First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
The Wall
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 7/30/09 , edited 7/30/09
I was discussing this with my friend Yei in another thread. This is pretty much copied out of there, so if this all sounds familiar you know why. Anyway, I decided to make this into its own thread so that the other thread doesn’t get hijacked by a topic worthy of its own thread. Forgive the redundancy, but here’s the post:

During the 1992 elections terrorist attacks landed in Israel and killed a five year old Jewish girl. In much the way that the Iranian people used Neda as a symbol of outrage against their government, Israelis used this young girl as a symbol of their anger at the government’s failure to protect them. As a result candidate Yitzhak Rabin, who’d been campaigning on a promise to release 5,000 Palestinian prisoners, experienced a profound decline in popularity polls. It was then that began talking about taking “Gaza out of Tel Aviv.”

In May of that same year a Palestinian terrorist attacked and stabbed to death a 15 year old Israeli girl. Mobs of angry relatives and peers retaliated by lynching and wounding six Arabs. Israeli police arrested thirty Jews, but this incident created a bilateral support of Rabin’s proposition.

Then in 1994 Hamas operatives infiltrated Tel Aviv (Israel’s largest and most densely populated city,) and executed what was at that time the deadliest suicide bombing in Israeli history. Blowing up a passenger bus loaded with civilians the bomber killed twenty two innocent Israeli’s and wounded fifty others. In cognition to this Israeli residents in the villages of Bat Hefer and Matan were coming under fire from Palestinian villages 200 metres away.

So, why is the wall the cause of Hamas terrorist attacks on Israel when the wall was only built because of popular pressure from the Israeli’s which resulted from Hamas terrorist attacks on Israel? It is simply impossible for effect to precede cause, but the Hamas terrorist attacks (and indeed terrorist attacks in general) predate the wall itself.

Now it has been suggested a few times that the wall was not constructed to stop terrorist attacks. After all, the Palestinian workforce which dominantly made its living under Israeli employment prior to the wall was gradually replaced by Jewish employees after the wall. This solved an unemployment problem that’d been growing in Israeli border villages and cities. But the idea was not new. During the Mandate the British worked with Charles Tegart to build a security fence for this same type of thing. So, it’s not like the Israeli’s just suddenly thought about imprisoning the Arabs. They idea had been present in that region since before Israel even existed. Tegart also instigated the construction of a series of checkpoints and road blocks, later nicknamed “Montgomery’s teeth” which are precisely similar to the Israeli checkpoints and roadblocks in Westbank. It should also be noted that during this time period security walls are a popular trend in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia began a security blockade on Yemen in 2004. In 2006 Iraq began construction on a security fence on Saudi Arabia.

Moreover, Rabin only agreed to the wall to insure his reelection in the 1996 race, after a second Dizengoff bombing. This bombing took place on the Jewish holiday of Purim, and Hamas proudly took credit. The operative attempted first to gain access to a shopping mall in Tel Aviv, but was halted by police stationed outside. He instead took off for a crowd of hundreds of civilians (mostly parents taking their young children to a celebration within the mall) standing in line for a cash machines. The police managed to shout a warning allowing the crowds to scatter, but 13 were still killed and an additional 130 were wounded including large numbers of children dressed in tradition Jewish honor costumes for the holiday celebrations.

Now, imagine this took place in Canada. Imagine a group of children gathered before the Canadian flag singing, “O Canada,” and then they’re blown to bits and this is aired on national news. How do you think the Canadian people would react? Now imagine that this was the fourth time it had happened in a week. How about America, Japan, the UK, Germany? Can you imagine a taking your little boy or girl to a child's festival in honor of your culture's heroes and having them hit by a suicide bomber? How do you think YOUR nation would react?

Personally, I think that the WALL is the inevitable outcome of terrorist attacks from Gaza, not the opposite.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
117
Offline
Posted 7/30/09 , edited 7/30/09
The wall is illegal in many parts and makes life for many Palestinians very difficult. Israel should look for ways to fight terrorism that don't involve making all Palestinians' lives even worse, it doesn't seem to be an effective method.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 7/30/09

Yei wrote:

The wall is illegal in many parts and makes life for many Palestinians very difficult. Israel should look for ways to fight terrorism that don't involve making all Palestinians' lives even worse, it doesn't seem to be an effective method.


Well, statistically it is a very effective method. That’s why Hamas is now using mortar and rockets instead of suicide bombers and knives. You’ll notice that these rockets are very hard to aim and even though Hamas has been firing thousands into Israel there are rarely any serious casualties. Mostly just property damage and minor abrasions.

In addition, Israel’s wall on Gaza is almost completely legal. There are only a few places where it crosses the borderline and these are negligible, mostly unpopulated areas between Israeli and Palestinian villages.

The legal debate surrounding the wall is concentric upon the border with Westbank. So, even if you argue that the wall in Westbank should be destroyed, Israel still has the right to the wall on Gaza. especially now that Hamas has taken over and occupied it.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
117
Offline
Posted 7/30/09

SeraphAlford wrote:


Yei wrote:

The wall is illegal in many parts and makes life for many Palestinians very difficult. Israel should look for ways to fight terrorism that don't involve making all Palestinians' lives even worse, it doesn't seem to be an effective method.


Well, statistically it is a very effective method. That’s why Hamas is now using mortar and rockets instead of suicide bombers and knives. You’ll notice that these rockets are very hard to aim and even though Hamas has been firing thousands into Israel there are rarely any serious casualties. Mostly just property damage and minor abrasions.

In addition, Israel’s wall on Gaza is almost completely legal. There are only a few places where it crosses the borderline and these are negligible, mostly unpopulated areas between Israeli and Palestinian villages.

The legal debate surrounding the wall is concentric upon the border with Westbank. So, even if you argue that the wall in Westbank should be destroyed, Israel still has the right to the wall on Gaza. especially now that Hamas has taken over and occupied it.


According to the International Court of Justice, the entire wall in the Westbank is illegal.


On 9 July 2004, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that the Separation Wall being built by Israel in the West Bank is illegal. Yet five years on Israel continues to build the Wall in defiance of international law and global outrage.


Couldn't they have found a way to deal with this without breaking international law and making so many Palestinians' lives worse? It seems like Israel can do whatever it wants regardless of the law or the Palestinians.
Scientist Moderator
digs 
52086 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 7/30/09
I think the Gaza wall is justified. It was created to stop terrorism and help Israelis who had been terrorized by Hamas. Gaza still acts in terror and hatred, why remove the wall and subject yourself to more terrorism? Gaza hasn't acted responsibly and they haven't proven to be civil and diplomatic, none the less not racist and bent on the destruction of Jews. If Israel had it in their charter or constitution that their goal was to drive all Muslims into the sea and let their blood run in the streets you would see a clamor among the international community, and rightly so. Why is it ok for Hamas to act this way though?
4053 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Yo Mommas House
Offline
Posted 7/30/09 , edited 7/30/09

Yei wrote:


SeraphAlford wrote:


Yei wrote:

The wall is illegal in many parts and makes life for many Palestinians very difficult. Israel should look for ways to fight terrorism that don't involve making all Palestinians' lives even worse, it doesn't seem to be an effective method.


Well, statistically it is a very effective method. That’s why Hamas is now using mortar and rockets instead of suicide bombers and knives. You’ll notice that these rockets are very hard to aim and even though Hamas has been firing thousands into Israel there are rarely any serious casualties. Mostly just property damage and minor abrasions.

In addition, Israel’s wall on Gaza is almost completely legal. There are only a few places where it crosses the borderline and these are negligible, mostly unpopulated areas between Israeli and Palestinian villages.

The legal debate surrounding the wall is concentric upon the border with Westbank. So, even if you argue that the wall in Westbank should be destroyed, Israel still has the right to the wall on Gaza. especially now that Hamas has taken over and occupied it.


According to the International Court of Justice, the entire wall in the Westbank is illegal.


On 9 July 2004, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that the Separation Wall being built by Israel in the West Bank is illegal. Yet five years on Israel continues to build the Wall in defiance of international law and global outrage.


Couldn't they have found a way to deal with this without breaking international law and making so many Palestinians' lives worse? It seems like Israel can do whatever it wants regardless of the law or the Palestinians.


Pretty much if you could get away with any crime without any type of punishment you would probably do the same. Almost like your above the law and being justified for all your crimes makes it worse.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
117
Offline
Posted 7/30/09

digs wrote:

I think the Gaza wall is justified. It was created to stop terrorism and help Israelis who had been terrorized by Hamas. Gaza still acts in terror and hatred, why remove the wall and subject yourself to more terrorism? Gaza hasn't acted responsibly and they haven't proven to be civil and diplomatic, none the less not racist and bent on the destruction of Jews. If Israel had it in their charter or constitution that their goal was to drive all Muslims into the sea and let their blood run in the streets you would see a clamor among the international community, and rightly so. Why is it ok for Hamas to act this way though?


Many people seems to have this weird mentality that if one party does wrong it justifies another doing wrong. And I don't understand it. No one ever said Hamas's actions were ok.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 7/30/09 , edited 7/30/09

Yei According to the International Court of Justice, the entire wall in the Westbank is illegal.


What is you say is entirely factual, but as I pointed out even if the portion of the wall passing into Westbank is illegal the rest is Israel’s right; moreover, I’m not entirely sure I agree with the ICJ’s ruling on this issue. The argument they put up was that Israel’s presence in Westbank is illegal (citing UN Resolution 242); therefore, Israel’s wall on Westbank is illegal. While I agree with the secondary postulate I question the primary.

UN Resolutions, and Security Council Resolutions in particular, break down into two categories. Chapter Seven Resolutions are mandatory and concern threats to peace, breeches of peace, and acts of martial aggression. These are to be upheld by force, as seen in the 1991 Gulf War I’ve become suddenly obsessed with. Chapter Six Resolutions are advisory resolutions dealing with international disputes. These are meant to be implemented through negotiation and mutual cooperation. In other words, if one side of a Chapter Six Resolution fails to live up to its obligation the other end is not required to follow through.

Let’s say that United States began to build nuclear power plants on its border with Mexico and this caused a conflict. The UN would come in and serve as a supposedly neutral mediator and create a Resolution to solve the problem. Let’s say that in this Resolution the US would be obliged to stop building nuclear power plants so close to Mexico, but in return the Mexican government would have to do more to prevent illegal immigrants to the US. Well, if the Mexican government neglected this duty then the US would not be in violation of the resolution if it continued the construction.

UN Resolution 242 calls for the immediate withdrawal of Israel from the Westbank, yes. However, it also calls for “Termination of all claims or states of belligerency in respect for and in acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries, free from threats or acts of force.”

The Palestinians have not lived up to any of these conditions. Fatah text books, for example, claim that Israel is actually a part of Palestine. They claim that Israel is actual a part of Palestine taken over by ‘gangs of Jews,’ and has no territorial integrity, sovereignty, or political independence. The PLO’s Charter still calls for the destruction of Israel. We all know that Hamas does this too, but since the PLO considers Gaza territory occupied by Hamas I do not think it’s fair to blame the PLO for Hamas’ terrorism.

I think the ICJ was simply following through with a history of unconditional and irrational condemnation of Israel in order to stay on good grounds with Israel’s enemies which control the majority of the world’s oil supply. Should the Arab League and their Middle Eastern allies ever learn to cooperate then they would have the whole world by the balls. Oil is the life blood of modern life, and the UN, Security Council, ICL all know it!


On 9 July 2004, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that the Separation Wall being built by Israel in the West Bank is illegal. Yet five years on Israel continues to build the Wall in defiance of international law and global outrage.


Well, in Israel's defense the United Nations is a tool of the oil lords, and really no nation acknowledge the UN's resolutions. Here's an example: The UN demands that all wealthy nations maintain an annual foreign aid expenditure amounting to .7% of the respective nation's GDP. Do a quick Google search and found out how many nations defy this rule. I think only two nations live up to it while the rest of us fall sickeningly sort. America, for example, gives about .02% of our GDP.

Of the 175 Security Council resolutions passed before 1990, 97 were directed against Israel.
Of the 690 General Assembly resolutions voted on before 1990, 429 were directed against Israel. The U.N was silent while 58 Jerusalem Synagogues were destroyed by the Jordanians. The U.N. was silent while the Jordanians systematically desecrated the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives. The U.N. was silent while the Jordanians enforced an apartheid-like policy of preventing Jews from visiting the Temple Mount and the Western Wall. Over 80% of the original British Mandate land was given to Arabs.


Couldn't they have found a way to deal with this without breaking international law and making so many Palestinians' lives worse? It seems like Israel can do whatever it wants regardless of the law or the Palestinians.


Well, once again nations all around the world are constantly ignoring and violating international law without any retribution. The Kyoto Protocol disguised as a form of international environmental protection, for example, was actually designed to “even the playing field,” with American companies. Naturally America doesn’t acknowledge this.

As far as not constructing the wall, I honestly don’t see any other reasonable solution to stopping suicide bomings.


EDIT:

First off, I really wish they wouldn’t sandwich the delete button between the quote and edit buttons. Secondly, I know I used the USA as my example in this quite a lot but that’s just because I’m an American and so I know more about America.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
117
Offline
Posted 7/30/09 , edited 7/30/09

SeraphAlford wrote:


Yei According to the International Court of Justice, the entire wall in the Westbank is illegal.


What is you say is entirely factual, but as I pointed out even if the portion of the wall passing into Westbank is illegal the rest is Israel’s right; moreover, I’m not entirely sure I agree with the ICJ’s ruling on this issue. The argument they put up was that Israel’s presence in Westbank is illegal (citing UN Resolution 242); therefore, Israel’s wall on Westbank is illegal. While I agree with the secondary postulate I question the primary.

UN Resolutions, and Security Council Resolutions in particular, break down into two categories. Chapter Seven Resolutions are mandatory and concern threats to peace, breeches of peace, and acts of martial aggression. These are to be upheld by force, as seen in the 1991 Gulf War I’ve become suddenly obsessed with. Chapter Six Resolutions are advisory resolutions dealing with international disputes. These are meant to be implemented through negotiation and mutual cooperation. In other words, if one side of a Chapter Six Resolution fails to live up to its obligation the other end is not required to follow through.

Let’s say that United States began to build nuclear power plants on its border with Mexico and this caused a conflict. The UN would come in and serve as a supposedly neutral mediator and create a Resolution to solve the problem. Let’s say that in this Resolution the US would be obliged to stop building nuclear power plants so close to Mexico, but in return the Mexican government would have to do more to prevent illegal immigrants to the US. Well, if the Mexican government neglected this duty then the US would not be in violation of the resolution if it continued the construction.

UN Resolution 242 calls for the immediate withdrawal of Israel from the Westbank, yes. However, it also calls for “Termination of all claims or states of belligerency in respect for and in acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries, free from threats or acts of force.”

The Palestinians have not lived up to any of these conditions. Fatah text books, for example, claim that Israel is actually a part of Palestine. They claim that Israel is actual a part of Palestine taken over by ‘gangs of Jews,’ and has no territorial integrity, sovereignty, or political independence. The PLO’s Charter still calls for the destruction of Israel. We all know that Hamas does this too, but since the PLO considers Gaza territory occupied by Hamas I do not think it’s fair to blame the PLO for Hamas’ terrorism.

I think the ICJ was simply following through with a history of unconditional and irrational condemnation of Israel in order to stay on good grounds with Israel’s enemies which control the majority of the world’s oil supply. Should the Arab League and their Middle Eastern allies ever learn to cooperate then they would have the whole world by the balls. Oil is the life blood of modern life, and the UN, Security Council, ICL all know it!


On 9 July 2004, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that the Separation Wall being built by Israel in the West Bank is illegal. Yet five years on Israel continues to build the Wall in defiance of international law and global outrage.


Well, in Israel's defense the United Nations is a tool of the oil lords, and really no nation acknowledge the UN's resolutions. Here's an example: The UN demands that all wealthy nations maintain an annual foreign aid expenditure amounting to .7% of the respective nation's GDP. Do a quick Google search and found out how many nations defy this rule. I think only two nations live up to it while the rest of us fall sickeningly sort. America, for example, gives about .02% of our GDP.

Of the 175 Security Council resolutions passed before 1990, 97 were directed against Israel.
Of the 690 General Assembly resolutions voted on before 1990, 429 were directed against Israel. The U.N was silent while 58 Jerusalem Synagogues were destroyed by the Jordanians. The U.N. was silent while the Jordanians systematically desecrated the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives. The U.N. was silent while the Jordanians enforced an apartheid-like policy of preventing Jews from visiting the Temple Mount and the Western Wall. Over 80% of the original British Mandate land was given to Arabs.


Couldn't they have found a way to deal with this without breaking international law and making so many Palestinians' lives worse? It seems like Israel can do whatever it wants regardless of the law or the Palestinians.


Well, once again nations all around the world are constantly ignoring and violating international law without any retribution. The Kyoto Protocol disguised as a form of international environmental protection, for example, was actually designed to “even the playing field,” with American companies. Naturally America doesn’t acknowledge this.

As far as not constructing the wall, I honestly don’t see any other reasonable solution to stopping suicide bomings.


EDIT:

First off, I really wish they wouldn’t sandwich the delete button between the quote and edit buttons. Secondly, I know I used the USA as my example in this quite a lot but that’s just because I’m an American and so I know more about America.




Looks like pretty much the entire wall is in the West Bank and illegal. Or maybe they just didn't put on the parts of it that aren't in the West Bank.

Here's a more in depth pic http://www.poica.org/editor/case_studies/Separation%20Wall-1.jpg


And it looks like they are trying to outline the borders of the settlements and trap the Palestinians in specific areas. And I thought the majority of suicide bombers came from Gaza.

So people shouldn't have to follow international law, cause no one takes it seriously? Ok, but the wall is still very bad for Palestinians. Israel's unjust treatment of the Palestinians can't be justified by Israel wanting security, the Palestinians are people too, they actually need to be considered. I can think of a way to stop the terrorism without punishing all the Palestinians collectively, build a wall that's not illegal and doesn't hurt the Palestinians, and if they really wanna make a difference they should try to ease up on the apartheid and oppression. Otherwise they can't expect the terrorism to ever stop.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 7/30/09

Yei


Again, I don't think the wall violates resolution 242. See my previous arguement. It's not against international law. 242 is advisory and anyway the Palestinians chose not to accept it.

Most of the suicide bombers were being launched from Gaza. However, Westbank was being used as a base for launching missiles at Jerusalem and other Jewish cities by Jordanian and Palestinian terrorists prior to 1967. This is why Israel captured Westbank in the Six Day War. The wall is being constructed along a winding path designed to put Jerusalem outside of the range of mortar and rocket fire. Nobody can get within the regions used as launching pads for these weapons without going through the Israeli checkpoints because of that barrier. That means they’ll never get their weapons in. They could shoot over the wall, but then Jerusalem will be out of range.

I think that the wall should be built and then put under UN control. That way what needs to get through gets through and what needs to be stopped gets stopped. I can't think of any other reasonable solution to the problem....don't you think?

Now, Israel’s treatment of Palestinians in Westbank does need to change. My suggestion is that settlements stop and that superfluous checkpoints be torn down. Israel can maintain control of Westbank’s entry points until peace is attained but in the meantime they can start working towards peace by allowing the Palestinians some authority to govern their own territory in Westbank.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
117
Offline
Posted 7/30/09

SeraphAlford wrote:

Again, I don't think the wall violates resolution 242. See my previous arguement. It's not against international law. 242 is advisory and anyway the Palestinians chose not to accept it.

Most of the suicide bombers were being launched from Gaza. However, Westbank was being used as a base for launching missiles at Jerusalem and other Jewish cities by Jordanian and Palestinian terrorists prior to 1967. This is why Israel captured Westbank in the Six Day War. The wall is being constructed along a winding path designed to put Jerusalem outside of the range of mortar and rocket fire. Nobody can get within the regions used as launching pads for these weapons without going through the Israeli checkpoints because of that barrier. That means they’ll never get their weapons in. They could shoot over the wall, but then Jerusalem will be out of range.

I think that the wall should be built and then put under UN control. That way what needs to get through gets through and what needs to be stopped gets stopped. I can't think of any other reasonable solution to the problem....don't you think?

Now, Israel’s treatment of Palestinians in Westbank does need to change. My suggestion is that settlements stop and that superfluous checkpoints be torn down. Israel can maintain control of Westbank’s entry points until peace is attained but in the meantime they can start working towards peace by allowing the Palestinians some authority to govern their own territory in Westbank.


That's not what the International Court of Justice says. And it's not illegal because it violates 242, it's illegal because it violates international law (ie. the Geneva Conventions). I think the wall needs to be torn down in many places where it cause the most inconvenience for Palestinians.

Here's what should happen, Israel should negotiate with the Palestinians and the terrorists. Tell them they'll start treating them better and start thinking of the two-state plan if they can stop all the terrorism. Because right now the Palestinians are still being oppressed and they eventually are going to resort to terrorism if it doesn't stop. Israel's just making things worse, again.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 7/30/09 , edited 7/30/09

Yei
That's not what the International Court of Justice says. And it's not illegal because it violates 242, it's illegal because it violates international law (ie. the Geneva Conventions). I think the wall needs to be torn down in many places where it cause the most inconvenience for Palestinians.

Here's what should happen, Israel should negotiate with the Palestinians and the terrorists. Tell them they'll start treating them better and start thinking of the two-state plan if they can stop all the terrorism. Because right now the Palestinians are still being oppressed and they eventually are going to resort to terrorism if it doesn't stop. Israel's just making things worse, again.


The international court’s decision was dictated by Arab oil. But, if you can show my why my argument is wrong I might think otherwise. Your suggestion is naive, it's also been tried. And international law is not limited to the Geneva Convention; moreover, the Geneva Convention does not concern Israel's wall. It concerns the transferring of population through the construction of settlements. Even Norman Finkelstein says this. Go watch his lecture. He attacks the settlements with the Geneva Convention and he attacks the wall with 242. Transferring population is illegal, the wall is not. Your suggestion is naive and has been tried before. Even if the wall was illegal, why should Israel risk its citizens just for an orginization biased against Israel?

“No peace, no recognition, and no negotiation with Israel.” The “Three Noes,” of the Khartoum Arab Summit.

“We plan to eliminate the state of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian state. We will make life unbearable for Jews. . . . We Palestinians will take over everything, including all of Jerusalem.” Yasser Arafat
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
117
Offline
Posted 7/30/09

SeraphAlford wrote:


Yei
That's not what the International Court of Justice says. And it's not illegal because it violates 242, it's illegal because it violates international law (ie. the Geneva Conventions). I think the wall needs to be torn down in many places where it cause the most inconvenience for Palestinians.

Here's what should happen, Israel should negotiate with the Palestinians and the terrorists. Tell them they'll start treating them better and start thinking of the two-state plan if they can stop all the terrorism. Because right now the Palestinians are still being oppressed and they eventually are going to resort to terrorism if it doesn't stop. Israel's just making things worse, again.


The international court’s decision was dictated by Arab oil. But, if you can show my why my argument is wrong I might think otherwise. Your suggestion is naive, it's also been tried. And international law is not limited to the Geneva Convention; moreover, the Geneva Convention does not concern Israel's wall. It concerns the transferring of population through the construction of settlements. Even Norman Finkelstein says this. Go watch his lecture. He attacks the settlements with the Geneva Convention and he attacks the wall with 242. Transferring population is illegal, the wall is not. Your suggestion is naive and has been tried before. Even if the wall was illegal, why should Israel risk its citizens just for an orginization biased against Israel?

“No peace, no recognition, and no negotiation with Israel.” The “Three Noes,” of the Khartoum Arab Summit.

“We plan to eliminate the state of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian state. We will make life unbearable for Jews. . . . We Palestinians will take over everything, including all of Jerusalem.” Yasser Arafat


No it was dictated by international law. Norman Finkelstein explains that the legality of the wall wouldn't even be in question if it was not on illegally occupied land. It's not legally their land because they acquired it in the 1967 war, so the wall being built there is illegal.

My suggestion is probably the only real chance at making any progress, if they just continue the oppression, the terrorism won't stop, the conflict will get worse. I don't think it has been tried before, at least not properly. If Israel at least tries to make an effort in making the Palestinians lives less miserable, and talking about the 2-state plan, things might get done. The 2-state plan is never going to happen until Israel actually takes an interest in trying to make it happen fairly.

Why should the Palestinians who have nothing to do with terrorism have to suffer? Israel can try to protect it's citizens without harming all Palestinians collectively.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 7/30/09

Yei
No it was dictated by international law. Norman Finkelstein explains that the legality of the wall wouldn't even be in question if it was not on illegally occupied land. It's not legally their land because they acquired it in the 1967 war, so the wall being built there is illegal.



Now we’ve come full circle. Attaining land through means of war was made illegal by UN Resolution 242. Go ahead and reference Norman Finkelstein’s books or lectures. Hell, take a look at that lecture of his Drizza posted some time back. The attack on the legality of Israel’s presence in Westbank is concentrically engineered around Resolution 242. So, we can continue down this line but you’re going to have to address and refute my argument on 242.


My suggestion is probably the only real chance at making any progress, if they just continue the oppression, the terrorism won't stop, the conflict will get worse. I don't think it has been tried before, at least not properly. If Israel at least tries to make an effort in making the Palestinians lives less miserable, and talking about the 2-state plan, things might get done. The 2-state plan is never going to happen until Israel actually takes an interest in trying to make it happen fairly.

Why should the Palestinians who have nothing to do with terrorism have to suffer? Israel can try to protect it's citizens without harming all Palestinians collectively.


The Palestinians elected Hamas, a terrorist organization, in June 2006. They democratically made their decision to support terrorism. Fine, but now they can democratically deal with the consequences of their cultural bigotry. Your suggestion has been tried, but again the Arabs don't want peace. They've said they don't want peace.
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 7/30/09
Any claimed land and territories by human's race is all non-sense. There's no one who supposed to claim this land is owned by them and draw the line or borders to prevent another human entering their territories.

This world was made by God for human, all entire human, regardless gender, belief, races or age.
The borders are just nuisance to peace. Mostly happened to USSR(Soviet), past Germany (Berlin Wall) and North-South Korea.

Screw Holy Book that said, That's their Promised Land. If that true, that caused to war by ideology which always lead to extremist in both sides. 'The Land' is only been pursued because the human's greed, that's all. Ignoring another human's race live in their neighbor always caused jealously and hatred toward the Wall.

If they, Israel and Palestine, only discussed the war solution because of land, property and resources. That's greed and will lead to another demands for both side. Thus, it'll be never ending war.

For the sake's of humanity and peace, I suggest just nuke both country that always cause harm and suffering to the world. After that, whether Iran or Israel's supporter mad, vanish them as well. They're just bunch of extremist that always caused damage to people whom not stands for them.

What we need is a NEUTRAL forces to do this. Without stands in both sides. Sadly, that's impossible for now, referring to UN which is being controlled or couldn't do anything if America involves like in Afghanistan for "biological weapon"

If people in the world do not always values their own life and ignoring others life, the war would not happen. We need humanity that always aims for the sake's of all human in the world, for the sake's of the world, for the eternal peace.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.