Human catastrophe

people don't like to and don't want to really look at themselves and ADMIT that there is something wrong....I don't ....I try to find excuses for my failures..

people hate, hate very much, to admit they are wrong or something is wrong with them....parents almost always never blame their sons when they murder--they blame it on drugs, mental problems, etc...''he was a good kid, would never steal, etc""

.but when I really think of what is right, and think rationally, I admit I am not perfect...I've stated my ''faults'' before.....some of these cultures do not want to admit their ''failings'', faults, differences .....I always see these relatives of certain cultures speak up when these mass murders or crimes happen...''that's not us''.....''I never knew anything''''......''it's the others' fault''........everyone except Trump is afraid to say the ''unsayable'', ''unspeakable'', the truth---and that is, cultures are different.....etc

 

Continuing...

Surely it became clear, that the Palestinians were not going to accept losing their own lands to the foreigners. That's hardly not their fault though. Israel getting ready to execute the robbery can not be accepted.

Comparison with the WW2 US West coast is not really comparable, since the Palestinians were the indigenous people in Palestine - unlike the Israelis - while neither the (other) US citizens nor the (ethnically) Japanese were in America, albeit the Japanese population was in general more recent - but only just.

Without the Arab League it would have been even easier for the Israelis to oust/oppress the Palestinians. Working together was never in the Zionist agenda.

The faith of the Palestinians was then not unlike the one of the Yazidis now against the ISIS: either become slave, get killed or escape.

At least in Palestine it did. There the Jews and the Arabs had lived in relative harmony before the Zionist immigration waves from the end of 1800's onwards.

We are talking here about the Palestine-Israeli conflict. Naturally a lot of bad things have happened in the World during the Millenniums, but that's hardly relevant. The modern Palestine conflict started with the Zionism, which did not affect Palestine before the first immigration waves. Thus that's the natural and obvious cut off: before-after.

What always amazes me is the idea of still seeing it relevant and/or acceptable to use the ancient logic and behaviour patterns even today - in 2015. Maybe it's the imperialistic backgrounds and attitudes still alive in some countries?

It's existence yes - but not the lands of the Palestinians, nor the right to oust or kill them, nor the right to ignore the partition execution plan. Since Israel did not have the right to rob the lands of the Palestinians, it did not have the right to "defend" that robbery either.

The Israeli crimes are not crimes because they are not "to the liking of the UN", but because they are against the International laws and the decisions of the UN.

To start with the very UN Partition Plan. Have you actually read it?

The members of the UN have agreed to obey the UN decisions. Also acting against the International law is, well - illegal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_UN_resolutions_concerning_Israel_and_Palestine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law

The "right of a state to protect herself" is totally different than a right of a bunch of foreign invaders to rob the lands of the indigenous people by force. It was ok for the Vikings 1.000 years ago - not today.

They are indeed e.g. my conclusions.

The facts: 1/3 of the population (the recent immigrants), who owned c. 6 % of the land, were supposed to have 56,5 % of the land, while 2/3 of the population (the indigenous ones), who owned almost 48 %, were to have only 43,5 %.

Does that sound unbiased and fair to you?! Personally I would never have accepted that kind of plan - neither did the Palestinians. To refuse to give away your country is hardly "illegal".

Obviously the diplomats managed very poorly and should have tried again. Unfortunately the Palestinians were made to pay for the sufferings of the Jews in Europe. E.g. the USA did not want to receive the European Jewish emigrants. Seems like it was much more convenient to guide them to Palestine instead...

Indeed quite minuscule (pardon my spelling earlier):

"

• "In the Event of invading [Arab] forces were limited to approximately 30,000 men. The strongest [consider this fact while reading the next quote] single contingent was the Jordanian one, already described. Next came Egyptians with 5,500 men, then the Iraqis with 4,500 who ..... were joined by perhaps 3,000 local irregulars. The total was thus around eight rather under strength brigades, some of them definitely of second-and even third-rate quality. To these must be added approximately 2,000 Lebanese (one brigade) and 6,000 Syrians (three brigades). Thus, even though the Arab countries [population] outnumbered the Yishuv by better then forty-to-one, in terms of military manpower available for combat in Palestine the two sides were fairly evenly matched. As time went on and both sides sent reinforcements the balance changed in the Jews' favor; by October they had almost 90,000 men and women under arms, the Arabs only 68,000." (The Sword And The Olive, p. 77-78)
  
• "Senior Haganah commanders met with committee [UN Special Committee On Palestine-UNSCOP] members in Jerusalem's Talpiot quarter in similarly surreptitious circumstances to express confidence that Jewish forces, which they numbered at 90,000, including 35,000 reservists, could overcome any Arab assault should it come to war." (Jerusalem Post)"

...
"

• "Perhaps the most important [of the Arab armies problems] was a crippled shortage of ammunition, owing to the international arms embargo ..., in the case of the Iraqis and Egyptians, long lines of communications. For example, after February 25, 1948, the Arab Legion received no new ammunition for its 20mm guns. Some of the ammunition used by the Iraqi artillery was more than thirty years old; the Syrians had no ammunition for their heavy 155mm guns. Whereas Jewish stockpiles were growing all the times [especially the big arms shipment from Czechoslovakia in May 1948], the enemies were so depleted they stole ammunition shipments for each other. In addition, they were ill-coordinated, technically incompetent, slow, ponderous, badly led, and unable to cope with night operations that willy-nilly, constituted the IDF's expertise." (The Sword And The Olive, p. 95-96)"

http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Palestine-Remembered/Story457.html

(your earlier source)

One can't justify the plans of robbery with anything.

 

Don't think that the Native Americans have much to thank for. After all they have almost been killed to extinction, their culture have almost been destroyed, their ancestral homelands have been robbed etc. Sounds very tempting indeed...

The same goes with the Aborigines more or less.

I repeat what I wrote in my previous post:

"What always amazes me is the idea of still seeing it relevant and/or acceptable to use the ancient logic and behaviour patterns even today - in 2015. Maybe it's the imperialistic backgrounds and attitudes still alive in some countries?"

 

Do you mean, that every single one of those women and kids - and I'm not talking about the 17-year old ones - were launching rockets and mortars against their oppressors...?

I'm not buying that. The attacker must take the utmost care of not hitting the civilians. Clearly the IDF is at least ignoring them - which is a crime.

 

NONSENSE : the attacker must not take the utmost care of not hitting the civilians : all he is obliged to do is not intentionally hitting the civilians, what most attackers are doing .

 

sorry, I want to make it clear--I meant I try to make excuses for my failures--my # 1141 post read ''I don't''..should read ''I do it''

 

just think if a Paris attack or San Bernadino attack happened every month? every week?? sometimes everyday???? well, that is EXACTLY what has happened in Israel to Israelis!....attacked --terrorists killing Israeli civilians, just like Paris....if that was Texas or California, etc, Americans would say shove them into the sea...kill them...annihilate them all!! ....
like Somalia, shooters and civilians everywhere mixed together....self survival--you will fire to survive

 

Update your knowledge...:

The Laws of War
...
The Principle of Distinction

Distinction between Civilians and Combatants
Rule 1.The parties to the conflict must at all times distinguish between civilians and combatants. Attacks may only be directed against combatants. Attacks must not be directed against civilians. [IAC/NIAC]
Rule 2. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited. [IAC/NIAC]
...
Rule 5. Civilians are persons who are not members of the armed forces. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians. [IAC/NIAC]
Rule 6. Civilians are protected against attack, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities. [IAC/NIAC]

Distinction between Civilian Objects and Military Objectives
Rule 7. The parties to the conflict must at all times distinguish between civilian objects and military objectives. Attacks may only be directed against military objectives. Attacks must not be directed against civilian objects. [IAC/NIAC]
...
Indiscriminate Attacks
Rule 11. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. [IAC/NIAC]
Rule 12. Indiscriminate attacks are those:
(a) which are not directed at a specific military objective;
( B) which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective;
or
(c) which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by international humanitarian law;
and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction. [IAC/NIAC]
Rule 13. Attacks by bombardment by any method or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects are prohibited. [IAC/NIAC]

Proportionality in Attack
Rule 14. Launching an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, is prohibited. [IAC/NIAC]

etc.

http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/the-laws-of-war/

Totally different things. If you can't see the differences replying to your post is more or less pointless.

Still - once again - the facts: The Israelis are the foreign invaders and the oppressors of the native Palestinians. The Palestinians try to fight back - with little success - the militarily superior occupier, which still kills them in thousands.

And FYI - the first terrorists killing civilians in Palestine were the Jews. Ever heard of e.g. Haganah or Irgun...?

You really should be able to understand the difference between the Islamist terrorists in Europe and the Palestinian victims of the Israeli terror. They have as much in common as e.g. the Unabomber and myself.

 

The attacker must take care but "utmost" not really. Also the defender is not suppose to use civilian structures as shields. If he does he is the one committing the war crime.

 

Looks to me like using the rules above the Israelis are arguably in the right.
It's not a fact that the Israelis are "foreign invaders" it's the definition you are using. Some of us do not accept your definition.

The first "terrorist" in Palestine were clearly not the Jews, it goes back a long time before that. As for the Jewish groups you mention weren't they directing their attacks primarily at British officials and troops?

You are making no attempt to look at both sides of this issue which is resulting in a very flawed analysis of the situation.

 

They go back as far as the Crusades.

 

I thought the Pals murdered innocent civilians at Munich? Achile Lauro? the many, many times Israeli civilians were murdered in the links I've provided?? please provide links with as many times Israelis have directly targeted civlians

 

Dunno if this is the right place.
Anybody heard about Latin American mercenaries being hired by panty waist rich arab countries to fight their beefs?
http://gawker.com/emirates-deploys-secret-colombian-mercenary-army-to-yem-1744750590

 

very interesting.....I don't know if I would hire from that area if I had mucho money.....

 

I don't think I've posted this before, so here goes; It's more Euro-centric though-

"The Impact of Holy Land Crusades on State Formation: War Mobilization, Trade Integration and Political Development in Medieval Europe"
http://www.medievalists.net/2015/12/05/the-impact-of-holy-land-crusades-on-state-formation-war-mobilization-trade-integration-and-political-development-in-medieval-europe/

 

To be fair if you are talking Israeli civilians targeting (Palestinian) civilians then there have been some incidents in both Israel and the West Bank in recent years as well as some incidents around the time Israel was formed. If you are talking the Israeli government the only ones I can think of were civilians who previously had belonged to certain German governmental agencies.

 

Only to you.

They are foreign and invaders - thus "foreign invaders". "Some" not accepting that does not change anything.

Primarily perhaps, but not at the British only.

E.g.

"Irgun was described as a terrorist organization by the United Nations, British, and United States governments, and in media such as The New York Times newspaper,[20][21] and by theAnglo-American Committee of Inquiry.[22] In 1946, The World Zionist Congress strongly condemned terrorist activities in Palestine and "the shedding of innocent blood as a means of political warfare". Irgun was specifically condemned.[23]
Menachem Begin was called a terrorist and a fascist by Albert Einstein and 27 other prominent Jewish intellectuals in a letter to the New York Times which was published on December 4, 1948. Specifically condemned was the participation of the Irgun in the Deir Yassin massacre:[24]

• "terrorist bands attacked this peaceful village, which was not a military objective in the fighting, killed most of its inhabitants – 240 men, women and children – and kept a few of them alive to parade as captives through the streets of Jerusalem.""

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist_political_violence

But I have made such attempt - and because of that have changed my view. I used to buy that usual Bibilical/Cold War/"David v. Goliath" nonsense attitude, which many still seem to follow. Now, after getting more knowledge, historical perspective and understanding, I am able to make my own, well-reasoned analysis and conclusions.

The matter is quite simple really, despite of the numerous attempts to blur the situation: it is a matter of the rights of the indigenous people to keep their homes, lands and freedom. Any person with the basic knowledge of the Western democracy and principles of law should be able to make the same conclusions.

 

The Palestinians lost their homes and lands (and many their lives too) in 1948. The Munich happened in 1972, the Achille Lauro in 1985 - after decades of the West not only ignoring sufferings of the Palestinians, but actively taking part to it (by blindly supporting Israel)!

Neither one of those attacks were terrorist attacks as we know them now - i.e.attacks to only kill people - but were attempts to free Palestinians from the Israeli prisons. AFAIK those "innocent civilians" killed in Munich were also reservist soldiers, since all the Israeli Jews had to serve. Also the killings In Munich happened either in the beginning, when the Israelis tried to fight back and were killed in that fight - or at the end, when the German police started an unsuccessful attack against the Palestinians. AFAIK none of the killings were planned beforehand.

In Achille Lauro one (1) civilian was killed. The PLO paid compensations.

I can well understand the desperation of the Palestinians, although I still don't accept the terrorist attacks.

Irrelevant. I have provided links showing, that Palestinian civilians are being killed multiple times more than Israeli civilians. Naturally the killer, IDF, denies any wrongdoings. The Palestinian civilians just "happen" to be on the way of shooting and shelling...

 

If Palestinian civilians were killed,it was their own fault .

 

It's pretty clear to anyone even looking at this forum that I'm not alone in my position so strike one.
The Israelis are hardly "foreign" at this point. Most have been born in Israel and many of their parents as well. Furthermore they aren't invading anyone at this point. Generally invaders are considered to be the ones who initiated the conquest for that reason. This could be debated with regards to the formation of Israel with both sides being able to make some valid points. After that not so much. Insisting on your own rather problematic definitions so as to try and bias the debate is not helpful. Strikes two and three by the way.
Glad you agree with me on the last item by the way.