Palestinian kids collect terrorist cards

[Cry Freedom]

Palestinian children are collecting cards showing terrorists the way American kids trade baseball cards, and some educators are concerned that the hobby is helping to breed a new generation of militants.

(snip)

In the West Bank, Palestinian gunmen carry their weapons openly on the streets and gain the adulation of the young. More than 100 Palestinian suicide bombers who have carried out attacks against Israelis have become folk heroes in their home towns.

The collectable cards depict real-life Middle East action figures familiar to the children: A soldier shooting a large gun, a soldier forcing Palestinians off their land, a small Palestinian child dressed in militant's clothing holding a toy gun and Palestinian boys throwing stones.

(snip)

"I opened my son's closet and found it full of martyrs posters and necklaces. I said to him there's nothing wrong with being nationalistic and defending your rights, but you're just too young," said Jabal. "I said, 'Ultimately, you'll be rewarded with your picture hanging from a necklace, and we will have lost a son.'"

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1072325994430&p=1008596981749

[Flagg]

1. Bullshit

is it worse than an Ann coulter action figure ?

[bluesoul]

2. Or a George Bush action figure

...

[Gimel]

51. Definitely

It calls on every child to join in the pseudo-religious martyrdom cult. It's not the same as idealizing Saddam or Bush. Most would outgrow this stage of idolatry if it weren't reinforced by messages from role models in the community.

[La_Serpiente]

3. Parlez-Vous Français?

[Flagg]

4. OUI

[number6]

38. Welcome to DU Flagg

:hi: nothing is worse than an Ann Coulter action figure !

[drdon326]

5. Just when you thought....

it couldnt get any worse, you read shit like this.

Someone remind me how they really,really,really want
peace??

This love of murderers really is a socio-pathology.

[bluesoul]

6. So all those US kids that

have George W Bush as an action figure are a serious problem or socio-pathology Don?

[drdon326]

7. Hold on, bluesoul....

are you saying that having and honoring trading cards
of people that commit atrocities is ok by you??

try this ,bluesoul...

thats disgusting.

[bluesoul]

9. I didn't say it's ok

I just gave you an example of some other prominent figure responsible for thousands of people dead (Iraq) that is also adored in the USA. Don't you find that troubling too Don?

[Cry Freedom]

10. off the subject

n/t

[Darranar]

11. Not really...

the point is that this honoring of criminals and butchers occurs in every society.

[drdon326]

13. You know

i'm always amazed people want to downplay atrocities
by comparing them to something totally unrelated.

[Darranar]

15. How am I "downplaying" them?

Since Bush is responsible for far more innocent deaths then Hamas could even dream of causing, if anything I'm doing the opposite...

[Cry Freedom]

17. analogy

my brother is murdered and I tell you, but you tell me how many others were also murdered

make any sense at all?

[Cry Freedom]

8. To me, the other responses here are "interesting"

:puke:

[methinks2]

12. it isn't that different

from our kids with GI Joe toys or Iraq most wanted cards. To glorify war and killing is to glorify war and killing. Doesn't matter what side you're on. It's all the same thing. Killing is killing! I'm a girl and I had toy soldiers and toy cowboys and indians when I was a kid. It hasn't turned me into a militant.
( Maybe a bit of an activist, but that's probably just because of my red hair.)

[Cry Freedom]

18. Nope

killing is not killing

there is self-defense; there is war; there are people who wrap themselves in bombs and get onto buses

so, you are a kid; you want a soldier or a policeman or a firefighter; that is not the same as wanting Mohammad Atta :eyes:

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[Darranar]

16. How are suicide bombings giving the Palestinians freedom?

If Sharon has given them "no other way", why are there multiple attacks against IDF soldiers in the Occupied Territories?

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[Forkboy]

24. I'd like to see those threads CF

Got any links?

In all my time here this is the first (and hopefully last) time I've seen anyone praise the suicide bombers.So I really think you should try to back this charge up.If you do I will be the first to condemn them.

[drdon326]

25. OH Forkboy??

then you missed this little gem:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=288#297

'Suicide Bomber' = Freedom Fighter
They are heroes plain and simple.
May peace be unto them.

[Forkboy]

26. I did miss that,thankfully

I'm glad that's not a regular I/P poster,not that that excuses those sad comments.That's enough to make one puke and/or cry.Suicide bombers equal heroes? blech....some friggin heroes :eyes: This poster should be embarrassed to even think such nonsense,let alone post it.

[bluesoul]

27. There also posters

from the pro I team, that have made similar comments regarding Palestinians. Luckily they have been tombstoned, as one just recently...

[Forkboy]

30. And that's a big part of the problem as well Bluesoul

Both sides seem hellbent on demonizing the other.We must not forget we're talking about human beings,regardless of which side one supports.

[bluesoul]

31. Very true Forkboy,

very true!

[drdon326]

28. Forkboy....

youre killing me...we agree again.

go figure.

[Forkboy]

32. must be some weird planetary allignment or something

:D

[Forkboy]

22. The same way you live with yourself defending Sharon,the Wall

protestors being gassed,innocent people getting killed so the IDF can catch ONE man,etc.

I'm suprised you even had to ask Muddle.

[_Jumper_]

36. Freedom?

Do you honestly think that killing a few teenagers at a pizza parlor is going to lead to the creation of a Palestinian quasi-democracy?

[number6]

40. spirit of desperation, as they have no equivalent weapons

to fight the occupation and tyranny ...

still no matter how desperate, I do not recommend suicide bombings
as a resistance measure ...

[_Jumper_]

41. Spirit of irrationality

Do they actually think killing a dozen teenagers at a disco will lead to the creation of a quasi-democratic Palestinian state?

If they were not taught by Muslim fundies that such actions guarantee them a place in heaven and 73 black-eyed virgins the level of terrorism from Palestinians would be much lower. Do you see an assembly line of terrorists in places where kids aren't taught that suicide bombing will lead them to some heavenly version of the Playboy mansion?

[Violet_Crumble]

42. Really?

Do you see an assembly line of terrorists in places where kids aren't taught that suicide bombing will lead them to some heavenly version of the Playboy mansion?

Well, yeah. Actually I do. Christian fundies who murder doctors who perform abortions spring straight to mind. And though it can't be described as terrorism because as far as I'm aware all attacks were on military targets, the spirit of suicide-bombing was alive and well with the Kamikaze pilots during WWII...

Violet...

[MikeGalos]

43. There is an obvious difference that you're ignoring

for who knows what reason.

The Christian fundies do not kill mass numbers of innocent civilians. They kill specific targets that they think are directly involved in something they find immoral. By the rhetoric used by the anti-Israel community, these doctors are valid targets in what the bombers consider a war in much the same way that Israeli soldiers and government officials are considered "valid targets" in what the Palestinian bombers consider a war. In neither case is there an actual war but in their minds there is. But in the case of the Hamas loonies, they're quite happy to murder random civilian men, women and children as long as they're not Moslems.

Not the same thing at all.

[Violet_Crumble]

44. There's no difference at all...

Except for the obvious difference that one lot are Christians and the others are Muslim. I was replying to the specific question that _jumper_ asked, which you might notice didn't say anything about 'mass killings'. As it is, Christian fundies have indeed got no qualms at all about killing innocent civilians (and mind you, the doctors they kill are very much innocent civilians). Do you know anything about the jerks from the Army of God? If you did, there's no way that you'd believe that they give a toss about 'specific targets'. They'll kill whoever's in a clinic if it's one they're bombing because in their eyes, no-one who's inside is considered innocent....

Mike, I'm not part of any 'anti-Israel' community, and I consider soldiers and political leaders to be valid targets. Besides, there's some 'pro-Israel' folk here who also insist it's a war. Are they wrong too?

btw, there would have been Muslims killed in suicide-bombings. To be blunt, Hamas doesn't give a shit who they kill...
Violet...

[_Jumper_]

56. There is a huge difference in the number of attacks...

...carried out by Muslim fundies and Xian fundies. How many terrorist attacks have Muslim fundies conducted in the past year alone? How many have non-Muslim fundies--who are not brainwashed by extremists who teach them that terrorism will guarantee them a palce in heaven--conducted during the same tiem period?

[Jack Rabbit]

48. Critique

The Christian fundies do not kill mass numbers of innocent civilians. They kill specific targets that they think are directly involved in something they find immoral.

In most cases, no. However, Eric Rudolph is accused of four bombings that took altogether two lives and injured scores. The death toll easily could have been much higher. In 1994, a man named John Salvi entered a Boston women's clinic and shot several workers, killing two.

This is not on a scale of Palestinian terrorism, but it is mass murder of people whose acts they find immoral.

By the rhetoric used by the anti-Israel community, these doctors are valid targets in what the bombers consider a war in much the same way that Israeli soldiers and government officials are considered "valid targets" in what the Palestinian bombers consider a war. In neither case is there an actual war but in their minds there is.

Oh, really, my good man. It walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck. In the I/P matter, men are taking up arms to defend their turf in a conflict over land. It's a war. What else could we call it? It's ridiculous to call it anything else.

That makes the deliberate targeting of noncombatants a war crime. Of course, it also makes combatants legitimate targets.

(I)n the case of the Hamas loonies, they're quite happy to murder random civilian men, women and children as long as they're not Moslems.

No. Their random civilian targets are Israeli. They aren't randomly murdering Palestinian Christians and secularists. When Palestinians are killed by the militants, it is when they are suspected of collaboration. We can argue about whether its right or wrong, but it's not random.

Nevertheless, in the event that these loonies establish an Islamist state in Palestine, then it wouldn't surprise me to see the bodies of Christian and secularist Palestinians strewn about here and there.

That's something we need to work to prevent in a future Palestinian state. Not enough is being done to prevent it. We need to find ways of empowering Palestinian moderates and progressives.

[MikeGalos]

49. Is it a war? I really don't care.

I have no problem with calling it a war - if both sides are treated under the rules of war. What I DO have a problem with is saying that Israel should be judged as though it were a series of peace-time incidents but the Palestinians should be judged under the much more lenient rules of war.

Pick one and judge both sides under the same rules. Either one. I don't care as long as, for once, Israel is judged by the same rules as everybody else.

[Jack Rabbit]

50. Okay, I agree

It's a war.

Combatants (regular or irregular) are legitimate targets. Civilians are not. Combatants are to take care to minimize damage to civilian targets.

Those are perfectly good rules to apply to both sides equally.

Fourth Geneva Convention, 1949

Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court, 1998

[MikeGalos]

52. Absolutely

So Israel is well within their rights and the PA is guilty of numerous war crimes.

Glad we agree.

[Jack Rabbit]

53. You got it half right

Israel is within her rights to occupy the Palestinian Territory in lieu of a peace agreement with the representatives of the Palestinian people. When the Israelis move to close tunnels used to smuggle arms to the resistance, that is at least a legitimate goal. It is also a legitimate goal to target for death a guerrilla leader.

When the Palestinian resistance strikes at a civilian target, such as a suicide bombing in a cafe or on a bus, it is a war crime.

The Palestinian people are within their rights to resist occupation. When Palestinian guerrillas strike at an IDF patrol, it is a legitimate act of war, not a war crime.

Care is to be taken by combatants to minimize the harm to protected persons. What might be considered an otherwise legitimate act of war may become a war crime if planned and carried out without regard for the safety of protected persons. For example, while it may be legitimate to target a guerrilla leader for death, to carry out such an assassination by shooting a one ton missile into a densely populated residential neighborhood at midnight is, to say the very least, questionable.

[MikeGalos]

54. So what you're saying

despite the title is that I'm completely right since your post never said where I was wrong.

Either side attacking a military target is valid if reasonable care is taken to minimize civilian casualties. Israel has done that in virtually every case. The PA and their "guerillas" as you call these terrorists has only done this in the tiniest number of actions.

Either side attacking a civilian target with no military value is a war crime. Israel has not done this. The PA and their "guerillas" do this on a regular basis.

By the rules, Israel is innocent but the PA is guilty of scores of horrendous war crimes.

Fine with me. Let's put the PA leadership on trial.

[Jack Rabbit]

55. Let's break that down

So what you're saying despite the title is that I'm completely right since your post never said where I was wrong.

No, I said you're half right. Both sides have some rights and both sides have committed crimes.

Either side attacking a military target is valid if reasonable care is taken to minimize civilian casualties.

Yes.

Israel has done that in virtually every case.

That can be disputed. I alluded to an example where I believe General Sharon could be charged of a war crime. He admits to signing off on the plan to assassinate Sheikh Shahada (July 26, 2002) in that manner.

The PA and their "guerillas" as you call these terrorists has only done this in the tiniest number of actions.

I prefer the term guerrillas when discussing these matters to the loaded term terrorists. Using the term terrorists here is like discussing a murder trial and calling the accused a "killer."

Beyond that, I agree, they are terrorists and most of their actions are directed at civilian targets with no value.

Either side attacking a civilian target with no military value is a war crime. Israel has not done this.

Again, that can be disputed. For example, bulldozing of Palestinian homes is often doubtful.

The PA and their "guerillas" do this on a regular basis.

Agreed.

By the rules, Israel is innocent

There you go again.

but the PA is guilty of scores of horrendous war crimes.

Indeed, they are.

Fine with me. Let's put the PA leadership on trial.

I agree. I have been saying for two years on this board that those who plan suicide bombings are war criminals. I have also said that Arafat is guilty, at the very least, of failing to rein in terrorists, as is his responsibility. He, too, is culpable in these crimes, even if he takes no active part in them.

I also believe the Israelis to be guilty of war crimes. For example, you might check the Human Rights Watch report of the Jenin incursion in the Spring of 2002. While HRW said there was nothing to indicate there was a massacre, as many had said there was, it did enumerate many examples of war crimes committed by the IDF, such as use of civilians as human shields. In addition, I do not for a minute believe that anyone involved in the Shahada operation didn't think that sleeping children wouldn't be killed. And, if one wishes to go back to the Sabra and Shatila massacre, the Kahane commission holds that General Sharon knew or should have known what Major Haddad's phalangists would do once inside the refugee camp; while Sharon's culpability in this affair is not as great as that of the late, unlamented Major Haddad, the assertion of the Kahane commission is enough to demonstrate that those who would charge Sharon of war crimes over this matter are not making a baseless accusation.

However, I will agree that the suicide bombing is the most atrocious feature of this conflict. Each is an unambiguous and open example of a war crime. There can be no question that the intent is to strike at a protected target with the intent to kill.

[MikeGalos]

57. So basically you've done the following

You found one questionable case of an Israeli war crime and admitted to hundreds of Palestinian war crimes and say, in effect, "see, both of them are guilty", while totally ignoring the massive number on one side versus one debatable case in the other where the actual killers were Arabs killing other Arabs.

It is, frankly, this imbalance in equality that is frequently seen as bias by the pro-Israel community. To say that 99.99% = .01% because neither are 0 and neither are 100% is, frankly, ludicrous and we might as well say that Bush is the same as Nader because they agree on many things (such as gravity existing and the day being less than a year long)

It is a case of forced equivalency and even your post shows that you can see that you're forced to post reasons for the one and only case against Israel from years ago when there's no doubt in either of our minds of multiple cased against the Palestinians in just this month.

[Jack Rabbit]

58. Wrong, sir

You found one questionable case of an Israeli war crime and admitted to hundreds of Palestinian war crimes and say, in effect, "see, both of them are guilty", while totally ignoring the massive number on one side versus one debatable case in the other where the actual killers were Arabs killing other Arabs.

I found a great deal more than one questionable case. I provided you with a whole report full of them, and that just concerning the invasion of Jenin in April 2002.

Moreover, in my opinion, Sharon's culpability in the Sabra and Shatila massacre isn't questionable. It's an established fact. Major Haddad would not have been able to enter the camp without Sharon's permission, and Sharon gave it. The report of the Kahane commission said that Sharon's statement that he didn't know what the phalangists would do once inside the camp was absurd. He allowed them in anyway and thus bears "personal responsibility" for what ensued. Much hyperbole has been given on this matter that provides General Sharon's less honest defenders with convenient straw man arguments to knock over. However, the fact remains that even assuming Sharon did not participate in or order the massacre, and there is no evidence that he did, he is nevertheless responsible. At the very least, he is guilty of criminal negligence in this matter.

I also cited the case of the assassination of Sheikh Shahada, where legitimate questions can be raised about whether the Israelis showed proper concern for the safety of noncombatants. Honest people can dispute this. In my view, they did not show proper concern.

In addition, the rules of war also apply to Israel as an occupying power in the Palestinian Territories. These involve matters which you and I have covered in the past, but not in not in this exchange. These are matters having less to do with combat than with the administration of occupied land. I will not enumerate them here, but on these matters I believe Israel is guilty of violations of international law by expropriating resources in occupied territory for use not beneficial to the residents of the territory. There is no question here of comparable Palestinian violations against Israelis in such matters, since the Palestinians are not occupying Israel. We should note that our difference of opinion on these matters remains.

Nevertheless, the subject of this exchange has to do with laws of combat rather than administration of the occupation. Specifically, we are discussing cases involving combatants' relations with noncombatants. On these matters, we are in agreement that crimes by Palestinian militants are far more serious and less ambiguously criminal than crimes committed by Israelis against Palestinians. Were General Sharon to come to trial for his part in the Shahada assassination, which I seriously doubt he ever will, he would have the defense that while he ordered the attack, circumstances surrounding the attack were such that it was not a crime of war. Were Abdel Rantisi ever to come to trial for his part in a given suicide bombing, his only defense would be to prevent the prosecution from proving his involvement, since it is clear that the act is on its face a crime of war.

None of this should be construed to say that the Palestinian people are not entitled to a state on the land where they constitute a numerical majority. That is a matter whose resolution in favor of Palestinian statehood will be of mutual benefit to Israelis and Palestinians. A single state stretching from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea with an Arab majority, or even a near equal split between Arabs and Jews, will either not be a Jewish state or will not be a democratic one. Were it not to be a democratic one, then the resistance to subjugation will continue, whether or not the Palestinians assume tactics more compatible with the Geneva Conventions or not.

There is no bias in that remark. It is a fact whether you or I like it or not. And frankly, Mr. Galos, I'm willing to wager that you're a good enough soul not to like it any better than I do.

[MikeGalos]

59. Oh come on

Even the PA admits there was no Jenin massacre.

And we've repeatedly been told that this is a war and we should treat it as such, usually when justifying the killing of Israeli soldiers. But, miraculously, when the Israelis are involved, it's no longer a war...

Again. Pick one set of rules or the other.

To say Palestine is at war with Israel and simultaneously say that Israel should not be allowed to act as if it is at war is merely picking the rules that make your side look less heinous.

If it's a war, then the PA is guilty of massive numbers of war crimes.
If it's not a war, then the PA is guilty of massive numbers of mass murders.

You can pick one or the other but you can't pick one rules for the side you like and another set for the side you want to paint in a bad light. That's just wrong. And you know better as you showed in your earlier posts.

[Jack Rabbit]

60. Excuse me

Even the PA admits there was no Jenin massacre.
And we've repeatedly been told that this is a war and we should treat it as such, usually when justifying the killing of Israeli soldiers. But, miraculously, when the Israelis are involved, it's no longer a war...
Again. Pick one set of rules or the other.

I didn't say there was. The HRW report said there were war crimes committed by Israelis in Jenin, but there was no massacre. Use of civilians as human shields is a war crime, Mr. Galos.

To say Palestine is at war with Israel and simultaneously say that Israel should not be allowed to act as if it is at war is merely picking the rules that make your side look less heinous.

Please show me where I do that.

If it's a war, then the PA is guilty of massive numbers of war crimes.
If it's not a war, then the PA is guilty of massive numbers of mass murders.

True. I've said as much.

You can pick one or the other but you can't pick one rules for the side you like and another set for the side you want to paint in a bad light. That's just wrong. And you know better as you showed in your earlier posts.

I've picked a set of rules. In this case, they portray everybody in a pretty bad light.

[MikeGalos]

61. Very simple

If it IS a war than Israel and the Palestinian Authority are warring governments. If so, then it is NOT a case of a government administering a territory, it is a governemnt administering captured territory in an active war and the rules are NOT the same.

For example, the rules on restricting travel are not the same.
The rules on curfew are not the same.
And so on.

So, if it IS a war than Israel has considerably more flexibility in administrative rules of the hostile territories it controls than if it were a civil administrator of occupied territory such as a trust territory or disputed administrative region. Simply put, it is about the same as the differences between martial law and civil law.

[Jack Rabbit]

63. Response

If it IS a war than Israel and the Palestinian Authority are warring governments. If so, then it is NOT a case of a government administering a territory, it is a governemnt administering captured territory in an active war and the rules are NOT the same.

It's not an either/or situation. Far from it.

Israel is indeed administrating captured territory. That is called occupation. The Fourth Geneva Convention has quite a bit to say about it. Please read it, or at least peruse it. The link is above. This is the source of many of our disputes. For example, I hold that there is no such thing as a legal Israeli settlement in the West Bank or Gaza. That is based on a widely accepted interpretation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 49, paragraph 6.

It also an active war. What you have here is a guerrilla resistance. The tactics are not those of which I approve, or what other parts of the Geneva Conventions would approve. The principle that the residents of an occupied territory have a right to resist the occupation still stands.

Within the context of the conflict, the laws of both war and occupation apply. The guerrillas (as we'll call the resistance forces) can't target civilians, aid workers or other protected persons. Neither can the regular forces that enforce the occupation. The guerrillas must not strike in a way that would cause needless harm to protected persons. The same applies to the regulars. The guerrillas can't use civilians or POWs as human shields. Neither can the regulars. The guerrillas can't use a flag or truce as a rouse. Neither can the regulars.

In this respect, there is no difference between the way one side is supposed to behave and another. I hope you find that fair, because I do.

Now, you are correct in saying that the administration of the territories has some flexibility. For example, let's look at article 49, paragraphs 1 and 2:

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.

Exceptions to the normal rule are made, recognizing that at times it is absolutely necessary.

In the case of curfews, Israel may impose curfews, however, in the case of 23-hour curfews such as those of which we so often hear, Article 39, paragraph 2 is of note:

Where a Party to the conflict applies to a protected person methods of control which result in his being unable to support himself, and especially if such a person is prevented for reasons of security from finding paid employment on reasonable conditions, the said Party shall ensure his support and that of his dependents.

In short, if the restrictions on the resident population are such that it is impossible for them to make a living, then the occupying power must provide for them. That allows the occupying power to take whatever reasonable security measures are necessary and assures the population under occupation that, whatever measures those are, they will not starve. (To my knowledge, no one is starving as a result of the curfews.)

In other words, these laws assure the safety of a civilian population, even under the most difficult circumstances, and define what combatants can and cannot do to the civilian population or to each other.

[MikeGalos]

64. Ah, so that's why you're confused

You see, you keep acting as though Israel was the occupation government of the West Bank and Gaza. While that could be considered true from 1967-1995, it has not been the case since the formation of the Palestinian Authority which is the both defacto and de jure government. While Israel does have some limited authority in the region due to the PA not completing the requirements for full authority listed in the various Clinton era treaties, nonetheless Israel is NOT the official government.

You will note that the actions you claim violate rules of occupation did not occur when Israel was occupying the land (by the definitions of the term that legally matter) in the period from 1967-1995 (minus a few days during the Arab Invasion of 1973)

You will also note that Israel does not have the authority to appoint, replace or arrest the governmental leadership of the PA as it is a separate, internationally recognized government. Believe me, if Israel could arrest Arafat and his cronies they'd be on trial.

Israel cannot appoint, replace or arrest the police or other governmental officials of the Palestinian Authority as, again, it is a separate, internationally recognized government.

Israel cannot control or influence the broadcasts of radio or tv stations run by the Palestinian Authority as, again, it is a separate, internationally recognized government.

That the Palestinian Authority government does have some restrictions on it as part of a transition plan that they agreed to as part of the formation and recognition of their government does NOT mean that they are not bound by the rule of law as any government. On the contrary, it means that they must obey additional laws and regulations meant to allow for a full transition of power in addition to the other rules of law. That the Palestinian Authority government have not done so does NOT give Israel less rights than the treaties allow.

Now, given that you believe that this IS a war situation, it is a war between the Government of Israel and her people and the Palestinian Authority government and her people. As such the rules of war apply to both sides.

[Jack Rabbit]

65. It is both a war and an occupation

It's not an occupation? Come, come, Mr. Galos. The IDF is all over the West Bank and Gaza. They patrol the streets. They establish curfews. They detain those who actively oppose their authority. What do you call that?

Otherwise, we've also established that it is a war. Armed combatants are shooting at each other. What do you call that?

This is an occupation. The occupation is met with armed resistance. Therefore, it is also a war.

Where you are confused is in stating that the PA is the opposing government. The PA is now a fiction. It exists so that Sharon can have somebody with a veneer of authority with whom to negotiate, except that's pointless. The PA's authority over the resistance is an illusion. If Arafat told the militants to lay down their arms, they'd flip him the bird. So instead we have a road map in which Arafat appoints a Prime Minister with whom the Israelis can negotiate and at whom the militants can flip the bird when he asks them to lay down their arms. That has happened with two Palestinian Prime Ministers now. Want to take bets on a third? Or shall we just abandon the road map?

Let me throw this out as a possible solution. These are just some spur-of-the-moment ideas that don't necessarily make me comfortable. However, Arafat is irrelevant and the Islamists are every bit as intransigent as the worst elements on the Israeli right. The intransigent right needs to be marginalized in both nations; however, Arafat is incapable of doing it.

Let the IDF crush the militants and overthrow Arafat. Occupy the Palestinian Territories under the laws of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Establish a new Palestinian Authority led by the kind of people I mentioned on the other thread. Allow the Palestinian state to be declared. Negotiate final borders. Perhaps this can incorporate many of the existing settlements into Israel in exchange for other land, such as provided by the Geneva Accord. Residents of settlements not incorporated into Israel will be given the choice of being repatriated into Israel or becoming citizens of Palestine. Supervise the rebuilding of Palestinian social, political and military institutions. Sign a peace treaty and withdraw the IDF from Palestine.

In all of this, the only thing the Israelis should expect is a peaceful neighbor. The natural resources of Palestine should belong to the Palestinian people.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

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

[Jack Rabbit]

68. ??

Israel is to be judged by the Rules of War AND the Rules of Occupation, whichever is harsher. The Palestinian Authority is to be judged by the Rules of War AND the Rules of Occupied Land whichever is most lenient.

How am I proposing any such thing, sir?

I don't think it is particularly lenient to say that those who attack civilians are war criminals and such be treated as such. I don't think it is particularly harsh, and certainly not unreasonable, to say that, where an occupying force imposes restrictions such as a curfew that makes it difficult for the population to go about its normal day-to-day business, that the occupying power has a resposnibility to the welfare of the population.

I don't think that it is a double standard to say that this applies in all cases.

[MikeGalos]

69. It's again very simple

It the PA governement exists, it has certain legal responsibilities both to and for its people. If not, then it should be abandoned and Israel should regain full control over the West Bank and Gaza Strip unless and until such time as a new treaty is put into place.

The treatment of Arafat's regime as blameless for bad and wholly responsible for good is the central cause of treating Israel as boht adversary and governor. It can't be both anymore than the PA can be both all powerful and all irresponsible.

[Jack Rabbit]

71. ??

It the PA government exists, it has certain legal responsibilities both to and for its people.

True.

If not, then it should be abandoned and Israel should regain full control over the West Bank and Gaza Strip unless and until such time as a new treaty is put into place.

That seems to be what I proposed in the other post in an academic mood.

The treatment of Arafat's regime as blameless for bad and wholly responsible for good is the central cause of treating Israel as both adversary and governor.

There may be one or two around here who do that. However, most of us do not and I, for one, see very little good in Arafat's regime. He's crooked and has been ineffective in achieving the goals of his people. At the very least, he has been negligent in reining in terror and at the worst, complicit in its operations.

What Arafat has going in his favor is that he is, for all his faults, the living symbol of Palestinian nationalism. That's very unfortunate under the circumstance. The Palestinians need to get rid of him and that fact makes it very difficult.

Of course, support for America does not imply support for Bush; support for Israel does not imply support for Sharon; and support for the goal of a sovereign Palestinian state does not imply support for Arafat or any terrorist organization.

It can't be both anymore than the PA can be both all powerful and all irresponsible.

That's not a contradiction. Look at the Bushies.

[MikeGalos]

73. Doubletalk

If the PA does exist and whether we like it or not, it does, then it has certain legal responsibilities. Not things they should be responsible for sortof but actual legal responsibilities. When those actions are NOT taken, then it is the PA that is at fault. As such, since they are the empowered legal government, they are responsible for military actions taken by their people.

Since there IS a legally mandated, internationally approved, official government of the PA, then, by definition, it is THAT government that is in charge with Israel merely controlling some government functions as a treaty obligation.

Since this is the case, Israel is NOT subject to "occupying power" laws since they are, again, not, by definition, an occupying power since an independant (and nobody can say Arafat's an Israeli puppet) government in place.

Thus, if this is a war situation, both sides are on even legal footing and the PA is guilty of massive numbers of war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity.

[Jack Rabbit]

77. There is no doubletalk

This is an occupation that has met an armed resistance. Period.

Israel has troops in the West Bank and Gaza imposing control measures against a population. It's an occupation.

Palestinians fighters have taken up arms against the occupation forces. It's an armed conflict, otherwise known as a war.

It's that simple. It is both an occupation and an armed conflict. International law covering both apply. No amount of verbiage from you or anyone else will change that.

As far war crimes are concerned, they have been committed. The most egregious have been committed by Palestinian terrorists.

That's what I said two days ago. That's what I am saying now. Your arguments have failed to persuade.

There is no more a double standard in any of that than there was a massacre in Jenin.

[MikeGalos]

79. Ah. Backtracking?

You act as though the PA government both exists where you want it and doesn't exist where you don't want it.

It isn't an occupation if there is an existing, independant government. Clearly the PA qualifies.

As such, this is a war between the PA and Israel.

Again, if Arafat and his government step down and Israel resumes governmental control, then your statements would have some value but since they have not, it is silly to act as though they had (when it is convenient).

[_Jumper_]

45. How many Christian fundies engage in terrorism?

Do they conduct over 800 attacks in a year, or sporadic, uncoordinated attacks?

[Violet_Crumble]

46. What's that got to do with what you asked?

I answered the question you asked. My suggestion is if you want to learn more about Christian fundies, go and do some reading on them. But what you should be aware of is that fundamentalism violence is not confined solely to Muslims...


Violet...

[Lithos]

62. Depends

There is the Lord's Army in Uganda which is very well known for it's long term terroristic campaign against the government of Uganda.

There is also the National Liberation Front of Tripura (NE India) which has a Protestant/Baptist group who are using terroristic tactics to force mass conversion of the population.

You might consider the IRA or the Orangemen former terrorists.

Then there are the attacks committed here in the US in the name of religion through attacks on abortion/planned parenthood clinics, synagogues, black churches, etc.

L-

[_Jumper_]

86. There is a lot of terrorism done by all fundies

However, Muslim fundies commit a disproportinate number of terrorist attacks. A large part of this is a result of the lionizing of "martyrs" in Islamic history and the teaching to kids that terrorism will guarantee them a place in heaven with 72 virgin sex slaves.

[Forkboy]

23. This is pretty sad

Reminds me of the Serial Killer cards that were out a few years back.Some things don't deserve to be collected.

[Tinoire]

29. Thank you Mods!

[Forkboy]

33. Who got toasted?

I miss all the fun stuff in life :shrug:

[bluesoul]

34. The author of this

thread...

[Forkboy]

35. well I'll be a monkey's uncle

(no comments from the peanut gallery!) :D

[_Jumper_]

37. This is the most sick thing I have ever read regarding this conflict

This kind of bloodlust that is too prevalent among Palestinians is why I am pro-Israel.

[number6]

39. If its true I denounce it ...

however I have my doubts about the story ....

[Violet_Crumble]

47. I agree...

Though when it's coming from JPost, their idea of what's a terrorist is a bit iffy seeing as how even legitimate resistance to the Occupation is called terrorism. How is hero-worshipping a militant any different than the reverential treatment given to US troops who invaded Iraq? And in the not-too-distant past, it came so naturally to place *our* side on a pedestal, while demonising *them*. My mum was very young during WWII, but she can remember herself and her siblings hounding my grandfather when he returned from the war wanting to know how many Japs and Germans he'd killed...

Violet...

[JohnLocke]

66. Why? Do you not trust the Associated Press?

[number6]

81. yes, I do not trust the Press (media)

eom

[brainshrub]

70. What do you think caused them to lust for blood?

Blood lust & hate are not natural characteristics for people. Before you condemn the Palestinians, try to learn why they feel the way they do.
Ask yourself, if you experienced the same circumstances how would you react?

[MikeGalos]

74. That'd be a nice question for a psych essay

but last I'd heard, war crimes weren't the kind of think that was excused for having a difficult childhood.

[Saudade]

72. Good

"Palestinian children are collecting cards showing terrorists the way American kids trade baseball cards, and some educators are concerned that the hobby is helping to breed a new generation of militants."

Very good. Militance is the normal, moral, legal and entirely legitimate response to colonial oppression, as in the case of Algeria or here in the case of Israel, there is no difference.

Remember: It took 130 years to get rid of the French in Algeria. We have now 37 years of military occupation, so the resistance is still young, but it will succeed, regardless of the cost.

[MikeGalos]

75. So you think

the intentional murder of innocent civilians including children is a good thing...

Wow.

[drdon326]

76. Holy spit....

so teaching Palestinian children that Militance is the normal, moral, legal and entirely legitimate response to colonial oppression
is good , huh??

i wonder what you think of those friday pa sermons that exhort
childrem to be martyrs and take out as many innocents as
possible??

change that....i dont want to know

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

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

[MikeGalos]

80. No

We're on the side of a social democracy with civil rights, elections, courts, trade unions, public healthcare, great schools and a free press.

You're apparently on the side of criminal thugs who have no problem with murdering innocent children and then celebrating their deaths.

But, you "don't buy it"? From the tone of the rhetoric, the meaningless use of buzzwords and the lack of sophistication in your arguments, I'd say you bought something, hook line and sinker.

[Darranar]

82. Yet this state...

that you defend is mantaining a brutal occupation that is demoralizing its soldiers, wasting its money, and is neither democratic nor progressive.

Its actions in the Occupied Territories are seperate from its admirable economic and social policy. Criticizing one is not criticizing the other.

Additionally, the policies in the Occupied Territories that I criticize are supported and carried out by the same reactionaries who despise these programs and are working to undermine them. Israel can only remain a "social democracy with civil rights, elections, courts, trade unions, public healthcare, great schools and a free press" if it is willing to pursue a policy in relation to the Palestinians that respects their rights and shall result in a Palestinian state in all, or almost all, of the Occupied Territories.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

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

[Darranar]

84. Please respond to my post.

[MikeGalos]

85. Nah

It isn't really worth it.