Bank. The settlers, who feared that the fence would be made on the Green Line and leave them outside the camp, can be pleased. Judging by the work already done and the Defense Ministry's maps, for a long time now the fence has not been along the Green Line but is a system of fences that will imprison hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in barbed wire-enclosed enclaves. The first stage of the fence already threatens to make extinct the livelihood of tens of thousands of Palestinians, after the fence swallowed up their land.””
To make this hideous fence worthless,
we must set the borders to the Palestinian State to pre 1967.
For Details:
Click Here > http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/06/1618616.php

Additionally, Fatah was created _before_ Israel occupied the West Bank, and with the explicit chartered mission to destroy Israel. To call what they're doing "defense" is to romanticize them naively.

@%<

...actually the earliest (mid-30s) were the work of zionist terrorists...

and Hamas - a split off of Islamic Brotherhood was created by Ariel Sharon and Shin Bet as a counter to the PLO.

Nor is dropping bombs on apartment buildings in the middle of the night or sending missilles on to a crowded street a defense.

I will refer to one incident due to time constraints.

The bomb dropped on the apartment building in the middle of the night (in July 02) killing Hamas leader Salah Shehadeh, fourteen others, including nine children.

You may call that "collateral damage", (a despicable phrase used to minimize the horrific slaughter of civilians) but it is murder and could have been prevented.

Any other so-called "democratic" country would have arrested Shedaheh and brought him to trial so that his guilt or innocence could be determined. But that is not the Israeli way.

The true meaning of the word "honest" is diminished when it's used to propagate comments such as yours.

There are plenty of incidents in which Israeli soldiers kill Palestinian civilians intentionally.

Even international peace activists aren't immune. How do you explain Bryan Avery being shot in the face by an Israeli soldier, or Tom Hurndall being shot in the back of the head by an Israeli sniper, or Caihome Butterly shot in the leg, Rachel Corrie crushed by a bulldozer, Ian Hook (UN worker) shot in the back and killed. And these aren't even Palestinians.

Now if Israelis are so bold as to kill internationals with such impunity and immunity to prosecution, imagine how little consideration they give to murdering Palestinian civilians in cold blood. They do this practically daily and the main difference between this and suicide bombings (other than the fact that one happens once a blue moon and the other is a daily occurrence) is that the media focusses on Israel's victims and almost completely ignores Palestinian victims of Israeli terror. Not only that, but they keep on repeating Israeli victims for days on end, so much so that anyone who keeps up with this stuff knows just how propandistic such coverage really is.

" Any other so-called "democratic" country would have arrested Shedaheh and brought him to trial so that his guilt or innocence could be determined. But that is not the Israeli way."

- It is hard to arrest a person in a hostile country. Collateral damage figures go through the roof. For example the US did not "arrest" sadam.
I am not trying to justify that particular bomb but just note that the solutions are not easy.

"Any other so-called "democratic" country would have arrested Shedaheh and brought him to trial so that his guilt or innocence could be determined. But that is not the Israeli way. "

So let me get this straight. You think a group of Jewish policemen could simply walk into Gaza and arrest this man, anytime they wanted?

You may not want to admit this, but dropping a bomb from altitude was the only sure way to take this asshole out. Everybody involved knows this.

Still think you're not misguided in any way?

The Legal Right of Israel's Strike on Salah Shehade

By Morton Klein, National President of the Zionist Organization of America,
and Robert Jancu, J.D. Harvard '99, Z.O.A. Associate Executive Director
A single Israeli missile successfully aimed at Hamas terror-monger Salah Shehade on July 22, 2002 also killed 15 Palestinian civilians. For these collateral deaths, Israel has come under withering international criticism, including claims that the action was a crime under international laws protecting civilians in occupied land.

Such legal claims are inaccurate. As part of the Oslo Accords, Israel withdrew from Gaza City, where the strike on Shehade occurred. Although Israel has reoccupied several towns in Judea and Samaria as a result of the terror wave launched by the Palestinian Authority in September, 2000, Israel has not reoccupied Gaza City. The test under international law for whether land is occupied is "effective control." Despite occasional strikes against terror bases in and around Gaza City, Israel exercises no effective control there. As a result, the laws of war apply to Gaza City, rather than the laws of occupation.

Under these laws, Israel is not responsible for the safety of enemy civilians. While at war, an army must only refrain from harming the enemy's civilians to the extent that military necessity permits. Specifically, the Hague Declarations of 1899, which are "customary" law and therefore apply to all nations whether they expressly ratify them or not, state in the Preamble that parties at war "are inspired by the desire to diminish the evils of war so far as military necessity permits."

Was Israel's strike against Shehade justified by military necessity? As the head of Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, the military wing of Hamas, Salah Shehade was directly responsible for the deaths of 200 Israelis in the previous 22 months. In addition, Israeli military intelligence reported that Shehade was planning a "super attack" on Beersheva intended to inflict over one hundred casualties.

In essence, Shehade was a ticking bomb. There is no doubt that he was a legitimate military target for the I.D.F., yet he had eluded Israel for two years. As Boaz Ganor, the Director of the Institute for Counter-Terrorism explains, tips such as the one that enabled Israel to locate Shehade on July 22 "are priceless, but have only a very short shelf-life; if they are not acted upon quickly, they are worthless."

Israel had to balance the urgency of eliminating Shehade against the prospect of excessive collateral damage. Israel's Security Service (the "Shin Bet") reported to Prime Minister Sharon that Shehade was in a two-storey building with two aides. Some sources claim that the Shin Bet also knew of the presence of Shehade's wife and daughter. The I.D.F., for its part, told Sharon that Apache-delivered missiles could not assure the destruction of the building, but that a bomb from an F-16 would collapse the targeted structure, while limiting the danger to civilians in surrounding buildings to wounds from shrapnel, shock waves, and flying glass. What the I.D.F. assessment apparently did not take into account was that the nearby structures were flimsy and makeshift, and therefore unable to withstand the stress from the bomb.

That Israel did not intend for civilian casualties in the surrounding structures is obvious. As Foreign Minister Shimon Peres notes, the attack on Shehade "was postponed on eight different occasions…and every time it was postponed because of the danger [to] civilian life." In addition, in Israel's previous 84 airborne strikes against terror leaders, only 6 such incidents caused civilian deaths. Moreover, Israel's decision in March and April 2002 to dismantle terror nests in Jenin by means of infantry rather than airstrikes, cost Israel 23 casualties. Israel has held itself to a higher standard than that of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, where the U.S. has inflicted at least 400 civilian casualties by aerial bombardment in the last two weeks alone, according to the estimate of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

Since Israel both intended to limit, and was reasonably sure that it could limit, the civilian casualties in a strike on Shehade in Gaza, Israel's action is legal under the 1899 Hague Declaration. Moreover, under the 1977 Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, attacks against the "civilian population as such" are prohibited (Art. 51, Sec. 2), but an attack "which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life [or] injury" is permissible if it is not "excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated" (Art. 51, Sec. 5(b)).

Under this test of proportionality, Israel's strike was legal: the civilian population was not targeted per se, and the expected civilian casualties (two, at most) would not be excessive as against the anticipated military benefit. It should be noted that Israel is not a signatory to the 1977 Protocol, nor is the Protocol customary international law. As a result, it does not apply to Israel, yet Israel's act is lawful even under its standard.

Moreover, the Palestinians have a duty under international law to segregate their own civilians from locations or forces that are known objects of attack. For decades, the Palestinians have wantonly breached legal protocols by placing combatants in hospitals, schools, houses of worship, ambulances, and residential quarters. They have scored propaganda victories because the media have disregarded the laws of war, which place all blame for ensuing civilian harm on the Palestinians, e.g., "The protection to which civilian hospitals are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy" (1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, Art. 19).

In the case of Shehade, the two-storey house where he met his wife and daughter was also used that day to go over operational details with two aides, according to the Palestinian informant who notified the Shin Bet of Shehade's whereabouts. Moreover, since Shehade himself was a legitimate military target, he bears responsibility for the harm that befalls those with whom he chooses to physically associate. The 1977 Protocol I to the Geneva Convention is unambiguous: "The Parties to the conflict shall…endeavor to remove the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control from the vicinity of military objectives; avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas; take the other necessary precautions to protect the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control against the dangers resulting from military operations" (Art. 58).

Indeed, the residents of Gaza City realize that the commingling of combatants among civilians poses a grave danger to innocents, and they have begun enforcing international law-and thereby protecting themselves-by keeping terrorists away from the civilian areas where they try to hide. A Palestinian journalist in Gaza City recently remarked that Palestinians "are stopping [fighters] in the middle of the street and…asking for their identification before they enter a specific residential neighborhood."

Lastly, if post-Oslo Gaza is somehow mistaken as "occupied" territory, then the1949 Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War applies. This law, too, vindicates Israel's strike against Shehade. Although an occupying army may not militarily target the occupied population, the occupying force may do battle even where civilians are present: "The presence of a protected person [i.e., a civilian under occupation] may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations." This doctrine echoes Article 51, Sec. 7 of the 1977 Protocol, which holds that "The presence…of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations." The tests, as always, are "necessity" and proportionality." Since Israel's strike against Shehade saved perhaps hundreds of Israeli civilians, which made the strike necessary, and since the intelligence assessment indicated that Palestinian civilian casualties would be minimal, which made the action proportional to the anticipated military benefit, Israel's operation against Shehade, the unintended collateral results notwithstanding, is vindicated even under the standard of law for an army of occupation.

In 1998, Great Britain announced a widely acclaimed policy that it would not permit an international tribunal to judge wartime decisions using all information available to the tribunal; instead, it insisted that international courts take account only of the data known to the commanders at the actual time of their decisions. If Sharon and the I.D.F. commanders could not reasonably expect casualties beyond Shehade's two-storey residence, then the fact of such collateral casualties is immaterial to a legal, and even a moral, assessment of the Israeli airstrike. Such adverse opinions are merely exercises in public relations.

"So let me get this straight. You think a group of Jewish policemen could simply walk into Gaza and arrest this man, anytime they wanted?"

Neither, of course, could he ask the PA to do what's supposed to be their job in the first place.

In fact, it's exactly this sort of thing that led to the breakdown of Oslo. Israel would go to the PA and say "so and so is a terrorist involved with killing Israeli civilians" and then the PA would put him under house arrest for a week or so until he came up with a sufficient bribe to be set free and plan his next bombing. Then Arafat would nod his little bobble-head about how the PA is cooperating with the Israeli police.

@%<

Isn't it typical the light justification of the murder of innocents by the zionists. The hair-splitting as to whether they control an area or not when Israel has placed in some areas checkpoints less than 100-yards apart.

Do you really think Israel's labeling of all Palestinians as terrorists or as suspect terrorists, the daily abuse, the making light of civilian death, the smirking faces of the Israeli officials announcing their "successes" has any effect on Israel's security?

Do you think that forcing a father to strip in front of his children - crawl in the mud - make noises like a pig - all this in front of his children... has any effect on Israel's security?

Do you think that the IOF's assault on a residential community at 3:00AM - where the walls are broken through (instead of using the door) - the parents beaten with rifle-buts - spat upon - personal items stolen - other items wantonly destroyed - the IOF personal defecating in the kitchen - peeing in the hallway - and all this in front of the children... has any effect on Israel's security?

Do you think that just maybe placing snipers on the roofs or in gondolas suspended from cranes targetting random pedestrians and anybody else who happens to be seen by the sniper including children and people in their houses... has any effect on Israel's security?

If life appears totally hopeless - and someone comes and offers you a possibility at hitting back... do you think that this just might have some effect on the customers at a felafel stand or pizza parlor someplace?

Now tell me again - just who is the victim?

You're not the only one to be sick of this charade. And you've only mentioned some of the horrors.

In July of 2002, after the infrastructure of the PA had been virtually wiped out, what exactly had the PA in terms of "police" to arrest anyone?

The US did not arrest Saddem?

Well, they couldn't find him, Scottie. They can't find him. When they do, or if they do, I am sure that he will be arrested, okay?

Who brought up the Jewish policemen?

Did I say that?

But surely, LAD, the big, fearsome, brave murderers of the IDF could have busted in and yanked Salah from his bed, assuming he was sleeping.

Or Israel could have pulled out two of its patsies, given them fake Canadian passports, and told them to go do the job for them. It has used that little tactic before, It's the Israeli way.

The only people who are misguided here are those who are so blind they cannot see the tanks for the missilles.

A good article from Harpers October 2001 issue by Chris Hedges. As this piece is no longer accessible through their Home-page - this direct link, I suggest you save it to disk, as there is no saying how much longer it'll be available.

http://www.harpers.org/online/gaza_diary/?pg=1

Angie, you are suggesting the IDF should have done what it did in Jenin. Do you realize that? I suggest you try to arrest someone in an area that has more assault rifles per square mile than anywhere in the world. You're no police or military expert, that's for sure.

As for the comment about PA infrastructure being destroyed, they didn't lift a finger to stop Palestinian attacks before they were touched. So don't pull out that red herring.

I just hope all of you stay in your homes and keep ranting here while Sharon and Abbas work out a real lasting peace (as per UNR242). Shalom, In'shAllah.

I wonder if "laugh at the dying" (what a name), "Uhh", "Scottie", "KL", and some of these other Zionists are actually Israelis sitting in some settlement like Kiryat Arba and being paid with our tax money in the form of US aid to Israel.

On the otherhand, they may just be homegrown JDL members.

laugh: "As for the comment about PA infrastructure being destroyed, they didn't lift a finger to stop Palestinian attacks before they were touched. So don't pull out that red herring."

That's exactly the point. After Oslo, the PA had plenty of time and plenty of funding -- including US funding -- for policing. They could have used that priceless opportunity to rid themselves of their terrorists. Instead, they set a new world record for corruption (and Arafat skimmed the funds to the tune of millions of dollars). They sat on their thumbs while the terrorist groups armed themselves and set up their beltbomb factories. Groups like Hamas very quickly figured out that, under the PA, the worst they faced was having Arafat shake his finger: "you bad, bad boys you, bombing Israeli civilians like that." Israel wouldn't have gone back into the West Bank if the PA had been doing its job. But it wasn't.

So the PA was powerless in 2002? Big deal. They didn't use the power when they had it, not for anything but to profit themselves -- and the Israeli discos and buses and seders showed the results.

Another example of a golden opportunity blown to bits by the Palestinian leadership.

@%<

Or maybe that's your usual condition.

Who mentioned Jenin? That little massacre Israel hid from the world for several days? Isn't that where the Supreme Court of Israel ordered that bodies were not to be scooped up by heavy equipment? Or was that another massacre? There's been so many one needs a constant update.

Run along, LAD. I've going out to watch the fireworks and enjoy the rest of the evening. I'll check back later, and if you've commented, I'll reply or not.

Again, you are no expert in this area. There is no police or military force in the world that could walk into Gaza and arrest Papa Hamas without killing a lot of people in the process.

Again, you are no expert in this area. There is no police or military force in the world that could walk into Tel Aviv and arrest Papa Sharon without killing a lot of people in the process.

Thank you for responding indirectly there.

Blessedly "LAD" had a post before yours or I might be waiting for your words of wisdom forever.

Jenin wasn't a "massacre." Everyone knows this except the nuts who automatically believe and exaggerate every single anti-israel accusation the arabs raise.

Is that why Israel was so desperate to keep the investigation committee (which they themselves hand-picked) out of the demolished city?

The place where Arab "eyewitnesses" reported that 500-3000 people had been methodically executed by Israeli forces.

Yet when the smoke cleared, there were only about 50 dead, the majority of them combatants, and it is estimated that many of the civilians died as a result of bombs and booby-traps scattered by Arab terrorists in an Arab civilian neighborhood.

Some Arab propaganda sources even went as far as to retroactively claim that Israel had invented the story of 500-3000 dead to discredit the Arab propagandists. Except that there is tons of news film of Arab leaders saying just this -- and an official PA report to the UN allegedly documenting these deaths.

> Israel was so desperate to keep the investigation committee (which they themselves hand-picked) out of the demolished city?

Israel hadn't hand-picked the UN committee. To the contrary, it had legitimate objections to 2 of the 3 members and Kofi Anan had renegged on an agreement to add a 4th member with a military background. Thus the delay.

Yet HRW and AI lost no time getting into Jenin and both issued reports that support what I said above.

The UN committee was disbanded because it was already known that there was no massacre to investigate.

Poor Israel! Accused of another "massacre". Tut tut tut. Now, now, folks. You know the good and mighty Israel would never cause a massacre, don't you? Why would you ever think such a thing much less say it on a public board!

it depend on what the definition of the word 'is' is.

Angie

No point going off onto the topic of sadam. and LAD answered the point on the terrorist you just cant go in and arrest him without risking the lives of even more people.

"I wonder if "laugh at the dying" (what a name), "Uhh", "Scottie", "KL", and some of these other Zionists are actually Israelis sitting in some settlement like Kiryat Arba and being paid with our tax money in the form of US aid to Israel."

- I am not anyway. But I guess you WISH it was true

"Poor Israel! Accused of another "massacre". Tut tut tut."

If you are faced by false accusations of murder you might see it differently. No need to show distain for the truth.

A few points:

1) it's but to laugh that you're accusing me of "going off the topic". Who mentioned Saddam? Scroll up the damn thread and read it. YOU brought him up. "The US never arrested Saddam". I merely responded to YOUR comment.

2) "I wonder if Laugh at the Dying" (etc. etc.)"
Why are you putting that in a note addressed to me? I didn't say it. Again go read it. Quite frankly I never gave a thought to where you were working or for whom or why. I still don't.

3) I guess it depends on your understanding of truth here, Scottie. Isreal has been accused of murder so often in the past 55 years that a "little" massacre like Jenin shouldn't be a problem. All the loopholes have been covered, all the propaganda machines are up and running, and guess what? There's people like you to pat it on the head, figuratively speaking, and tell it what a marvellous little state it is. Yes, truth does indeed walk on one leg (sorry, Nietzsche).

And you wonder why I enjoyed "Concerned Zionist"? Wonder no more.

Thanks. I've copied it to disk, and I'lll read it tomorrow. I can't keep my eyes open right now. I'll let you know what I think then.

OK If you like.....
They knew where Sadam was quite a few times before the war when they sent the troups in to look for him is exactly when he became hard to find.
In a sense the war WAS an example of police going in to retrieve someone.

"3) I guess it depends on your understanding of truth here, Scottie. Isreal has been accused of murder so often in the past 55 years that a "little" massacre like Jenin shouldn't be a problem. "

It is always a Problem. Even if you think Israel had commited a "murder" so to speak that is no excuse for convicting it of a different murder

"All the loopholes have been covered, all the propaganda machines are up and running, and guess what? "

- ever thought you might be the person who is sucked in by the propoganda machine? might not the discrediting of the authors that you read and the events that you believed happen slowly start to make you think that your sources might be the real propoganda?

"There's people like you to pat it on the head, figuratively speaking, and tell it what a marvellous little state it is. "

- Did I ever say that? go tell it to the man in your head.

"And you wonder why I enjoyed "Concerned Zionist"? Wonder no more."

-No I know why you enjoyed concerned zionist. I have never had any difficulty understanding you.

Now, my friend, don't you agree that's a pretty outlandish headnote? It would be a pretty hostile board here if everyone began his or her commentary with a nasty remark, wouldn't it?

I doubt if debate coaches suggest one attack the individual as opposed to the issues. I've not yet seen, or been involved with, or heard of any debate wherein one party starts off on the premise that he or she is infallible. I thought those kinds of gimmicks went out with kindergarten. Ah, but obviously I'm wrong.

In the meantime, Scottie, I can only assume (at the risk of putting words in your mouth. that you realized your error in attributing the comments in the post from "Wondering" as being mine.

Can't wait to get on my case, can you, pal?

We only have the word of Israel that Salah was a "terrorist", and that's not good enough for me, 'Grow up".

Unless, of course, you have the time and energy to come on this board with reams of documentation from unabiased sources (love that word!) telling me his deeds or misdeeds from childhood onwards?

> I guess it depends on your understanding of truth here, Scottie. Isreal has been accused of murder so often in the past 55 years that a "little" massacre like Jenin shouldn't be a problem.

Accusations are not truth. Repeated false accusations (such as there having been a massacre in Jenin) only prove that someone is attempting a "big lie".

Perhaps two or three people here should regularly accuse Angie of being a racist. Then, in a month or two, we could reference all these accusations and argue that there must be some truth to it....

Again, AI, HRW and the UN concluded there was no massacre. Claims by "eyewitnesses" of 500-3000 people having been executed were a bald faced lie.

> the demolished city

Another false accusation. Only an area about the size of a football field was demolished, and most of that was due to bombs (some as large as 250 pounds) set off by terrorists in an attempt to kill soldiers.

http://www.time.com/time/2002/jenin/story.html
http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/051902/opi_20020519005.shtml
http://www.joplinglobe.com/archives/2002/020509/oped/story5.html

Aerial Photos:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0ll60

angie is a diehard pro-palestinian supporter, to the point where she believes and spreads every anti-israel statement, and either defends or diminishes every anti-palestinian thing.

Basically, she's on the side of islamic extremists who want to wipe israel out and murder every jew, AND she's on the side of regular innocent palestinians, and she's against every israeli jew other than the ones who don't like israel.

she's shit.

Haven't seen the Jews committing massacres on the scale of Rwanda.

Haven't seen Jews starving people like the USSR did in the Ukraine.

Haven't seen Jews enslaving people like the Arabs do in Zimbabwe...

Haven't seen Jews decapitating people, like they do in Saudi for 'crimes against the state' or 'crimes against Islam'.

And I, for one, would rather live in a Jewish controlled state than an Islamic state under Sharia.

(You know, for a bunch of evil hemonistic bastards, they don't do a real good job on the evil part. Makes me wonder about the rest of their rep, myself.)

""Are you denying that Salah was a member of Hamas"?

Cute, isn't it? If it weren't so hypocritial.

Strange how all of you who cling to your belief that dear little Israel is so pure and good always accuse the other party of "denying" something or other?

Point me to anything I have written on this board wherein I stated that Salah was not a member of Hamas. Until then I have nothing further to say to you.

You're amazingly condescending and repulsive.

You make such absurd characterizations that people do sometimes attribute views to you that you have not stated, it's true. Congrats.

Hah, look at angie getting angry now, lashing out accusing everyone of protecting their "poor little israel." Her hate makes her ugly.

You browse around, you can find plenty of info on demonstrations by Palestininans advocating the destruction of Israel.

But you don't see much about demonstrations in Israel advocating the destruction of the Palestinians.

Like I said - for evil hegemonistic bastards, they're doing a lousy job. Can't even do massacres right, just look at Jenin.

Makes me wonder what else in their press image is just plain overblown also.

"Hey, Scottie, you forgot to answer item (2) or maybe you can't"

Why is it important? it was in quotes. if you didnt say it its not directed at you Ignore it and go on. Or say it wasnt yours if u want. It is just the formationg of my post that is the problem not my understanding of who posted it.

"Now, my friend, don't you agree that's a pretty outlandish headnote?... I doubt if debate coaches suggest one attack the individual as opposed to the issues. "

Your going to need to start quoting since it is getting harder to tell exactly what you are offended by as you get more exasperated.

Gather round, children. Angie is going to respond to a few comments made by KL re my post of yesterday above.

1) "Angie proves she is as much of a joker as JA".
To comment on such ignorance is but to give it creedence. Ignore it.

2) Anyone who wants to can read 242. My point is simple. The word "unilateral", itself, is not used. You used it in your interpretation of same.

Likewise, the bit about "within a negotiated peace agreement", and, as well, "Egypt, Jordan". They were not directly mentioned. You mentioned them. The Resolution said "neigbouring states". I didn't think this could be an issue, but I guess it is. Or I should say "was". It's not an issue here any longer.

3) re the word "elsewhere". You used that. Again, it is a small point, but it was not used in the Resolution. And what is so improbable about "resettlement" and "return" being used simultaneously here? Is it not possible for the refugees to be "resettled" from whence they came?

4) "It is not at all practicable during a state of war". Surely you are not saying that there's been a "state of war" since 1948?

5) "It is not an occupation"?

Well, go tell that to Ariel Sharon. He mentioned the "O" word to the anger of the fanatics in both the Likud and friinge parties. Or did you not witness that little incident?

6) "This is why other Articles (the ones you forgot to mention and didn't bother quoting) call for making peace".

What didn't I quote? What was I supposed to quote? Hell, had I known it was going to an exam, I'd have dug out a a copy of every UN resolution in my file there, together with all the additional data, and hired someone to retype them all here for your benefit. Although I doubt if the Editors would appreciate taking up their space!

Do you realize how totally stupid you sounded? No, of course, you don't.. In your new role as God, only the rest of us out there in Board Land are ignorant, liars, etc.

Meanwhile, point out to me what I was supposed to state, asssuming, of course, it wasn't the entire lot.

7) "It was an ignorant comment".
This was uttered in response to my "obviously ignored" comment re the refugee issue. Again, 55 years later, where are they? Are you telling me the 7-800,000 refugees are now living in Israel?

Note: They would not be in refugee camps, would they, were they not driven from their homes, or is that just another part of history that has been rewritten whilst I blinked?

8) Who are you saying started "the war"? Are you asking me to believe that four hours after becoming "a State" Israel didn't attack Syria?

That Gwynne Dyer, who devoted Part 3 of his "War" series to Israel, was "lying" to use your favourite word? That he reported from there, interviewed soldiers and civilians alike? I don't remember hearing any Israelis yelling and screaming about his documentary,

9) "Israel was under no obligation to abide by any of these articles. The Arab governments had rejected 194".

Explain, if you would, .what you mean. That Israel is under no obligation to abide by any and all resolutions issued by the UN since it became a state? Who says so? Give names, "sources" to use another of your fovourite words. Does the rest of the universe know about this?

Or are you referring only to 194? Specify.

Incidentally, the handful of Resolutions I quoted originially were taken from the Jews Against the Occupation articles which I had been reading when the question of "resolutions" came up on this thread. Thus, I thought it might be of interest to note them. I did attempt to add the link, but unfortunately for whatever reason it didn't work on this board.

However, if anyone is interested enough to check it out, you'll find it. If not, it hardly matters.

Thank you, Scottie.

It's unfortunate that not only did Angie respond in the wrong thread, she introduced a new numbering scheme. I'll stick to the original, because that will highlight the points to which Angie did NOT respond:

Angie> 242a) where does it say "it does not call for a unilateral Israeali withdrawal'"?

KL> Where does UNSCR 242 call for unilateral Israeli withdrawal? To the contrary, it states:

|| the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the MIddle East which would include the application of BOTH the following principles:

KL> One being an Israeli withdrawal, another being a comprehensive peace settlement. One is dependent on the other. There is no call for an Israeli withdrawal, and, to the contrary, UNSCR 242 legitimizes the Israeli administration of the territories (i.e. it is not an illegal "occupation", nor in fact, as per Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Conventions, an "occupation").

A> Anyone who wants to can read 242. My point is simple. The word "unilateral", itself, is not used. You used it in your interpretation of same.

Except that I said that it does NOT call for a "unilateral" Israeli withdrawal. You now seem to agree with this assessment. Since it doesn't call for any Israeli action independent of Arab action, it cannot be said that Israel is in "violation" of this resolution. QED.


A> 242b) where does it say "it called for a partial Israeli withdrawal in the framework of a negotiated peace agreement"?

KL> Where does it say that a full Israeli withdrawal is required? Quite to the contrary, it states:

|| withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict

KL> Those familiar with the history of this resolution would be aware that the Arab states wanted to add the word "the" before "territories", making it read "the territories", meaning all territories. This amendment failed; there was no support for it in the Security Council. To mis-read the Resolution as if it had said that is ignorant.

A> [No response]


A> 242c) where does it say "it expected Gaza to be given to Egypt and the West Bank to Jordan (not to a new Palestinian Arab State"?

KL> Where does it say anything about the creation of a new Arab state? It doesn't. To the contrary, 1B states:

|| political independence of every state in the area

KL> This refers to states that exist, not to states that didn't and never existed.

KL> There was no call on Egypt to rescind its claim to Gaza (or Jordan to its "West Bank"). Indeed, it would be more than 20 years before that would happen.

> "Egypt, Jordan". They were not directly mentioned. You mentioned them. The Resolution said "neigbouring states".

The states "neighboring" to Israel are Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt. There is no mention of the non-existing "Palestine". At the time UNSCR 242 was written (and for another 20+ years), Jordan maintained claims to its "West Bank", which it had annexed, and Egypt to Gaza. Since there was no call on these states to rescind these claims, and since there was no call to establish a new state, it follows that if Israel were to withdraw from "occupied" territories they would revert to their previous owners: Jordan & Egypt.

A> 242d) "Israel accepted UNSCR 242". When?

KL> Israel made a joint declaration with President Johnson in which it accepted UNSCR 242 a few months after it was issued. Further proof can be found in the Camp David Accords.

A> [nada]


A> 242e) "The Arab League rejected UNSCR 242". When?

KL> The Arab League, meeting in Khartoum, re-issued its infamous "3 NOs". Egypt was expelled from the Arab League for accepting UNSCR 242 at Camp David and making peace with Israel.

A> [silence]


A> 194a) where does the above state the word "elsewhere"?

KL> So you think that "return" and "resettlement" mean the same thing?

A> re the word "elsewhere". You used that. Again, it is a small point, but it was not used in the Resolution. And what is so improbable about "resettlement" and "return" being used simultaneously here? Is it not possible for the refugees to be "resettled" from whence they came?

Nice avoidance of my question. Are you a native speaker of English? Try again:

So you think that "return" and "resettlement" mean the same thing?


A> 194b) "at the earliest practicable time". On whose part? I didn't draft the Resolution nor did you. It's what it says.

KL> Yes, and it's not at all practicable during a state of war. This is why other articles (the ones you forgot to mention and didn't bother quoting) call for making peace.

A> Surely you are not saying that there's been a "state of war" since 1948?

Surely there has never been peace. Legally, since Iraq refused to even sign the 1949 Armistice agreements, there has formally been a state of war. 194 spoke of "return" for some refugees as part of a peace plan.

Once again you embrace the bath water while dumping the baby.


A> 194c) Where are the refugees? Come on, tell us. Fifty-five (55) years later, and the refugee camps are still there, refugees are still living

KL> These camps were established not by Israel but by Arab governments. An Arab who had been living in Mandate Palestine for a minimum of a mere 2 years qualified as an "Arab refugee" (initially UNRPR proposed a 10 year period by the Arab League vehemently objected so that scores of thousands more will qualify for international assistance).

KL> There were even camps set up within the area designated to be the Arab state.

KL> Why are these refugees and their descendants still living in camps? Because Arab governents deny them the basic rights guaranteed to all other refugee populations. The right to education, work, relocation, resettlement and citizenship in the host country.

KL> In other words, Arab governments have repressed the Arab refugees for 55 years solely to maintain them as pawns in their war to destroy Israel.

Angie> They would not be in refugee camps, would they, were they not driven from their homes.

The vast majority were not driven out but chose to flee. Of course, if that's your logic, then extend it one step further back: there would have been no refugees had the Arabs accepted peaceful compromise instead of violently rejecting UNGAR 181 and opting for war.

A> I was pondering the compensation aspect of it

KL> Then clearly you realize that those responsible for compensating are those who were responsible for the war. Those who started the war. Those who chose war over peaceful compromise: the Arab governments.

A> Who are you saying started "the war"? Are you asking me to believe that four hours after becoming "a State" Israel didn't attack Syria?

Good. If you think that Israel declared war on Syria out-of-the-blue on May 15th, then how do you explain that soldiers from Syria began infiltrating into the region in January?! Quoting Glub Pasha, the commander of the Arab Legion:

|| Early in January, the first detachments of the Arab Liberation Army began to infiltrate into Palestine from Syria.

The war really began in early December, with Arab forces rejecting UNGAR 181 and attacking Jewish communities. As Trygve Lie, the UN Secretary General wrote:

|| From the first week of December 1947, disorder in Palestine had begun to mount. The Arabs repeatedly had asserted that they would resist partition by force. They seemed to be determined to drive that point home by assaults upon the Jewish community of Palestine.

And as we've seen elsewhere, Arab officials freely admitted what Arabs and their apologists today attempt to deny and obfuscate. Here are the words of Jamal Husseini to the UN:

|| The representative of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday that they were not the attackers, that the Arabs had begun the fighting. We did not deny this. We told the whole world we were going to fight.


A> 194d) Which of the 15 items in 194 did Israel abide by?

KL> Israel was under no obligation to abide by any of these articles. The Arab governments had rejected 194.

A> Explain, if you would, .what you mean. That Israel is under no obligation to abide by any and all resolutions issued by the UN since it became a state? ...Or are you referring only to 194? Specify.

Either you were really tired or you have a habit of misparsing text or taking it out of context. My statement was perfectly clear.


A> 194e) Which ones did the Arabs not abide by?

KL> They rejected the entire package because it required making peace with Israel

A> [Sounds of Silence]

In conclusion, again:

Drop these charades of trying to make Israel abide with selective clauses of UN resolutions which were violated and made moot by Arab rejectionism.

Israel cannot be said to be in "violation" of a resolution that was DOA due to Arab rejectionism.

KL, what do you do when your shift is over>>>>

Rewriting mid east history, perhaps.

Thanks. I've just finished reading " A Gaza Diary" by Chris Hedges, and I didn't stop until I finished same.

The outburst at the bottom of page 1 was quite something, wasn't it, followed by the response "He is a great man, a poet", and the assine "he is a man of peace". I somehow doubt that Yosef Samir even knows the meaning "peace".

And one wonders where GWBush comes up with such a label for the war criminal, Ariel Sharon. We are still laughing about that one!

I am forever horrified, totally and completely horrified, that any humankind can be treated in this fashion. It's incomphrensible. A proud and vibrant people reduced to prisoners in an outdoor concentration camp stuggling to make it through the day, hoping to make it through the night.

The world has an awful lot to answer for. Blessedly, there is a higher power.

Thanks, again, sir, for sharing this with me. Sometimes one gets overwhelmed with information, although I always weed out the propaganda. It is quite easy to distinguish, isn't it?

http://web.archive.org/web/20010719153707/http://www.light1998.com/Rothschilds-Book/Rothschilds-FAMILY-TREE.htm

http://www.thewatcherfiles.com/control.htm

http://www.themarsrecords.com/Preface/preface.html

The easiet way to cause inhuman suffering is to 'dehumanize' the target, this has been done all too often in our (human) history, this is also one of the easiest paths to racism.

One thing too often overlooked is there is only one race, and that is the human race.

It would make life a lot easier if we were able to distinguish propaganda, dis/mis-information, or outright lies. However as evidenced by the belief of many Americans that Iraqis were involved in 9/11, and the other lies of recent history, it apparently isn't that easy.

The problem with lies is that to retain the momentum more lies are required, and the more lies, the greater the probability of self-contradiction...

A> I've just finished reading " A Gaza Diary" by Chris Hedges

A> I somehow doubt that Yosef Samir even knows the meaning "peace".

You do realize that Samir is an Israeli ARAB, not a Jew? Yes, Hedges doesn't really explain that very well, does he?

Hedges also reports "seeing" Israeli soldiers hunting Arab children with a silenced M16. The problem is that there is no such weapon. What Hedges saw was an M16 with a muzzle. From that he fabricated his story. The muzzle is for rubber bullets, and don't have the range Hedges describes and it is doubtful that the damage he depicts could be caused even if fired at point blank range. Nor do these muzzles silence the weapon.

Had Hedges really SEEN what he claims, he would have HEARD that his assumptions were wrong.

So with this new lie out of the way, do you care to return to our discussion of UNGAR 194 and UNSCR 242 above?

" Thanks, again, sir, for sharing this with me. Sometimes one gets overwhelmed with information, although I always weed out the propaganda. It is quite easy to distinguish, isn't it? "

It seems easy until you realize you are swallowing some of it.
frankly this
"reduced to prisoners in an outdoor concentration camp stuggling to make it through the day, hoping to make it through the night."
smells like propoganda.

"The problem with lies is that to retain the momentum more lies are required, and the more lies, the greater the probability of self-contradiction... "

which explains why all the 9-11 conspiricies etc are not possible.

I just finished responding to your post on another thread, and here you are again. What is this? Oh, well!. Now I have to anticipate another one of your infamous notes. Why me, Oh, Lord, she prayed, gazing heavenward. Why me?

INCIDENTALLY, YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE TITLE OF MY WEE SPIEL??? Couldn' t resist that! It's awfully condescending, don't you think? You're smart enough to try something different, KL Go on, be nice! Just once? For anyone? For all of us?? Yes? No? Anyway, take it under advisement!

Enough frivolity!

Chris Hedges did say good ole Yosef was a member of the Israeli Arab press. Had I known I was expected to type all of page one here, I would have. I'm nothing if not accommodating when I know what it is I'm supposed to be accommodating..

Actually, I have to smile here. Well, give vent to a grin. Why? Because I had planned on stating to "Sick of Lies" above that immediately Chris Hedges would be branded as a liar. Wasn't wrong, was I?

Incidentally, I hardly care if Yosef is a Jew or an Arab or a person without a country. My problem is not with the ordinary citizen. It's with Governments, so called leaders, who continue to wage their large or small battles for their own agenda.

And, no, no, no, KL!! If you want to discuss UN resolution 242 or any other, start a thread about UN resolutions. Maybe somebody out there will fall for it.

Now I'd better go over to the thread I just left and see what great comments thou hast for me. I won't be replying, however. This could go on forever, and I have more important things to do, and, I'm sure, you likewise. I want to drop a note to Sick of Lies before I depart for the night.

.

I agree completely. On an on goes the violence, the horrors, and what is totally scary is we don't see or hear about half of it.

I don't know if you've read Gwynne Dyer's recent book, "Ignorant Armies Sliding Into War In Iraq?" It's an excellent, cohesive, and intelligent look at the events leading up to the attack on Iraq.

What I love about Dyer is his unsurpassed ability to put events in their proper perspective. I'm sure you would totally enjoy it. I started reading it a few weeks ago, and took it everywhere with me, and hated to be interrupted. I'm not just a fan of his, I am a student of his work because when all else around me is making no sense at all, his works always soothes, reassures, and comforts.

Isn't that what a good writer does?

(PS: Maybe you saw his documentary "War"?)

It is not in Zionisms' interest not to be attacked anymore.

It gets away with expanding its land mass when it fears a doomsday scenario from the Palestinians.

It will lose twenty two percent of what it declares to be its sovereign teritroy if it is no longer threatened by them
and it will lose its vital interest in the west bank and gaza (oil, h20, agriculture land) ext...

What would you call lt?

I happen to believe Chris Hedges, not only him, but numerous people reporting from the Middle East, and Robert Fisk is but one of them.

There's Justin Huggler of the Independent as well, and speaking of Justin, he was one fo the first on the scene of the Jenin "not a massacre" last spring and produced some graphic details.

Of course, he had to wait as did all the media for several days before he could enter the area. I wonder why?

Ahh you guys are so cynical you think that the israelis constantly try to maintain a state of war by causing suicide bombings of their own people. and Angie

"And, no, no, no, KL!! If you want to discuss UN resolution 242 or any other, start a thread about UN resolutions. Maybe somebody out there will fall for it."

And KL systematically disproves the so called facts justifying peoples hatred of israel and Angie sees it as a trick or a trap.

You know I was going to comment on your post above. Then I thought, no, Angie, don't bother.

That's it, then.

A> I hardly care if Yosef is a Jew or an Arab or a person without a country. My problem is not with the ordinary citizen. It's with Governments, so called leaders

I see. Then why did you choose to quote the section about Yosef?

Can you explain why Hedges provides an Arab Israeli as an example of Jewish hatred of Arabs?!

KL> Had Hedges really SEEN what he claims, he would have HEARD that his assumptions were wrong.

A> Chris Hedges would be branded as a liar.

Tell you what, if you can show us that there exist silenced M16s as Hedges described, then I'll retract my comments.

Given that no such weapon exists, how can you explain Hedges' "eyewitness" account of seeing (but not hearing) Israeli soldiers using these non-silenced M16s fitted with rubber bullet cannisters ("muzzles")?

A> If you want to discuss UN resolution 242 or any other, start a thread about UN resolutions.

In other words, you can't respond to the facts presented in my last post about UN resolutions (a topic I didn't raise but responded to).

I'd be delighted to start a thread that is topic-oriented rather than accusation-oriented (Israel did evil XXX), but I suspect the editors will censor any such threads. I'll put it to the test.

a) I didn't bring up the issue of UN resolutions either;

b) stop putting words in my mouth. At the risk of incurring the wrath of friend, Scottie, who does it all the time, I am afraid I cannot tell you whether Chris Hedges saw ANY weapons. I wasn't there. Nor were you for that matter. Or were you?

However, I have no reason to disbelieve the lad. Unless offered proof to the contrary, I'll accept what he says.

I suppose we could send out some weapons experts to investigate.

However, in all seriousness, KL, why do you not believe him? Or are you saying he wasn't in Gaza at all? What's wrong with him?

I haven''t seen a member of the IDF yet (on news broadcasts) unless he's armed to the teeth and beyond. But, alas, not being a weapons expert, I'm at a loss to know one way or the other.

Surely everyone in the damn world is not lying, KL. This is really becoming tiresome.

Maybe I shouldn't have suggested you read dear Uri. If you come on this board calling him a liar, I'm going to be VERY upset.

As for ole Yosef I mentioned him because I was stopped in my tracks at how outrageous he was in the context of being referred to by one of his buddies as "a man of peace".

I felt the same way when Bush said Ariel Sharon was "a man of peace". The phrase loses is meaning both cases.

In any event unless you're living with your head in the sand we've all heard that, and much worse, directed at the Palestinian peoples. And likewise the Israeli peoples. And no doubt we'll hear it into eternity.

> I didn't bring up the issue of UN resolutions either

If true (do a browswer Find on this page for "resolution"), you engaged the argument. When your numerous errors were shown, you punted.


> I cannot tell you whether Chris Hedges saw ANY weapons.

He states as much in his article, which you claimed you had read.

> in all seriousness, KL, why do you not believe him? Or are you saying he wasn't in Gaza at all? What's wrong with him?

Hedges invented a weapon (silenced M16) that does not exist. He SAW soldiers carrying M16s equpped with "muzzles". He thought they were silencers. He fabricated a story that Israeli soldiers would hunt Arab children with these weapons, even describing the awful damage (guts spilled out).

But there is NO SUCH WEAPON. The "muzzles" were rubber bullet canisters. They do not silence the weapon. Had Hedges really SEEN these weapons fired, he would have HEARD them and known that they were not silenced.

Also, rubber bullets even at point-blank range are unlikely to cause the damage he cited, let alone at the extreme range he describes.

Chris said he saw them. I read that he said he saw them. You say he's lying, that none exists.

That he's lying? Why? Israel has an up to the minute arsenal of weaponry, surely? Or is that lies too? Maybe it's some new fangled weapon the better to shoot a Palestinian child with. How do I know? And unless you were there, how do you know?

Are you a weapons expert? Is this a multiple choice question? I have no reason to disbelieve Chris Hedges. And none to believe you.

And you've taken up as much of my time as I intend you to. I do have another life outside this board, and I can only assume you do likewise.

"stop putting words in my mouth. At the risk of incurring the wrath of friend, Scottie, who does it all the time, I am afraid I cannot tell you whether Chris Hedges saw ANY weapons."

-What exactly is it that you are accusing me of doing?

"However, I have no reason to disbelieve the lad. Unless offered proof to the contrary, I'll accept what he says."

- On this issue some people are lieing some are mistaken and some are telling the truth. The question is how do we tell who its into what catagory.

"I haven''t seen a member of the IDF yet (on news broadcasts) unless he's armed to the teeth and beyond. But, alas, not being a weapons expert, I'm at a loss to know one way or the other."

- have you seen those injusry statistics? about palistinians that were injured by bullets and rubber bullets? Apparently there are alot of rubber bullets being used by the israelis.. I wonder how many rubber bullets the palistinians are using.

"Surely everyone in the damn world is not lying, KL. This is really becoming tiresome."

- but that is the premise on which the leftist pro palistinaian arguments around here are based.

Then in the next paragraph you proceed to start painting people as liers yourself .. oh the irony.

"In any event unless you're living with your head in the sand we've all heard that, and much worse, directed at the Palestinian peoples. And likewise the Israeli peoples. And no doubt we'll hear it into eternity. "

Welcome back to reality

scott is correct,
listen to his points.
he is not talking shit.
he is knowledgable on them arabs...

Angie, Hedges did see "muzzled" M16s, but that's all he saw. He jumped to the conclusion that they were "silenced", and then fabricated false stories based on this fantasy. But the "muzzles" were nothing more than standard issue rubber bullet canisters.

In fact, rereading through his account it becomes clear that he never actually saw Israeli troops shoot the children. Here's what he writes:

|| They [children] descend out of sight behind a sandbank in front of me. There are no sounds of gunfire. The soldiers shoot with silencers. The bullets from the M-16 rifles tumble end over end through the children's slight bodies. Later, in the hospital, I will see the destruction: the stomachs ripped out, the gaping holes in limbs and torsos.

Sounds like Hedges was set-up. Told of the allegedly silenced M16s, he was shown children in the dunes who later turned up dead, allegedly shot by silenced weapons. But the weapons the Israeli soldiers had were not silenced and could not have caused such damage!

Is this another instance, like the Mohammed Al-Dura murder, where Arab children were killed by Arab gunmen in an effort to frame and demonize Israel?

Consider the following claim:

|| "When we tell the boys not to go to the dunes they taunt us as collaborators," [Palestinian police] Lt. Ayman Ghanm says.

Given that these boys, 10-11 years old, would allegedly be killed in the dunes, why would they even want to venture there? Where were their parents? And how can it be that such young children can intimidate a police lieutenant into letting them senselessly lose their lives? It doesn't add up.

I can't say if willingly or not, but Hedges was had.

KL presents typical zionazi hair splitting in his arguments, and illustrates perfectly why Israel is not in actual complience of any UN Resolution.

Example:

The argument on what Chris Hedges really saw. The actual distance is not given, however let us assume 25-yards. At 25-yards it is possible to discern the basic outline of an 'M16-similiar' weapon, however without aid (i.e. Field-Glasses) it is nearly impossible to discern whether it is in fact an M16 or a Stoner SR-25. Along with the fact that this point is in fact unimportant, KL appears to have attached himself like a Pit-Bull, distracting the audience from the 'real story' of the brutality of Israel's occupation.
M16 and variations
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as18-e.htm

Stoner SR-25
http://www.snipercentral.com/sr25.htm

It is also apparent that KL is ignorant of the actual affects of so-called "non-lethal" munitions, and I would suggest that: he, at hearing in his area of a major protest that he visit the Emergency Ward of the hospitals nearest said protest. 'Rubber-bullets' can maim or kill!

At this point I can only suggest that until KL and others of his ilk, discard or change their aggressive behaviour that they are ignored as 'counter-productive' and not responded to.

The round itself is supersonic. It creates a sonic boom. This sounds much like the report of an unsuppressed M16, but from the other direction. It was the custom in Viet Nam to put a couple rounds over the heads of a VC patrol, who would then think they were being shot at from the exact opposite direction from which the round actually came. They would then slowly, cautiously back away from where they thought the sniper was and towards where he actually was.

Wow! Are you serious?

How totally God awful! And is this what you think Chris Hedges is talking about? So instead of dashing away from possible slaughter, they headed right into it. War is so damn evil!

Who the hell makes these weapons anyway? No wonder there will never be peace. How else would the manufacturer of these and other weaponry make any money?

SoL's sources don't mention a "silenced" version of the M16 (used by the IDF) nor of the SR-25 (which I don't know if Israel even has).

You cannot silence an M16's sonic boom.

> 'Rubber-bullets' can maim or kill!

Seems as despite his agitation, SoL recognizes that the Israel troops weren't firing a non-existing "silenced M16" but rubber bullets. And while he is correct that they can maim or kill, even at close range they are not likely to cause the type of damage described.

Hedges didn't even see what he alleged had happened.

Is it any wonder that no one could address my questions?

1. Given that these boys, 10-11 years old, would allegedly be killed in the dunes, why would they even want to venture there?

2. Where were their parents?

3. And how can it be that such young children can intimidate a police lieutenant (branding him a "collaborator" for ostensibly trying to save their lives) into letting them senselessly lose their lives?

It doesn't add up. Hedges was had.

Hey, maybe if Chris Hedges is around (and we can only assume he is as I haven't heard of his demise) he can tell us, enlighten us, advise us, etc., etc., etc., re the issue.

Or, oh, my God! Maybe there is no Chris Hedges! Maybe there is no Gaza! Maybe there are no refugee camps, no settlements, no IDF, no . . .

Oops, must have dozed there for a moment.

Frankly, I think "SICK OF LIES" has the very best idea to hit this board in a while. And I, for one, am going to follow his advice. I'm no longer going to respond to anything you say here.

Time wasted addressing your rantings can be put to better use elsewhere. I don't know about anyone else, but I sure as hell have no desire to continue being yelled at, belittled, vililfied, accused of lying, ordered to do this, ordered to check that, watching as history is being rewritten before my eyes.

Henceforth, I will carry on as I've always done, and hopefully learn something from the people who can come on this board.and pass on info and have conversations without feeling one is in prison. It's not a feeling I, for one, enjoy.

I love this place. It's been an astonishing experience, so many interesting characters! I feel I know you all and most of you I like a lot. I am not going to have you, KL, or anyone else take that away from me.

If I want to say Ariel Sharon is a war criminal, I shall say so. I've always said so, and if you want proof, you go find it. It won't be too difficult..

I have always said that there was a massacre at Jenin; I just didn't realize I'd said it on the thread you were going on about. And you will note as well my Jenin, "not a massacre" phraseology, which I am sure you understood for the sarcasm it was meant to be.

I don't care if 500 or 1000 or 10 people were slaughtered. We will never know the truth because for several days afterwards, no one was allowed in.

Cleaning up the mess was the Israeli explanation. It would have been a lot more believeable were our reporters able to cover the "action" (for want of a better word). Then we could have seen what was happening ourselves.

My only question is why would the Israeli Supreme Court not allow heavy equipment to scoop up bodies? Is that what the army was doing? We heard that briefly, and it was never heard again.!

No, KL. Not with this brat, you won't.

You see, where I live, no one cares if you're Jewish, or Arab, or Indian, or Europen, whatever. Here we are all people first, equal, together and apart, and we like it, and we like each other, and most of all we respect each other.

We do it because we are human beings first and foremost. When one start with that premise, the rest is easy. Good night.

1. Given that these boys, 10-11 years old, would allegedly be killed in the dunes, why would they even want to venture there?

2. Where were their parents?

3. And how can it be that such young children can intimidate a police lieutenant (branding him a "collaborator" for ostensibly trying to save their lives) into letting them senselessly lose their lives?

4. Since the Israeli soldiers do not have non-existent weapons and since no shots were heard when the children were allegedly killed, they must have been shot after the incident. After their bodies were allegedly recovered. Where they, like 12-year-old Mohammed Al-Dura, sacrificed for the cause of anti-Israel propaganda?

It doesn't add up. Hedges was had.

OK then

"If I want to say Ariel Sharon is a war criminal, I shall say so. I've always said so,"

You can but dont expect that to count for much

" and if you want proof, you go find it. It won't be too difficult.."

If you didn't notice it we won the debating facts part of this on multiple levels. You dont have to believe them but I am afraid we wont be able to find any proof. We already looked at the evidence in these threads.

"I don't care if 500 or 1000 or 10 people were slaughtered. We will never know the truth"

- It is very dissapointing that you would say that in the light of the above.

"My only question is"

- there is no point asking questions if you dont care about evidence. You talk as if you have a "religion" and unfortunatly it is a "religion" where the jews are wrong and the palistinians are right. Still I guess people can change or give up their religions.. some people.

"You see, where I live, no one cares if you're Jewish, or Arab, or Indian, or Europen, whatever. Here we are all people first, equal, together and apart, and we like it, and we like each other, and most of all we respect each other."

I am not sure whether to address your insinuation that canada is the opitomy of racial harmony or that KL and his country is racist. Whatever country that might be.
Nevermind I will let them both slide.

"We do it because we are human beings first and foremost. When one start with that premise, the rest is easy. "

- It should be and yet you are still able to disagree with me.......

if shaqron is a war criminal than so was hitler.

"If you didn't notice, we won the debating facts part of this on multiple levels", etc., etc.

a) there was a debate? Damn, I must have missed it;
b) who is "we" that won said "debate"

It's okay, Scottie. You don't have to answer. This is a purely rhetorical question.

"We already looked at the evidence in these threads".

a) who is "we"?
b) what "evidence"?

Are we talking about Jenin here, or Sharon? Or both?

"My only question" probably should have read "my only comment". In any event, in order for a Supreme Court, even the Supreme Court of Israel, to order something stopped, "something" must have started prior. Thus, one can deduct that the IDF were scooping up dead bodies in the refugee camp at Jenin. Which begs a most interesting question in, and of, itself, doesn't it?

"You talk as if you have a "religion" and unfortunately it is a religion where Jews are wrong and Palestiniains right".

You don't expect me to dignify that remark with a response do you? No, of course, you don't. Which is good because I refuse to comment on outrageous "seems to" allegations.

"I'm not sure whether to address your insinuation that Canada is the opitomy" (epitomy, perhaps), etc., etc.

a) actually I was referring to my own place, my own community, my own town.

b) there is no "insinuation" here, Scottie. If I say something, there is no room for "insinuation". You may misunderstand, perhaps, but that's quite different from "insinuations".

I am willing to bet that there are hundreds of thousands of similar communities around the world wherein people are born, live their lives, die, and by having been on this planet, their lives have made a difference. And I like being part of that evolution of humankind.

b) I keep forgetting with you, Scottie, that every word has to be spelled out , every thought specified; otherwise, you will meander around and about until I'm not certain who, if anyone, said anything.

What inference I'm supposed to draw from your final comment is not clear.

a) Am I supposed to disagree with you?
b) Am I not supposed to disagree with you?
c) Is it a symbol of something as with respect to where you are and where I am?

Have no idea, Scottie, my friend.

Anyway, wherever you are just remember that Angie (that's me) believes that underneath all that sombre, earnest "on line Scottie" lurks a relatively decent human being who means well. Otherwise, I'd never devote the time and energy I've given you since I came on this Board.

Yo Angie, some yahoo wants you to email him! (Guess he doesn't ever want to loose touch with you!)

Dear JA,

It's mid afternoon here, and I just got in from the market. It's a glorious day, patches of sun, high winds, warm, bits of mist floating close to the ground. My kind of weather! I love it!!!

I made several attempts to respond to your marvellous spiel in another thread last night, but each time I was overcome with admiration! Man, you're good! Bravo, she cheers (I've been accused of "cheerleading" you, of course! Which, incidentally, would be a bit of an impossibility, wouldn't it, were you and I the same person)!

Actually I thought you'd left us and was dismayed!

It's been a tumultous time here on line the past few days, but not any more. I'm following 'Sick of Lies" suggestion and ignoring KL, who was taking up way too much of my time with no apparent reason other than to bully. At least you and I have "other" lives, other interests, and other enjoyments.

(And we smile here, don't we, JA?)

I mentioned to you a while ago that I'd discovered Jewish writer, Uri Avnery. Well, I've become such a HUGE fan that I now simply refer to him as "dear Uri", and one of his sites is now my "home" page!!! I SIMPLY MUST FIND AN ADDRESS TO WRITE HIM!!!

A few days ago I an articles of his entitled "The Peace Criminal". An excellent, informative piece dealing with the Clinton-led peace talks. I read your comments re Robert Malley, and you might be very interested in dear Uri's comments re the whole event.

I totally adore the guy, JA. Here he is, almost eighy years young, and since 1948 he's wanted a Palestine state side by side with Israel. He's such a forward thinking individual, intelligent, funny, honest, and courageous.

He's there! It's where he's at. He has even been tear-gassed at peace demonstrations by his own Government!!! And he knows Ariel (War Criminal) Sharon.

AND MOST OF ALL HE WANTS A JUST AND DIGNIFIED PEACE!!!!!

Which, of course, is what I've always wanted - dignified and just. Anything else is unacceptable.

AND THEN THERE'S JA, Angie's Favourite On Line Person!! (She smiles here -- no, change that to "beams" here). I am blessed!!!.

I can't wait for you to read dear Uri. Then you can let me know your intelligent assessment of him.

It's great to see your name on the board again, my friend, and much as I would love to write reams, I must not be selfish with the space here.

If you have a minute perhaps you could flip over to the Rachel Corrie (Video) thread. You might find "Concerned Zionist" entertaining1

Thank you for all your kind comments, JA I'm honoured to be your "favourite person on line"..

I hope you're having a great July 4th weekend, and I'll be in touch SOON!

Angie

I don't know if this will work, but you can try it. It's my current home page.

http://www.avnery-news.co.il/english/index.html

If it doesn't work, search Yahoo and the site is Uri Avnery's News and Articles (I think)!!!!

Look, my friend! It worked! There you are now! Just click "other articles" or whatever on top, and you'll be impressed! I just know you will, being an intelligent person yourself!


If you click "biographyg", you'll get a delightful pic of dear Uri!! He generally has an article once a week! Wish it were daily!!!

More!!!!
Angie

Angie, doesn't it feel weird to be talking to yourself?

And you had your last psychiatric examination when???

how do you explain the bombings that have taken place even as Palestine pretends to negotiate for peace. what do you have to say to the victims of this week???

Jihad Cease Fire Conditions?

" an oxymoron"
just like Palestinian government, the idea defies it's self. Palestine has proven it's self incapable of self rule, the Palestinian government is a sham.

Hi Angie. Great letter! Lot's of good information! But, I'm curious, have you cracked that yahoo's code yet? I'll check out Uri's website again to see what's new. I'm waiting for Uri to visit the U.S.! I haven't heard of him visiting here in the past decade or so -- and almost *everybody* prominent who gets to the U.S. gets to the Bay Area. The last really interesting person from Israel to do so was anti-Zionist Israeli Jew and (history?) professor Illan Pappe (who my friend Jeffrey Blankfort has interviewed several times on his radio program). Blankfort and Fisk are old friends too! And I'll check out the Rachel Corrie Video thread, as well as catch up on all your other posts. I'll probably be out all day tomorrow, starting with catching up with the gang at my corner Berkeley coffeeshop, but I'll respond to any relevant posts by tomorrow evening.

Take care!

JA

Hi JA,
Is there any place on the web to listen to Jeffrey Blankfort's radio programs?

"a) there was a debate? Damn, I must have missed it;
b) who is "we" that won said "debate""

1) You really arent paying attention are you. Usually people in that position just pretend they understood maybe you should try that.

"We already looked at the evidence in these threads".

"a) who is "we"?"

You and I ... geezzzz

b) what "evidence"?

see (1)

Are we talking about Jenin here, or Sharon? Or both?

see (1)

"My only question" probably should have read "my only comment".

EXACTLY - I thought you were going to put this dog to sleep so to speak. what are you doing back here for more?

" In any event, in order for a Supreme Court, even the Supreme Court of Israel, to order something stopped, "something" must have started prior. Thus, one can deduct that the IDF were scooping up dead bodies in the refugee camp at Jenin. Which begs a most interesting question in, and of, itself, doesn't it?"

- who ever said that no one died?
2) evil zionist in your head
maybe...

"You don't expect me to dignify that remark with a response do you?"

- "Seems to" is not an alligation it is a statement of the impression that you give. And that is the impression that you give be it true or not.

"b) there is no "insinuation" here, Scottie. If I say something, there is no room for "insinuation". You may misunderstand, perhaps, but that's quite different from "insinuations"."

- ahh a zero context person. nice why then did you misunderstand what "seems to" means?

OK i will answer it directly then
3) "You see, where I live, no one cares if you're Jewish, or Arab, or Indian, or Europen, whatever. Here we are all people first, equal, together and apart, and we like it, and we like each other, and most of all we respect each other.We do it because we are human beings first and foremost."

We know that. THAT is why you are wrong.
At the risk of going over old ground it is nonsense to talk about a race (such as palistinains) owning land if you believe that there is only one race.
We have had so many debates on this ground it is hard to imagine that you would think that you were doing anything other than wasting typing space with that comment.

" And I like being part of that evolution of humankind."

- zero context - that IS NOT evolution.
if it was you would be talking eugenics.

"b) I keep forgetting with you, Scottie, that every word has to be spelled out , every thought specified; otherwise, you will meander around and about until I'm not certain who, if anyone, said anything."

you yourself said "there is no "insinuation"

Dear JA,

If, and when, I ever "crack" it , we're both going to laugh 'til we cry, my friend. Why? Because I've been sending you a "suggestion" for several weeks that would accomplish the same thing. You still haven't figured it out!!!

However, I am where I'm supposed to be. I just don't know where to go , if anywhere, from here. I'm not sure if the number has any relevance. Or do you mean the magazine, itself?

In any event, this wee bit of intrigue must cease 'til later. It's way past midnight here.

Oh, incidentally, when you go to the Rachel Corrie *Video" thread to catch up on 'Concerned Zionist", I should mention that Israel Shamir has a great llittle story there re the incident called the Maid and the Ogre that might interest you. Certainly from Shamir's point of view this was no accident!

Good night!
Angie.

What are you talking about? I responded to your post yesterday afternoon. Are you caught in a time warp or something?

"If, and when, I ever "crack" it , we're both going to laugh 'til we cry, my friend. Why? Because I've been sending you a "suggestion" for several weeks that would accomplish the same thing. You still haven't figured it out!!!"

JA: Okay, I spontaneously woke up early this (Sunday) morning, had some pecan cookies and orange juice, checked indymedia a little, made a couple of posts (in Blankfort on Israel; and New Flag), and listening to the beginning of the radio show of the only person I *don't* like on KPFA (the infamous egotistical, subconsciously ethnocentric Larry Bensky), but I 'm getting sleepy again. And now I'm confused--too sleepy--and have to think--impossible right now. So, I'm going to go take an after wake-up nap for about an hour, then get up again and try to look for and figure out your suggestion and where we are crossing wires. (I may have to go get some coffee over at the corner coffeeshop first.) We'll *get* this done, tho! In the meantime I *was* checking for email.

In case anyone is wondering, the rather abrupt comment above "re the post from yesterday" was directed at Scottie in response to his above that.

So, Scottie, there's your answer.

Once again I've sent you a missive in another thread. There must be some deep underlying reason for my inability to respond under a note from anyone; however, I'm sure you'll find it.

Yes, I had an "after wake-up" nap myself today; it's dark, and dull, and uninviting out there, but one has to make an effort to head on out (or at least I do) and pick up a few essentials - like cat food!

More later.
Angie

I am sitting here staring at the Yahoo site, wondering how it is I'm obviously missing something. Is it your own? Care of a magazine? Or worse is it there staring me in the eye, and I don't see it?.

I've clicked on and read the article I didn't see anything that I was looking for at the end of it (or at the beginning for that matter).

The intrique continues, but it doesn't have to. I am indeed having trouble cracking this, but in your case, it's written out for you. The key lies with Israel Shamir.

Oh, by the way, I take it you haven't had a chance to browse down through the Rachel Corrie (Video) thread and become aquainted with "Concerned Zionist"?

So without any further ado (as they say) I'll wait and see what happens - from here or there!

Angie

I have always maintained that Salah was a Hamas leader.

Now you are throwing in "terrorist". That was not part of your original accusation.

I would want some independent proof that Salah was a "terrorist". Taking the word of Israel that anyone is a "terrorist" would be taking quite a quantum leap. As you must be aware, every Palestinian is a "terrorist" in Isarel's eyes. It makes it easier to convince the world that killng them is legit.

There is no contradiction here.

I didn't answer your comments, and I clearly stated that I would not, until such time as you showed me where i said he was not a member of Hamas. You have not done that, Grown Up.

Curious, indeed, that you believe every member of Hamas is a terrorist. Why are you doing that? Is every member of the IDF a murderer?

With respect to your comments re JA, I will not dignify them with a response.

As defined by international law (you know, what you pay lip service to when you can twist it to support what you believe), Hamas is a terrorist organization. Thus its members are terrorists.

http://www.sfsu.edu/~mclicfc/terrorist_bombings.html

Terrorists are defined, not by international law, but by their own actions. State terrorism is every bit as much terrorism as is private terrorism. The IDF is a terrorist organization.

Follow the link and learn:
http://www.un.org/law/cod/terroris.htm

Or continue tossing around vacuous and silly propaganda slogans.

Ahem!

The link given:
http://www.un.org/law/cod/terroris.htm

Is of a PROPOSED General Assembly Resolution!

Sort of blows other zionist arguments away, as the proposal was introduced by Syria!

Worthy of note is - although Israel has presented a letter to the committee quite a few of the other members are middle eastern Islamic nations.

While the proposal is dated 1997, no actual voting history is given, nor any other information given, other than a publication of the first draft...

A extract follows:
"Recalling also General Assembly resolution 46/51 of 9 December 1991, reaffirming the inalienable right to self-determination and independence of all peoples under colonial and racist regimes and other forms of alien domination and foreign occupation, and upholding the legitimacy of their struggle, in particular the struggle of national liberation movements, in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter and Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations";
End of Extract***

Nice try!

> Nice try

Sorry, I don't work according to your methods, which is to throw something out there and hope that no one refutes it and thus it must be true.

> While the proposal is dated 1997, no actual voting history is given

This isn't a UN resolution. It's an international convention.

> Sort of blows other zionist arguments away, as the proposal was introduced by Syria!

Guess again. The rapporteur of that session was Syrian. That doesn't mean the text was introduced by Syria. It was not. (blown away are your ignorant comments).

> PROPOSED

The convention I presented above was ratified on 12 January 1998. It is part of International Law.

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_convention_terrorist_bombing.html

Now we'll see if you only pay lip-service to international law when you think it suits your fancy or if you actually respect the institution.

It usually helps when one points to the correct document when attempting to make a point.

But, even this iteration DOES NOT APPLY!

1. "A Suicide Bombing" results in - a dead bomber. (just where do you want to extradite him/her to... )
2. As these bombings occur typically either within Israel or the "Occupied Territories" they are NOT International.

By the way, International Law is not like a menu, where you can order just the items you want! This is the reason why I criticize Israel.

So called "terrorist(s)" are still not defined as per International Convention.

The UN on Definitions of Terrorism
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html

"Terrorism" Is a Term That Requires Consistency:
Newspaper and its critics both show a double standard on "terror"
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/terrorism.html

"TERRORISM" : THE WORD ITSELF IS DANGEROUS
http://www.pugwash.org/september11/whitbeck.htm

Status of international legal instruments related to the prevention and suppression of international terrorism (December 2002)
http://www.un.org/law/terrorism/index.html


This is the document that you keep trying to direct our attention to. Why?
International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombing
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_convention_terrorist_bombing.html


Article 2 is the defining article!
Extract:
Article 2
1. Any person commits an offence within the meaning of this Convention if that person unlawfully and intentionally delivers, places, discharges or detonates an explosive or other lethal device in, into or against a place of public use, a State or government facility, a public transportation system or an infrastructure facility:
a. With the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury; or
b With the intent to cause extensive destruction of such a place, facility or system, where such destruction results in or is likely to result in major economic loss.
2. Any person also commits an offence if that person attempts to commit an offence as set forth in paragraph 1 of the present article.
3. Any person also commits an offence if that person:
a. Participates as an accomplice in an offence as set forth in paragraph 1 or 2 of the present article; or
b. Organizes or directs others to commit an offence as set forth in paragraph 1 or 2 of the present article; or
c. In any other way contributes to the commission of one or more offences as set forth in paragraph 1 or 2 of the present article by a group of persons acting with a common purpose; such contribution shall be intentional and either be made with the aim of furthering the general criminal activity or purpose of the group or be made in the knowledge of the intention of the group to commit the offence or offences concerned.
End of Extract***

In the following note the word "NOT", follows "This Convention shall" and preceeds the word "apply".

Article 3 defines "International"
Extract:
Article 3
This Convention shall not apply where the offence is committed within a single State, the alleged offender and the victims are nationals of that State, the alleged offender is found in the territory of that State and no other State has a basis under article 6, paragraph 1 or paragraph 2, of this Convention to exercise jurisdiction, except that the provisions of articles 10 to 15 shall, as appropriate, apply in those cases.
End of Extract***

The Convention provides for possible extradition between signatory nations only.

Israel's notorious history of honoring requests for extradition for a wide variety of crimes (including murder) is also worthy of note.


"Targeted Killings" and/or "Targeted Asassinations" of political leaders or so-called militants is an attempt to undermine the Right to Self-Determination!

Attempting to define a population as 'potential terrorists' is only an attempt to justify the undermining of the Right to Self-Determination!


The right to self-determination of peoples (Art. 1) : . 13/03/84.
CCPR General comment 12. (General Comments)
http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(symbol)/CCPR+General+comment+12.En?OpenDocument

2. As these bombings occur typically either within Israel or the "Occupied Territories" they are NOT International.

- Where are the leaders of Hamas from? go on take a guess.
besides that israel and the occupied territories are not the same country.

"This Convention shall not apply where the offence is committed within a single State."

That would be because this is an "international" convention not a regional one.

it "provides for possible extradition between signatory nations"

besides that are you saying that the oklahoma bombing or the anthrax mailings etc etc were not terrorist actions because they were performed by locals? I think my explination above is more logical.

" the Right to Self-Determination!"

That is an argument for anarchy because each country can be divided up into smaller and smaller groups with their "right to self determination" until each state is only one person. Then you will just have far right (not far left) anarchy.

KL sited that 'this' convention 'defined' terrorists, first KL linked to the draft then, trying to appear 'smarter' the version linked below, scroll-up to view thread.

International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombing
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_convention_terrorist_bombing.html

The convention does NOT, I repeat DOES NOT DEFINE "TERRORISM" as a generic term, but refers ONLY to events where explosive devices are used in an international context!

Sufficient links were given to point out that the term "Terrorist" itself is PURELY SUBJECTIVE.

What IDIOTS!

the west bank is not "part of israel".
If you are saying it IS part of israel then you undermine the palistinians position.

KL> As defined by international law (you know, what you pay lip service to when you can twist it to support what you believe), Hamas is a terrorist organization. Thus its members are terrorists.

Sicko> 1. "A Suicide Bombing" results in - a dead bomber. (just where do you want to extradite him/her to... )

Irrelevant. That the perpetrator of a TERRORIST bombing is dead doesn't mean that the act was not terrorism or that the organization dedicated to such acts is not a terrorist organization.

Furthermore, the suicide bomber is not the lone actor in these incidents. There is an organization behind the bomber, which recruits, arms and trains them. They are all terrorists under this convention of international law.

Sicko> 2. As these bombings occur typically either within Israel or the "Occupied Territories" they are NOT International.

|| This Convention shall not apply where the offence is committed within a single State, the alleged offender and the victims are nationals of that State, the alleged offender is found in the territory of that State and no other State has a basis under article 6, paragraph 1 or paragraph 2, of this Convention to exercise jurisdiction

The Hamas terrorists are not nationals of Israel.
Additionally the PA has jurisdiction.

Yet even ignoring that, as you quoted:

|| the provisions of articles 10 to 15 shall, as appropriate, apply in those cases.

What do these say? Here's the gist:

|| States Parties shall afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with investigations or criminal or extradition proceedings brought in respect of the offences set forth

The PA has failed to extradite even 1 terrorist to Israel, despite not just the above but explicit agreement to do so as part of the Oslo treaty.

|| a request for extradition or for mutual legal assistance based on such an offence may not be refused on the sole ground that it concerns a political offence or an offence connected with a political offence or an offence inspired by political motives.

In other words, the "justification" of such violence as "legitimate resistance" to the "occupation" is no excuse. It's still terrorism.

Sicko> International Law is not like a menu, where you can order just the items you want! This is the reason why I criticize Israel.

You mean like you just did above? Hypocrite!

You raised a red-herring in point 1 and made an irrelevant point in 2, while ignoring what the document actually says (after initially and ignorantly denying the document, confusing this convention for a UN Resolution, etc.)

Fool> The convention does NOT, I repeat DOES NOT DEFINE "TERRORISM" as a generic term, but refers ONLY to events where explosive devices are used in an international context!

Which describes the situation and thus, under existing international law, by definition, Hamas is a terrorist organization.

Hamas is a terrorist organization. They use appalling tactics like suicide bombings against civilians instead of honoring the civillized IDF tactics of torturing prisoners, spraying children with gunfire and bulldozing homes with the families still trapped inside.
The cowardly suicide bomber enters a marketplace filled with Israelis and sets off the explosives around his waist, while a brave IDF gunner would blast the same market ( if filled with Palestinians or Lebanese)with gunfire and rockets from the safety of his helicopter. Of course the IDF soldier is heroically refusing to put his life in danger while the cowardly Palestinian kills himself instead of doing the right thing and surrendering to the Mossad. Both are killers, but one heroically puts himself out of harms' way while the other commits the atrocity of killing himself before the IDF can do it themselves.
Hamas uses disgustingly terrorist weapons bought or obtained from bloodthirsty Arabs, while the IDF uses gentle and loving armanents donated by kind and considerate American supporters. If any Palestinians are killed by these weapons, it is obviously their fault- they should have been born Israelis. The evil PA refuses to arrest those who arm the suicide bombers. The good Israeli government would never detain its' loyal IDF stormtroopers, who's caring occupation of Palestinian land only is looked down on by horrid and obviously antisemitic groups like the UN, Jews Against The Occupation ( one of the many Jewish antisemitic groups (anyone who doesn't support Israel we consider an antisemite)) and Amnesty International. These bandit organizations dare to call for antizionist actions, like justice and peace in the Middle East. May the United States bomb them for us!
The Hamas are terrorists, no doubts about it. We Zionists pledge to end their evil agenda, no matter how many Lebanese and/or Palestinian children, pregnant women and other innocent people we may have to murder in the process.

Heil Sharon!
- A concerned Zionist

The difference is that innocent civilians are the premeditated murder targets of the Hamas terrorists.

The IDF may occassionally and unintentionally kill civilians, the Fourth Geneva Conventions recognizes that this is a risk involved in war. What endangers these civilians is that the Arab terrorists hide behind them.

The "anti-Zionist" who goes by the Orwellian doublespeak moniker of "concerned Zionist" makes preposterous suggestions such as:

> a brave IDF gunner would blast the same market

Others similarly falsely allege that Israel randomly or indiscriminantly shells Arab villages. IF this were true, we'd expect that 50% of the casualties would be female, and also 50% would be under the age of 14. Yet only about 5% fall into those groups.

In fact, despite the overall 3-to-1 death ratio, in more Israeli women and girls have been intentionally murdered by Arab terrorists than Arab women and children inadvertantly killed by Israel.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/6/21/162137.shtml

The Israeli army said Friday it accidentally killed four Palestinians, including three children, when its tanks fired on curfew violators during house-to-house searches for explosives in the West Bank town of Jenin.
The four were killed in operations that followed a spate of bombings in recent days against Israeli targets that have killed more than 30 people.

"Palestinian residents said they believed Israeli forces had lifted the three-day curfew before the shooting. Witnesses said the market area was full of shoppers replenishing supplies when the Israelis fired tank shells and machine guns into the crowds," Fox News reported.

An Israeli tank following soldiers should have fired into the air, but instead fired at people, an Israeli source said. Soldiers were conducting house-to-house searches for explosives laboratories.

"An initial inquiry indicated that the force erred in its action," an army spokesman said, and the killings were being investigated.

'A Real Crime'

Jenin Mayor Hayder Irsheed called the Israeli actions "a real crime committed while the whole world is silent."

The U.S. State Department said the United States expected "the Israelis to look into ... the tragic incident."

Palestinian residents said at least four Palestinians – three children and an old man – were killed in Jenin. An Israel Defense Forces spokesman, however, said he was not aware of any such incident.

Medical sources in Jenin Hospital said 12 Palestinians were shot and wounded in the central market when Israeli troops opened fire at those gathered in the area.

Grenade Thrower Killed

In the Gaza Strip, border police killed a Palestinian who threw a grenade at them near a police checkpoint between the Gaza Strip and Israel. Two Palestinians nearby were also killed, and an Israeli was wounded. A Palestinian security statement said the men killed were Palestinian workers shot as part of tough measures Israel has imposed on the Gaza Strip.

Palestinian residents in southern Gaza City said Israeli troops shot dead a nine-year-old child after militants fired an anti-tank missile at an Israeli army lookout post. Five others, including an Israeli soldier, were wounded. Residents said the Israeli army sent two tanks, an armored vehicle and two bulldozers and began razing Palestinian property in the area.

Deadly Revenge

Late Thursday, a Palestinian broke into the Jewish settlement of Itamar, south of Nablus, and killed an Israeli woman and three of her children. In apparent response, angry Jewish residents attacked the village of Howara near Nablus, opened fire at the residents and killed a 21-year-old Palestinian. They also burned cars and several houses, Palestinian residents said.

As part of its operations, the Israeli army has declared Jenin, Tulkarim, Nablus, Qalqilya and Bethlehem closed military zones.

Thirty-four Israelis died this week, most of them from bomb attacks on a bus and a hitchhiking station in Jerusalem.

More Talking About Peace

The violence has put the announcement of a U.S. plan for an interim Palestinian country on the back burner. But in an interview with Israel's Haaretz newspaper published Friday, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat said he did not rule out the idea of such a state. He also said he accepted the principles of former President Bill Clinton's peace plan for the region.

But Arafat Friday said Clinton had not presented him at that time with a peace plan.

The plan, first presented in December 2000, called for a Palestinian nation in 95 percent of the West Bank and all of Gaza, along with sovereignty over East Jerusalem. It called on the Palestinians to withdraw their demand for right of return of Palestinian refugees who left the region after Israel's creation in 1948.

Arafat initially rejected the plan.

Copyright 2002 by United Press International.

All rights reserved.

The Dying Truth in Nablus
December 13, 2002
By Rula Sharkawi

http://www.miftah.org/Display.cfm?DocId=1576&CategoryId=20

In 1917, US Senator Hiram Johnson understood well the losses of those who fall silently in modern warfare. "The first casualty, when war comes, is truth."

The West Bank Palestinian city of Nablus hardly makes the news anymore. A place once known for its vibrancy, its energy, its hospitality and generosity, its love for food and music, is now a ghost town, says Soraya, as she stands in the wreckage of what was once her home in the ancient Al-Qasabah (old city), now a pile of rubble amidst dusty furniture. In April of this year it was completely destroyed by missiles in the Israeli attack on Nablus.

Nablus has seen many casualties in the last year, the economy which has all by collapsed, the education system that has effectively been shut down, the children whose lives as children have been stolen by Israeli military occupation, the troubled psychological well being of a whole population, the torn infrastructure, community centres, homes and businesses.

But perhaps the greatest fatality, silently hidden and masked from sight and sound, is the truth: one that reflects the daily Palestinian realities and voices that are often drowned, buried and discredited by the Israeli propaganda machine. What is often unheard are Palestinian narratives from civilians that tell stories of Israeli war crimes, of collective punishment, of the destruction of homes and lives committed by Israeli occupation soldiers, hidden under the guise of "defense," "the war on terror" and "preventative security."

Almost everyday for the past eight months, 200, 000 Palestinians living in Nablus have been under Israeli military curfew. Israel claims Nablus is a "hotbed of terror." The Israeli strategy: collective punishment of civilians. To be under curfew means that all basic functions of life are arrested. Stores are not permitted to open for business, children can't go to schools, food cannot be purchased, employees cannot go to work, people cannot leave their homes, visit relatives and friends, or even sit outside their front door. Those caught outside during curfew risk being humiliated, detained, shot or imprisoned. From the child to the elder, everyone is imprisoned in their own homes and treated like a convicted criminal.

On November 4, 2002 Amnesty International released a report documenting Israel's war crimes titled, "Israel and the Occupied Territories: Shielded from Scrutiny - IDF violations in Jenin and Nablus." The report documents stories of torture, beatings of prisoners who were stripped down to their underwear and of soldiers demolishing homes with residents still inside, leaving them to die under the rubble.

I saw one of those homes in Nablus's Old City. The Sho'ubi family lived in it: a father, a pregnant mother, their four children, the grandparents and two aunts. All ten people and an unborn were buried and crushed alive when Israeli soldiers grazed their home to the ground with tanks after deciding it was the safest route to enter the densely populated city. I stood outside the wreckage, staring in disbelief at image of the flattened site in front of me, trying to understand why, to make some sense of the senseless. Is this Israel's idea of "defense," of "preventative security," wiping out a defenseless civilian family without a moment's notice, without hesitation, without thought to the humanity that lived within?

Walking through the narrow streets of the Qasabah, I came across a poster of Mahmoud, who was shot and killed by Israeli soldiers last month. While I was reading it, I heard a soft voice from behind me say, "I knew Mahmoud. He was my friend." I turned around to find Zeid, a young Palestinian who invited me into his home to tell about a day he will never forget.

Zeid lives in a small room with beautifully arched ceilings, typical of homes in the Old City. It is simply furnished with two springy beds and a cabinet. At a quick glance I counted six bullet holes in the wall. Apologizing for not having a chair for me to sit on, Zeid sits on the bed across from me and begins to tell me the tale of Mahmoud's death.

"It was morning. Mahmoud wanted to go to the main street to hang out. I had to run an errand so I asked him to wait for me. He said he was in a rush and told me to catch up with him. I did. We were sitting on the sidewalk when we saw from a distance an Israeli tank roll in. I said 'come on get up, lets get out of here.' We started to run. I was running ahead of Mahmoud. When I turned around to check on him, I saw he had been hit. I ran back to help him and that's when I was shot, twice,” Zeid says.

I'm caught off guard, not sure I heard him correctly. "You were what?"

"It’s true, it’s true," he says. Zeid lifts up his shirt hesitatingly for me to examine the evidence myself. He had one bullet wound on each side of his abdomen and a large six inch scar in the centre with fresh stitch marks still clearly marked along its sides.

"A man ran over to pick me up and take me to the hospital," said Zeid, continuing nonchalantly with his story. "They didn't tell me at first that Mahmoud had died. But then I found out. I went to his funeral. I don't know why he was in such a rush that day." Gazing blankly into thin air, he says sadly, "Mahmoud was rushed to his death."

I asked Zeid how he feels about the whole incident and the presence of the Israeli army in Nablus. "I really miss Mahmoud. He was my friend. We used to play seven balatat together (a street game of piling stones and knocking them down)."

The weight of personal loss, death and a life under oppressive military rule is something most children don't have to bear. Zeid is only 11 years old. Mahmoud was eight. "And the soldiers, well, I feel burdened by them. They hover over us all the time."

Earlier in Nablus, a man selling corn in the vegetable market walked over towards me and began to yell when he heard I was documenting stories.

"Where are they?" he cried. "Where is the world's eye when we are dying? When Israeli children die the whole world mourns the tragic loss and condemns us. What about our children? Last week a three year old boy was shot dead by the army. Before that a 20-year old woman was crushed to death by an Israeli tank. A few days ago, Rami Al'Faqyeh, an 8-year-old died instantly when soldiers shot him in the heart. People die here all the time. No one sees them. No one asks about them. Where was the world I ask you? Where?"

Why do the narratives, the truths, the stories and the lives get allocated a sense of urgency and tragedy for some and not others, depending on the identity of the victims?

It's difficult to find the right words to say to a woman who has lost everything. Soraya, who has taken shelter with her brother-in-law's family, says she would rather not think about what the future holds for her family.

"We don't know what the future holds. I can't see any future for us," she says. "What did this occupation bring us? It has given birth to widespread destruction and debt. We had a lollipop factory downstairs. We used to supply almost the whole West Bank. The soldiers came in and bombed it. We are still paying for some of the equipment that we purchased. We have no jobs. My house is gone. Our factory is gone. I have no money to buy my children even a tiny gift for Ramadan. Ramadan is a time for joy and giving. I am embarrassed that I can barely put food on the table, let alone give anything to my children."

Standing in a dusty worn auburn house dress, amongst a backdrop of bullet holes in an open torn wall that once sheltered her family, Soraya makes brief eye contact with me then quickly draws her hands to cover her face. An awkward silence fills the room.

With no power to plan, hostage to what the days ahead hold for her, Soraya, like many Palestinians under curfew, have an intangible relationship with time. The past is a place they cannot go back to and the future predicts darker days ahead. Living in the present has become a cruel game of survival, of just making it through one more day.

Sa'ed, a university professor whose mother was killed by Israeli soldiers last month sitting outside her front porch in Nablus, is trying to help some of the city's neediest residents. "We were giving alms to people in the community when a man stopped me in the street and said, 'please put my name on the list. I am in need and this is the first time I say this.'" The man was a construction worker who was out of work.

The angry corn vendor tells me he is an engineer by profession, but there is no work, so he is forced to make a living to feed his family however he can. Yesterday, in a defiance of curfew, he says he and his brother made 50 shekels in the market, 25 each for a family of six (about $ 5 US). He is one of the lucky ones. The latest unemployment figures in the West Bank are estimated at 63.3 per cent. Many say that under constant curfew, unemployment in Nablus is estimated to be even higher.

In times of economic hardship and political turmoil, children often take the hardest hits. A recent USAID report found that one in five children under the age of five are suffering from chronic or acute malnutrition, an astonishing statistic at par with impoverished nations such as Chad and Nigeria. The report found that Israeli closures and sieges of Palestinian civilian centres are the direct primary cause.

Many children are not lucky enough to survive. The UN says that since the start of the latest Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation in September 2000, Israeli soldiers have shot and killed more than 350 Palestinian children.

"The Israelis are destroying infrastructure, schools, the education system, the economy and Palestinian civil society," says Sa'ed. "Through these actions, they are saying to us, 'you have to submit, you have to stay our slaves. If you raise your voice and ask for your political rights, we are going to step on you.'"

Feelings of humiliation, helplessness and degradation are part of a Israeli strategy that is all too familiar for many Palestinians under curfew. It was reported last week that Israeli soldiers ordered 25-year-old Yassar Sharar, who was violating curfew, to strip naked and crawl like a dog. As local residents, many of them women and children watched in horror and shame, he burst into tears.

Soraya also knows what it is to have her and her children's futures crushed. Since the attack on Nablus eight months ago, her children have attended school for no more than a total of one month. "My kids used to be very good in school. Now, their grades have fallen. Their grades are now very bad. I have tried many times to sit and study with them, but we are always distracted by the sound of shooting and the sight of the army in the city.

Indeed the presence of soldiers, tanks, army jeeps, bulldozers and Apache helicopters are pervasive in Nablus. My own experience of entering Nablus during curfew involved going through three checkpoints. At How'wara checkpoint, I witnessed crowds of people waiting to receive permission to enter and leave their own city. A mother with an infant stood in front of three ambulances with emergency lights flashing, pleading desperately with the armed young Israeli soldier to let her through the checkpoint to seek medical attention for her sick child.

Entering the main road into Nablus known as Kibreet Street, an army jeep was parked on the side of the road questioning a handful of young Palestinian men. Around the corner, we were met at the intersection with two Israeli Merkava tanks, blocking access to the road from all four sides that separates residents in the east from those in the western part of the city, a deliberate policy of isolation and classic divide and rule colonial tactic.

On my way out of Nablus, we were stopped from leaving the same strip of Kibreet Street that we came in on. Two Israeli bulldozers were tearing up the road, forcing all traffic to obtain permission from the tanks positioned at the alternate route out. What is left on one side of the road is a freshly carved ditch. On the other side, a 15 foot mound of earth and tarmac. Many residents defying curfew, stood watching in horror but not surprise, as the main entrance and exit to the city was quickly disappearing, no longer permitting people to travel in and out by car, cutting Nablus off from the West Bank and the rest of the world.

I heard nothing on the news that night about the events in Nablus. Many voices of truth die at the hands of those in power. They are strangled, drowned, vanquished, distorted and mutated into propaganda. It is under the double standards of the occupier, the colonizer, the state terrorist, under the might of the soldier with the gun, the tank, the missile and the bulldozer that Palestinians living under illegal Israeli occupation must seek permission to narrate their own realities, their own stories, to speak and be heard.

"Israel has become creative in their modes of oppression," says Sa'ed. "Why? Because in the end it’s a political game. They think by starving people, humiliating them, killing them, we will get down on our knees and apologize, to say 'Israel we are sorry.' They want us to kneel and be silent, to say nothing about their lies to the world, so they can pretend somehow we are the occupiers."

Nablus has become just one more Palestinian story struggling to be told, in a series of struggles, in a game of survival where lives, futures and the truth are among the dying.

The above two articles show how well our Zionist forces are conducting themselves on the field battle. Hi and KL, what is wrong with you? You should not be ashamed of our proud army. Since its' formation in 1948, the IDF showed the Arabs in the Middle East that not only the Ottomans were capable of comitting ethnic cleansing and widespread killings and torture. Since its' formation, the IDF has made a middle east record for creating one of the largest exoduses in the Middle East since the Ottomans. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were forced from their homes under the shadow of Israeli guns during the formation of the state. Saddam almost beat that record in the 1980's. The IDF has also destroyed the capital city of another nation, Lebanon, in 1982, through a series of 'precision bombings' which strategically hit mostly unarmed civilians and buildings with none military significance. Tens of thousands of Lebanese were killed, increasing the impressive IDF civilian death count tally. The IDF observed and allowed the glorious Sabra and Shatila battle ( similar to the 'battle of Jenin') in which Ariel Sharon's proxies bravely defeated and killed over 2,000 vicious terrorists who were unarmed and had no idea how to fire a gun. Just because they had no weapons and were mostly women and children just shows how dangerous they were to Israel's existence. They were anti-semitically tarnishing Israel's image by being unarmed civilians and not trying to pass off as dangerous terrorists. Instead of quietly burying the bodies and asking Israel to forgive them for being born Palestinians, they invited the worlds' attention to the massacre. Vicious Palestinian hatred of the poor Israelis knows no limits.
The massacre was comitted by Lebanese phalangists. To show their own dedication to the Zionist, the noble IDF shelled Beirut and Qana, also filled with civilians. During the 1987 intifada, the IDF heroically confronted youth throwing stones, and shot and maimed or killed them with high velocity bullets and tank shells before they could attack the Knesset with their sligshots and molotov cocktails.
When the Palestinians transform into decent human beings and stop attacking Israel, it will leave the Palestinian lands it illegally occupied in the 1967. The glorious Israeli occupation of the West bank and Gaza began in 1967, and the first totally unprovoked Palestinian suicide attack on israelis happened in the late 1980's. When the Palestinians accept that being occupied and humiliated, beaten, displaced and tortured by the Israeli army is a good thing, then Israel will stop shooting at them from helicopters and revert to the traditional pre-intifada methods of economic liquidation and the occasional Mossad bullet.
Fighting for freedom is OK, unless you want freedom from Israeli occupation. In that case you are a terrorist, and the IDF WILL take care of you.

To all the boys and gals in the IDF, continue your brave human rights abusing careers, you are doing inhumanity a great service. If you were Aryans in 1933, Hitler would be very proud of you. If you were not Aryans, you would find honorable positions as kapos or ghetto policemen in Warsaw. Your actions in Gaza show to the world that although Nazism was destroyed in 1945, its' legacy still stays. You are the most honest represantatives of Zionism of our age, and the world is watching you. Sharon is proud of you, as would be every nazi and fascist leader if you were his stormtroopers.
Keep up your reign of terror!

Ein reich, ein volk, ein fuhrer!
Heil Sharon!

- A concerned Zionist

If the IDF was like concerned zionist suggests palistinian casualties over he intefada would be around the 2 million mark.

CZ> The above two articles show how well our Zionist forces are conducting themselves on the field battle.

Let's review what the article actually said:

|| Thirty-four Israelis died this week, most of them from bomb attacks on a bus and a hitchhiking station in Jerusalem.

1. Intentional murder of Israeli civilians by Arab terrorists.

|| Late Thursday, a Palestinian broke into the Jewish settlement of Itamar, south of Nablus, and killed an Israeli woman and three of her children. In apparent response, angry Jewish residents attacked the village of Howara near Nablus, opened fire at the residents and killed a 21-year-old Palestinian.

2. I condemn both of these acts, the murder of 4 Israelis and one Arab. Yet whereas hundreds of Israelis have been thus murdered in the past 2.5 years, only about a dozen Arabs have been murdered by Jewish vigilantes.

|| In the Gaza Strip, border police killed a Palestinian who threw a grenade at them

3. He was an illegal combatant partaking in hostilities.

|| The Israeli army said Friday it accidentally killed four Palestinians... "An initial inquiry indicated that the force erred in its action," an army spokesman said, and the killings were being investigated.

4. Not exactly par for the course, but now we know why some spammer above chose to concentrate on this particular day. It isn't a common occurrence and it was an accident.

5. As Israeli leader Shimon Peres stated, in war mistakes happen, but the greatest mistake is in going to war.

6. Unfortunately that has been the path of the Arabs against Israel for the last 55+ years and over the past 34 months.

7. The current ceasefire may make things better (notice how the "anti-Zionists" pretty much ignore it rather than celebrate it?), but already there is cause for concern:

18:13 Hamas, Islamic Jihad turn down Egypt`s request to extend cease-fire to period of six months

Do not let those who wish to criticize and vilify you make you cease what you do so well.

People like us scare them because we see right through their little games and misrepresentations of truth.

They appear to work in tandem, you know, just like clock work. One appears, they all do, like ants around a picnic table.

Ignore them and carry on. If there's anything they dislike more than the truth, it's being ignored.

To hear these Israel firsters talk - over half of the Continental Army from the U.S. Revolutionary War are "illegal combatants" - due alone to the fact that they never wore a uniform.

(jeah I know you're in Ca. but, I think you get me meaning)

By the way... I have been tempted several times this evening to break my own advice about responding to the 'racist trolls', but if I can refrain - we all can.

We'll see if CZ, unlike the others, can at least attempt to grapple with the 7 points above.

Ignorant> over half of the Continental Army from the U.S. Revolutionary War are "illegal combatants"

The Fourth Geneva Conventions were ratified in 1949, more than 150 years after the war to which you refer. If I need to spell it out for you, the Convention is not retroactive.

Ironic, isn't it, that the people who pretend to uphold "international law" when they erroneously think it supports them are the first to jettison it when it does not?

Please illustrate in exactly which law (written) is the term "illegal combatant" defined.

I know what you mean especially with regards to suddenly realizing there is such a thing as "international law". A few days ago it was dismissed with disdain, and those of us who have always accepted international law and the Fourth Geneva Convention are now being accused of using it when we need ot for own purposes. The hypocrisy is astonishing. Astonishing but expected!

!> Please illustrate in exactly which law (written) is the term "illegal combatant" defined.

The term as such, of course, is not defined. But the Geneva Conventions do establish criteria which must be met to be a legal combatant. Ergo those who engage in hostilities (combatants) who do not satisfy the required conditions are unlawful or illegal combatants. For more on this, see:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20020123.html

The usage of the term "illegal combattant" continues to be dubious despit an attempt to justify the Executive Branch's "deffinition".

Also not addressed here is the legality of the United States' invasion of a "Sovereign Nation" in the case cited: Afganistan. Although the Taliban regime - best described as "dirt-bag" does not justify a denial of basic human right (although, many themselves - guilty of same).

By this definition (based loosely on the 1949 convention) Settlers engaging in hostile acts against Palestinians i.e. Hebron, are also "illegal combattants".

Also viewing this "definition" against historic struggles (both pre- and post- 1948) levied against overwhelming forces, defames the memory of many "legitimate freedom fighters" including the zionist terrorists. Do you really want to go there?

"I know what you mean especially with regards to suddenly realizing there is such a thing as "international law". A few days ago it was dismissed with disdain, and those of us who have always accepted international law and the Fourth Geneva Convention are now being accused of using it when we need ot for own purposes. The hypocrisy is astonishing. Astonishing but expected! "

You talk as if we havent accepted the fourth geneva convention or that our points contradict it somehow.... But we are prefectly consistant. it is you who is willing to bend the rules (or maybe break them entirely) when confronted with terrorists and "freedom fighters".
Or is somehow willing to forgive PLO for its various actions. But holds a vendetta against israel for anything it might have done.

I diispute every example you have brought up that I can remember but EVEN IF Israel breached important human rights laws etc then that would be grounds for procecuting the people involved (of course you would have to prove it) not for killing civilians from israel or even taking land from israel.

now see..

My argument = consistant
your argument = hypocracy..

Based solely on the definition of

The criteria are:
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance
(c) that of carrying arms openly
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."

The attack on the U.S.S. Liberty violated "b" and "d" above.

b: due to the fact that the attacking aircraft and boats boar no recognizable insignia.

d: the attack occurred in international waters...

Sorry - but actually if you were to view objectively, the "views" and excuses that you continue purport you would be forced to concur.

The posts posted by "scotty" = consistant hypocracy

Sorry - but, if you were to view your posts in an objective manner: the "views" and excuses that you continue to purport, you would be forced to concur.

The posts posted by "Scottie" = consistant "hair-splitting" and hypocracy often bordering on overt racism

I was fascinated by my Zionist brothers' KL's 7 points, even more so that a Zionist knows how to count that high. I will get out of my bulldozer for a few minutes and attempt to answer them before I roll into a Palestinian village.

1. Intentional murder of Israeli civilians by Arab terrorists.

- The Arab murders of Israelis are intentional, cruel, and coldblooded. On the other hand, the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land- closing down schools, torturing prisoners, and murdering (pardon me, I meant selectively killing) children who throw stones to end the illegal occupation of their homeland, the use of humans as shields in Jenin, breaking the hands of Palestinians at checkpoints, summarily arresting people, shooting at ambulances and delaying the wounded and dying from reaching hospitals, beating and shooting at journalists, denying food and water from reaching the refugee camps, crushing a 23 year old unarmed protester with a bulldozer, destroying the homes and displacing families, destroying olive groves of farmers who depend on them to make a living, and shooting at children on their way to school (that is how an ISM volunteer was 'accidentally' shot by an IDF sniper) and other such actions can't be considered to be intentional, just because of the purely coincidenal fact that our IDF heroes have been commiting at least a few of them almost every day since 1987.

2.I condemn both of these acts, the murder of 4 Israelis and one Arab. Yet whereas hundreds of Israelis have been thus murdered in the past 2.5 years, only about a dozen Arabs have been murdered by Jewish vigilantes.

- Why should 'jewish vigilantes' help us in the persecution of Palestinians? Our boys in the IDF don't need vigilante help, they do a good enough job of this themselves.


3. He was an illegal combatant partaking in hostilities

- The grenade throwing terrorist Palestinian villain was an illegal combatant. Luckily we don't feel obliged to listen to the UN, or every IDF trooper in the West Bank and Gaza would be considered an illegal combatant! (our little occupation matter has been illegal since 1967, but of course Zionism is above the law).


4. Not exactly par for the course, but now we know why some spammer above chose to concentrate on this particular day. It isn't a common occurrence and it was an accident.

- Every Zionist publication, whether online or not, is considered by most intelligent people to be a sort of spam. That is why we rely on 3 billion US dollars a year to maintain our empire.


5. As Israeli leader Shimon Peres stated, in war mistakes happen, but the greatest mistake is in going to war.

- Mistakes also happen when one occupies a country in defiance of international law and is faced with a people who are not afraid to fight for their rights. Maybe if Shimon Peres ended the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, fewer 'mistakes' would happen in both Gaza city and Tel Aviv. Of course, if he dared to do such a thing, the Mossad would kill him for betraying our imperialist Zionist ideals.


6. Unfortunately that has been the path of the Arabs against Israel for the last 55+ years and over the past 34 months.

- Unfortunately Israel has proven itself to be as skilled at starting wars as the Arab counterparts. By the way, which tank fired the first shot in the 1967 war?
(If you are a Zionist, of course you will say 'Arab' If you know the truth, you know it was one of our proud Israeli killing machines, not an Egyptian one).


7. The current ceasefire may make things better (notice how the "anti-Zionists" pretty much ignore it rather than celebrate it?), but already there is cause for concern:

18:13 Hamas, Islamic Jihad turn down Egypt`s request to extend cease-fire to period of six months


- since 1967: Israel refuses to listen to the UN and withdraw from the West bank and Gaza. Of course, as always, Israel is defending itself from international antisemitism, directed by a combined force of bloodthirsty Muslims, Christians, and antizionist Jews (actually every human being who tries to live by his/her religion or just firmly believes in social justice is already an antizionist).

Here are some of my responses to the above commentaries. Being a Zionist I had no intention to 'grapple' with them, but immediately reached for my Uzi to blow their brains out, just as dear Ariel Sharon would have done when faced with a stone throwing child. Forgive me if they are 'mind numbed', but please remember that, after all, I am a a Zionist.

Heil Sharon!
- A concerned Zionist

racismracismracism

Wow! Racism, yet! What next?

!> By this definition (based loosely....

Well, there you have it, you rebutted yourself.

!> Settlers engaging in hostile acts against Palestinians i.e. Hebron, are also "illegal combattants".

No, if they engage in illegal activity then they are criminals. There have been very few such cases of Jewish vigilante violence and Israel has done what it can to make sure of this.

!> viewing this "definition" against historic struggles (both pre- and post- 1948) levied against overwhelming forces, defames the memory of many "legitimate freedom fighters" including the zionist terrorists. Do you really want to go there?

As I already explained, the convention is not retroactive. It does not apply to the American Revolution, it does not apply to Roman legions, it does not apply anywhere prior to 1949.

The convention does have clauses dealing with internal conflict, and I suspect that the Zionist underground fighting against Colonial British Rule would fall under that. Note also that these organizations primarily attacked the British Military, not the civilian population.

Now let's see how CZ fares:

1. Intentional murder of Israeli civilians by Arab terrorists.

CZ> The Arab murders of Israelis are intentional, cruel, and coldblooded.

Glad to see we agree on this point.

(Your addenda of distractions and misrepresentations fool no one but the "useful idiots")

2. I condemn both of these acts, the murder of 4 Israelis and one Arab. Yet whereas hundreds of Israelis have been thus murdered in the past 2.5 years, only about a dozen Arabs have been murdered by Jewish vigilantes.

CZ> Why should 'jewish vigilantes' help us in the persecution of Palestinians?

Another attempt to shift the topic.

3. He was an illegal combatant partaking in hostilities

CZ> The grenade throwing terrorist Palestinian villain was an illegal combatant.

We agree again.

4. Not exactly par for the course, but now we know why some spammer above chose to concentrate on this particular day. It isn't a common occurrence and it was an accident.

CZ> Every Zionist publication, whether online or not, is considered by most intelligent people to be a sort of spam.

What? The point here was that the spammer who entered something above picked a particular day during which an unusual event took place -- and attempted to pass that as typical.

5. As Israeli leader Shimon Peres stated, in war mistakes happen, but the greatest mistake is in going to war.

CZ> Mistakes also happen when one occupies a country in defiance of international law

As we've discussed, the Israeli administratin is authorized until the conclusion of a comprehensive, negotiated, settlement by UNSCR 242.

CZ> Maybe if Shimon Peres ended the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, fewer 'mistakes' would happen in both Gaza city and Tel Aviv.

Except as we agreed in point 1, what happens in Tel Aviv (and Haifa, and Jerusalem, and Netanya, etc.) is not a "mistake".

Of course, perhaps if the Arabs had accepted peaceful compromise in 1937, 1947, 1949, 1956 or any other time before 1967 (rather than the Arab League repeatedly issuing its "3 NOs", No recognition of Israel, No negotiation with Israel, No peace with Israel), not only would there never have been this "occupation" but numerous wars and tens of thousands of dead could have been precluded.

6. Unfortunately that has been the path of the Arabs against Israel for the last 55+ years and over the past 34 months.

CZ> Unfortunately Israel has proven itself to be as skilled at starting wars as the Arab counterparts.

Oddly CZ doesn't deny that Arabs have started wars and are responsible for the rejectionist aggression. CZ attemps to paint Israel as just as guilty because it fired the first shot in 1967. Yet that does not determine the aggressor. Egypt and Syria were the aggressors in 1967. They perpetrated an act of war by closing an international waterway to Israeli shipping, they perpetrated an act of war by moving troops to the border (in violation of previous armistice agreements), and they they ordered UN peacekeepers out to pave the way for an invasion which they were loudly trumpeting. Israel pre-empted the attack by in a surprise attack that destroyed the Egyptian air-force while it was a sitting duck on the ground and the rest is history.

7. The current ceasefire may make things better (notice how the "anti-Zionists" pretty much ignore it rather than celebrate it?), but already there is cause for concern:

18:13 Hamas, Islamic Jihad turn down Egypt`s request to extend cease-fire to period of six months

CZ> since 1967: Israel refuses to listen to the UN and withdraw from the West bank and Gaza.

Note how by now CZ's artificial flair is gone? The wind has been knocked out if its sails and it resorts to mutterings that have already been shown incorrect.

UNSCR242, which Israel accepted shortly after it was passed does not call for a unilateral Israeli withdrawal. It sets about the "land-for-peace" formula. The Arabs must first make peace BEFORE Israel withdraws, and it was precisely this that was rejected by the Arab states.

Naturally, CZ et al are entirely silent on this ARAB REJECTION OF THE UN.

Recall also that when Egypt broke ranks and made peace with Israel in the late 1970s, it was expelled from the Arab League for doing so.

The holocaust occurred a decade prior to the Geneva convention.
Should Nazis be exempt from the Geneva doctrine or do they not enjoy immunity from a chronological timeline>

If you check your history books, you'll see that nazi criminals tried at Nuremberg were not charged with violating the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949.

I noticed you avoided any critic of the Liberty incident.

So some are above the law while others are not. Interesting assertion…

Another straw man argument precisely because you have no others.

If you looked closely at your "legitimate freedom fighters" you would probably find you would not like them because they would not live up to the moral standards expected of people today.

For example by our standards lincon would probably be considered a racist and he commited what might be considered war crimes against the confederates.

history tends to look over the crimes of "legitimate freedom fighters" but that is a pretty poor excuse to say somthing like vlad "the impailer" did it - and he was a "legitimate freedom fighter" - therefore it is OK.

And of course no one can excuse the Palestinian struggle against the military occupation of their homeland. No one who fights against Israel, even in self defence, can be considered a 'freedom fighter'.
Our boys in the IDF and the settlers are fighting for Israel's freedom to abuse and rule a subjugated people who's only crime (and it is a huge one, from any true zionists' viewpoint) is that they were born Palestinian, and not ready to submit to our loving repression.
Long live the Zionist struggle (against peace and justice in the Middle East)!!!

Heil Sharon!
- A concerned Zionist

It is a little bit of a streach to say trying to replace a semi secular democratic israel with a islamo-facist reigeme is "freedom fighting".

"who's only crime (and it is a huge one, from any true zionists' viewpoint) is that they were born Palestinian, "

- hahaha ahah how about "born lebaneese born syrian born egyptian etc etc. Even "born israeli"

secular democratic israel = Jewish nation?

you can be a islamic representitive in the government in israel. you have religious freedom you can vote etc and the laws etc are generally based on secular principles as opposed to islamic law.

Not saying it is perfect but it is better than the arab countries surrounding it.

A Jewish nation and a secular nation is a contradiction in terms\

I see you live in a world of black and white with no grey. Isn't it boring in there?

Are you the same Scottie who makes an idiot out of himself everyday over at LA-IMC?

"A Jewish nation and a secular nation is a contradiction in terms"

Not true. The US is primarily Christian, and the major Christian holidays are also legal holidays, but the law itself remains secular. A national can have the _character_ of a certain religion without that character being legally enforced.

@%<

Ted I refer you to my previous answers.

Are you the same Scottie who makes an idiot out of himself everyday over at LA-IMC?