Israeli soldiers speak out

[repiV]

Make a thread about it then.

You made the point, not me. I was merely replying to it. You can start a new thread if you want to.

 

[Kadayi]

You think Israel is the aggressor?

If someone invades your land, puts your people under a military occupation for 40 years an action that was universally condemed by the UN, you don't consider that an act of aggression?

I hate to burst your Pro-Israeli bubble here, but Israel has absolutely no right under any pretext to still be in the land designated to the Palestinians, let alone the right to build Jewish only settlements and roads on that land or to strip it of it's mineral assets.

The Zionists have turned Palestine into the New South Africa.

 

[Nemesis6]

Even though the State of Israel was given to the Jews, and the Arabs got Jordan, which is actually the majority of ancient Palestine. The Palestinian-Arabs that still lived in Israel were to get their own state created on the West Bank, Gaza, and some land in the North, but this was kind of botched by the attack the Arab armies made when the State of Israel was declared.

 

[repiV]

If someone invades your land, puts your people under a military occupation for 40 years an action that was universally condemed by the UN, you don't consider that an act of aggression?

I hate to burst your Pro-Israeli bubble here, but Israel has absolutely no right under any pretext to still be in the land designated to the Palestinians, let alone the right to build Jewish only settlements and roads on that land or to strip it of it's mineral assets.

The Zionists have turned Palestine into the New South Africa.

Oh dear.
I'll let Nemesis smack you around on this one - he's good at that when it comes to dealing with this particular falsehood.

 

[Kadayi]

Even though the State of Israel was given to the Jews, and the Arabs got Jordan, which is actually the majority of ancient Palestine. The Palestinian-Arabs that still lived in Israel were to get their own state created on the West Bank, Gaza, and some land in the North, but this was kind of botched by the attack the Arab armies made when the State of Israel was declared.

That land is still outside the decreed Borders of Israel. It does not belong to the state of Israel, or ever has been internationally recognised as belonging to Israel. Yet it is still under military occupation by the Israeli military 40 years on from the 6 days war. If it did belong to Israel why would it continue to be referred to by the international community as the occupied territories? If the land is as you are claiming in fact part of Israel why is it that the Palestinians are allowed their own government? why aren't they represented within the larger state, or allowed to vote in it? Why more so aren't the Palestinians made to undertake military service like all Israeli Citizens?

Please free to answer each and every question at length. In fact I'm moist with anticipation for the answers

 

[Kadayi]

Oh dear.I'll let Nemesis smack you around on this one - he's good at that when it comes to dealing with this particular falsehood.

Indulge me.

 

[Nemesis6]

That land is still outside the decreed Borders of Israel. It does not belong to the state of Israel, or ever has been internationally recognised as belonging to Israel. Yet it is still under military occupation by the Israeli military 40 years on from the 6 days war. If it did belong to Israel why would it continue to be referred to by the international community as the occupied territories? If the land is as you are claiming in fact part of Israel why is it that the Palestinians are allowed their own government? why aren't they represented within the larger state, or allowed to vote in it? Why more so aren't the Palestinians made to undertake military service like all Israeli Citizens?

Please free to answer each and every question at length. In fact I'm moist with anticipation for the answers

First, borders 1 on 1: When you use territory to attack your enemy, you risk the following: If you lose the war you start from this area, the enemy might take this land away from you as a security precaution. That is what's happened each time Israel has been attacked - It has taken land from the enemy that sought to destroy it.

The reason the International community refers to these areas as occupied... Wait, hold on, they have Gaza now, so there's only one area left and that's the West Bank. The interesting thing about this area is that this area and the East-Jerusalem were actually Israeli untill Jordan invaded and 'grabbed' it. That's the point when Trans-Jordan became Jordan, as it was now on both sides of the Jordan River. On the subject of these occupied areas once more - The PLO was formed in 1964. This was the time when Egypt and Jordan had stolen the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the two main pillars of an Arab-Palestinian state. Yet, there were no complaints lodged at these two countries. Yet, when Israel occupied these areas after they were used to attack Israel from, the PLO suddenly started caring about who had their precious territory. By the way, the International community also gave Arafat a nobel Peace Price. Enough said.

Palestinians are excepted from military service within Israel not as discrimination, but because it would pit them against the people who many of them see as their own people. Palestinians are still able to volounteer for the IDF, as the Druze Arabs do. Contrary to popular belief, the Israeli army consists of more than just Jews; There are Druze, Bedouins, and Arabs within it, too. To suggest that the Arabs of Israel are discriminated against because they're not obliged to do military duty is kind of ignorant I think. They're actually damn lucky to be excerpt by default.

The Palestinian government... That's something of a misnomer. The thing that we today refer to as the "Palestinian government" used to be the PLO, the Palestine Liberation Organization, another terrorist group. Now they're just the PA, the Palestinian Authority. You do raise an interesting question: Why do they have a government? Well, that's a difficult question. But this quote explains it pretty well:

The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism. It is also been a "conceptual" war for ownership of the term "Palestinian" which has been transferred over to the Arabs whereas, before 1967, "Palestine" has always been synonymous with Eretz Israel and the Land of Israel.

-PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein, 1977

Why aren't they represented within Israel? They are. Why aren't they allowed to vote? They are. Ta'al, Hadash, and Balad are the main Arab parties. They even have politicians screeaming the same "Itbach al yahud!"/"Slaughter the Jews!" rhetoric within Israel as they do in the Palestinian territories. And this is shouted by Arab-Israeli "politicians". Trust me, they get their say in Israeli politics.

 

[Kadayi]

Nemiesis

I'm not entirely sure what rule of international war your opening statement comes from? Perhaps you might be so kind as to state the nature of the document your drawing that from? After WWII the US, UK and French all had bases in West Germany and Berlin for sure, but none of them started building Towns and settlements on the land.

Also with respect to the west bank, you seem to have conviently forgotten the 1949 Armistice Agreement, the one where in Israeli Government legally acknowledged Jordans annexation of the West Bank. So you weren't recapturing it in 1967, you were invading (big difference that). I guess that's why the rest of the world deems the area to be part of the 'occupied territories' and still refers to it in that manner. Shame I had to answer my own question, but I guess it was too much to hope for that you'd come clean on that particular issue.

With regard to military service, if it's a draft I'm uncertain why it is that any form of racial discrimination is set down, even to the extent that it is a voluntary decision. Perhaps you might point towards some figures regarding the numbers of Palestinians eligible for military service and the number who chose to undertake it, maybe copy in the figures for the Druze, Bedouins, and Arabs as well.

The quote outlines that the term Palestininan is an encompassing phrase for regional arabs, but it still doesn't explain why if as you say these arabs peoples are represented and given a voice in the Israeli Parliament, there exists this seperate Palestininan Government?

Also for the record I care nothing about what particular people may or may not do with their political freedoms, all I'm interested in are facts, don't bore me with painting pictures of evil arabs hell bent on the destruction of the good Jewish people. Certainly there will always be fanatics (look at Northern Irelands history), but the vast majority of people in this world are peaceable and Israel and the occupied territories are no different.

 

[Nemesis6]

International rule of war... Problem is there are none that apply internationally. Gaza and the West Bank were part of Israel, Israel had every right to completely take over these areas and and crush the PA/PLO, yet it didn't. But still, Israel chose to evacuate the Gaza Strip.

Whether Israel acknowledged it or not is ultimately irrelevant since the Jordanians had no right to take it and Arab forces were lining up on Israel's borders.

I would imagine that the problem with drafting the Arabs within Israel would create a debacle over the usual "blah blah occupation army" stuff.

They have a say in the Israeli Parliament because Israel is a democracy. I don't know what you're trying to get at. The Palestinian government has nothing to do with Israel, other than the fact it wants to destroy it.

And plase, don't be hostile. You said that Arabs weren't allowed to vote and I corrected you. And you should know that I don't paint Arabs as evil. The ones who are do a pretty good job of doing that themselves. By the way, did you know that the the majority of Palestinians are fanatics? This is according to a test performed by Dr. Khalil Shikaki. Just to put things into perspective. The majority of Palestinians actually support terror, which, I think, is actually quite frightening considering that we know that not all Muslims are terrorists, but almost all terrorists are Muslim. Yet, the majority of all Palestinians support terror.

 

[Kadayi]

Whether Israel acknowledged it or not is ultimately irrelevant

So basically your government signs a treaty, but doesn't hold to it because it doesn't suit their needs? Did they have their fingers crossed when they signed it or something? Or do you just hold that it's perfectly acceptable to lie at a diplomatic level? If so, when is it unacceptable to lie?

Also I told you not to bore me with any more of your evil arab stories, and lo and behold your start painting another one. Resist the urge (I know it's difficult), I don't care what DR Suess or Professor X have to say in their reports. For the record though I'm pretty sure not all Terrorists are Muslims. I mean the IRA aren't Muslims, neither are ETA, and I'm pretty sure the Stern Gang weren't Muslims either.

 

[Nemesis6]

I find it strange that you only want to debate curtain points. I chose to let your stupid loony leftist bullshit rhetoric like "The Zionists have turned Palestine into the New South Africa", yet when I pass similar judgement which is, contrary to your bullcrap, based on fact, you turn the other cheek and say that you don't want to hear stories about "evil" Arabs. You talk of fanatics yet you only recognize non-Muslim ones. I think you have to realize that criticizing Arabs doesn't exactly mean that one believes that they're all evil. That's pure assumption on your part.

 

[Kadayi]

What part of 'The Zionists have turned Palestine into the New South Africa ' don't you agree with? I mean you have Israeli only settlements, Israeli only Roads, you have military Checkpoints throughout the land to stop the free movement of the Palestinian people, hell you even have control of their water supplies. Are you saying that the situation in Palestine doesn't resemble in any way at all the conditions the native South Africans experienced during Apartheid? What's different save the colour of peoples skin and the location. How is the oppression of the Palestinians any more justified?

Also you forgot to answer the question in my previous post. Here it is again :-

'So basically your government signs a treaty, but doesn't hold to it because it doesn't suit their needs? Did they have their fingers crossed when they signed it or something? Or do you just hold that it's perfectly acceptable to lie at a diplomatic level? If so, when is it unacceptable to lie?'

As for terrorists, I was just pointing out that there are and have been more than Muslim Terrorists in the world. Personally I don't hold with terrorism as a means towards political change. I mean acts like the ones the Stern Gang (Lehi) carried out are as reprehensible in my mind as 9/11 or black September. I'd certainly never regard such people as 'freedom fighters' or national heroes, or even remotely consider electing such people to parliament, because their methods regardless of the result show a complete disregard for the value of human life and they, and whoever support and stand by them are lost and damned for all eternity.

 

[Ome_Vince]

What part of 'The Zionists have turned Palestine into the New South Africa ' don't you agree with? I mean you have Israeli only settlements, Israeli only Roads, you have military Checkpoints throughout the land to stop the free movement of the Palestinian people, hell you even have control of their water supplies. Are you saying that the situation in Palestine doesn't resemble in any way at all the conditions the native South Africans experienced during Apartheid? What's different save the colour of peoples skin and the location. How is the oppression of the Palestinians any more justified?

Also you forgot to answer the question in my previous post. Here it is again :-

'So basically your government signs a treaty, but doesn't hold to it because it doesn't suit their needs? Did they have their fingers crossed when they signed it or something? Or do you just hold that it's perfectly acceptable to lie at a diplomatic level? If so, when is it unacceptable to lie?'

As for terrorists, I was just pointing out that there are and have been more than Muslim Terrorists in the world. Personally I don't hold with terrorism as a means towards political change. I mean acts like the ones the Stern Gang (Lehi) carried out are as reprehensible in my mind as 9/11 or black September. I'd certainly never regard such people as 'freedom fighters' or national heroes, or even remotely consider electing such people to parliament, because their methods regardless of the result show a complete disregard for the value of human life and they, and whoever support and stand by them are lost and damned for all eternity.

Uhm, the Apartheid was blacks fighting for Equal rights in South Africa = racism.
Palestine is not being occupied because of racism. According to Israel, its to protect its civilians, and trade land-for-peace as they've done successfully in the past with Egypt and Jordan (and would have worked with Lebanon if it wasn't for our Syrian friends).
The Palestinians have their own government and police.
I despise the comparison because Apartheid is an emotionally loaded word which has nothing to do with this military occupation. Following that comparison, the allies also imposed Apartheid on the Germans after WW2 because they occupied that land until peace was restored...
Now, in this case, peace won't be restored this way, occupation isn't working to enforce peace, though withdrawal like the one last year in Gaza hasn't decreased violence either. According to Hamas, "Israel only listens to the voice of blood, today Gaza, tomorrow Haifa"...
Note: a cessation of violence is the key towards peace. And with Hamas ruling the country, denouncing Israel's right to exist, i doubt even Israel's complete withdrawal will decrease violence.
But indeed, Israel should withdraw, but there should be natural conditions attached to this: stop violence and recognize Israel.
Perhaps an enormous peacekeeping force should be placed in the Palestinians territories until that country stabilizes.

Last i read, Israel is withdrawing from certain areas, removal a good bunch of checkpoints and lightening its presence. Hopefully this will be met with a decrease in violence, slowly fading Israel's presence away.

 

[Kadayi]

Ome_Vince

A half rational post. However the point about Aparteid relates to the conditions.

As regards Palestine, we share the same views regarding it's future. I likewise believe an Israeli withdrawl is necessary to secure long term peace in the middle east, with an interim UN peace keeping force in place until such time that all parties are prepared to acknowledge each others right to exist (even if that means decades). Though it may seem an insurmountable obstacle to get over, one has only to look at Northern Ireland to see that a peaceful solution is possible.

 

[Nemesis6]

The fact that you think Israel practices Apartheid leads me to two possible conclusions:

1 - You're Jimmy Carter, or a supporter of his.

2 - You're blind to the fact that there's a reason for the checkpoints and the security measures set in place.

You know, the thing I find most disgusting abouttpeople who complain about the security barrier, the checkpoints, etc, is that they think the convenience of the Palestinians is more important than the lives of the Israelis. Somewhere, some place in Israel, a terrorist won't be able to cross and another, if not scores of lives will be saved because the Palestinians do like to send their kids among other people to blow up Jews. I'm not trying to flame here, but I truly find it disgusting. And by setting up checkpoints, the soldiers are even bigger targets, especially for suicide bombers and snipers. Remember the old lady with the metal hip? Metal detector goes beep, the woman pleads with the soldiers to examine it to verify it. The soldiers approach, the soldiers are blown apart, and it's time for Zaka to work once again.

And yes, I do believe the deal you speak of was pretty void when these same guys whose new territory they recognized piled up all along the borders to attack Israel. The fact that it was already Israeli doesn't help, either.

 

[Kadayi]

Nemesis

Well if the Palestininans are such a danger to the Israeli people why not withdraw from the occupied territories and hand control over to the UN? I mean 40 years of occupation by the IDF (regardless of how you care to view it) has achieved nothing in terms of bringing peace to the region.

 

[Walter]

Are you joking?!?! they'll make nuclear weapons (out of bones) and launch at Jerusalem! omg!!!

 

[Nemesis6]

You can't give the area to the U.N. As witnessed in Lebanon, well, let me point out one example: U.N peacekeepers actually get "days off" when they feel that the area is "dangerous". If it's the U.N, they need to be a combat force, and they need to get their heads out of their asses. But the Palestinians already have a government, and do you think that they would agree to a force that should work for peace, the exact opposite of what they themselves want?

 

[Kadayi]

Ok Nemesis what is your solution? After 40 years the IDF have achieved nothing, so perpetuation of the existing approach clearly isn't going to work.

 

[Ome_Vince]

I think its great your trying to steer this discussion more into a "how could this be solved" direction, rather than the usual finger-point discussions on which side is "to blame".
Because of this, even though our views differ on the situation, I feel its worth discussing with you what the options theoretically could be.
I think each side has his/her history and pov, and solving this is not going to be easy, though I'd have to agree the occupation is clearly not working in the case of Palestine.
On the other hand, what we shouldn't forget is, its Syria and Iran that will have to be included as key-players, since many of the destabilizations originate from their religious greed.
If I'd be president, and allowed to setup a meeting, I'd not only include Palestinian and Israeli delegates, but also Syrian and Iranian. Any peace talks without these players consent are pretty much void, as we've seen in the past with not only Palestine, but also Lebanon.
In short, i feel the only way this situation could ever "stabilize" is if Syria, and Iran recognize and sign peace with Israel, and Israel withdraws from Palestine back to the '67 borders.
Imo peace negotiations between Lebanon, Palestine and Israel would then be quickly solved if this is done, and without popular support and weapons+funds from Syria and Iran, many hostile organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah will fade away.

 

[Nemesis6]

Well, you don't have to include Lebanon, since you already have Iran.

 

[Kadayi]

I think its great your trying to steer this discussion more into a "how could this be solved" direction, rather than the usual finger-point discussions on which side is "to blame".Because of this, even though our views differ on the situation, I feel its worth discussing with you what the options theoretically could be.

Thank you. I tire pretty rapidly of apologists (from either side) and their 'he said, she said' approach which ultimately goes nowhere in terms of constructive debate, and is used more as a platform to reinforce their predjudices. I'm a designer by profession, so my approach to a problematic situation is always with a view as to how it can be overcome or resolved. It's only through constructive discourse that the truly great ideas are generated.

Further to what you say I agree that both Syria and Iran should definitely have some form of representation at any sort of negotiation table because of their influence. Maybe even Egypt as well (for reasons that I will become clear).

A withdrawl by the Israel to the original 67 border line would have to be considered a long term goal for sure. Despite some criticisms, the first step to achieving that would I believe, have to be the passing over of control of the policing of these areas from the IDF to the UN. There is a strong need to reduce the day in day out, level of palestinian/Israeli aggression, and this simply isn't going to happen whilst the IDF continue to oversee the occupied Territories.

Once the UN are in place I think the big issue for discussion is whether the occupied territories realistically are able to form an autonomous palestininan nation or not. Given their geographic remoteness from each other I'd actually say it's pretty unfeasible. An alternative approach might be to consider reliquishing those territories to their nearest arab neighbours, namely Jordan and Egypt. This relinquishment to the arab states of these territories could be used as the lynchpin for concrete negotiations within the wider arab world, to gain an acknowledgement of Israels right to exist and it's borders.

Anyhows that's a fair amount to talk about, so I'll stop there for now.