I have said this a million times before, just because one person sais 2+2=4 and another sais 2+2=6 does not mean 2+2=5. Truth is not inbetween two percieved extremes. Rather you should revise your perceptions.ZabZu said:
I have already raised this before but i will do it again:
Resolution 3103 - "Basic Principles of the Legal Status of Combatants Struggling Against Colonial and Alien Domination and Racist Regimes".
Resolution 3314 - "Definition of Aggression"
Article 51 UN charter - Right to self defence
These prove that Palestinian attacks can never be called terrorist. I find it funny you would call them as such but think that Israels government is not worthy of such a label.
As for the wall:
"Citing the Right to Self Determination, the Fourth Geneva Convention, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, relevant human rights and humanitarian law, as well as the Rights to Freedom of Movement, Work, Education, Health, Food and Water, Religion and the Right of the Child, the ICJ voted 14-1 that “construction of the wall and its associated regime are contrary to international law,†14-1 that Israel must immediately cease construction of the Wall in all areas, dismantle parts already build and repeal any legislation or regulation relating to the Wall and 14-1 that Israel must make reparations for damages caused by construction of the Wall.
The ICJ reiterates the illegality of Israeli settlements and their relationship to the Wall’s path, referring to the Wall’s unilateral demarcation of a new border in the West Bank, seizure and destruction of property, the effective annexation of occupied lands and settlements and the demographic changes within Palestine as a result of the Wall’s construction. In an important assertion, the Court fully disregards the relevance of the Israeli position that the Wall is for “security†or “self defense.â€"http://auto_sol.tao.ca/node/view/747
Even before the ruling of the ICJ, or any of the resolutions on the matter (which coincidently were all opposed to the wall), Israel had already given its stand, that the plans for the wall would continue regardless of the UN or Palestine, this was expressed by Sharons office in an official statement.
After the ICJ ruling against the wall Avi Pazner, an Israeli spokesman stated that the ICJ held "no jurisdiction".
The US supported Israel on the matter, "it is a political issue" stated White House spokesman Scott McClellan, in reference to President Bush's intent to win over the influential Jewish community in preperation for the upcoming election.
As such the matter was denied, a continuation of US-Israeli rejection of peace and justice.
A question I must raise, to those that think the construction of such a horrid structure is defencible is, why isn't it being built on Israels own land? A wall within Israels borders would not infringe on international law. It would not segregate 35,000 Palestinians into "banthustans" reminiscent of apartheid South Africa, it would not be "more harmful to the Palestinians than can be justified by security purposes" (Israeli High Court). Even better, have it 100 meters within Israels land with armed guards on both sides, making it vastly more effective for security.
So you believe that the one thing keeping the territories from chaos is the occupation itself? See I always thought occupation was the problem, not the solution.
Contemporary zionism was spearheaded by David Ben-Gurion, and enacted by Israeli governments of past and present.
"In internal discussion in 1938 [David Ben-Gurion] stated that 'after we become a strong force, as a result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and expand into the whole of Palestine'...In 1948, Menachem Begin declared that: 'The partition of the Homeland is illegal. It will never be recognized. The signature of institutions and individuals of the partition agreement is invalid. It will not bind the Jewish people. Jerusalem was and will forever be our capital. Eretz Israel (the land of Israel) will be restored to the people of Israel, All of it. And forever." Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."
Furthermore General Weizman, former commander of Israel's Air Force stated in reference to the 1967 war that, the "god given gift" of Israel must be realised "according to the scale, spirit and equality she now embodies" despite the fact that there was "no threat of destruction" from Egypt, Syria and Jordan.
Contemporary Zionism is about expansion.
Jerusalem is according to the 1967 borders as much Palestines as Israels.
Palestinians demanding their rights may be "stupid" to you, but most people consider the Geneva Conventions to be of some importance, the breaching of which is a war crime. Furthermore:
"The first UN General Assembly resolution--Number 194- affirming the right of Palestinians to return to their homes and property, was passed on December 11, 1948. It has been repassed no less than twenty-eight times since that first date. Whereas the moral and political right of a person to return to his place of uninterrupted residence is acknowledged everywhere, Israel has negated the possibility of return... [and] systematically and juridically made it impossible, on any grounds whatever, for the Arab Palestinian to return, be compensated for his property, or live in Israel as a citizen equal before the law with a Jewish Israeli." Edward Said, "The Question of Palestine."
These people should live in their rightful homes from which they were disposessed. But don't take my word for it, it is in the Geneva conventions.
Funnily enough Palestinians in Israel are treated quite poorly anyway. In a report to the World conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, issued August/September 2001 and entitled Institutionalised discrimination Against Palestinian minority in Israel, more than 20 laws were identified that discriminate against the Palestinian minority.
And about the expulsion of the Palestinians, you made it sound as if the Arabs were attempting to slaughter Israel, this is inccorect:
"The armies of the Arab states entered the war immediately after the State of Israel was founded in May. Fighting continued, almost all of it within the territory assigned to the Palestinian state...About 700,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled in the 1948 conflict." Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."
"The Arab League hastily called for its member countries to send regular army troops into Palestine. They were ordered to secure only the sections of Palestine given to the Arabs under the partition plan. But these regular armies were ill equipped and lacked any central command to coordinate their efforts...[Jordan's King Abdullah] promised [the Israelis and the British] that his troops, the Arab Legion, the only real fighting force among the Arab armies, would avoid fighting with Jewish settlements...Yet Western historians record this as the moment when the young state of Israel fought off "the overwhelming hordes' of five Arab countries. In reality, the Israeli offensive against the Palestinians intensified." "Our Roots Are Still Alive," by the Peoples Press Palestine Book Project.
Interestingly these actions were followed by massacres, which I wont go into as there is already enough to read.
Furthermore you made it sound as if the Palestinians half willfully left there homes.
"Israeli propaganda has largely relinquished the claim that the Palestinian exodus of 1948 was 'self-inspired'. Official circles implicitly concede that the Arab population fled as a result of Israeli action - whether directly, as in the case of Lydda and Ramleh, or indirectly, due to the panic that and similar actions (the Deir Yassin massacre) inspired in Arab population centers throughout Palestine. However, even though the historical record has been grudgingly set straight, the Israeli establishment still refused to accept moral or political responsibility for the refugee problem it- or its predecessors - actively created." Peretz Kidron, quoted in "Blaming the Victims," ed. Said and Hitchens.
Im tired now.
