babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » Jerusalem is not in Israel: Canadian courts

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Jerusalem is not in Israel: Canadian courts
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 14 February 2008 02:19 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Supreme Court spurns Jerusalem appeal

quote:
The Supreme Court of Canada will not hear an appeal from a Toronto man who wanted his passport to designate his place of birth as Jerusalem, Israel. [...]

Canadian policy does not recognize Israeli control of Jerusalem.

Mr. Veffer said this violated his rights, but the Federal Court ruled against him, saying that the United Nations does not recognize Jerusalem as lying within the boundaries of any state.


Nice try, Mr. Veffer. Now go persuade your country of birth to start abiding by international law and finding a way to live in peace with its neighbours.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 14 February 2008 07:14 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
Perhaps unionist you can stop being so blinded by your own ideology and recognize that it takes two to make peace.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 14 February 2008 07:20 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
Perhaps unionist you can stop being so blinded by your own ideology and recognize that it takes two to make peace.

You think opposition to aggression, occupation, ethnic chauvinism, starvation and displacement of populations, and targetted assassinations is a matter of ideology?

What do you think drove me - brought up as a religious Jew, a Zionist, hearing stories of Israel's miraculous resistance against the Arab hordes - to take this position? Some BOOK I read? A lecture?

This didn't come easy, and it still isn't easy. But the word "ideology" springs easily to your mind, doesn't it.

No, it doesn't take two to make peace. It takes one to pull out. It takes one to stop committing aggression.

It would be nice if there were two. But the other one keeps discrediting, or killing, every potential candidate. For decades.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
just one of the concerned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14896

posted 14 February 2008 08:55 PM      Profile for just one of the concerned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Perhaps unionist you can stop being so blinded by your own ideology and recognize that it takes two to make peace.

How many did it take to make peace in south africa? How about opium wars, colonies, and slave trades? Because all of those things have had violent resistance movements.

When will you stop believing that Israel and Palestine are on level ground in terms of power?


From: in the cold outside of the cjc | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 15 February 2008 12:34 AM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Point of information: Isn't the WESTERN part of Jerusalem within Israel proper?

I thought the question was whether Jerusalem was the legitimate capital city of Israel.

[ 15 February 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 February 2008 01:07 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Based on the UN definition, Israel really has no official status outside of the original partition. No part of Jerusalem was ever awarded to Israel when the state was founded.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 February 2008 01:39 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here is a link to the UN Map from the period: http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/cf02d057b04d356385256ddb006dc02f/3cbe4ee1ef30169085256b98006f540d!OpenDocument
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 February 2008 01:43 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here is a more relevant Map calld West Bank Fragmentation:

[ 15 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 15 February 2008 03:05 AM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

You think opposition to aggression, occupation, ethnic chauvinism, starvation and displacement of populations, and targetted assassinations is a matter of ideology?

What do you think drove me - brought up as a religious Jew, a Zionist, hearing stories of Israel's miraculous resistance against the Arab hordes - to take this position? Some BOOK I read? A lecture?

This didn't come easy, and it still isn't easy. But the word "ideology" springs easily to your mind, doesn't it.

No, it doesn't take two to make peace. It takes one to pull out. It takes one to stop committing aggression.

It would be nice if there were two. But the other one keeps discrediting, or killing, every potential candidate. For decades.


It is exactly that oine sided attitude that negates peace.

From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 February 2008 03:21 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I thought it was bypass roads, barriers, checkpoints and no go zones, and yet another incident of West Bank woman denied ambulance dies-Palestinians.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 15 February 2008 03:49 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:
Point of information: Isn't the WESTERN part of Jerusalem within Israel proper?

I thought the question was whether Jerusalem was the legitimate capital city of Israel.


1. Virtually no one - including the United States - recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

2. International law does not recognize any part of Jerusalem as being legally within Israel - never has.

This is from the Federal Court of Appeal's decision (the one the Supreme Court denied leave to appeal against):

quote:
Legal Status of Jerusalem

[4] It is undisputed that Jerusalem has immense historic and religious significance to Jews, Muslims, and Christians throughout the world. It is perhaps because of this that the legal status of Jerusalem remains today a hotly contested issue. For the purposes of this appeal, it is sufficient to say that the United Nations takes the position, and has done so since the adoption of Resolution 181 in 1947, that Jerusalem is not lawfully within the territory of any state. In other words, according to the United Nations, it is a territory without a sovereign. (The details of how and why the United Nations adopted this position are set out in the reasons for the judgment under appeal, and need not be repeated here.)

[5] Consistent with the United Nations’ position, Canada does not recognize de jure that any part of Jerusalem is a part of the territory of the state of Israel, even though Israel has controlled the western portion of Jerusalem since the early 1950s, and the eastern portion of Jerusalem since the war of 1967. Canada does, however, maintain a diplomatic practice of acknowledging Israel’s de facto control of the western portion of Jerusalem, but not the eastern portion (see Affidavit of Michael D. Bell, sworn March 22, 2005, at paragraph 26).


If you want to read the full reasons of the first court referred to above, you can find them here.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 15 February 2008 03:56 AM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I stand corrected. Thanks for the info.
From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Indiana Jones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14792

posted 15 February 2008 05:11 AM      Profile for Indiana Jones        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

You think opposition to aggression, occupation, ethnic chauvinism, starvation and displacement of populations, and targetted assassinations is a matter of ideology?

Not necessarily. But it's important to recognize that these traits exist on both sides of the conflict.


From: Toronto / Brooklyn / Jerusalem | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 15 February 2008 05:58 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:
I stand corrected. Thanks for the info.

My pleasure.

Just to complete the story, you may be interested to know that no country in the world maintains an embassy in Jerusalem.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 15 February 2008 08:47 AM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Indiana Jones:

Not necessarily. But it's important to recognize that these traits exist on both sides of the conflict.



Agreed. But the trait that is not shared, and is the stand-alone primary obstacle to peace, is the continued brutal occupation perpetrated by one side on the other.

From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 15 February 2008 08:50 AM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I have always hoped that Jerusalem would be an open city as envisioned by the original partition agreement.

I also hope that no matter what happens to the city in the future we never return to that period between 1948 and 1967 where the Western Wall was not open to Jews to pray at.


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Indiana Jones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14792

posted 15 February 2008 10:42 AM      Profile for Indiana Jones        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:

Agreed. But the trait that is not shared, and is the stand-alone primary obstacle to peace, is the continued brutal occupation perpetrated by one side on the other.

Well, another trait not shared is the targetting of innocent civilians for murder by indiscriminant terror attack.

It's sort of a chicken and egg situation: is terrorism in response to the occupation or does the occupation exist because of terrorism?


From: Toronto / Brooklyn / Jerusalem | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 15 February 2008 10:50 AM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Indiana Jones:
Well, another trait not shared is the targetting of innocent civilians for murder by indiscriminant terror attack.

Then why do all those innocent Palestinian civilians keep getting killed?


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
melovesproles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8868

posted 15 February 2008 10:52 AM      Profile for melovesproles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Well, another trait not shared is the targetting of innocent civilians for murder by indiscriminant terror attack.

Right because the greater number of Palestinian civilians who are killed are all 'accidents'? Or are you saying they aren't innocent?


From: BC | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
lucas
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6446

posted 15 February 2008 10:53 AM      Profile for lucas     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"...Well, another trait not shared is the targetting of innocent civilians for murder by indiscriminant terror attack...

Are you describing the Israelis or the Palestineans? Just curious.


From: Turner Valley | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Indiana Jones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14792

posted 15 February 2008 10:56 AM      Profile for Indiana Jones        Edit/Delete Post
Many, many, many innocent palestinians have been killed. But their deaths were not the GOAL, nor are they seen as cause for celebration. In carrying out military strikes, Israel has certainly not always exercised due care to avoid civilian casualties. But they would never deliberately, for example, target a pizza parlour full of civilians or a city bus or a shopping mall.
From: Toronto / Brooklyn / Jerusalem | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 15 February 2008 10:58 AM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Indiana Jones:
But they would never deliberately, for example, target a pizza parlour full of civilians or a city bus or a shopping mall.

Or an apartment building.

From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Indiana Jones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14792

posted 15 February 2008 11:00 AM      Profile for Indiana Jones        Edit/Delete Post
They've targetted apartment buildings when the goal was to kill terrorist eladers who deliberately hide among civilian populations, yes.

Again, I'm not denying that Israel has been complicit in many civilian deaths. I'm saying that the intention is very, very different.

You'll notice for example that when Palestinian civilians are killed, it's not seen as a cause for celebration in Tel Aviv.


From: Toronto / Brooklyn / Jerusalem | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 15 February 2008 11:05 AM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And there are those who would argue, obscenely, that the Israeli civilians themselves are not the target of the suicide-bombings; rather, it is the entire apparatus of Israeli infrastructure which enables the Occupation.

Justifying the killing of civilians is always dicey; are you sure you want to get yourself caught up in it Indie?

And the notion that the occupation is a response to terrorism is laughable. The answer to a terror attack is to build communities in the middle Palestinian land? Come now. Have some moral seriousness.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
melovesproles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8868

posted 15 February 2008 11:15 AM      Profile for melovesproles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I've always thought the 'Oops we did it again' defense for killing Palestinian civilians really weak. 'Sure we kill way more civilians on their side than they kill on ours but if you had a moral x-ray and looked beyond the material world of numbers of lives you would see our hearts are purer'....or whatever.
From: BC | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Indiana Jones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14792

posted 15 February 2008 11:15 AM      Profile for Indiana Jones        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
And there are those who would argue, obscenely, that the Israeli civilians themselves are not the target of the suicide-bombings; rather, it is the entire apparatus of Israeli infrastructure which enables the Occupation.

And the notion that the occupation is a response to terrorism is laughable. The answer to a terror attack is to build communities in the middle Palestinian land? Come now. Have some moral seriousness.


You COULD make the argument that suicide bombings target the apparatus of israeli infrastructure, but I think you'd be on shaky ground in msot cases. I don't see a suicide bombing in a coffee shop in Tel Aviv (israel proper) filled with civilians as being targetted resistance to occupation. I see that as murdering innocent civilians. Can you find a rationale for how, for example, murdering Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics is targetting "infrastructure"? That's murder, plain and simple.

With regards to occupation being a response to terrorism, like I said, I think it's a chicken-egg question and it creates a very viscious cycle of horrific situations. But there is certainly an argument to be made that if teh PA is unwilling to tackle terrorism, it becomes necessary for Israel to maintain a military (not civilian) presence in the region in order to protect it's own security. If you'd like to see some of the results of unilateral withdrawal from occupied territories, spend a night in Sederot, which is bombarded nightly with rockets from Gaza. (I did.)There's anotehr argument that says that creating civilian settlements in Palestinian land does not determine whether there will be terrorism against israel. it merely determines where the front line will be in the war.


From: Toronto / Brooklyn / Jerusalem | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
Indiana Jones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14792

posted 15 February 2008 11:21 AM      Profile for Indiana Jones        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by melovesproles:
I've always thought the 'Oops we did it again' defense for killing Palestinian civilians really weak. 'Sure we kill way more civilians on their side than they kill on ours but if you had a moral x-ray and looked beyond the material world of numbers of lives you would see our hearts are purer'....or whatever.

I disagree. The fact is that Israel has VASTLY superior military than teh palestinians do. If Israel wanted every man, woman and child in palestine dead, they could make it happen. The fact is that they DON'T want this. I don't think you can say the same for many on the other side. The fact that Israel has caused more civilian deaths shouldn't be teh standard of judgment. Intentions matter. The fact that thousands more israeli civilians weren't murdered isn't a testament to the goodwill that exists on the otehr side. It only reflects their lack of success in achieving their goals.

If person A sets out to kill 10 (bad) people and kills 11 people (one of whom is innocent) and person B sets out to kill a hundred (innocent) people and only succeeds in killing 5 (innocent) people, that doesn't make person B morally superior for not having killed as many.


From: Toronto / Brooklyn / Jerusalem | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 15 February 2008 11:25 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That is the same argument all supremacist groups use to justify violence and murder: The other by resisting violence is to blame for the violence. Such a neat piece of dirty logic.

And, yes, I see Israeli Zionism as a supremacist movement not unlike the white supremacists of South Africa or in North America. Same song different choir.

[ 15 February 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Indiana Jones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14792

posted 15 February 2008 11:30 AM      Profile for Indiana Jones        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
That is the same argument all supremacist groups use to justify violence and murder: The other by resisting violence is to blame for the violence. Such a neat piece of dirty logic.

[ 15 February 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]


But the question is whether, say, murdering Olympic athletes in Germany is, in fact, "resisting violence". Is shooting rockets at an elementary school "resisting violence"? How about blowing up a bus full of civilians?


From: Toronto / Brooklyn / Jerusalem | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
melovesproles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8868

posted 15 February 2008 11:31 AM      Profile for melovesproles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If person A sets out to kill 10 (bad) people and kills 11 people (one of whom is innocent)

Your saying over 90% of the Palestinians Israel kills are not innocent? Because that doesn't look like a very accurate analogy to me.

It gets to a point where 'collateral damage' becomes so consistent and common that it takes willful blindness for it to be seen as accidental.

It look like purposeful collective punishment to me. Many of Israel's apologists have moved past your denials and admit as much.


From: BC | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 15 February 2008 11:33 AM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well Indiana, I think you are engaging in a very shaky set of moral relativisms that are not going to serve you well. You think Sderot is bad (and I'm sure it is)? I've watched an entire Palestinian community be deprived of their only way of making a living. Forever. For the "security" of the "civilian" community built over their heads, without their consultation, and in violation of any kind of international law or basic decency.

To suggest equivalence, here, is grotesque. I also think you know that.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Indiana Jones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14792

posted 15 February 2008 11:39 AM      Profile for Indiana Jones        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
You think Sderot is bad (and I'm sure it is)? I've watched an entire Palestinian community be deprived of their only way of making a living. Forever. For the "security" of the "civilian" community built over their heads, without their consultation, and in violation of any kind of international law or basic decency.

Oh, i don't disagree with you, Coyote. I spent 6 months living in the region, compelting my doctorate and meeting with Israelis and palestinians from all walks of life. I can't justify all of the wrongs being done to Palestinians in the name of fighting terror. I've met with people whose stories would absolutely break your heart. People whose lives ahve been made a living hell, who've lsot their jobs because they can't get through a checkpoint. I've also met Israelis whose kids can't go to school because the elementary schools they attend are targetted by rockets every day. I've met with Israelis who are now confined to wheelchairs because they happened to be getting a slice of pizza in the wrong place at the wrong time. Both sides have engaged in reprehensible behaviour. And I can't claim to ahve any great solutions. I jsut think dscribing it is as simply a response to occupation and describing murdering civilians as "resisting violence" is so facile as to be insulting.


From: Toronto / Brooklyn / Jerusalem | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 15 February 2008 11:47 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You people are having a "debate" with this defender of Israel and its atrocities? Must be a slow day.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Indiana Jones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14792

posted 15 February 2008 11:51 AM      Profile for Indiana Jones        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
You people are having a "debate" with this defender of Israel and its atrocities? Must be a slow day.

Um, what atrocities did I defend? I'm perfectly prepared to condemn Israelis for atrocities that they commit. I'm not, however, prepared to give a free pass to Palestinians for THEIR atrocities.


From: Toronto / Brooklyn / Jerusalem | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 15 February 2008 11:53 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by johnpauljones:
I have always hoped that Jerusalem would be an open city as envisioned by the original partition agreement.

There was no "original partition agreement". But leaving that technical point aside, are you saying that you still support that the status of Jerusalem should be as proposed by the U.N. in 1947?

quote:
I also hope that no matter what happens to the city in the future we never return to that period between 1948 and 1967 where the Western Wall was not open to Jews to pray at.

I share your hope. But if Israel stops committing aggression and unilaterally tearing up international conventions, the Jewish people may stop suffering for its crimes.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 15 February 2008 11:57 AM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
You people are having a "debate" with this defender of Israel and its atrocities? Must be a slow day.
Hear hear!! I have almost posted a couple of times. Quite the configuration. 90% of Palestians killed by Israel are terrorists and all Israelis killed are innocents. That is racist drivel. Besdies the Palestinians learnt the tactic from the Israeli terrorists.

quote:
Some 25 minutes after the telephone calls, a shattering explosion shook Jerusalem, and reverberated at a great distance. The entire southern wing of the King David Hotel - all seven storeys - was totally destroyed. For reasons unclear, the staff of the government secretariat and the military command remained in their rooms. Some of them were unaware of events, and others were not permitted to leave the building, thus accounting for the large number of victims trapped in the debris.

King David Hotel after the explosion
For ten days, the British Engineering Corps cleared the wreckage, and on July 31 it was officially announced that 91 people had been killed in the explosion: 28 Britons, 41 Arabs, 17 Jews and 5 others.


The First Terror Bombing

From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 February 2008 11:58 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Indiana Jones:
Many, many, many innocent palestinians have been killed. But their deaths were not the GOAL, nor are they seen as cause for celebration. In carrying out military strikes, Israel has certainly not always exercised due care to avoid civilian casualties. But they would never deliberately, for example, target a pizza parlour full of civilians or a city bus or a shopping mall.

Bullshit. IDF just needs an Casus Beli for action, say some guy who one of their secret IDF courts has decided must die to be driving into a an interesection in order to blow him, and whoever else is around sky high.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Indiana Jones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14792

posted 15 February 2008 12:02 PM      Profile for Indiana Jones        Edit/Delete Post
I think that's incredibly naive, Cueball. do you honestly believe the goal of israel is to kill as many civilians as possible?
From: Toronto / Brooklyn / Jerusalem | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
Indiana Jones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14792

posted 15 February 2008 12:04 PM      Profile for Indiana Jones        Edit/Delete Post
Kropotkin, yes, I believe the majority of israelis killed have been innocent. Pretty much anybody not wearing a uniform, yes. Or do you consider Israeli athletes, schoolchildren in Sderot and people riding the bus to work legitimate targets?
From: Toronto / Brooklyn / Jerusalem | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 15 February 2008 12:05 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Indiana Jones:
I think that's incredibly naive, Cueball. do you honestly believe the goal of israel is to kill as many civilians as possible?
The goal appears to be to annex as much of the west bank as possible and civilian deaths and casualties are merely collateral damage for the greater good. You seem to have no problem in presuming that all Palestinians believe in killing all Israelis which is at least as absurd.

From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 15 February 2008 12:09 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Indiana Jones:
Kropotkin, yes, I believe the majority of israelis killed have been innocent. Pretty much anybody not wearing a uniform, yes. Or do you consider Israeli athletes, schoolchildren in Sderot and people riding the bus to work legitimate targets?
Was the King David Hotel a legitimate target? Are Palestinian apartment buildings legitimate targets? Are children throwing rocks at occupiers tanks legitimate targets? Are hospitals and clinics legitimate targets because of the politics of the organization providing the social services?

Take the plank out of your own eyes.


From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 15 February 2008 12:09 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Indiana Jones: I think that's incredibly naive, Cueball. do you honestly believe the goal of israel is to kill as many civilians as possible?

It's actually very easy to make this case. Just look, e.g., at the 2006 Israeli invasion of Lebanon and its aftermath. Ask yourself why the Israelis continue to refuse to provide information on the minefields they set up, where all the cluster bombs they dropped are, etc., etc.., and you'll come to the conclusion, as others have, that killing civilians was a goal and not "collateral damage" or an accidental consequence of the invasion.

Of course, you've got to do some homework and have an open mind. To the best of my knowledge, this has got bugger all to do with the status of Jerusalem. I sometimes feel like I'm in a Monty Python skit here at babble. HTFG.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Indiana Jones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14792

posted 15 February 2008 12:14 PM      Profile for Indiana Jones        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
Was the King David Hotel a legitimate target? Are Palestinian apartment buildings legitimate targets? Are children throwing rocks at occupiers tanks legitimate targets? Are hospitals and clinics legitimate targets because of the politics of the organization providing the social services?

Take the plank out of your own eyes.


NO. They are NOT legitimate targets.

How about that? It's possible to be critical of one side without blindly defending everything the other side does. Now, you try it: Are Olympic athletes legitimate targets? How about kids in school?


From: Toronto / Brooklyn / Jerusalem | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
Indiana Jones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14792

posted 15 February 2008 12:16 PM      Profile for Indiana Jones        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:

Of course, you've got to do some homework and have an open mind.

How about spending six months living in the region, interviewing everyone from soldiers to settlers to recent immigrants to palestinians in refugee camps to members of terrorist organizations? How about a Ph.D. from Columbia University with a thesis based on first-hand anthropological investigations of the situation there? is that enough homework? Now am I qualified to comment?


From: Toronto / Brooklyn / Jerusalem | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 15 February 2008 12:26 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Well, another trait not shared is the targetting of innocent civilians for murder by indiscriminant terror attack.
The problem with your viewpoint is you look at one side and say they are well intentioned and the other side is terrorist. If you didn't make statements like the above I wouldn't respond to you like you are an Israeli apologist for murder of innocent civilians. Guernica was the first terrorist air attack on a civilian population and in my view every country including my own that has used this kind of terror on civilians is morally bankrupt. The same logic is used to justify the nuking of civilians in Japan.

Maybe you should put your analysis into wondering why after 60 years a country can still believe that by terrorizing neighbours with air strikes, tanks, bulldozers etc etc it will achieve peace.


From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Indiana Jones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14792

posted 15 February 2008 12:29 PM      Profile for Indiana Jones        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by kropotkin1951:

Maybe you should put your analysis into wondering why after 60 years a country can still believe that by terrorizing neighbours with air strikes, tanks, bulldozers etc etc it will achieve peace.

I do wonder that.

I also wonder why after 60 years a people can still believe that murdering Olympic athletes, blowing up buses and coffee shops and launching missiles at elementary schools will achieve independence.


From: Toronto / Brooklyn / Jerusalem | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 15 February 2008 12:29 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Indiana Jones: blah-blah .... Now am I qualified to comment?

Sure. Why not? Why don't you share your deep understanding on this issue:

Israel mined Lebanon with unexploded cluster bombs just before ceasefire ?

ETA: You could start by telling us what military objective this was supposed to achieve.

[ 15 February 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 February 2008 12:43 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Indiana Jones:
I think that's incredibly naive, Cueball. do you honestly believe the goal of israel is to kill as many civilians as possible?

I believe that Israeli operational procedures are designed to intentionally determine that civilians are irrelevant to the targetting equation. Endless reading of reports where they some how end up killing civilians, as "collateral" damage indicates this.

You think, that after years of causing huge amounts of "collateral" damage they would have adjusted their procedures to prevent it occurence, since by and large the greatest number of Palestinians killed can not even be identified by the IDF as any kind of combatants.

Prohibiting the IAF from dropping 500 lb bombs on residential apartment blocks would be a common-sense solution to the problem of collateral damage for a military establishment that was concerned with the issue. It is evident therefore, since any idiot can see that such actions will result in a lot of collateral death, that the actions are intended to kill people other than the alledged "real" targets.

These facts, on top of the fact that Israel has stated policies invoking the principle of "collective punishment" such as house demolitions and policies aimed at starving the Gaza Strip, also indicate that civilian discomfiture and death are part of the operational method of Israel's counter-insurgency techniques.

Get real: You are the one who is naive, and worse, willfully so, out of misplaced loyalty.

[ 15 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 15 February 2008 01:12 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Indiana Jones:

How about spending six months living in the region, interviewing everyone from soldiers to settlers to recent immigrants to palestinians in refugee camps to members of terrorist organizations?


Oh, that's when you learned that Rachel Corrie's comrades were deliberately provoking settlers by photographing them on the Sabbath. Yeah, I remember.

No, you're not qualified. Your lame apologia for Israeli Zionism is an insult to the finest traditions of the Jewish people. Besides the fact that you don't even understand the Halacha on Shabbat. An atheist like me, that can be forgiven - but not a self-styled nouveau-"orthodox" Jew. You want qualifications? Back to heder.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 15 February 2008 01:22 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Um, what atrocities did I defend? I'm perfectly prepared to condemn Israelis for atrocities that they commit. I'm not, however, prepared to give a free pass to Palestinians for THEIR atrocities.

You give a free pass to Israeli atrocities every time you attempt to defend them as though there is any equivalence between a people resisting occupation and the slow genocide being carried out by the occupiers.

I can't find the essay right now but it was quite compelling. Would you argue that slaves must recognize the interests of their masters and therefore must compromise with them? Are the economic and security interests of slave holders, defined by slave holders themselves, of equal or greater importance than the rights of slaves to be free?

That is your argument. You argue Israel is justified in terrorizing the entire Palestinian people because of the acts of resistance committed by some of them. Your argument is that they they are victims of violence for resisting violence.

It absurd and it is the argument of an abuser. It is no different than a man claiming his wife forced him to beat her by attempting to resist being beaten.

[ 15 February 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Martha (but not Stewart)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12335

posted 15 February 2008 03:33 PM      Profile for Martha (but not Stewart)     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
Nice try, Mr. Veffer. Now go persuade your country of birth to start abiding by international law and finding a way to live in peace with its neighbours.

A friendly ammendment: Veffer has no country of birth, since the city of his birth is in no country.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 February 2008 03:43 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Maybe he should identify himself as a Palestinian, so that he can share the pleasure of having to get special permits when he tries to travel from one sector in the city of his birth, to another sector in the city of his birth, and will be officially recognized as a stateless person with limited rights, under international law.

The way it is now, he can travel anywhere in the the whole of Israel, and the West Bank as a citizen of the state of Israel. Having citzenship is such a pain in the ass.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
just one of the concerned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14896

posted 16 February 2008 10:20 AM      Profile for just one of the concerned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Indiana Jones:
Not necessarily. But it's important to recognize that these traits exist on both sides of the conflict.

Please answer this question. Do you think one's sides traits are more empowered, or do
you think they are equally culpable?


From: in the cold outside of the cjc | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 16 February 2008 10:42 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Was the King David Hotel a legitimate target?

It was the HQ of the British military - so well we can debate whether or not that justified blowing it up - it cannot be compared to a totally indiscriminate bombing of a pizza parlour in Tel Aviv that had no connection at all the the Israeli army or government - and where the one and only goal was to kill as many innocent civilians as possible.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 16 February 2008 11:13 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sixty years later, you people are "debating" whether the murder of 91 people in the bombing of the King David Hotel was justified or not?

Anyone who can find a justification for that act - or for the bombing of a pizza parlour in Tel Aviv - should be chased from this board. They have no place where human beings gather and discuss.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ibelongtonoone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14539

posted 16 February 2008 12:57 PM      Profile for Ibelongtonoone        Edit/Delete Post
Assume resistance to the occupation is legit to get that out of the way

looking at palestinian resistance techniques -

ie blowing up a pizza parlour,taking reporters hostage - other than revenge - they killed some of ours, so lets kill some of theirs what good does this type of killing do?

It makes people around the world sick to see inocennts slaughtered for no reason, and if anyhting diminishes sympathy for the palestian cause?

It doesn't seem to work in gaining anything, so why continue with this type of attacks?


From: Canada | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged
Ibelongtonoone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14539

posted 16 February 2008 01:03 PM      Profile for Ibelongtonoone        Edit/Delete Post
I hope my question was clear?

It would seem to me that Cheychans had a good case against Russia, for the brutality they have experienced going back to Stalin but then they go and take a school full of innocent little children as hostages - making them seem sick and with no scruples - any sympathy is gone and the army can crush them mercilessly.


From: Canada | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 16 February 2008 01:29 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Your advice to the Palestinians is truly touching.

Did you have any opinion about the topic of this thread?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ibelongtonoone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14539

posted 16 February 2008 01:58 PM      Profile for Ibelongtonoone        Edit/Delete Post
I don't appreciate yr sarcasm, I was following the arugment between Indiana Jones, and the rest, and very little enlightening info was posted by anyone about the original article.

I think that kind of academic discussion is of not much use in the middle of a war anyway.

What each side really wants, and how they expect to achieve it using the methods that they do, is a more interesting and usefull discussion to me.

Sorry for adding to the thread drift then.


From: Canada | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 16 February 2008 02:02 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

Oh, that's when you learned that Rachel Corrie's comrades were deliberately provoking settlers by photographing them on the Sabbath. Yeah, I remember.

No, you're not qualified. Your lame apologia for Israeli Zionism is an insult to the finest traditions of the Jewish people. Besides the fact that you don't even understand the Halacha on Shabbat. An atheist like me, that can be forgiven - but not a self-styled nouveau-"orthodox" Jew. You want qualifications? Back to heder.


You will soon understand IJ that unionist is an expert on all things Jewish


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 16 February 2008 02:07 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ibelongtonoone:
I hope my question was clear?
It would seem to me that Cheychans had a good case against Russia, for the brutality they have experienced going back to Stalin but then they go and take a school full of innocent little children as hostages - making them seem sick and with no scruples - any sympathy is gone and the army can crush them mercilessly.


So, dropping a bomb on an apartment block, (theoretically) to get one guy and killing 17 others is not sick and does not exhibit lack of scruples? Launching a rocket at the steps of a Mosque, which is crowded with religious worshipers and killing and wounding numerous bystanders, (theoretically) to get one guy, is not sick and does not exhibit lack of scruples?

Are my questions clear?

[ 16 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 16 February 2008 02:11 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
You will soon understand IJ that unionist is an expert on all things Jewish


This is a pretty bullshit thing to say.

From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ibelongtonoone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14539

posted 16 February 2008 02:22 PM      Profile for Ibelongtonoone        Edit/Delete Post
I agree Cueball - it's a matter of perception.

But can two wrongs ever make something wrong right?


From: Canada | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged
just one of the concerned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14896

posted 16 February 2008 02:47 PM      Profile for just one of the concerned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
ohara: Is it not true that one side is vastly more powerful than another, and controls its taxes and accounts, controls its borders, controls its exports, controls its imports, controls its laws, its diplomacy, its citizen's travels, its citizen's employment, its citizen's access to food and water and medicine.

Ohara? Indiana Jones? Do you not think its sort of out of place to be saying "good and bad on both sides" et cetera? Noone has answere dthis question yet.


From: in the cold outside of the cjc | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 16 February 2008 03:12 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You'll be a long time looking up that tree for nothin' more than a sore neck.
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 16 February 2008 04:34 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ibelongtonoone:
I think that kind of academic discussion is of not much use in the middle of a war anyway.

Let me enlighten you - if you actually care. This thread is about how Canada should deal diplomatically with the disputed issues in the Middle East.

Whether it should follow international law and norms - or whether it should follow ohara and jones and their ilk.

Whether it should stand for legality - or whether it should do like Joe Clark did when he moved the embassy to Jerusalem, then got his ass kicked by the Americans who told him that he was brain-dead, so he moved it back to Tel Aviv.

Whether Canada should play a role in favour of mediation, peace, and justice - or whether (like Bush-licker Harper) it should try to be the first to cut off recognition and funds from the elected Palestinian government; the first to back Israel in its barbaric murder of a thousand innocent Lebanese civilians; the first to announce it will not participate in Durban II because it likes to perform cross-border fellatio on George W. Bush; etc.

These are tough choices for Canadians. The Indiana Jones and oharas of this world would like to revisit history from the Bible on and pretend that the world hasn't yet figured out one or two things - simple things - such as, that Jerusalem does not belong to Israel, nor does the West Bank or Golan - and re-debate these issues. You can see how well-meaning people get sucked into such discussions here, thinking that someone on the other side is actually listening. It's better IMO to set our sights on smaller, more tangible issues. That's why I opened this thread.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 16 February 2008 04:37 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ibelongtonoone:
I agree Cueball - it's a matter of perception.

But can two wrongs ever make something wrong right?


Well, I think that perception is often distorted by the relative media positions of the two contestants.

We endless hear about the Pizzeria bombing as a benchmark example of Palestinian atrocity. It is in fact more or less an incident which has been promoted to such an extent that Palestinians, and Pizzeria bombings are almost synonymous with each other in public perception.

Notwithstanding this reality, is the other reality, which is that Israel routinely executes similar atrocities, and these atrocities are supervised, authorized, and even in the second case (the mosque) personally directed by the highest officials in the land, for in fact, the Prime Minister of Israel directly gave the order and watched the massacre that resulted from the assassination of Sheik Ahemd Yassin, and watched the resultant carnage created live on direct video feed.

We should make a distinction here. Palestinian violence is most often directed by ad hoc associations of militants acting on their own accord and without the official sanction of any Palestinian governing body. Israeli violence is the policy of the Israeli government.

It is in fact a brutal regime in which military officers are sanctioned to order the assassination of persons in secret committee meetings, in which secret evidence is heard without any legal process whatsoever, let alone defense counsel, or representation on behalf of the accused. This is fundamentally a fascist process. And these men in fact operate death squads.

This fact remains whatever might be said that is good about Israeli democracy, as far as Israeli citizens are concerned, rights available to them, do not extend to Palestinians Arabs.

These facts are not synonymous with the commonplace perceptions of Israel, at least in North America, because the relatively downtrodden Palestinians simply do not have the media resources, PR professional and the like at their service to spread their particular point of view to the western press. For one thing, as the IDF has exclusive control over press access to the Palestinian areas, where Israeli atrocities take place and regularly enforces press lockdowns as well as enforcing strict entry guidelines even when press access is possible, make it very difficult for the press even to cover the story.

Meanwhile of course, Israeli government officials are more than happy to whisk western journalists to the site of Palestinian atrocities, to capture every gory detail on camera, so that footage can appear on CNN, or CBS for the 6 O'clock news. Press restrictions in Palestinian zones means that sometimes it takes days for direct onsite inspection to happen by journalists, and as such not only is the news cold, but also reduced mostly to grim but un-sensational interviews with bereaved and confused relatives speaking in Arabic.

In other words: Censorship works.

Your perceptions of Palestinian violence are very clear and immediate, your perceptions of Israeli violence obscured by effective systems of preventing the Palestinian story to be told.

Have you ever seen this photo before:

This is a picture of what remains of the wheelchair that belonged to Sheik Ahmed Yassin, the nearly blind paraplegic, septuagenarian, founder of Hamas after he was sentenced to death by secret military tribunal and he and six others (of no discernable political affiliation) were massacred by an Israeli helicopter born missile attack, ordered and directed and watched live on video by Israel's Prime Minister of the time, Areil Sharon.

[ 16 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Indiana Jones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14792

posted 17 February 2008 06:14 AM      Profile for Indiana Jones        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

Whether it should follow international law and norms - or whether it should follow ohara and jones and their ilk.


Wait a second, unionist. I never even suggested that the court's decision was wrong. I think it's obvious to just about everyone that the status of Jerusalem is in dispute which is why all the foreign consulates are located in Tel Aviv.


From: Toronto / Brooklyn / Jerusalem | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 17 February 2008 06:27 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Indiana Jones:

Wait a second, unionist. I never even suggested that the court's decision was wrong. I think it's obvious to just about everyone that the status of Jerusalem is in dispute...


The court said there is no dispute. Jerusalem does not belong to Israel - at least, not under our law.

quote:
... which is why all the foreign consulates are located in Tel Aviv.

Wrong. The foreign embassies (not "consulates") are in Tel Aviv because Jerusalem is not in Israel. Not because there's a "dispute".

It's amazing that you start by insinuating that you agree with the court's decision, then spurn it in your very next sentence.

It is perfectly obvious that you fully support the rights of the occupier and the fruits of aggression.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Indiana Jones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14792

posted 17 February 2008 06:37 AM      Profile for Indiana Jones        Edit/Delete Post
I mispoke. I meant foreign "embassies", not "consulates".

And surely you're not suggesting that the entire city of Jerusalem is "not in Israel". Even if you go by the 1948 green line, a good portion of the city is definitely in Israel proper.


From: Toronto / Brooklyn / Jerusalem | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 17 February 2008 06:40 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
unionist: The foreign embassies (not "consulates") are in Tel Aviv because Jerusalem is not in Israel. Not because there's a "dispute".

That's a classic and well know piece of Israeli propaganda that you've caught there and it's well worth underlining because it's repeated and regurgitated ad nauseam so often.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 17 February 2008 06:45 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Indiana Jones:
I mispoke. I meant foreign "embassies", not "consulates".

And surely you're not suggesting that the entire city of Jerusalem is "not in Israel". Even if you go by the 1948 green line, a good portion of the city is definitely in Israel proper.


Gee, IJ, so you really DON'T agree with the Canadian court decisions after all! Thanks for the confession.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Indiana Jones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14792

posted 17 February 2008 06:52 AM      Profile for Indiana Jones        Edit/Delete Post
I DO agree with it.

Now, can YOU agree that, say, Hebrew University and the Knesset (in Northwestern Jerusalem)are actually in Israel?


From: Toronto / Brooklyn / Jerusalem | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 17 February 2008 06:55 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Indiana Jones:
I DO agree with it.

Now, can YOU agree that, say, Hebrew University and the Knesset (in Northwestern Jerusalem)are actually in Israel?


I'm going to pretend that you really don't understand the legal issue and invite you to take a moment and read both the Federal Court of Canada and the Federal Court of Appeal decisions (I provided the links above). Let me know when you're done.

ETA:

Initial decision by Federal Court of Canada

Upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal

ETA again:

Listen, if you're pressed for time, here is a small summary from the Appeals decision:

quote:
[4] [...] For the purposes of this appeal, it is sufficient to say that the United Nations takes the position, and has done so since the adoption of Resolution 181 in 1947, that Jerusalem is not lawfully within the territory of any state. In other words, according to the United Nations, it is a territory without a sovereign. (The details of how and why the United Nations adopted this position are set out in the reasons for the judgment under appeal, and need not be repeated here.)

[5] Consistent with the United Nations’ position, Canada does not recognize de jure that any part of Jerusalem is a part of the territory of the state of Israel, even though Israel has controlled the western portion of Jerusalem since the early 1950s, and the eastern portion of Jerusalem since the war of 1967. Canada does, however, maintain a diplomatic practice of acknowledging Israel’s de facto control of the western portion of Jerusalem, but not the eastern portion.


emphasis added

[ 17 February 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Indiana Jones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14792

posted 17 February 2008 06:57 AM      Profile for Indiana Jones        Edit/Delete Post
Or you can try answering a simple question: is Hebrew University located in Israel? How about the Knesset?
From: Toronto / Brooklyn / Jerusalem | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 17 February 2008 07:07 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Indiana Jones:
Or you can try answering a simple question: is Hebrew University located in Israel?

I'm not sure about the pre-1953 Mount Scopus campus, but the "new" one is in Givat Ram (formerly Sheikh Badr), so that answer is: no, it's not in Israel by international law.

quote:
How about the Knesset?

Same answer. Talk to the former inhabitants of Sheikh Badr for more information on that.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Indiana Jones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14792

posted 17 February 2008 07:19 AM      Profile for Indiana Jones        Edit/Delete Post
Thanks for the link and explanation, unionist. I guess you're right about the international legal view. I guess I jsut don't get how areas that are clearly on the israel side of the 1948 border (outlined in the UN partition agreement) could be considered not a part of Israel.
From: Toronto / Brooklyn / Jerusalem | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 17 February 2008 07:32 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Indiana Jones:
I guess I jsut don't get how areas that are clearly on the israel side of the 1948 border (outlined in the UN partition agreement) could be considered not a part of Israel.

The UN partition plan (not "agreement") does not outline the "1948 border". In the 1947 UN resolution, Jerusalem is not part of Israel. It's an international city under UN protection with access to religious sites by all concerned.

The 1948 border was drawn by war and the subsequent armistice agreement - but it did not change the legalities. Germany didn't become the "property" of the U.S., U.K., France and Soviet Union as a result of 1945. Nor did Poland, Hungary etc. now "belong" to the Soviet Union. All these were occupations which legally had to come to an end.

Everyone recognizes that Israel occupies Jerusalem, first the west, and since 1967 all of it. But no one has agreed that any part of Jerusalem "belongs" to Israel.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 17 February 2008 08:34 AM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
And who occupied Jerusalem before 1967?
From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 17 February 2008 09:10 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The UN partition plan (not "agreement") does not outline the "1948 border". In the 1947 UN resolution, Jerusalem is not part of Israel. It's an international city under UN protection with access to religious sites by all concerned.

The 1948 border was drawn by war and the subsequent armistice agreement - but it did not change the legalities.


But, western Jerusalem was not the only area that was not supposed to be part of Israel according to the 1947 UN partition, but that Israel captured in the War of Independence of 1948. There were also large areas of the Galilee that were captured by Israel in that war - yet I never hear of Israelis who are born - say - in Nazareth or Akko being told that they weren't born in Israel.

So why is Israeli sovereignty over west Jerusalem 1948-67 not recognized, but sovereignty over the other areas that were captured in 1948 are??

Why not simply that that "West Jerusalem" can be considered Israel, but simply "Jerusalem" cannot because "Jerusalem without "west"" implies all of the city including areas captured in 1967?


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 17 February 2008 09:12 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm not arguing with defenders of Israeli aggression and warmongering. They don't like international law, but that's not unusual for people in their unenviable position. At least they now know what it is.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 17 February 2008 09:45 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But there was an armistice signed between Israel and the neighbouring Arab countries in 1949 that clearly placed West Jerusalem in Israel - so I just don't see how anyone can deny that West Jerusalem (ie: the part of Jerusalem that was part of Israel pre-1967) is part of Israel?
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 17 February 2008 09:51 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
But there was an armistice signed between Israel and the neighbouring Arab countries in 1949 that clearly placed West Jerusalem in Israel - so I just don't see how anyone can deny that West Jerusalem (ie: the part of Jerusalem that was part of Israel pre-1967) is part of Israel?

If anyone is tempted to believe this twisted nonsense and has difficulty looking up the historical information, let me know and I'll assist.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 17 February 2008 10:00 AM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
But there was an armistice signed between Israel and the neighbouring Arab countries in 1949 that clearly placed West Jerusalem in Israel - so I just don't see how anyone can deny that West Jerusalem (ie: the part of Jerusalem that was part of Israel pre-1967) is part of Israel?

Easy. The "neighbouring Arab countries" didn't have the authority to cede West Jerusalem to Israel. It wasn't theirs to give away. And I expect you know that.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 17 February 2008 10:41 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As I mentioned, West Jerusalem was just one small part of all the territory that Israel captured when they repulsed the Arab invasion in 1948 War of Independence - so I'm still trying to understand why nobody tries to claim that cities like Akko or Nazareth which were on the Israeli part of the Green line post the 1949 armistice (but which would have been part of Palestine had the Arabs not invaded in 1948) - are not "Israel", but they try to claim that West Jerusalem is not Israel.

What's the difference??

Some people keep demanding that if only Israel would return to the pre-1967 boundaries - all would be well. Fair enough, but West Jerusalem was part of Israel pre-1967 - so what is this argument over?

BTW: If someone was born in East Jerusalem pre-1967 - does their passport say they were born in Jordan?


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 17 February 2008 11:07 AM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
Fair enough, but West Jerusalem was part of Israel pre-1967

That was cute the way you tried to slip that by. No, it wasn't.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 17 February 2008 11:07 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"...Arab invasion in 1948 War of Independence."

Which is it Stockholm?

War of independence: "A war of seccession"

Invasion: "A war in which a soveriegn territory is attacked by foreign powers -- Arabs in this case."

One postulate prohibits the other. Either Israel was making itself independent of a greater whole, or it was being invaded from the outside. Or is it that you just use these terms willy-nilly depending on which sounds nicer, in whatever arguement you are making at the time?

[ 17 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 17 February 2008 11:13 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Arab invasion: "A war in which a soveriegn territotry is attacked by foreign power."

I think we all know the history. The UN in 1947 voted to partition Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state. That Arab state would been far, far larger than the West Bank and Gaza. Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon then in totgal contravention of the UN and of international law, immediately sent all their armies into an invasion of Israel. They were crushed as they deserved to be. But just think, if they had simply accepcted the UN partition of 1947 (which Israel did), there would be a Palestinian state today that would be almost double the size of West Bank+Gaza pre-1967 - as usual, the Arabs decided that they either wanted the whole loaf or nothing at all - half a loaf wasn't good enough - so they invaded and they lost. Serves them right.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 17 February 2008 11:38 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
... so they invaded and they lost. Serves them right.

Count how many Jews and Arabs have died over the years because of this attitude.

Then understand why I consider Zionism to a catastrophic plague that has befallen the Jewish people - the twin sibling of anti-Semitism, both of which divide the world into Jews and Everyone Else.

I can only hope this plague will disappear, if not in our lifetime, then than of our children.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 17 February 2008 12:18 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:

I think we all know the history. The UN in 1947 voted to partition Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state. That Arab state would been far, far larger than the West Bank and Gaza. Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon then in totgal contravention of the UN and of international law, immediately sent all their armies into an invasion of Israel. They were crushed as they deserved to be. But just think, if they had simply accepcted the UN partition of 1947 (which Israel did), there would be a Palestinian state today that would be almost double the size of West Bank+Gaza pre-1967 - as usual, the Arabs decided that they either wanted the whole loaf or nothing at all - half a loaf wasn't good enough - so they invaded and they lost. Serves them right.


No. I dont think you do know the history. In fact, the completely non-sensical oxymoronic idea that there could be an "invasion" and a war of independence at the same time is a clear proof of this.

Who, and what was Israel declaring independence from? The British supported and authorized the creation of Israel. There was no other legal authority to become independent from, unless you mean the Arabs, and if you are now saying that Israel was becoming independent from them, then that implies that Israel was part of a larger country of Arabs. It is illogical to assert that the Arabs were "invading" a country, from which Israel was declaring "independence", since of course they would be invading their own country from which Israel would be declaring indepedence.

You can not invade your own country. Try Civil War. You might be able to get away with that.

Civil war is a much more apt description of the events of 1948/49, if only because the part of Israel, defined as Israel in the partition plan was never "invaded" by any Arab armies, and 99.9% of the fighting took place between local indiginous militias, and newly arrived Europeans, armed with latest weapons provided as surplus from WW2. True, the Jordanians did "invade" the West Bank, but then that wasn't even part of the Israeli part of the partition.

There was no war of independence, since the the British secceded the lands to Israel, and there was no Arab invasion, because no Arab armies actually "invaded."

Please cite for me the main combat actions of the conflict which took place within the boundaries of the Israeli part of the partition, and the "invading" regular armies of the surrounding Arab countries that took part in those actions.

At one point a Syrian engineer brigade did put a pontoon bridge across the Jordan river in the north, but they quickly retired within a day -- that was the Arab "invasion" of the "massed" Arab armies that Israel confronted in 1948. Any fighting that did take place with regular Arab armies and Israeli forces, (and these would be best be described as skirmishes by any military standards) happened outside of the partition area designated for Israel, on land designated for the Arab state. In other words, if there was an invasion in 48, it was an Israeli invasion of land identified clearly by the UN as Arab land.

[ 17 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Skinny Dipper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11459

posted 17 February 2008 03:30 PM      Profile for Skinny Dipper   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
How about Jerusalem, Israel and Jerusalem, Palestine? I'm sure I will read some critcisms.

A couple of years ago, I saw a German ID card from a nonagenarian. He was born in Breslau, Germany. That city was listed on his ID card. Breslau no longer exists in its former name. It is now Wroclaw [Vro-tswaf], Poland.


From: Ontarian for STV in BC | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 17 February 2008 03:41 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
It was 1966. i was a young man working for a Canadian international food company. I was sent to Israel and put up in the King David hotel. From certain points in the hotel you could see into the Old City then under Jordanian rule. What was clear however was that prior to 1967 there was a west Jerusalem as part of Israel proper.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 17 February 2008 03:45 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Clear to you... How so? Israel has never issued any document establishing its lawful borders. Therefore, the only ones provided are the ones defined by the original UN partition plan.

How can you make a claim that any of this is in Israel, since it has not even issued a document establishing what is its national territory?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 17 February 2008 03:48 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
What was clear however was that prior to 1967 there was a west Jerusalem as part of Israel proper.

You mean it was clear that there was a west Jerusalem that was under the control of Israelis. Not at all the same thing.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 17 February 2008 04:35 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah. If everything that was under the control of Israel was, you know, actually Israel . . . well, the mind just boggles, doesn't it.
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
just one of the concerned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14896

posted 17 February 2008 06:43 PM      Profile for just one of the concerned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The pesky ins and outs of international law can be confusing to a belief system so used to ignoring it.
From: in the cold outside of the cjc | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 17 February 2008 08:17 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The British supported and authorized the creation of Israel.

Actually they didn't. The British were actually very hostile to the Jews and to the idea of Israel in the post WW2 years. They were busy seizing ships full of concentration camp survivors that were bound for Palestine and herding all the people on the boats into prison camps. The British government wanted to suck up to the Arabs because they had oil and there was gross anti-semitism in the British Foreign Office in the late 40s. The United Nations voted by more than a 2/3 majority to partition Palestine and to create a Jewish state and an Arab state. The British abstained on that vote and let it be known that they were not crazy about Israel being created at all.

On top of that, the Israeli War of Independence was not fought between Palestinians Jews and Arabs - armies from Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon attacked Israel pledging to "throw the Jews into the sea" and they made no secret of their plans to kill absolutely every Isreali they got their hands on. If it was a "civil war" what were Syrian, Egyptian, Jordanian, Iraqi and Lebanese troops doing invading Israel?

[ 17 February 2008: Message edited by: Stockholm ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 17 February 2008 08:35 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
When and where did these attacks occur?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 17 February 2008 09:00 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
dopplepost

[ 17 February 2008: Message edited by: remind ]


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 17 February 2008 09:01 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Stockholm, here is an excellent account of that time period by actual Israelis scholars, you should read it.
quote:
The historical version of the non- and anti-Zionist left is closer to the Palestinian version than the official Zionist narrative. The official and mainstream Zionist version of events concerning the birth of Israel was also challenged by right-wingers in Israel who attributed the 1948 Jewish success solely to the Stern Gang and other Jewish terrorist organizations that fought against the British and clashed with Palestinians throughout the 1940s.

Not only was the 1948 story challenged. The prevailing myths about the treatment of minority groups in Israel received new scrutiny. After the 1967 war, Israel’s Black Panther movement questioned the conduct of the young state towards the Jewish immigrants it brought from the Arab countries.

Similarly, the Palestinian community in Israel, the Israeli Arabs as they are known today, began to demand a re-reading of one of the ugliest chapters in the state’s history. In the wake of the 1948 war, the Palestinian population that remained under Israeli rule was placed under a severe and brutal military regime for nearly two decades (1948-1966). This minority was robbed of every human and civil right and maltreated by local military governors. Awareness of this has cast a shadow over the collective memory of the Israeli left, which was accustomed to reminiscing about the little and beautiful state of pre-1967 Israel.


http://www.ameu.org/page.asp?iid=35&aid=427&pg=1


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 17 February 2008 09:18 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here is an account of the 1948 war from wikipedia:

quote:
Five of the seven countries of the Arab League at that time, namely Egypt, Iraq, Transjordan, Lebanon and Syria, backed with Saudi Arabian and Yemenite contingents invaded[105] the territory of the former British Mandate of Palestine on the night of 14–15 May 1948. Azzam Pasha, the Arab League Secretary, declared on Cairo radio : 'This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.'[107]

According to Yoav Gelber, the Arab countries were "drawn into the war by the collapse of the Palestinians and the Arab Liberation Army [and] the Arab governments' primary goal was preventing the Palestinians' total ruin and the flooding of their own countries by more refugees. According to their own perception, had the invasion not taken place, there was no Arab force in Palestine capable of checking the Haganah's offensive".[108]

"[Yishuv] perceived the peril of an Arab invasion as threatening its very existence. Having no real knowledge of the Arabs's true military capabilities, the Jews took Arab propaganda literally, preparing for the worst and reacting accordingly.[109]


quote:
Over the next few days, approximately 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi, 10,000 Egyptian troops invaded the newly-established state. Four thousand Transjordanian troops invaded the Corpus separatum region encompassing Jerusalem and its environs, as well as areas designated as part of the Arab state by the UN partition plan. They were aided by corps of volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen.

In an official cablegram from the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States to the UN Secretary-General on 15 May 1948, the Arab states publicly proclaimed their aim of creating a "United State of Palestine" in place of the Jewish and Arab, two-state, UN Plan. They claimed the latter was invalid, as it was opposed by Palestine's Arab majority, and maintained that the absence of legal authority made it necessary to intervene to protect Arab lives and property.[111]

Israel, the United States and the Soviets called the Arab states' entry into Palestine illegal aggression, while UN secretary general Trygve Lie characterized it as "the first armed aggression which the world had seen since the end of the [Second World] War."


[ 17 February 2008: Message edited by: Stockholm ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 17 February 2008 09:43 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, I see it says "invasion" but where is the description of the "invasion" of Israel. I see the UN zone of Jerusalem is mentioned, "as well as areas designated as part of the Arab state by the UN partition plan". Its specific on that, but rather vague on the issue of where exactly the "Arab armies" crossed over into Israel.

Do you have any details on that?

I know that the Jordanian army occupied the West Bank. At this point it's really looking like you are back to the Arabs "invading" themselves, again.

Notice that the Soviet, US and the UN Secretary General's statement are about "Palestine" not Israel?

[ 18 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 18 February 2008 12:07 AM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I was sent to Israel and put up in the King David hotel.

That would be the hotel that Begin and his Stern terrorist gang bombed? Killing civilians?

What a wonderful view it must have been. My mother often told me of that Hotel when she was there in the air force


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 18 February 2008 03:22 AM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
Here is an account of the 1948 war from wikipedia

It would be nice if you'd provide links to these things so we can see that the article carries this disclaimer:

quote:
The neutrality of this article is disputed.

From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 18 February 2008 05:18 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here is a cute map depicting the attacks on Israel by the armies of five Arab countries in May 1948.

Notice all the arrows pointing into Isreali territory??? There was a famous attempt by the Syrians to conquer and destroy Kibbutz Degania. The Jordanians also immediately expelled all the Jews who had been living in the Jewish Quarter of Old Jerusalem for hundreds of years etc...

quote:
Azzam Pasha, the Arab League Secretary, declared on Cairo radio : 'This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.

Was Mr. Pasha lying???

[ 18 February 2008: Message edited by: Stockholm ]

[ 18 February 2008: Message edited by: Stockholm ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 18 February 2008 05:28 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh golly darn, would you just look at all those posts in this thread. I guess I'll just have to close it!
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca