Palestinians confirm no massacre in Jenin - study

[drdon326]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1058153635437

In a study to be released next month by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and provided exclusively to The Jerusalem Post, Palestinian sources confirm that at least 34 Palestinian armed terrorists were killed fighting in the battle for the Jenin Refugee Camp.

The total number of Palestinian causalities in the battle was 52, a sharp contrast from the claims of Palestinian propaganda professionals who have openly stated that thousands had died.

The battle, which was a part of Israel's Defensive Shield Operation against terrorism, took place between April 4 and April 11 of 2002.

The research was conducted by Jonathan D. HaLevi and the JCPA utilizing a wide and comprehensive variety of Palestinian written testimony and material which was recently published in Palestinian newspapers, books and Websites.

...........................................................

i remember all the sreaming about "massacre" here...

it was all bullshit!!

[molly]

1. I remember too

get ready, I'm sure there will still be many believers.

[seventhson]

2. I take no position on the allegations, but your title is misleading

Dore Gold and the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs could HARDLY be called a Palestinian source - as your post seems to indicate.

Dore Gold (the Director and former US ambassador) is allied with the right wing (Likud) in Israel and if you go to the organization's website you will find many articles on many subjects from their perspective.

That Jewish organization made the findings using what they termed Palestinian sources; newspapaers, etc.

I would not call it an objective study (since it necessarily promotes the Likud political perspective) nor would I describe it as a Palestinian source. It is not.

Whether there was a massacre or not should not be determined by the parties who are accused of the massacre (i.e. the party in power when the deaths occurred).

It would be like Bush saying he did not lie about the uranium. If he lied (if Likud massacred) then OBJECTIVE sources are needed to make the determination.

Maybe the Center USED Palestinian sources to support their cliam. But, again, this would be like Bush using the CIA/terrorist assets as his sources on the uranium. Who do you believe.

I think since the UN was not allowed in that we will never know the truth and to accept that there was no massacre is as antisemitic as assuming that there WAS a massacre.

They are entitled to try and make their case using Palestinian sources. That is okay. But it is not a case made by Palestinians. It is made by Likud.

[drdon326]

4. Uhhhh...perhaps you missed this

"The 42-page report, half of which was made up of
submissions from Arab representatives seeking to prove that Israel's actions in Jenin constituted war crimes, also blasted Palestinian 'militants' for operating inside civilian refugee camps and termed their methods 'breaches of international law that have been and continue to be condemned by the United Nations'."

[Gimel]

85. Right

The comments by Gold were about the study, not part of it. That is clear. A professional investigation into the reports actually confirms what is well known. UN and European observers have also reached that conclusion. There were fact finding missions, including Terje Larsen on the scene soon after the IDF operation.

[ex_jew]

3. I personally did not KNOW what happened there

so I thought it was reasonable for the UN to investigate. When Israel decided in advance that the UN could not be trusted to do so, I really lost all sympathy for the Israeli point of view. Now the BBC is labeled as "not to be trusted". HIDING THE TRUTH about what your troops are doing is completely abhorrent to me. No amount of reassurance fifteen months later can restore my confidence in the proposition that Israeli troops operate according to international norms (whatever they might be when conducting a permanent occupation).

[Muddleoftheroad]

5. The UN

You clearly trust that institution. Israelis have justifiable reasons not to.

[ex_jew]

11. How about this ?

Jews are living in territory occupied by Arabs. Something really nasty happens, dozens of Jews are killed, and the Arabs refuse to let the UN have a look. Now how do you like it ?

For better or worse, there are very few actors with any credibility in the I/P mess. The IDF isn't one of them and the Jersualem Post isn't either. If what the IDF does can't stand up to international scrutiny, perhaps they shouldn't be doing it.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

12. they don't have a problem with international scrutiny...

they have a problem with international screwtiny...

[Gimel]

32. Happens all the time

In fact, the UN has never investigated the suicide-homicide bombings. Only with one or two has the EU even sent a representative to view the tragedy. Israel is on her own against the world (includeing the UN)

[Violet_Crumble]

34. Why would Israel let international observers in?

After all, it refused to let any international observers in to investigate what happened in Jenin. But then again, they were only Palestinians who died, and quite obviously many people here see them as less deserving than other groups. But my question here is WHY would the UN need to investigate suicide-bombings? Are the groups who are doing them members of the UN? Have they signed Conventions that they're now breaking? Has the UN ever seen them as a legitimate group? Nope, the Security Council tried to pass a resolution in December 2001 that condemned terrorism, and guess what? That Resolution was vetoed by the US. Do you know why? Because included in that resolution was a request for Israel to accept international observers in to the Occupied Territories...

Israel's on her own against the world?? Yeah, sure. Why do those billions of $$ in aid from the US immediately spring to mind. Comments like that remind me of a a little kid running round wailing: 'None of them like me!!' and then finding out none of the other little kidlets are really keen to play with him/her because she has a habit of belting the crap out of them and stealing their toys. Sometimes I think a bunch of pre-schoolers are just that tad more mature than those involved in the I/P conflict...

Violet...

[Gimel]

38. Yeah, well

As we are continually reminded by American citizens and others around the world, this is a temporary measure, and some of those citizens are unhappy about the contribution to the welfare of Israel. It also gives the White House more leverage in the Knesset than it might otherwise enjoy.

International Observers, after the fact, saw only the rotting corpses which the Palestinians refused to let Israel remove, and then after placing bombs in them, demanded that Israel remove.

Of course they would interview residents of Jenin and get biased reports. That was a big part of the PA plan. Later investigations have proven how false their claims were. No investigation, thanks. No one-sided interviews and distortions.

The plan to interview IDF soldiers and even charge them in violation of international law, was the thing that actually prompted Jerusalem to deny the entry of UN investigators.

[Violet_Crumble]

39. But Israel never let the international observers in..

Y'know, the UN ones who you think for some reason should be on the scene of every suicide-bombing, even though I'm not sure what it is you think those observers would do....

I've read the Amnesty International report on Jenin. You have problems with it? Personally I think people who were there and saw it would be a lot more credible witnesses than someone who wasn't there and for whatever reason paints all the witnesses as liars. I think the teams that do go in to investigate this sort of thing have the skills and experience needed to discern bullshit if it exists....

How would it have been in violation of international law for the possibility of prosecuting someone guilty of gross human rights violations to exist?

But, hey. Even though thanks to Israels refusal to let UN observers in no-one else but you actually knows what really happened. I must remember that in future. Baaaad Palestinians! Good Israelis! That just saves me from having to think at all!!

So you think the whole world's against Israel because some people are unhappy with the fact that Israel has recieved billions of $$ in funding from the US? Wow, the US must be really pissed off at us because we get little if nothing in the way of contribution to the welfare of Australia. Personally, I'd rather see funding go to countries that really need it because even a fraction of that money would make the difference between life and starvation for so many people. Israel being an advanced democracy should and must stand on its own two feet...

Violet...

[Gimel]

41. the last word

from the expert on Jenin, the UN and Israel economy. Thanks for your advice.

[Violet_Crumble]

43. Huh?

I never claimed I was an expert. You claimed I was. If you have a problem with anything I said, concentrate on addressing that and not on *me*, okay?

Violet...

[Gimel]

84. Seriously, Violet

This statement of yours:
Even though thanks to Israels refusal to let UN observers in no-one else but you actually knows what really happened.
needs reworking.

I have a pretty good idea what did happen there, and there are many who were on the scene. Not only that, it was videotaped from the air by the IDF. As I mentioned earlier, the sticking point was the claim of right to charge IDF soldiers with crimes of any sort. That has been rejected by other governments as well.

[Violet_Crumble]

95. No, it doesn't...

How do I need to rework my statement? You are claiming to know what went on there. But you don't at all have a pretty good idea what did happen there. Yr clinging to some scenario where Palestinians are liars and the Israelis are good guys...

Oh yeah. I agree. I think it's disgusting that Israeli soldiers could possibly ever be charged with crimes when they commit human rights abuses. The thought of it is so disgusting! I hereby renounce my belief that any soldiers should be held accountable for human rights abuses they commit and think it should be open season in future...

Violet...

[Gimel]

100. Soldier's accountability

is first the responsibility of the nation. Israel has tried and prosecuted incidents of human rights abuse committed by it's soldiers. However, to interview a soldier to gain information and then turn around and use the words without legal council is an abuse of the soldier's rights to council, and a human rights abuse, in my estimation.

[Violet_Crumble]

102. No...

I think yr very confused as to what constitutes human rights abuses...

If the soldiers of other nations can be interviewed by the UN, why shouldn't it also apply to Israeli soldiers?

Violet...

[Gimel]

103. What other nations?

The legal rights of soldiers are also human rights. I have heard your opinion that soldiers are not allowed any such rights.

The US also has objected to soldiers serving in Bosnia to be subjected to legal action by the international courts. Israel is not alone in this concern.

Soldiers are human beings. They have human feelings and are subject to conflicting concerns on the battlefield. They have to make split-second life and death judgments.

[Violet_Crumble]

104. What???

If you've heard my opinion that soldiers aren't entitled to legal or human rights, then you've been hearing wrong! I've never said anything of the sort. Please don't confuse legal rights and human rights. They're two entirely different things....

What I don't support is the view you share with the US that their troops should not be held accountable to international war crimes tribunals. That's complete and utter nonsense as far as I'm concerned and only supported by those that think the US (and in yr case Israel) should be above international law...

We're not talking about split-second life and death decisions here. We're talking about the prosecution of troops who have violated the human rights of others, usually in an incredibly brutal and violent way. Maybe you should think about diverting just a fraction of that concern of yrs for the human rights of troops and think for just one moment about the human rights of civilians in these conflicts...

Violet...

[Violet_Crumble]

105. A question...

Just want to make sure I've got you right on this. Do you oppose the creation of the International Criminal Court? I just don't see how someone could be opposed to it. If it had existed after WWII, the flaws that emerged in the Nuremburg and Tokyo trials wouldn't have happened...

Violet...

[Gimel]

109. First there must be

Universal law and standardization of punishments. Which there isn't. I don't think that a German, Australian and Sudanese jury can decide whether an Israeli soldier who is accused of pulling a Palestinian civilian's beard to get him to understand an order should receive a 20 year jail term or perhaps by Islamic law have his hand severed.

There has not been an international criminal court proposed, to my knowledge. There is already an International War Crimes Tribunal which serves the purpose for war crimes trials, in my opinon. Here I accept the advice of US and other more enlightened authorities.

Criminal conduct is best decided by local juries.

[Violet_Crumble]

116. Huh???

Do you really think an international war crimes tribunal operates under Islamic law?????

If you think there hasn't been an international criminal court proposed, then why were you claiming that you feared that Israeli soldiers may be prosecuted by one?

And excuse me, but the US is NOT enlightened at all. Just take a look at Guatanamo Bay!

Violet...

[Gimel]

136. That's just it...

there's no legal right to try these soldiers who may have committed acts which might be interpreted as denying the basic human rights of certain individuals while trying to apprehend criminal terrorists, on the level of a criminal like Melsovic.

[Violet_Crumble]

140. According to you, maybe...

But as I've said before, when faced with a choice between listening to someone with little to no knowledge and understanding of international law and listening to experts, I'll take the experts any time. What yr actually saying is that you think only troops of certain nations should be above the law, which I expect is the argument of many who don't feel that violations of human rights by troops should be punished. And I think only someone clutching at straws would claim that investigating and prosecuting those who have violated human rights may be interpreted as denying their basic human rights. All I know is that unless the person claiming this has shown a real and deep concern for the basic human rights of the civilians whos rights are or have been violated, then they're showing a very clear double-standard and a cynical use of human rights to actually protect those who do violate human rights...


Violet...

[Gimel]

146. I agree

when faced with a choice between listening to someone with little to no knowledge and understanding of international law and listening to experts, I'll take the experts any time.

This I agree with. There are, however, varying viewpoints on International Law. Documents which are the basis of law are available on the net, but it takes a person with legal knowledge to interpret them.

for example: the UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION 181 November 29, 1947

This UN resolution actually specified the creation of Israel, and as such, the date for the UN Resolution on partition begins the process for an independent state of Israel.

While this ws not implemented in full, Israel ws created on May 14, 1948. Notice that one of the provisions of 181 reads:

Chapter 3: Citizenship, International Conventions and Financial Obligations 1. Citizenship Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem, as well as Arabs and Jews who, not holding Palestinian citizenship, reside in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem shall, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights. Persons over the age of eighteen years may opt, within one year from the date of recognition of independence of the State in which they reside, for citizenship of the other State, providing that no Arab residing in the area of the proposed Arab State shall have the right to opt for citizenship in the proposed Jewish State and no Jew residing in the proposed Jewish State shall have the right to opt for citizenship in the proposed Arab State. The exercise of this right of option will be taken to include the wives and children under eighteen years of age of persons so opting.

Arabs residing in the area of the proposed Jewish State and Jews residing in the area of the proposed Arab State who have signed a notice of intention to opt for citizenship of the other State shall be eligible to vote in the elections to the Constituent Assembly of that State, but not in the elections to the Constituent Assembly of the State in which they reside.
http://www.ariga.com/treaties/part181.shtml

If you are able to understand this document, you will see that Arabs are eligble for citizenship in the area they reside, as are Jews.


Israel decalred statehood:

On May 14, 1948, on the day in which the British Mandate over a Palestine expired, the Jewish People's Council gathered at the Tel Aviv Museum, and approved the following proclamation, declaring the establishment of the State of Israel. The new state was recognized that night at 11:00 AM Israel time by the United States and three days later by the USSR.
http://www.ariga.com/treaties/independ.shtml

[Violet_Crumble]

156. Really?

Wow, I didn't know you had knowledge of International Law under yr belt. You had me all fooled with that comment about those found guilty of war crimes possibly being tried by Islamic Sharia law and having a hand cut off ;) btw, nice example, but General Assembly Resolutions aren't legally binding, so maybe you should have tried something from the Security Council instead?


Violet...

[Gimel]

154. No I don't think that

Anyway, my point of view, as I have stated is that:

1. There already exists an Intenational Court
http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/igeneralinformation/ibbook/Bbookframepage.htm

2. The Rome Statute seeks to undermine the authority of the Hague World court and to supplant it with a statute that is neither adequate or universally acceptable.

3. Enlightenment is not a national state of mind. It is an individual accomplishment. I've never claimed that the US was an "enlightened" country.

4. While there isn't an international criminal court, the possibility of prosecuting individual Israeli soldiers was discussed in conjunction with the proposed UN observers who submitted a request to the GOI. It is not my fear, as you seem to think, but that the GOI rejected the request on that basis.

[Violet_Crumble]

157. Yr point of view is incorrect...

Ooh. I do so love numbered lists! Let's go!

1. Yes, the ICJ exists and has existed for quite a while. I didn't realise that there was only room in the world for one International Court....

2. The ICC and the ICJ are two different courts with two different purposes. To say that one is undermining or supplanting the other is a bit bizarre. The ICJ is NOT and never has been a war crimes tribunal. The ICC is. Here's some information for you on the difference between them.

"The International Court of Justice does not have criminal jurisdiction to prosecute individuals. It is a civil tribunal that deals primarily with disputes between States. The ICJ is the principle judicial organ of the United Nations, whereas the ICC will be independent of the U.N."

http://www.icc-cpi.int/php/show.php?id=faq#8

3. And the US is NOT enlightened on matters like war-crimes etc. Which is why I mentioned Guatanamo Bay and the illegal imprisonment of foreign nationals there. It's also interesting to remember that the US was found guilty in the ICJ of acts of terrorism against Nicaragua....

4. Uh, yes. There is an international criminal court despite all yr protestations to the contrary. Have you got anything to back up yr claim that the possible prosecution of Israeli troops by the ICC was discussed? See, I also read this on the ICC site: "The ICC will not have retroactive jurisdiction and therefore will not apply to crimes committed before 1st July 2002."

Violet...

[Gimel]

171. Excuse me but

one's point of view is an inalienable right. Mine is as correct as the next person's.

Here are a few links for you:

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=27678
http://www.israelinsider.com/channels/diplomacy/articles/dip_0197.htm

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=41126
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=41402
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=41454
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=41555
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=41761

Israel Tuesday asked for a delay to the arrival of the U.N. team, appointed by the Secretary-General Kofi Annan after a Security Council resolution last week, and for changes to its composition and mandate.

In the meantime, the Israeli government said it was withdrawing its cooperation. Annan said Wednesday that the team would visit Saturday, a day later than scheduled, and that members of his staff are to meet with specialists from the Israeli government at U.N. headquarters Thursday
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/24/200853.shtml

No soldiers were interviewsed.

[Darranar]

172. Israeli National News?

Not the most objective source in the world, is it? I doubt Violet will be convinced.

[Gimel]

106. Int'l Tribunals

This is my statement:

The US also has objected to soldiers serving in Bosnia to be subjected to legal action by the international courts. Israel is not alone in this concern.

This is your response:
the view you share with the US that their troops should not be held accountable to international war crimes tribunals. That's complete and utter nonsense as far as I'm concerned and only supported by those that think the US (and in yr case Israel) should be above international law...

You have confused me, a private individual, with the position of the US government, and with Israel. I am speaking for neither, and this is not an inquisition. I asked you which nations have agreed to let their soldiers be tried as war criminals.

Legal rights are human rights. The right to competent legal representation is a basic human right. Soldiers have a contract with the nations they serve under. It is for that nation to decide if there has been a human rights violation in the performance of duty.

Where there is a democratic legal process, the international tribunal has no business interfering.

The international courts are primarily set up to settle disputes between nations, not that of individuals.

http://www.worldcourts.com/pcij/eng/jurisdiction.htm

http://www.worldcourts.com/icj/eng/rejections.htm

No human court is without flaws. The perfect court does not exist, international or otherwise.

There were no brutal and flagrant violations of human rights in the territories of the West Bank or Gaza, and that has been testified before the world. This legal matter is closed.

[Violet_Crumble]

107. See post#105

I asked you what yr view was. And feel free to tell me where yr view differs from that of Israel and the US....

You've seen the Rome Statute, haven't you? All the parties to that are nations that have agreed to it. So my question to you is why do you think Israel is above that? What makes Israel different than those nations?

I find it a bit ridiculous to claim that investigating human rights abuses is violating the human rights of those who are being investigated. And I find it equally ridiculous to claim that any nation should have the final word on whether its troops have committed those abuses. What we'd see is the international community telling Indonesia it suspects human rights violations and Indonesia saying there isn't because after all Indonesia has investigated and found nothing. And I guess if we all followed yr line of thinking, the international community would then tug its forelock and bow and scrape away apologising for even daring to override the sanctity of that states sovereign right to decide what is and isn't a human rights abuse and fade quietly away...

Uh, the UN was set up to try to resolve disputes between states. The ICC can prosecute individuals, as in the case of international terrorism where there is no state committing a crime. And if a crime is being investigated and dealt with by a state, then the ICC doesn't take action. It's only when a state is unwilling or unable to that it would act....

You may like to pretend that no human rights abuses happened in the Occupied Territories because the Israeli govt told you so, but considering the fact-finding team wasn't even allowed in to see what had happened means it should be far from being closed...

Violet...

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CitizenDick]

125. Again?

"Those who whine and complain about road blocks and long lines at border crossings unnerve me. However, I find that Israeli officials are used to it, and for the most part, they expect it. Just like auditorium managers expect certain behaviors from the crowd."

So innocent Palestinians that are prevented from working or getting medical treatment shouldn't complain, because that unnerves you? Would you be unnerved if your family lived in poverty or it took you several hours to make a trip that should take a fraction of that? You compare these conditions to a crowd in an auditorium?

I think it's obvious what you're trying to do with your comments. Not adavnce the debate, but upset people that are concerned with the Palestinains' plight.

[Gimel]

130. Don't worry

They never know that it unnerves me. I have no effect on the process. I wish that all those with valid reasons for entering Israel should do so. If they have employment or need medical attention, they should be allowed in. The problem arises when terrorists take advantage of that. To quote another poster I'll add "and you know it."

Israelis have to wait at road blocks also when there is a security alert. Did you every think of that? People getting to work, or on the way home after a long day at work, ambulences trying to arrive at a hospital with patients injured or ill or someone giving birth. Life in Israel is also problematic.

On edit: It's not the conditions of the road blocks to an auditorium, rather the management aspect. The conflict has placed an enormous strain on Israel and Israel's economy. I wish the money was going to help improve the lives of poor Palestinians and poor Israelis. This is one of my basic points, which I've mentioned before. The conflict is far too costly.

[Violet_Crumble]

126. That's not what you said at all...

Yr post wasn't talking about the 'inconvenience' of roadblocks. You were talking about something completely different. Unfortunately I can't give you the link to refresh yr memory seeing as how yr post was deleted...

Violet...

[Gimel]

133. A shame

Why post something that you can't remember?


:shrug:

[Violet_Crumble]

141. You must have misread...

I didn't say anything about me not remembering. I do, and I'm sure that everyone who read the post remembers that you were talking about injured Palestinians, not Palestinians inconvenienced by roadblocks. After all I said if I could I'd link to the deleted post to refresh yr memory. I'd hate to think we're having trouble telling the difference between my and yr...

Violet...

[Gimel]

147. There is a connection

The injured were trying to get to hospitals inside Israel, according to your claim, but were required to wait at checkpoints by Israel security forces. Therefore, the roadblocks were at the center of the discussion. It is a case of ideal vs. reality. No one wants to cause undue suffering of innocent civilians, yet it has been known that terrorists hide in ambulances in order to enter Israel. Therefore, they also must undergo a security check. It seems that the responsibility to be able to reach the checkpoint quickly, might be a matter of regulating traffic. This could be highly dangerous for Israeli soldiers, so the PA might have facilitated this. That would help to have the reality approach the ideal.

[Violet_Crumble]

158. I claimed that????

I just went and reread the post that yr now deleted post responded to and I said nothing of the sort. I didn't even mention roadblocks, and neither did you in yr reply. Strange that something you claim was central to the discussion just didn't rate a mention, so don't pretend you were talking about something else than what you were. You made a intolerant comment about injured Palestinians that yr now trying to pretend you never made....

Violet...

[Gimel]

138. Main objection

The so-called Rome Statute redefines terms and is over-all simplistic. It therefore, does not anticipate the complex situations that do and have developed.

I'm not going into the rest of your accusations, as I've mentioned them in other posts.

[Violet_Crumble]

142. That's yr main objection??

Want to point out exactly how it's simplistic? And it's not the so-called Rome Statute, though I expect you used the word as a way of showing yr derision. The Rome Statute has been ratified. There's no 'so called' about it. That's like someone who has a beef with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights calling it the so-called Universal Declaration of Human Rights...

As I didn't make any accusations in my post, I guess it would be impossible for you to address accusations. If you want to address any of the points I made, feel free to as so far anything I've seen you say on the matters I've addressed have contained some major flaws...

Violet...

[Gimel]

149. My position

is as I stated. No, I don't want to point out the obvious.

[Name removed]

159. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Gimel]

90. Furthermore

When Israel launched it's operation "Defensive Shield", the Bush administration opposed it. He ordered Sharon to withdraw forces. He repeated that order in televised news reports 4 or 5 times.

Sharon did not withdraw forces. Is Bush with Israel? Was anyone on Israel's side in the legitimate battle to combat terrorism in self-defense? Not until Colin Powell arrived a few weeks later, a spoke with Arafat himself, did the Bush administration start to become convinced.

Israel goes it alone against the world. Standing up to Bush and later to the UN.

[Violet_Crumble]

93. So what?

Gosh, sometimes the US administration makes public noises pretending to oppose what Israel does. Big deal. That money keeps on flowing though, and if the US was really pissed off, that'd stop quick smart...

As I said earlier this whole 'Israel against the world' is paranoid nonsense that's not backed up by reality and I suspect some folk need to hold on to it in order to demonise those they think are in the way of Israel. What an incredibly childish way for people to look at the world...

Violet...

[Gimel]

99. Look Violet

at crucial points in recent history, Israel has acted alone despite international pressure from all sides. It is true that Bush came around to seeing Israel's viewpoint of this issue. It is not "so what" and no small matter that Sharon withstood the pressure both from the Bush administration and from the UN. Israel did agree to a UN investigation in Jenin, but backed down when the UN claimed the right to interview and prosecute individual IDF soldiers.

As for UN votes, only the tiny nation of Micronesia voted with the US against the stacked resolutions against Israel's existence.

[Violet_Crumble]

101. Lookin' right back at ya, Gimel...

Has it occured to you that Israel is just like any other nation and at times does the wrong thing? If you think it isn't, then feel free to explain why. Putting it up on a pedestal and acting like any international pressure on it means it's Israel vs the Rest of the World achieves nothing and doesn't reflect reality...

As I said, if the US was really pissed off with Israel, it'd cut off the funding. Words are cheap, money isn't. And don't pretend that Israel had any intention of letting international fact-finding teams into Jenin. They didn't and found words were much cheaper than actions. I find it bizarre that you think IDF troops should be above international law. An atrocity in East Timor involving Australian troops was investigated by the UN, and I didn't think they were above the law or should be protected from being interviewed....


You think UN Resolutions critical of Israels actions are resolutions against its existance?? Maybe you could point me to the specific resolutions yr talking about so I can see for myself? I have a very good idea why micronesia would have voted the way it did, and believe me, it's not out of the goodness of their heart. But can we keep things correct in future and repeat incessantly 'It's Israel and Micronesia against the world!!!'? ;)

Violet...

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

117. You made a claim...

That there were 'stacked resolutions' against Israels existance. Seeing as how I don't hallucinate, it's up to you to back up the claim you made and show all these resolutions against Israels existance...

I don't give a toss about how popular Micronesia is in Israel and wasn't even discussing that. Micronesia doesn't tend to vote to get in sweet with Israel, btw. It's the US that pulls the strings there...

There is absolutely no excuse to be made for a nations actions in defying international law. I hope yr not saying that Israel has any sort of right to place itself above the law...

Violet...

[Gimel]

121. The Law

The politics of the UN isn't the law either. You again misinterpreted my comments, perhaps on purpose. Did I in any way mention that I thought Micronesia wanted to get sweet with Israel? You are the one who mentioned the possibility of an alliance there, while my comments were meant to say that there ws none. My understanding is that Micronesia was able to sympathise with Israel, perhaps because it had no vested interests in the vote, and could see the real issues more clearly.

[Violet_Crumble]

127. So where's all those Resolutions?

Y'know, all those ones you claimed were against Israels existance? They don't exist. And I think you'll find that the UN does indeed have a role in creating international law. No, I don't misinterpret yr comments, not even on purpose. Maybe you missed the point totally, but Micronesia would have voted the way they did not because of Israel, but because of the US. I doubt Micronesia had any more of a real interest in sympathising with Israel than that other great world power, Nauru, who I believe has either abstained or voted against some UN General Assembly Resolutions. But, hey. Nauru is a bankrupt nation that will whore itself out to the highest bidder as the Pacific Solution proved...

Violet...

[Gimel]

131. "claim"

This is a statement from a post above:

As for UN votes, only the tiny nation of Micronesia voted with the US against the stacked resolutions against Israel's existence.

For the sake of brevity, I incerted Micronesia as an outstanding example of a nation that voted against a resolution which threatens Israel's existence.

The discussion and votes on six un resolutions concerning Israel's existence can be read Here

Concerning Israel's existence in it's capital city, Jerusalem:

[Violet_Crumble]

143. That resolution threatened Israels existance??

A General Assembly Resolution determining that the decision of Israel to impose its laws and administration on Jerusalem was null and void is a threat to Israel's existance? How so? Will the entire state of Israel crumble into dust if it actually complies with a UN Resolution?

I noticed the link only said which nations voted against, not the reasons why nations like Micronesia voted the way they did, which seemed to be the thing we were disagreeing about...

Violet...

[Gimel]

148. Never

There will be no crumbling to dust.

Micronesia has on occasion voted against resoutions which threaten Israel's existence. If Israel were to comply with every UN resolution like allowing Palestine to take whatever state appealed to them, then I dare say that there would be all out war. However, Israel would win.

[Violet_Crumble]

160. Stop inventing resolutions that don't exist....

If Israel were to comply with every UN resolution like allowing Palestine to take whatever state appealed to them, then I dare say that there would be all out war.

No such resolution exists, though I expect some interpret any resolution acknowledging the Palestinian right of self-determination as the UN telling Israel to take whatever state appeals to them. Kind of pathetic how some people can do such creative interpretations, eh?

Violet...

[Gimel]

152. Try doing your research

You are free to do research on your own, also.

[Violet_Crumble]

161. What makes you think I haven't?

If Resolutions existed that actually threatened Israel's existance, do you really think I'd be asking you to show me where they are? Unfortunately for you what you provided to me wasn't at all threatening to Israel's existance and seeing you made the claim these Resolutions existed, then the onus was on you to show me what they were. I think it's very sad that some people can 'interpret' resolutions that support a viable Palestinian state and self-determination for Palestinians as a threat to Israels existance...


Violet...

[Gimel]

132. Existence of Israel

Resolutions such as this are passed in the General Assembly every year:


1. Reaffirms the inalienable, permanent and unqualified right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including their right to establish their sovereign and independent Palestinian State, and looks forward to the early fulfilment of this right;
http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/5ba47a5c6cef541b802563e000493b8c/08f7a94456e1f46685256ab1006f1569!OpenDocument


The fulfillment of this resolution, without recognizing Israel's right to exist within recognized boundaries, would give the Palestinians 'self-determination' a priority which denies Israel's existence.

(Edited to avoid a duplicate post.)

[Violet_Crumble]

144. Oh, please....

I actually thought you might come up with something slightly substantial to back up what you said, but all you've done is portray any affirming of the rights of Palestinians to self-determination and an independent state as being a threat to Israels existance. You know what? When the UN passed a resolution about East Timor affirming their right to self-determination and an independent state, it didn't mention Indonesia's right to exist within recognised boundaries, so I guess an Indonesian who supported that occupation could have made the same paranoid claim. Anyway, the UN has recognised Israels right to exist. It's a member of the UN in case you haven't noticed...

Violet...

[Gimel]

153. See post #131

You are so clever, my friend.

[Violet_Crumble]

162. I did. Yr point?

How exactly are those Resolutions threatening Israels existance? I'm starting to get the feeling that you think the slightest bit of international criticism is threatening Israel's existance....

And knock off the sarcasm, okay?

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

6. The UN

You clearly trust that institution. Israelis have justifiable reasons not to.

[quilp]

10. You mean like they tell the truth?

n/t

[Muddleoftheroad]

17. Since when

Has the UN been party to THAT with the Mideast crisis?

[Violet_Crumble]

20. Got lots of examples?

Of all this UN dishonesty?

[GabysPoppy]

22. Count the number of resolutions against Israel

http://www.middleeastnews.com/unresolutionslist.html

A List of UN SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS against Israel

Especially #250 - Against a parade?

Then prepare and show us a list of UN resolutions condemning a suicide bombing attack killing scores of Israeli citizens.

Might they be a bit biased and dishonest

[Violet_Crumble]

24. I asked for lots of examples of dishonesty...

So if yr thinking that all those Security Council resolutions are lies, start pointing them out specifically...

And I don't have to show you a list of anything, as I've never made any claims about anything in this subthread...

Violet...

[Violet_Crumble]

25. What was dishonest about Resolution 250?

I just went and read it and I can't see anything dishonest in it. In fact I'm surprised that any progressive would have a problem with this particular resolution...

United Nations Security Council Resolution 250
April 27, 1968


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

The Security Council,

Having heard the statements of the representatives of Jordan and Israel,

Having considered the Secretary-General's note (S/8561),1/ particularly his note to the Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations,

Considering that the holding of a military parade in Jerusalem will aggravate tensions in the area and have an adverse effect on a peaceful settlement of the problems in the area,

1. Calls upon Israel to refrain from holding the military parade in Jerusalem which is contemplated for 2 May 1968;

2. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the implementation of this resolution.

Adopted unanimously at the 1417th meeting.

___________________


http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/UN/unres250.html

[Jim Sagle]

28. "I'm surprised that any progressive would have a problem with this"

Maybe because it's none of the UN's fuckin' business if Israel (or ANY nation) holds a military parade within its own borders.

[Violet_Crumble]

30. But it wasn't within its own borders...

So of course you'll never see the Security Council saying anything about the US holding a military parade in New York, Australia holding one in Sydney, or Israel having one in Tel Aviv. But when any nation decides to hold a military parade (this one was on the pretext of celebrating Israels Independence Day) in a city that its just annexed half of, and what's more a city which due to its special status was originally intended to be an international city administered by the UN, well, that's when I get totally surprised that any progressive would have a problem with that particular resolution or any of the others that were related to it. Unless that particular progressive supports the acquisition of territory by force, which means they wouldn't have had any problems with Indonesias invasion of East Timor and means that it's very hard to see how that particular person could really be progressive at all...

btw, no-one's yet pointed out where the dishonesty was in that resolution. If it's merely going to be someone telling me that they as Mr. Middle-Class Suburban Joe Bloggs from Backwatersville USA are right and the U.N. is wrong when it comes to things like international law and stuff, then I might actually gain a tiny bit more entertainment out of it than sitting and watching an episode of Boring Big Brother...

Violet...

[Gimel]

33. Status of Jerusalem

in a city that its just annexed half of, and what's more a city which due to its special status was originally intended to be an international city administered by the UN, well, that's when I get totally surprised that any progressive would have a problem with that particular resolution or any of the others that were related to it.

This is exactly where the label "progressive" breaks down. You are clutching for staws. What was intended is not what is. So what? The current status is what is important. Israel only was entitled to half of the city, you say? Israel unified the eternal city and made it an open city for all religions. Very progressive from my viewpoint. Since when does the UN have the right to administer a city?

[Violet_Crumble]

35. Israel doesn't own Jerusalem...

If you want to ignore international law and the UN, fine. But the fact is that Jerusalem was intended to be an international city and Israel 'unified' it by force. Totally illegal. Not at all progressive from my viewpoint and that of other progressives...

Saying that Israel is entitled to Jerusalem because it annexed half of it after the 67 war is the same as an Indonesian saying that Indonesia was entitled to East Timor. Totally disgusting...

Violet...

[Gimel]

37. when attacked...

a nation has the right to repel ther attackers. Again, your statements ignore historical fact, Violet. Please read the following:

<snip>
1947 - The UN decides on internationalizing Jerusalem, a move that evoked immediate Arab aggression. The Jewish quarter is cut off and the new city is under siege.

1948 - In May the Jewish quarter falls to the Jordanian legion and 1,300 soldiers are transferred to the new city.

1949 - In December the Israeli cabinet announces Jerusalem as the eternal Capitol of Israel. The Knesset moves to Jerusalem. Jordanian and Israeli objections brings about the cancellation of the decision to internationalize Jerusalem. East Jerusalem is declared as the second capitol of the Jordanian kingdom.

1967 - The Six Day War - The city is reunited after three days of fighting.
http://www.jerusalem.muni.il/english/tour/history.htm


Letter from Abba Eban, Israel's Minister for Foerign Affairs, 1967 to the UN Secretary General:

<snip>
As a result of aggression launched by the Arab States against Israel in 1948, the section of Jerusalem in which the Holy Places are concentrated had been governed for nineteen years by a régime which refused to give due acknowledgment to universal religious concerns. The City was divided by a military demarcation line. Houses of worship were destroyed and desecrated in acts of vandalism. Instead of peace and security there was hostility and frequent bloodshed. The principle of freedom of access to the Holy Places of all the three monotheistic religions was violated with regard to Jews, but not to them alone.

<snip>
On 5 June 1967, the Jordanian forces launched a destructive and unprovoked armed assault on the part of Jerusalem outside the walls. This attack was made despite Israel's appeals to Jordan to abstain from hostilities. Dozens of Jerusalem citizens were killed and hundreds wounded.

<snip>
Since 7 June, the entire City of Jerusalem has experienced peace and unity. The Holy Places of all faiths have been open to access by those who hold them sacred.
<snip>
In the hills of Judea, where Jerusalem is situated, there is an acute shortage of water. The Old City is now connected with the general water supply system, and all houses are receiving a continuous supply of water, double the quantity available to them in the past.
All hospitals and clinics are already functioning. In the past no health services existed for the young within the framework of the school system, nor were there any health stations for mother and child care. These services are now being established.
There was no social welfare system in the Old City. Today all the inhabitants of Jerusalem now enjoy the same welfare rights. The municipality has already begun extending its welfare services to those for whom none have been available in the past.
School buildings are being prepared for the resumption of studies at the beginning of the new school year. Teachers are being located and arrangements made for them to return to their work. Their salaries are paid by the municipality.
<snip>
If these measures had not been taken, the Holy Places would be without legal protection. The unified public utilities services would not exist. Municipal and administrative facilities would not be extended to some sections of the City, and Jerusalem's residents would still be divided, hermetically confined in separate compartments.
<snip>
The measures taken by my Government to secure the protection of the Holy Places are only a part of Israel's effort to ensure respect for universal interests in Jerusalem....
<snip>
Where there was hostile separation, there is now harmonious civic union. Where there was a constant threat of violence, there is now peace. Where there was once an assertion of exclusive and unilateral control over the Holy Places, exercised in sacrilegious discrimination, there is now a willingness to work out arrangements with the world's religious bodies - Christian, Muslim and Jewish - which will ensure the universal religious character of the Holy Places.

The Government of Israel is confident that world opinion will welcome the new prospect of seeing this ancient and historic metropolis thrive in unity, peace and spiritual elevation.

Please accept, Mr. Secretary-General, the assurances of my highest consideration.


Abba Eban
Minister for Foreign Affairs'

http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/85255a0a0010ae82852555340060479d/3389ff5a64eef486852563f80066ef6c!OpenDocument

[Violet_Crumble]

40. What's that got to do with what I said?

Of course a nation has a right to repel an attack on its territory, and I've never said it didn't. But East Jerusalem wasn't and isn't Israeli territory, despite all the crap that can be dredged up from a variety of Israeli ministers insisting otherwise. What I was talking about was the inadmissability of territory gained by force, which is what Israel did in 67. If you want to keep insisting that it's just fine and dandy for a nation to gain territory through war, I want to know whether you only apply this standard to Israel or does it extend to other land-grabs carried out by other nations? East Timor is a real obvious example and I can't see how you could say it's alright to take East Jerusalem by force and keep it and not say the same for the Indonesian invasion of East Timor....

Violet...

[Gimel]

42. City of David

The History:

the inadmissability of territory gained by force, which is what Israel did in 67

Then the city wasn't the Turks (who gained it by force) and wasn't the British (who took it over by theft) and certainly wasn't Jordan's (who gained it by force). Give it back to it's origonal owners - the Jews (King David founded Jerusalem).

Satisfied? I didn't think so. It's just trying to promote the Jews.

The International City: The idea of making it a city run by the UN was cancelled.

Therefore, your claim against Israel governing the city is invlaid. The cancellation of a proposal means it is no longer an option (hope this helps you to understand why I posted the historical link).

:-)


On Edit: I have no comment about E Timor, and since I've never given an opinion and it's not relevant to this discussion, I don't know why you've brought it up and asked for my opinion.

[Violet_Crumble]

44. No...

It's Israel that gained that territory by force in 1967, and it's not their place to give it to anyone, though I expect most people would agree that it's the people who live there and have lived there for generations that it should belong to. What Israel should do is get out of there, which is why that UN Resolution applies to East Jerusalem just as much as it applies to the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Satisfied? I didn't think so. It's just trying to promote the Jews.

Huh? The reason why I thought it was a ridiculous comment had to do with the reasons I've stated above. I don't give a toss if the people involved are Jewish or non-Jewish and I don't appreciate insinuations saying otherwise...


I have no comment about E Timor, and since I've never given an opinion and it's not relevant to this discussion, I don't know why you've brought it up and asked for my opinion.

It is relevant to the discussion when we're talking about nations taking territory by force in the 20th century. I asked because as I already said I want to know whether you think the acquisition by force of territory is acceptable if done by all nations or is Israel a special case. But it's no biggie. I don't want to be the one responsible for you having to think about any part of the world other than Israel :)

Violet...

[Darranar]

48. Seriously...

Gimel is right. The founders of Jerusalem were indeed Jews. Jordan took it by force. Israel liberated it, and now anyone of any religion can pray there and visit there. The Jordanians didn't allow Jews.

[Violet_Crumble]

51. That was serious?

That's like saying: 'Gimel is right. Her name is Gimel. She posts in F/A'. You didn't bother addressing anything that we were actually arguing about. Try going back and reading the entire subthread...

Just to make sure you comprehend. I wasn't arguing with Gimel that the original founders of Jerusalem werent Jews because they were and it wasn't what was being discussed. I wasn't arguing with Gimel that Jordan took East Jerusalem by force in 1948, because they did, but yet again it wasn't what was being discussed. What was being discussed was Israel taking it by force in 1967 and the Security Council Resolution addressing that. If there was a claim made by Gimel that Israel liberated it, then that's just as silly as all those freepers who claim that Iraq was liberated and love pumping that word liberation hand in hand with Good Things that they think have happened since said invasions. As for yr claim that anyone can pray and visit there, how do you explain that to the Palestinians who aren't allowed there? And if Jordan (btw, when you refer to actions of Jordan as that of the Jordanians, it appears that yr blaming the people of Jordan and not the govt) wasn't allowing Jews into East Jerusalem then why was the govt of Israel chummy with King Abdullah?

Violet..

[The Magistrate]

53. A Small Clarafication, Ma'am

King Abdullah was killed shortly after the '48 war. In the early days of King Hussein's reign, matters between Israel and Trans-Jordan were much less cordial.

One reason Israel's capture of East Jerusalem is sometimes called liberation is that that was the traditional Jewish Quarter of the city under Ottoman rule, and in its conquest by Jordan in '48 a substantial Jewish population, many of them elderly pietists, was evicted from the place.

[Violet_Crumble]

54. But...

Even with less cordial relations, the relations were still reasonably cordial considering Jordan wasn't allowing Jews into Jerusalem?

It makes no sense to me that some folk call the capture of East Jerusalem liberation because it involved an area where part of the existing population was evicted or fled, yet would refuse to apply that same thinking if territory were ever to be captured from Israel where part of the existing population of Arabs were evicted or fled. The word liberation when applied to Arabs seems to be seen as something terribly offensive or something to be crushed at all costs....

Violet...

[The Magistrate]

55. Relations Were Not Particularly Cordial, Ma'am

There was a good deal of shooting on the borders, many Jordanians being killed, along with Israelis and returning or infiltrating Arab Palestinians. There is always an element of realpolitik involved in these things, and some matters are overlooked or not pressed when it suits other needs of a state.

"Liberation" is generally used in a one-sided manner, by either side: that, too, is just part of the game.

[Violet_Crumble]

63. They weren't hostile though...

Relations between Israel and Abdullah were quite warm right up till his death. Relations between Israel and Jordan despite all the shooting on the borders never got outright hostile, I thought....

I agree with you on the use of the word 'liberation'. It's one of those words that like the word 'terrorism' is so overused in such a one-sided manner that it really does end up becoming a non-word with none of the power it should have...

Cheers...

Violet...

[Darranar]

64. Liberation...

should only mean the reconquering of a formerly possessed territory. Otherwise it becomes diluted by overuse.

[Violet_Crumble]

66. Wrong...

East Jerusalem wasn't a formerly possessed territory of Israel. There is no point after the creation of Israel in 1948 that East Jerusalem was a territory of Israel. So yr use of the word 'liberation' was one of those ones that does dilute the word through incorrect overuse...

Violet...

[Darranar]

68. I never used the word liberation in relationship to East Jerusalem...

If I did, I made a mistake. I agree that the conquest of East Jerusalem was indeed not a liberation.

[Violet_Crumble]

69. Uh, you did...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=1132&mesg_id=1132&page=#1599

But that's cool. I make mistakes too :)

Violet...

[Gimel]

88. No city should be divided

This is an artifical construct. Was Jerusalem ever a divided city before 1948? Israel was attacked in '48 and repelled the attackers. That united the city. The religious centers, including the ruins of the ancient Jewish 1st and 2nd Temples are in that quarter, yet you say that Israel never owned that territory. That is to ignore history. Even the UN is wrong sometimes.

[Violet_Crumble]

96. Israel was only created in 1948!!

To say that Israel owned that territory before 1948 is totally incorrect and ignoring history. Israel didn't even exist before then...

Violet...

[Gimel]

120. Talk about red herrings!

What does the date of modern Israel have to do with the city being divided? Or with anything else that I said. I know Israel's history. Jerusalem is the center of Jewish heritage.

On edit: just thought I'd add the link to the proposal made by Israel at Camp David II to divide Jerusalem according the existing population centers, into Jerusalem and Al Quds:

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Peace/jerdivide.html

Sorry if you think this is a red herring.

[Violet_Crumble]

128. Maybe you should reread this sub-thread?

Because the date of the creation of Israel is vitally important to the discussion. East Jerusalem was captured in 1967 and was part of the territory referred to when Resolution 242 stated the inadmissability of territory gained by force. A claim was made that the state of Israel 'liberated' and 'unified' the city, therefore it gets to keep it. That would only be some sort of argument if the state of Israel had existed at any time when Jerusalem was a unified city which Israel had sovereignty over. It wasn't. Claiming that it's okay to take territory by force if that territory is seen as being vitally important to any groups culture is an argument used by those folk who think Israel owns the Occupied Territories...

I found this report on the status of Jerusalem at the UN site. It looks like it's a few years old now but it's interesting reading for those of us who respect the fact that it's just not one group who have cultural and religious ties to Jerusalem....

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/533b4714451b48bf0525651b00488d02?OpenDocument

Violet...

[Gimel]

137. Beyond that

The city was re-unified, but never did I use the word "liberated" the truth of my statement stands. I does not depend on this sub-thread. The re-unification happened regardless of when the modern state of Israel was "created" . The City was one in the time of King David. The division imposed in 1947 violated the rights of the city and the religion of many of it's residents, including those of the Christian, Armenian and Jewish quarters.

[Violet_Crumble]

145. Like I said, reread the subthread...

If you can't be bothered doing that, then I have to wonder why yr wasting time posting in it. You might notice that I never claimed YOU used the word 'liberated', so I'm not sure what yr going on about here. I've told you the reasons why Jerusalem is viewed as an occupied city and why the creation of the state of Israel is important when it comes to these sorts of things. Like I said, yr argument could be used for Israel having some sort of sovereignty over the Occupied Territories and possibly even parts of other nations...

Violet...

[Gimel]

150. good

then in fact, I can't be bothered to continue this discussion.

[Gimel]

129. United Jerusalem

To say that Israel owned that territory before 1948 is totally incorrect and ignoring history. Israel didn't even exist before then...

Violet...

I never said anyone owned Jerusalem. I don't like the concept of ownership for city or land. These are your words, not mine. You can add all the historical dates and facts you want and call it relevant. Good for you. I applaud your attention to history. Jerusalem was not open to three religions until Israel united it in 1967.

The Jerusalem Day parade is held every year and attended by other religious groups from around the world. It is an international city, and proud of it.

[pschoeb]

139. Jerusalem was not founded by David or the Jews

King David conquered the city from the Jebusites(a pagan Canaanite tribe, some say a mix of Amorite and Hittite), supposedly around 1052 BCE. The city was founded by Canaanites probably as early as 2500 BCE with known references to the city by 1900 BCE. So we have a minimum of 800 years of Cannaanite inhabitants.

This is the third time I have metioned this to you. Please read your Tanakh, it's all in there.

Patrick Schoeb

[Gimel]

151. sorry to bother you again

However, although I am not a scholor, I do read Tenach regularly, so your suggestion is unnecessary.

The first and Second temples are indeed Hebrew. David rebuilt and renamed the city, so although there was a previous small village, The City of David was the capital of Israel since it was founded. You might try some online sources such as:

http://www.templemount.org/sagiv00.html

In about 1004 BC King David conquered the small Jebusite city of Jerusalem, fortified it, renamed it The City of David, and established it as the capital of the first united Jewish kingdom .


http://www.usm.maine.edu/~maps/exhibit1/theme1.html

Abraham purchased land in Hebron to bury his wife Sarah, and for his own burial and that of his son Jacob and Jacob's wife Leah. They are there today, surrounded by Moslems = as recorded in the book of "Genesis" (Bereshit).

[Darranar]

47. Really, did they?

If my memory serves me correctly, which on this iisue it almost always does, they took it from JORDAN! Jordan made sure that not a Jew was allowed into Jerusalem. The Israelis allow anyone in. Yes, it was intended for international control, but the Arabs took it in 1948.

[Violet_Crumble]

50. And yr point is?

I know that Jerusalem was taken from Jordan in the 67 war. I never said it wasn't, so I don't know what point yr trying to make. And it's not true at all that Israel allows anyone into Jerusalem, but I guess it looks impressive to the Baaad Ayrabs - Gooood Israelis Camp....



Violet....

[Darranar]

56. Oh, sorry...

My point was that all religions can go there to pray or visit their holy sites. The Jordanian government did not allow Jews in. I have always felt that international control of Jerusalem by the UN was a hopeful fantasy; like the British, it would have been hard for them to understand both side's concerns.

[Violet_Crumble]

59. That's okay...

I think I pointed out that yr claim that all religions can go to Jerusalem to pray or visit holy sites is pretty strange. For that to happen, access to a city like that would have to be open to all, and in Jerusalems case it's not. Does Israel let Palestinians in? What's the difference between international control of a city by the UN where you claim they wouldn't have understood both sides concerns and the control by Israel now where its crystal clear that there's not even the slightest attempt to understand both sides concerns?

Violet...

[Darranar]

60. Well...

Yes, Israel does let Palestinians in. The only difference between Israeli rule and UN rule is that the Israelis are a bit more careful on security then the UN would be.

[Violet_Crumble]

65. Bullshit...

Just because a handful of Palestinians are allowed in to Jerusalem does not mean there's open access to the city. And you've got no idea as to what it would have been like as a UN administered city so don't try guessing. But then again it's fair to assume that the UN wouldn't do what Israel does and use security as an excuse for all sorts of human rights violations...

Violet...

[Darranar]

70. I do have an idea of how that would be like...

Misuunderstandings, misrepresentation, trying to calm down the violence without hacking at its roots, and therefore getting nowhere; much like the Birtish during the Mandate of Palestine. I also have an idea-a pretty clear one-on the objectivity of the UN in this situation. If you're wondering, it doesn't exist.

[Violet_Crumble]

72. I figured you would...

And I think it's a very simplistic one at that. Seeing as how 'this' situation hasn't ever come into being, how can you have a clear-cut idea on the objectivity of the UN in a situation that doesn't even exist? I get the feeling I'm opening myself up to some knee-jerk stuff about how the UN hates Israel blah blah blah, but what the heck. I might get something different this time :)

Violet...

[Darranar]

73. I meant the I/P situation generally

I don't think the UN hates Israel. Several member states of the UN do, but that's as far as it goes. I do think that the UN doesn't understand the situation, however, or at least not well enough to act objectively.

[Violet_Crumble]

75. We were talking about Jerusalem specifically...

Weren't we?

[Darranar]

77. We were...

My point was that from what I know about the UN's handling of the I/P situation generally, I can infer that they will not handle a specific part of the I/P situation, East Jerusalem, very well.

[Violet_Crumble]

78. Okay...

But what we're discussing is how the UN would have administered a city like Jerusalem. The UN has never during the I/P conflict had the chance to do anything of a hands-on nature that would lead you to believe you have a very good idea of their objectivity or lack of it. The only time I can think of (and I'm sure there's more than this but I can't think of it right now) where the UN has directly gotten involved physically is in 1956 when UN peacekeepers were sent to Egypt to keep the Israeli and Egyptian forces apart, amongst other things....

Violet...

[Darranar]

79. You're correct...

that I can't say for certain. But if the UN isn't objective in their actions now about the I/P situation, how can we expect them to be objective then?

[Violet_Crumble]

82. Objectivity....

The UN is no more or less objective about the I/P conflict than it is about anything else, so that would lead to questioning what the point of the UN is in anything...

Violet...

[Darranar]

83. There is something to be said...

about the UN's objectivity in intervening in regional matters. In my opinion, the point of the UN is like the point of the central government in a federal system; to establisha set of rules for everyone for the greater good, and to deal with major security threats to everyone.

I think the best way to accomplish these goals is through monetary aid to countries that are devestated by poverty, and monetary aid to nonviolent institutions fighting for humane causes. The problem with the UN is that it is much like the US senate: whether a country has five people or five million people, it still has one vote.

[Darranar]

112. In addition...

The I/P situation, though similiar to other such conflicts around the world, has several factors involved that make it stand out strongly and uniquely. First of all, there are the vast amounts of money spent by both sides to get public opinion on their side, and tons of biased reporting also done by both sides.

Additionally, both Islam and Judiasm are major world religions, even though Judiasm isn't very high in numbers. Both have significant populations in basically every first-world country. Both have much poilitical clout, and their opinions can and are being heard in every industrialized nation.

In numbers, the I/P situation is hardly serious; out of several million people, less than five thousand or so are casualties. Compared to vast incidents of ethnic cleansing in many other places around the world, the I/P conflict is hardly worth a page in the book of murders. The only reason it is viewed as important is the massive PR campaigns done by both sides and the importance of the region for economic, miltary, and political purposes.

Because of all this additional "baggage" dealing with the I/P situation that is not there for other conflicts, it is unfair to the UN and others involved to assume that they will act similarly in other situations of the killing of innocent civilians.

[tinnypriv]

23. Ooo

Get ready for the Zionism = racism resolution link! :D

[Herschel]

7. There was no massacre

As any honest person knows. It was twisted to that, trying to bring the IDF down to the terrorist's level.

[Darranar]

8. Exactly...

The Arab world was outraged due to their biased media,and many people believed those stories, using it as another excuse to bash Israel with baseless "facts."

[Violet_Crumble]

13. Since when has JPost been the biased Arab media?

Remember it was JPost that lied about what Erekat had supposedly said to CNN about the numbers killed. Bash Israel?? So you see the human rights abuses that were committed by the IDF in Jenin as just baseless 'facts' too?

Violet...

[Darranar]

19. Vast amounts of Arab and Palestinian...

propaganda was flushed into the media; biased or not biased. The non-Arab news sources that had first reported the deaths later spoke of how they had been wrong. The Arab news sources did not, and still Jenin is used as an Arab and Palestinian battlecry to destroy Israel.

[Violet_Crumble]

21. When did the JPost say what it said was incorrect??

As far as I'm aware it never did, and it's not even a state-controlled media outlet like those Arab ones yr criticising for not correcting themselves....

and still Jenin is used as an Arab and Palestinian battlecry to destroy Israel.

Oh yeah. I haven't got the memo yet. All those nasty Arabs and Palestinians want to do is destroy Israel!! Seems to me some folk use that particular battlecry to sweep over the very real human rights abuses committed in Jenin. But hey. Let's not talk about trivialities like that, right? ;)

Violet...

[Darranar]

26. In answer to your first question...

I don't know. I do not regularly read The Jerusalem Post. I am not saying that all Arabs want to destroy israel. I am saying that some do, and unfortunately, those some are in control of much of the media.
I agree, there were human rights abuses. It abuses human rights to use Palestinian innocents as shields for terrorists-something that happened in Jenin. It abuses human rights to set traps for Israeli soldiers in main streets and paths, traps that will almost certainly kill innocent Palestinians as well as Israeli soldiers-something else that happened in Jenin.

[Violet_Crumble]

31. Oh-kay...

You don't read the Jerusalem Post, so you can't comment on anything that the JPost has lied about. So, how long have you been reading the state-controlled Arab media for?

Violet...

[Violet_Crumble]

52. Nyuck, nyuck...

Didn't think I'd get an answer to that question. There's a problem with people trying to overlook something done by a group or media source by saying they don't know about them or haven't read them but at the same time loudly complaining about something done by a group or media source where it's very clear they haven't read on any sort of regular basis at all....

Tsk tsk....

[Darranar]

58. I tried to reply a while ago...

but smething happened and it didn't show up. I had to do something so I didn't have enough time to sort it out. If you've noticed, I just have replied.

[Darranar]

57. Do you think I can stand...

to read that propaganda-filed junk regularly? But yes, I do read it now and then. I have always felt that it is important to read what your enemies are doing.

By the way, I am not talking about the state-controlled media specifically. I am talking about the media in the Arab countries, which is extremely biased, whther state-controlled or not.

[Violet_Crumble]

61. You can read Arabic???

Somehow I think it more likely that you read some pro-Israeli stuff telling you what a particular media source is saying. That's why you resort to dividing this whole conflict up into Good Guys vs Bad Guys and going on about enemies...

Propaganda filled junk is what the Jerusalem Post is, btw....

If yr talking about media that isn't state-controlled, try being a bit clearer about what you mean, okay? Segments of the media in Israel are extremely biased as well, so what's yr point?


Violet...

[Darranar]

62. No, I can't...

These people are expert propagandists. They have English translations to sway the masses.

The Jerusalem Post is one of the most objective newspapers in Israel. Didn't you yourself say that it talked about the palestinian point of view in the attack on Jenin?

Almost every media source in the Arab world is state-controlled to a degree. The ones that aren't (like Al Jazeera) are biased enough without it.

On edit: Changed "subjective" to "objective." I've got to become more careful when I type quickly.

[Violet_Crumble]

67. There ya go...

You can't read Arabic, yet you KNOW that anything translated from Arabic to English is a ploy to 'sway the masses'. All that can be said about segments of the Israeli media, which is translated from Hebrew to English, but of course we'll never hear a peep about that from you, eh?

I'm glad you do agree with me that the JPost is propaganda filled junk. And all I said about its coverage of Jenin was that it lied when it tried to quote Erekat on numbers of dead....

I don't know why I bother trying to talk about the media or bias to you when yr so clearly incapable of viewing it in any sort of reasonable or logical manner...

Violet..

[Darranar]

71. Sorry...

I wrote subjective. I meant objective, and I'll edit it. The Jpost is left-leaning compared to the other Israeli newspapers, and as such, it is objective.

I'm talking about English translations from Arabic done by the publishers of that news source. Though I think it would be safe to assume that they are a little more moderate than the Arabic, I'm not assuming that. I am simply pointing out taht more internet-users can read English than Arabic, and so they offer translations to convince people that their opinions are correct.

[Violet_Crumble]

74. Jerusalem Post is left-leaning???????

Holy crap! And it's objective???? Yr writing this stuff for comedy value, right? Then again you told me that you don't read the JPost regularly...

Violet...

[Darranar]

76. Maybe I overstated...

but hey, its better than Israeli National News. Of course, so is the Wall Street Journal, so that's not saying much.

Can someone who knows a lot about the Jerusalem Post, someone who reads it regularly, respond to this?

[Violet_Crumble]

80. No maybe about it...

And to say that something's better than some nasty, bigoted rag doesn't make it left-leaning at all. JPost is a right-wing newspaper. All it takes is a look at some of the non I/P related articles there and to know about its history and who owns it for you to work out that it's not left-leaning at all....

Of course the problem with asking for someone who reads any newspaper regularly to respond is that if the person responding is someone who won't even admit that the current Israeli govt is a hardline right-wing govt, or who are conservatives themselves, then of course they're going to jump in and try telling everyone that JPost is part of the vast, left-wing media conspiracy out to destroy conservative ideals everywhere. So it depends on who you ask as to what answer you get. Me, if I'm not sure I go and check it out myself to make sure....


Violet...

[Darranar]

81. I just did...

I found nothing biased at all. I know that my impression could well be wrong, but do you regularly read it?

[Violet_Crumble]

91. You found nothing biased in the Jerusalem Post???

I think that in itself says a lot about the complete futility of trying to have any sort of reasonable discussion with you about the media that doesn't involve some simplistic view that Arab media = bad and biased - Israeli media = good and unbiased....

While yr at it, some other suggestions if yr looking for unbiased left-leaning reading:

New York Post
The Daily Telegraph (Australia)
Eretz Sheva

Go for yr life...

Violet...

[Gimel]

94. At least

Arutz Sheva's bias is clear, but its reports are accurate to the facts.

[Violet_Crumble]

97. Yeah, just ignore the racism...

I figured a while back you were a fan of the 'accuracy' of Arutz Sheva :)

Violet...

[Gimel]

114. Defamation

The Arutz Sheva is not racist. It does use the terms Zionist and Terrorist rather freely, refers to bias in religious matters, and reports things of interest to religious Israelis.

On edit: Also refers to "murderers" not "militants". No glory given to them.

[Violet_Crumble]

118. The problem with defining racism...

Is that some folk deny racism even when something is clearly racist, say something like a law to deny citizenship to only one group of people...

Uh, militants who kill soldiers in the Occupied Territories aren't murderers. If they kill civilians they are. Big difference...

Violet...

[Gimel]

155. murderers

More Israeli civilians have been murdered in the 35 months of the current Intifada than Israeli soldiers. More female non-combatants have been murdered than male combatants or non-combatants. None of the civilians were even threatening a single Palestinian.

[Name removed]

163. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Darranar]

108. I don't believe that...

I never have. I believe that the "aminstream" newspapers of Israel are far more objective than those of the Arab states, but the ones like Israeli National News are extremely biased and right-wing. Likewiase, the mainstream newspapers in the US (The New York Times, The Washington Post) are pretty much empty of bias, but some of the others (like the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, etc.) are completely subjective on every issue.

Once again, I went to their website, and I searched for biased articles. I found none. If you would like to post a link to one, fine with me.

[Violet_Crumble]

119. You say the Jerusalem Post is unbiased??

But weren't you going on in another thread about how there's bias in everything? What's a hard, cold fact is that the Jerusalem Post is owned by a conservative and it has a right-wing slant. If you can't find any, then I see no point at all in wasting my time trying to point out the bleeding obvious to you...

Violet...

[Darranar]

134. Of course...

anything has bias. My point remains simply that speaking relatively, a newspaper can be viewed as objective or subjective. I do not know about Jpost, but generally mainstream newspapers in a free-speech environement are lacking in bias compared to most others.

[Darranar]

135. You are correct...

I have consulted a number of reliable sources, and have come to the conclusion that your assessment of Jpost was more accurate than mine. It is, in some respects, indeed a conservative piece of biased junk.

[Aidoneus]

87. well, going by what he did say..

...left-leaning compared to the other Israeli newspapers..., he may here be backhandedly referring to how fanatically racist and nationalistic some of the other papers are, that a Perle-connected trash paper like the JPost could be seen as such by comparison (however popular it is with certain people here).

I don't think that's what he meant, though.. :)

[Darranar]

113. It is sort of what I meant...

there are certainly "fanatically racist and nationalistic" newspapers in Israel (Israeli National News, some settler newspapers, etc.) However, there are others (Ha'aretz, for instance) that are rather objective in their reporting.

Anyway, you can pretty much disregard anything I say or have said about Jpost, except in relation to the general subject of bias on this issue, because I rarely read it and don't know much about it. In other words, I surrender until someone who knows more about this subject comes along and supports my claims.

[Gimel]

86. J post

I have not read the print edition of the Jerusalem Post regularly for over 15 years. I don't consider the online edition the acutal paper. While it does tend to support the right politically, the claim to have misquoted a liar like Erekat is very far-fetched and not at all an indication of what the bias of the paper might be.

[Violet_Crumble]

89. Far-fetched???

But the Jerusalem Post DID misquote Erekat. If you can prove they didn't, then you'll be able to do something no-one else has ever been able to do. I do like this Erekat Is A Liar refrain though, considering the main reason I've seen him accused of lying is over something JPost deliberately misquoted him over. There's some irony in that, I think...

Violet...

[Gimel]

92. I don't have the specific details

of the so called misquote. Misquotes frequently happen in any news report, and whatever slight discrepancy was found hardly alters the reality- that the official PA stance was to promote a massacre when none occurred.

[Violet_Crumble]

98. It wasn't a 'so-called' misquote...

And as you say you don't know anything much about it so why yr denying it happened is beyond me. This wasn't just a slight discrepancy - it was a deliberate twisting of something said in a CNN interview. That's the reality, and if yr now claiming there was an OFFICIAL stance to promote a massacre (remember, that's a word that can be defined subjectively), show me the OFFICIAL policy....


Violet...

[quilp]

9. Well if its in the Jerusalem Post how can any doubt it?

I'm totally convinced.

[drdon326]

14. "The Palestinian propaganda professionals "...

were working overtime back then.

First it was thousands...

no, then it was a thousand....

no,then it was 500....

no, then it was 100....

and now its 18 !!

and the media sucked up all the lies.

[Jim Sagle]

29. Translation: The Jenin "massacre" wuzn't nuthin' but shit.

[Darranar]

170. Agreed...

though I wouldn't be so blunt:)

[the_sam]

164. Oh, please

Israel has many more "propaganda professionals", and unlike the Palestinian ones, they actually get paid.

[Darranar]

165. In the Western world, yes...

But not in the Arab world, and the Arab propaganda sometimes, like in the Jenin debate, gets put into the picture.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Herschel]

18. No one is kidding you

Or your foul language. If 52 died in a fire, would you say massacre? If 52 died in a storm, would you say massacre? The number does not make a massacre. Murder makes a massacre. This was not.

[Darranar]

27. DavidDuke.com...

is extremely anti-Israel. It probably has lots of stuff on the "massacre" in Jenin.

[Jim Sagle]

36. Posts like yours are even more likely to found there.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Aidoneus]

46. on that note,

http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=internetNews&storyID=3108194

[bemildred]

49. Heh heh heh heh heh ...

Can't let principle interfere with getting the job done.
:thumbsup:

[StandWatie]

122. lol...

:crazy:

[tinnypriv]

16. How about Nablus?

n/t

[the_sam]

166. There was no massacre, BUT...

The fear at the time was that it could turn into another Sabra and Shatila.

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch stand by the claim that war crimes were committed by the IDF in Jenin.

The JCPA is a pro-Israel think tank. You can't rely on them for accurate information about Israel anymore than you can rely on the Cato Institute for reliable information about laissez-faire capitalism.

I trust Amnesy International, Human Rights Watch, and B'Tselem. I don't trust pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian think tanks. But it just so happens that Amnesty and HRW's version of events more closely matches that of the Palestinians than it does that of the Israelis.

Now, before people bring up Palestinian human rights violations... yes, they exist, just as they exist in all countries. But they pale in comparison to human rights violations committed by Israelis against Palestinians. And Palestinian human rights violations, while not defensible, are understandable. The Palestinian Authority is under siege. Collaborators do exist, and are dealt with just as a traitor to any country is dealt with. When your family could be killed, your house bulldozed, your crops destroyed because of a collaborator, you tend to keep an eye out for them.

Suspected collaborators were routinely killed in by Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe. And have you forgotten what happened to Yitzhak Rabin? Many Israeli peace activists are subject to death threats. The (in)famous Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery has almost been assassinated multiple times.

The fact is that acts of terror are perpetrated by both Israelis and Palestinians. Therefore, you can't simply condemn one side for its use of terror. In terms of who is politically and morally right -- who has the right to the land, etc. -- the Palestinians are the good guys.

[Darranar]

167. Ok...

What country in the world hangs suspected traitors without a trial? Many innocents are caught up in the anti-collaborater movement.

Indeed, there are Jewish extremists. But there are extremists in every country.

Which is worse: the deaths of twenty civilians killed by accident by members of the IDF as they try to defend Israel rom terrorism or the deaths of twenty civilians brutally murdered by a suicide bomber trying to end the "Zionist occupation" over all of Israel and ethnic cleanse them back to Europe?

[the_sam]

168. My Response

The Palestinian Authority doesn't kill suspected traitors. The PA has killed three collaborators, all of them after trials. Suspected collaborators have been killed by vigilantes.

Again, this is not defensible, but it is understandable. Failure to apprehend collaborators could get innocent people killed. Palestinian society is under siege.

Now, your line about 20 civilians "accidentally" killed by the IDF is just BS propaganda. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and B'Tselem have all documented hundreds of cases of IDF forces deliberately targeting civilians. The vast, vast majority of the 2,000+ civilians killed since September 27, 2000 have been killed unlawfully and deliberately. This is apparent by the disproportionate number of shots to the head.

According to B'Tselem, "In the first months of the al-Aqsa Intifada (29 September-31 December 2000), Israeli forces killed approximately 300 Palestinians, 70% of them in the context of demonstrations or clashes. In the vast majority of instances, demonstrations are either peaceful or involve throwing stones at Israeli soldiers in well-fortified positions from considerable distances. Israeli soldiers frequently respond to demonstrations with excessive force, including live ammunition or rubber-coated metal bullets, even without a threat being posed to their lives or the lives of others, and without first using other means at their disposal. In most of the handful of cases involving Palestinian gunfire, gunmen were separate from demonstrators and opened fire after Israeli troops used live ammunition against unarmed protesters."

Furthermore, Israel has carried out scores of extrajudicial executions.

It's interesting that you excuse violent Israelis as "extremists", but treat acts of violence committed by Palestinians as if they're predisposed to violence.

Also, you can't assign the same moral weight to attacking soldiers as civilians. Israel is illegally occupying the territories. Under international law, the Palestinians can (and should!) fight back. IDF soldiers should refuse to serve in the territories. Otherwise, they'll get what they deserve.

[Darranar]

169. I'm sorry if you took offense...

You are correct. I should have said palestinian extremists, because that is what I meant.

I agree; there are Palestinians killed by members of the IDF. Some of those deaths, however, are accidents.