So why do people hate Israel?

[ScarabVenom]

You're wrong. It was a retaliation of the countless rocket attacks of Hamas. Israel does not provoke anything. They only defend themselves from 1948 up untill now.

Oh please, you really believe that or just trolling?

1956, was Egypt really the aggressor? Yeah, we did go around bullying France, Great Britain and Israel so they can attack us. If Israel wasn't really the aggressor, why did the US force Israel to leave the Sinai and in around 6 months Israel was gone?

1967, I will only quote what Menachim Begin said "The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We decided to attack him" word of the Israeli prime minister which you should listen to since you're a fan of Israel isn't enough? They go steal other nation's territory and yeah, they're just defending themselves. Israel "defend itself" using their military power not peace. The way Israel "defends itself" is by occupying surrounding territories to have distance between neighboring nations and the state.

Speaking of self-defense, I was quite surprised when I knew (yeah, I just knew recently) that the Holocaust memorial is on April the 7th. Yet, on April the 8th of 1970 they bombed an Egyptian primary school and killed young children. <---self-defense. The holocaust is a tragedy and may those who died get treated nicely by their God but, right the next day after the Holocaust they go bomb a school? Well, that shows something.

14th of July, 1967 Israel goes to the center of the Suez canal raising their flag demanding their "right" to half of the Suez canal. Israel builds settlements in the Sinai such as the settlements of Yamet. They intended to stay and all under the halo of self-defense.

After the 1973 war, Israel tried to keep the Egyptian city of Taba but failed due to proven history of it being Egyptian territory. Why did they try to take the Egyptian city?

If you want to listen to something, please listen to everything not just what you want to listen to.

 

[VDKMS]

You still completely avoided the fact that the video has no absolutely relevance as to whether the boy died or not. I have (and no doubt you have also) known men to be still talking lucidly entering the triage and taken to surgery who subsequently died of their wounds.

You're kidding, right? The video was about the killing of the boy by IDF soldiers. The makers said they cut the last piece of film because it was "unbearable" and "in accordance with our ethical charter" because the child was dying from a stomach wound. It tuned out that the child wasn't dying but lifted his arm and leg and looked at the camera! If the child had a stomach wound it would be screaming from pain. If the pain would have been too much the child would have passed out. Either way it would have been impossible to lift his arm and look at the camera. As someone with a military background you know how painful a stomach wound is.
They also filmed lots of ambulances taking away "injured" men but none came to the rescue of the "wounded" child and father? Pallywood at its best.

It is a matter of record by many highly respected International aid agencies that Israel provoked the Gazans with a siege restricting all the day to day necessities of life, in retaliation for having been pressured into retreating from Gaza.

The problem lies with Hamas, not Israel. They know how to lift the blockade : stop the rocket attacks, recognize Israel and remove the "destruction of Israel" from their covenant, it's that simple. And they start to get it because they promised to talk about it and their farmers (from 300-1,500 metres to 100 meters) and fishermen (from three nautical miles to six) are already getting more space to work on. But another problem arose. One that you do not mention. The closing of the Rafah crossing with Egypt and the destruction of many tunnels by the Egyptian forces. Tunnel owners (desperate that their business would collaps) that they were responsible for some rocket attacks on Israel, hoping Israel would tighten the blockade, which they did.

Israel's childishly simplistic attempts at guile in these matters does not extend beyond easily disproven lies. The fact that they continue to shamelessly lie in the face of all the physical evidence is an indication of their complete and utter disregard for World opinion and complete lack of any form of self respect, they are in fact, no more than pathological liars and moral sociopaths.

Just stop your lying and accept the truth. Israel is currently the worlds worst rogue state and it is the home to the world's largest collection of pro-active war Criminals.

The usual rubbish.

Explain to me how this is a Palestinian problem?

At that time there were no "Palestinians", they were all Arabs. They attacked Israel to destroy it, not to "liberate Palestine".

The answer is that all those Jew that were "expelled" from Arab countries simply moved in and took over Palestinian land and continue to do so today.

More Jews were expelled from Arab countries than Arabs fled for Israeli and Arab troops. Where should they have gone? There was only one Jewish state and that was Israel. 586.000 Jews choosed that country. Do not forget that in 1947 the Egyptian delegation to the UN told the General Assembly : "The lives of one million Jews in Muslim countries will be jeopardized by partition." The threat became a brutal reality.

You can play rounders all day but the simple reality is that it is Jewish "settlers" that are expanding the borders of Israel daily and they are doing it at the expense of the Palestinians.

Israel meets all of its obligations to the Palestinian population in Area C, as required by the Oslo Accords and derived from Israel's security control of the area and her authority over infrastructure, land, and planning.

Israel approved 47 road related projects sponsored by the international community for the Palestinian community in Area C (18 projects are completed)
98% of Palestinians in Areas A, B and C are connected to electricity.
Teacher salaries, training, school materials, etc. all fall under the authority of the PA, including in Area C.
Since 2010 the Civil Administration has invested more than 5 million ₪ in medical care for Palestinians, as well as over 2 million ₪ for medical training exchanges for Palestinian doctors.
There are 22 valid master plans in Area C and more than 20 new master plans that are currently being developed in conjunction with the PA.
In addition to their domain suffix (.ps), private Palestinian users in Judea and Samaria have access to Internet with speeds of up to 8 megabits. According to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, 53% of average Palestinian households in Judea and Samaria have computers and soon roughly 40% of children over the age of 10 will have access to the Internet.
In 2011 Israel provided the Palestinians with 53 MCM of water – 22 MCM more than stipulated by the Oslo Accords.
And there is so much more that Israel does for the Palestinians. You can read it here.

So explain to me why an Ethiopian/American/German, Moroccan etc. etc. Jew who have never seen Palestine has more right to land in Palestine than a Palestinian family who roots to the region go back 1000 years?
(Please note I do not accept that a gene which your own source says 70% of the world has is a viable answer)

First explain to me why those Jews were expelled. Some Jewish communities were living there for thousands of years. They had nowhere to go but Israel.
The "Palestinians" lived in the Ottoman Empire. That was gone and a tiny piece was named Israel with the approval of the International Community. 160.000 Arabs accepted the new Israeli citizenship and 3 were elected to the Knesset. Did the "Palestinians" promised citizenship to Jews who were living in what should have become their part of the former Ottoman Empire? NO! Let alone that Jews were able to be choosen to a "Palestinian" parliament. Worse, they expelled or killed the Jews who were living there. Including Jews from communities that lived there from almost the beginning of Jerusalem! Jordan destroyed all the synagogue in the annexed "West Bank".

Surely you would agree that those Jews evicted from Arab lands have a case against the countries they were evicted from and not the Palestinians?

Sure! Israel is doing all it can to bring justice to it. Today, nearly half of Israel's native population descends from the Jewish refugees of the Arab world and their rights must be recognized alongside any discussion of the rights for Palestinian refugees and their descendants. (last sentence was copied from here.)

Basically you are doing little more than supporting ethnic cleansing and I find that hard to accept in anyone.

If it was about etnic cleansing then there wouldn't be living 1,617,000 Arabs in Israel. That's more than Jews living in all the Arab world. Trying to destroy Israel en kill all the Jews that is etnic cleansing.

Still I will leave you with something I saw while on vacation...

Don't you find it odd that the Palestinians are capable of distinguishing Zionism from Israel yet Israel cant.

Nice try. read this article that British based Arabic newspaper Al Quds al-Arabi published : There is no apartheid in Israel. Use Google translate if you have to.

 

[VDKMS]

Oh please, you really believe that or just trolling?

I firmly believe this.

1956, was Egypt really the aggressor? Yeah, we did go around bullying France, Great Britain and Israel so they can attack us. If Israel wasn't really the aggressor, why did the US force Israel to leave the Sinai and in around 6 months Israel was gone?

In 1955 alone 260 Israeli citizens were killed by Fedayeen raids and Egypt, which got a significant amount of new Il-28 bpmbers and MiG 15 fighters started to intrude into Israeli air space. At that time, the IAF planes were inferior to the new Egyption ones. Israel would be helpless against a new Arab attack so they took the opportunity to fight along the British and French which guaranteed Israel's safety. The French gave Israel air protection.
Pressure to stop the fighting was more related to the French and British than the Israelis. Israel was satisfied with the destruction of the Egyptian air force by the British and French. The British got a 500 million$ US loan and the Soviet leader Nicolai Bulganin had threatened to destroy London and Paris with nuclear missiles. (Air Wars and Aircraft page 54)

1967, I will only quote what Menachim Begin said "The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We decided to attack him" word of the Israeli prime minister which you should listen to since you're a fan of Israel isn't enough? They go steal other nation's territory and yeah, they're just defending themselves. Israel "defend itself" using their military power not peace. The way Israel "defends itself" is by occupying surrounding territories to have distance between neighboring nations and the state.

Well, the start of the 1967 war lies with Russia. On may 13, according to US government records, Moscow warned Cairo and Damascus that israel planned to launch an invasion of their countries on the 17th, using 13 brigades. This was an untrue report, transmitted through Sami Sheraf, the head of the KGB in Cairo and intended to make Nasser feel more dependent of Moscow. Nasser ordered two divisions into the Sinai. On the 16th Nasser ordered UN troops in the Sinai to withdraw from patrols to their two base camps. UN Secretary General U Thant said that if his exppeditionary forces could not carry out its assigned duties, he would withdraw them alltogether. Nasser was shocked but dared not back down. By the 19th, war war had still not come, and Egyptian and Israeli units faced each other accros the border. Egyptian forces had also taken over Sharm esh-Sheikh, at the Red Sea entrance, from UN troops, closing the Strait of Tiran. This gave Israel a casus belli of sorts. (Weapons p.522)

Speaking of self-defense, I was quite surprised when I knew (yeah, I just knew recently) that the Holocaust memorial is on April the 7th. Yet, on April the 8th of 1970 they bombed an Egyptian primary school and killed young children. <---self-defense. The holocaust is a tragedy and may those who died get treated nicely by their God but, right the next day after the Holocaust they go bomb a school? Well, that shows something.

Please tell everything!
Speaking about the incident, Egyptian commander Abdelatim Ramadan said: "Actually, two targets were hit by the Israelis. The first target was a group of military bases about 30 km. from the Suez Canal, which were targeted before, on the night of 18–19 December 1969. The second target was the Bahr El-Baqar primary school. [ ... ] There comes a time to acknowledge an important fact in this area, that at those black days of Israeli bombing, the military targets were mixed with civilian targets. We can even say that in many cases the military targets were hiding behind civilian targets." ("The War of Attrition as Reflected in Egyptian Sources" (1995), p. 107, by Mustafa Kabha)

14th of July, 1967 Israel goes to the center of the Suez canal raising their flag demanding their "right" to half of the Suez canal. Israel builds settlements in the Sinai such as the settlements of Yamet. They intended to stay and all under the halo of self-defense.

Yes, as long as there was not a plan in place that gave Israel protection they would use that as a buffer zone. Again you forget to mention that after the peace deal all Israeli settlements ware dismantled (they did the same with the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza).

After the 1973 war, Israel tried to keep the Egyptian city of Taba but failed due to proven history of it being Egyptian territory. Why did they try to take the Egyptian city?

Taba was located on the Egyptian side of the armistice line agreed to in 1949. During the Suez Crisis in 1956 it was briefly occupied but returned to Egypt when Israel withdrew in 1957. Israel reoccupied the Sinai Peninsula after the Six-Day War in 1967, and subsequently a 400-room hotel was built in Taba. Following the 1973 Yom-Kippur War, when Egypt and Israel were negotiating the exact position of the border in preparation for the 1979 peace treaty, Israel claimed that Taba had been on the Ottoman side of a border agreed between the Ottomans and British Egypt in 1906 and had, therefore, been in error in its two previous agreements. Although most of Sinai was returned to Egypt in 1982, Taba was the last portion to be returned. After a long dispute, the issue was submitted to an international commission composed of one Israeli, one Egyptian, and three outsiders. In 1988, the commission ruled in Egypt's favour, and Israel returned Taba to Egypt in 1989. (Signing of Agreement With Israel Turns Over Last of Sinai to Egypt)

If you want to listen to something, please listen to everything not just what you want to listen to.

Right on.

 

[senojekips]

You're kidding, right? The video was about the killing of the boy by IDF soldiers.

Only a Nazi like yourself would attempt such a flimsy excuse. You have lots and lots of words, but not a single word of what you have said disproves that the boy died of his wounds.

The problem lies with Hamas, not Israel.

Hamas is the democratically elected government and as such has every right to defend the illegal occupation of all Palestinian land. Israel whines about Hamas, yet you completely fail to mention that it was only after 40 years of ongoing Israeli Crimes against humanity that the Palestinians finally decided that they needed a party who would actively resist the illegal Israeli occupation of their land. Compared with Israel's murderous government they present a model of absolute tolerance and determination to rid their land of a criminal regime.

You totally ignore the fact that the Israelis have no right either legally or morally to even be there. Their blockade is internationally condemned, the Gazans have every right to attempt to defend themselves against murderous occupier of their land, Israel is there illegally and all that they do is illegal. For a start the blockade is judged as constituting "Collective punishment" a crime against humanity and otherwise contrary to several International laws.

The usual rubbish.

Pure fact, facts that you cannot disprove.

At that time there were no "Palestinians", they were all Arabs. They attacked Israel to destroy it, not to "liberate Palestine".

Stop being obtuse. It has been shown that these people were known and referred to as Palestinians from at least the 5th century BCE. The British administrators used the term Palestine, and believe it or not, people living in Palestine are Palestinians by default. It interests me how you connect the expulsion of Jews from other Arab countries to attacking Israel, they never went near Palestine where the illegal state of Israel is located.

 

[MontyB]

Nice try. read this article that British based Arabic newspaper Al Quds al-Arabi published : There is no apartheid in Israel. Use Google translate if you have to.

The question is should I believe you or should I believe the Israeli's themselves as they say:

Oddly enough I don't really believe either of you but as I have to pick a side here I guess I will take the lesser of two evils and stick with the side offering stats, interesting though how you equate Zionism to Israel as a whole.

 

[senojekips]

Nice try. read this article that British based Arabic newspaper Al Quds al-Arabi published : There is no apartheid in Israel. Use Google translate if you have to.

Not even the Israelis believe that

By Roy Isacowitz | 17:06 17.07.13
An apartheid of hearts, minds and international law.

Israel does not have to precisely replicate South Africa to conform to the international definition of an apartheid regime. It’s time for those who object to the Israel apartheid analogy to understand this
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (ICSPCA), which preceded the Rome Statute, defined apartheid as “inhumane acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.” (If Friedman wants to quibble over the term “racial,” he should take a look at his Israeli ID card, which conflates nationality with race and religion.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[VDKMS]

Only a Nazi like yourself would attempt such a flimsy excuse. You have lots and lots of words, but not a single word of what you have said disproves that the boy died of his wounds.

In the film there's no proof whatsoever that the boy even did have a wound. No blood, no screaming from pain. The father even had 12 wounds from Israeli gunfire but no blood to be seen! But there's more. The Palestinian cameraman Talal Abu Rahma claimed the boy died at 3 p.m but Mohammed Tawil, a doctor at Gaza's Al-Shifra Hospital, said the boy (who was to be buried as Muhammad al-Durrah) was admitted at 10 a.m. (the incident started at 2 p.m.). He also claimed the IDF soldiers fired 400 rounds at the two but he wall at the site of the incident clearly shows only eight holes.
You better do your homework.

Hamas is the democratically elected government and as such has every right to defend the illegal occupation of all Palestinian land. Israel whines about Hamas, yet you completely fail to mention that it was only after 40 years of ongoing Israeli Crimes against humanity that the Palestinians finally decided that they needed a party who would actively resist the illegal Israeli occupation of their land. Compared with Israel's murderous government they present a model of absolute tolerance and determination to rid their land of a criminal regime.

First of all, Abbas had the legal power to remove the Hamas government, which he did. He did that to protect the Palestinian state and he was right. The West Bank goes well, Gaza is very problematic. You know, Hamas' democracy is the same as Morsi's: 1 person , 1 vote, ....1 time. As in Iran.

The occupation is legal because of the lack of prior sovereignty over these territories (the "Palestinians" were not a "High Contracting Party" as required by Article 2 of the Convention). The Arabs refused to be the legal occupants of the territories given to them while Israel accepted theirs. Abbas would call it later a huge blunder on part of the Arabs. Ever wondered why the Arab negotiating party was called "Arab Higher Committee" and not Palestinian Higher Commitee? Did you know that the commitee's chairman was Haj Amin al-Husseini? You know, Hitler's friend and holocaust supporter, who started the first riots against the Jews not to free Palestine but to join Syria. He also opposed joining with Jordan, populated by a majority of Arab Palestinians. Your view of Israel is very biased and very wrong.

You totally ignore the fact that the Israelis have no right either legally or morally to even be there. Their blockade is internationally condemned, the Gazans have every right to attempt to defend themselves against murderous occupier of their land, Israel is there illegally and all that they do is illegal. For a start the blockade is judged as constituting "Collective punishment" a crime against humanity and otherwise contrary to several International laws.

Israel isn't there where it shouldn't be. Israel has good relations with the Palestinian government who only rule part of their territory (West Bank). The Oslo accords gave the Palestinians their first state ever. Do not forget that Egypt, an Arab country, also participates in the blockade. So we have two countries doing the same blockade and only one gets the blame. When Israel destroys smuggling tunnels it's an outrage. Whe Egypt destroys tunnels no one cares. Arabs are allowed to do anything (100.000 killed in Syria alone, a lot of killing in Iraq) it's bunsiness as usual but when Israel defends itself by way af a retaliation and kill a few militants the media is full of outrage. Very biased view.

Pure fact, facts that you cannot disprove.

You call unlogical reasoning facts???????

Stop being obtuse. It has been shown that these people were known and referred to as Palestinians from at least the 5th century BCE. The British administrators used the term Palestine, and believe it or not, people living in Palestine are Palestinians by default. It interests me how you connect the expulsion of Jews from other Arab countries to attacking Israel, they never went near Palestine where the illegal state of Israel is located.

Palestine was never an Arab state until after the Oslo accords. The Romans didn't call it Palestine but renamed "Provincia Judea" into "Provincia Syria Palaestina". people living there , before being expelled by the Romans, called themselves "Yehudim" the ones who took their place "Syrians". That's why the cleric Haj Amin al-Husseini wanted "Palestine" to be part of Syria, not independent. The people you refer to are Greek immigrants who's society perished. The UN called it Palestine because the UN was made of mostly christian states. They all were told that Jesus lived in Palestine, an abridgement of Province Syria Palestine. The people living in "Palestine" didn't call it that way. For them they were part of Syria. That's why the jews coming from Europe called themselves Palestinians and the "Palestinians" Syrians until Arafat told them to use the word Palestinians.
Israel was attacked in 1948 by the following states : Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon (one battle) supported by volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan and Sudan. It is not because you call Israel illegal that the same is true.

The question is should I believe you or should I believe the Israeli's themselves as they say:

Oddly enough I don't really believe either of you but as I have to pick a side here I guess I will take the lesser of two evils and stick with the side offering stats, interesting though how you equate Zionism to Israel as a whole.

That's not a fact, that's an opinion. fact is that all Israeli citizens (Jew, Arab, etc) have the same constitutional right. Wether you like it or not doesn't matter. There are many court verdicts in favor of Arabs. There are Arab judges and in 2007 there even was a muslim Arab minister. So stop whining.

 

[senojekips]

In the film there's no proof whatsoever that the boy even did have a wound. No blood, no screaming from pain. The father even had 12 wounds from Israeli gunfire but no blood to be seen! But there's more. The Palestinian cameraman Talal Abu Rahma claimed the boy died at 3 p.m but Mohammed Tawil, a doctor at Gaza's Al-Shifra Hospital, said the boy (who was to be buried as Muhammad al-Durrah) was admitted at 10 a.m. (the incident started at 2 p.m.). He also claimed the IDF soldiers fired 400 rounds at the two but he wall at the site of the incident clearly shows only eight holes.
You better do your homework.

Your "Zionazi inspired homework" may be alright for you, as it is a matter of public record how they lie and distort the facts to suit themselves. I'm more interested in the known facts. None of what you have said proves the boy did not die, or even creates any doubt. You can count marks on stonework, you can lie and submit your Zionist hasbara , but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the boys death, a view generally supported outside of Israel. The simple fact that the Muhammad al Durrah cannot be found, nor any evidence of him being alive after the incident 12 years ago is good evidence that he was killed in the incident.

The French defamation case was definitely settled on June 26, 2013, by the French Court of Appeals: Karsenty was convicted of defamation and fined €7,000 by the Paris Court of Appeals. [6] Karsenty's version, which described the killing of young Mohammed Al Durah as "staged", was rejected by the French Court's final decision. So in view of the evidence and it's interpretation by "experts" the French court seems to support the cameraman's side of events.

The most telling evidence to support his death being that after the insult of Israeli lies about the matter Jamal al Durrah (his father) consented to having the body exhumed for forensic testing by an independent arbiter,... the Israelis never took up the option. Because they knew it was the boy.

First of all, Abbas had the legal power to remove the Hamas government, which he did. He did that to protect the Palestinian state and he was right.

So now you are against democracy? (not surprising) Whatever story you make up, Hamas is still the legally elected government, bought into being by Israel's history of more than 40 years of murder and war crimes.

The occupation is legal because of the lack of prior sovereignty over these territories (the "Palestinians" were not a "High Contracting Party" as required by Article 2 of the Convention). The Arabs refused to be the legal occupants of the territories given to them while Israel accepted theirs.

Thank you, Israel could not accept anything as no one gave them anything. You know this has all been settled before, Israel is a land of Illegal European immigrants who flooded the land of Palestine after the Brits were driven out as a result of Zionist terror campaign against the legitimate administrators of Palestine. They then started an admitted campaign of ethnic cleansing that continues to this day in direct contravention of a number of International laws.

Israel isn't there where it shouldn't be.

Quote me a credible source stating that European Jews and their descendants have a legal "right" to occupy any part of Palestine. (or anywhere else).

 

[ScarabVenom]

I firmly believe this.



In 1955 alone 260 Israeli citizens were killed by Fedayeen raids and Egypt, which got a significant amount of new Il-28 bpmbers and MiG 15 fighters started to intrude into Israeli air space. At that time, the IAF planes were inferior to the new Egyption ones. Israel would be helpless against a new Arab attack so they took the opportunity to fight along the British and French which guaranteed Israel's safety. The French gave Israel air protection.
Pressure to stop the fighting was more related to the French and British than the Israelis. Israel was satisfied with the destruction of the Egyptian air force by the British and French. The British got a 500 million$ US loan and the Soviet leader Nicolai Bulganin had threatened to destroy London and Paris with nuclear missiles. (Air Wars and Aircraft page 54)

Which part of that is from the book and which part is from you? Second, please tell me where you got the 260 Israeli citizens number. 5th of April, 1956 Israel kills 58 civilians. On 3rd of November, the UN reports 275 civilians killed by IDF.

Well, the start of the 1967 war lies with Russia. On may 13, according to US government records, Moscow warned Cairo and Damascus that israel planned to launch an invasion of their countries on the 17th, using 13 brigades. This was an untrue report, transmitted through Sami Sheraf, the head of the KGB in Cairo and intended to make Nasser feel more dependent of Moscow. Nasser ordered two divisions into the Sinai. On the 16th Nasser ordered UN troops in the Sinai to withdraw from patrols to their two base camps. UN Secretary General U Thant said that if his exppeditionary forces could not carry out its assigned duties, he would withdraw them alltogether. Nasser was shocked but dared not back down. By the 19th, war war had still not come, and Egyptian and Israeli units faced each other accros the border. Egyptian forces had also taken over Sharm esh-Sheikh, at the Red Sea entrance, from UN troops, closing the Strait of Tiran. This gave Israel a casus belli of sorts. (Weapons p.522)

So, Egyptians did stuff on their territory disliking the UN forces. Yitzhak Rabin, the Israeli army chief of staff said "I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it." General Mattityahu Peled, a member of Israel's general staff, said "the thesis according to which the danger of genocide weighed on us in June 1967, and that Israel struggled for its physical existence is only a bluff born and developed after the war." The UN forces were stationed along the border between Egypt and Israel following the 1956 war. Israel refused the stationing of UN troops on its soil, while Egypt accepted them. Egyptians had the right to withdraw them at any point. Speaking of the belli of sorts, if you're going to put law as your tool here then, accept the fact that also according to the UN law, all territories seized after the 1967 war are occupied territories making Israel an aggressor.

Please tell everything!
Speaking about the incident, Egyptian commander Abdelatim Ramadan said: "Actually, two targets were hit by the Israelis. The first target was a group of military bases about 30 km. from the Suez Canal, which were targeted before, on the night of 18–19 December 1969. The second target was the Bahr El-Baqar primary school. [ ... ] There comes a time to acknowledge an important fact in this area, that at those black days of Israeli bombing, the military targets were mixed with civilian targets. We can even say that in many cases the military targets were hiding behind civilian targets." ("The War of Attrition as Reflected in Egyptian Sources" (1995), p. 107, by Mustafa Kabha)

You have [...] up there, I would like to humbly ask what they stand for...second thing, there were 2 targets, cool, 1 was in 18 December 1969? As in 5 months before what we were talking about, I don't see where they are related. Third thing, let's say we'll agree on the military targets behind civilians thing, your source claims in many cases. Since we're speaking of 1 case which is the 8th of April incident, do you have valid proof that the school was somehow hiding a military base?

Yes, as long as there was not a plan in place that gave Israel protection they would use that as a buffer zone. Again you forget to mention that after the peace deal all Israeli settlements ware dismantled (they did the same with the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza).

Honestly, how many buffers does Israel need? They had the entire Sinai as a buffer zone yet, they care so much about the half of the canal? The 100 meters? That gives a lot of security right there. And I have never denied the settlements being dismantled, I was basically basing an argument as they intended to stay in the Sinai. What made them leave it, I wonder?

Taba was located on the Egyptian side of the armistice line agreed to in 1949. During the Suez Crisis in 1956 it was briefly occupied but returned to Egypt when Israel withdrew in 1957. Israel reoccupied the Sinai Peninsula after the Six-Day War in 1967, and subsequently a 400-room hotel was built in Taba. Following the 1973 Yom-Kippur War, when Egypt and Israel were negotiating the exact position of the border in preparation for the 1979 peace treaty, Israel claimed that Taba had been on the Ottoman side of a border agreed between the Ottomans and British Egypt in 1906 and had, therefore, been in error in its two previous agreements. Although most of Sinai was returned to Egypt in 1982, Taba was the last portion to be returned. After a long dispute, the issue was submitted to an international commission composed of one Israeli, one Egyptian, and three outsiders. In 1988, the commission ruled in Egypt's favour, and Israel returned Taba to Egypt in 1989. (Signing of Agreement With Israel Turns Over Last of Sinai to Egypt)

Yeah yeah, I know the story. Israel claims alot so, I stopped really caring about the claims. But the commission ruled in Egypt's favor, not just because they love Egypt, right?

Right on.

Sure.

 

[MontyB]

That's not a fact, that's an opinion. fact is that all Israeli citizens (Jew, Arab, etc) have the same constitutional right. Wether you like it or not doesn't matter. There are many court verdicts in favor of Arabs. There are Arab judges and in 2007 there even was a muslim Arab minister. So stop whining.

Indeed but it is the opinion of Israeli Jews which weighs a little higher than a Belgian-Spaniard on issues that deal with Israel and it would appear that 56% of Israelis accept that despite legal equity Muslims in Israel suffer from institutional discrimination.
As for who is whining I would suggest that we are just pointing out why they are disliked and mistrusted you are the one whining that it not right.

 

[udaka]

Fcuk the Israel, you and your people have blood of Palastines on your hands.

 

[VDKMS]

Your "Zionazi inspired homework" may be alright for you, as it is a matter of public record how they lie and distort the facts to suit themselves. I'm more interested in the known facts. None of what you have said proves the boy did not die, or even creates any doubt. You can count marks on stonework, you can lie and submit your Zionist hasbara , but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the boys death, a view generally supported outside of Israel. The simple fact that the Muhammad al Durrah cannot be found, nor any evidence of him being alive after the incident 12 years ago is good evidence that he was killed in the incident.

Well, a remarkable boy. He's brought in at the Gaza's Al-Shifra Hospital at 10 AM, (as witnessed by docter Mohammed Tawil), was filmed at the location at 2 PM with his fasther. Died at 3 PM (both witnessed by cameraman Talal Abu Rahma) and then moved his arm and looked at the camera! (witnessed by cameraman Talal Abu Rahma but cut out of the movie).
But Israel has magic bullets. They fire 400 rounds (witnessed by cameraman Talal Abu Rahma), leaving eight holes in the wall and killing both the boy and wounding his father without bloodloss.

but there's more:

Furthermore, MENA also presented images filmed on September 30, 2000, by other photojournalists and cameramen, notably from Reuters, at the same location where Mohamed Al Dura’s faked death was filmed. There was, in fact, a multitude of cameramen at the scene that day, and, rather oddly, none of them filmed the above scene, or the evacuation of the father and the child.

Moreover, a director was on the scene and war scenes, acted out by amateur performers, were being filmed at the same location that same day. Furthermore, in one of the scenes caught on film, the director says, “It’s all ruined. We have to do it all over again,” while waving his arms and coordinating the actors.

And there's a lot more:

"Jamal al Dura declared on medical records in 1992 that Palestinian militia had attacked him with axes. Doctors at Gaza’s Shifa Hospital* were able to save his life but he lost the use of his right hand because they could not repair a ruptured tendon in the forearm. " but was restored by Israeli surgeons. Probably free of charge. Dr. Yehuda was one of the surgeons.

"In March 2011, Jamal sued Dr. Yehuda for libel in a French court. The lower court in France found for al-Dura, but on Wednesday, a French Appeals Court overturned the conviction and acquitted Dr. Yehuda."

Muhammad al Durrah dead or alive? : Mohamed's wedding?
Sunday, November 18, 2007
"Last night, I reported that Hamas had arrested Jamal al-Dura, the father of Muhammed al-Dura, for involvement in a 'family brawl.' This morning, the Jerusalem Post carried an al-AP report that says that al-Dura was arrested for shooting in the air during a wedding, a long-standing 'Palestinian' tradition. Here's where things get dicey:"

Muhammed al-Dura would have been 19-20 years old at that time, the marrying age in this part of the world.

The French defamation case was definitely settled on June 26, 2013, by the French Court of Appeals: Karsenty was convicted of defamation and fined €7,000 by the Paris Court of Appeals. [6] Karsenty's version, which described the killing of young Mohammed Al Durah as "staged", was rejected by the French Court's final decision. So in view of the evidence and it's interpretation by "experts" the French court seems to support the cameraman's side of events.

You do not seem to know why the French High court ruled it that way. The court never said that the evidence and it's interpretation by "experts" seems to support the cameraman's side of events. The high court said the appeals court had overstepped its bounds in ordering France 2 to send it the rushes of the report, this is exactly the part where it was seen that the boy was still alive at the end of the film. In other words, the French Hifgh Court ruled that the parts that were cut from the film could not be used as evidence. So the evidence that the film was a fake is there but was not allowed to be used at the French High Court.

The most telling evidence to support his death being that after the insult of Israeli lies about the matter Jamal al Durrah (his father) consented to having the body exhumed for forensic testing by an independent arbiter,... the Israelis never took up the option. Because they knew it was the boy.

The boy is claimed to be buried in al-Bureiz refugee camp. I say let's dig him up.... if they can find him.

So now you are against democracy? (not surprising) Whatever story you make up, Hamas is still the legally elected government, bought into being by Israel's history of more than 40 years of murder and war crimes.

This has nothing to do with democracy but with rule of law. And no, Hamas is not the legally elected government. They won the election but didn't abide by the rules. Rule of Law in the PA gave Abbas the power to intervene which he did.

Thank you, Israel could not accept anything as no one gave them anything. You know this has all been settled before, Israel is a land of Illegal European immigrants who flooded the land of Palestine after the Brits were driven out as a result of Zionist terror campaign against the legitimate administrators of Palestine. They then started an admitted campaign of ethnic cleansing that continues to this day in direct contravention of a number of International laws.

Israel accepted the partition plan, founded the state of Israel and was recognised by the UN. Case closed.
Jews and Arabs lived all over the Palestine Mandate. We now have Israel with 1,617,000 Arabs and the PA with almost no Jews. Who's etnic cleansing you said?

Quote me a credible source stating that European Jews and their descendants have a legal "right" to occupy any part of Palestine. (or anywhere else).

Stupid question. European Jews and their descendants don't occupy anything. They emmigrated a country and immigrated into another one (it's called freedom of movement in international law). If they are allowed in, they can settle. Israel is a country recognised by the UN. The PA is not recognised yet so parts of movement are arranged between Israel and the PA. Israel presides over area C and allows its citizens to live in the settlements. Did you know that Arabs live in those settlements to?

 

[senojekips]

I cant work out whether you are an idiot or a pathological liar. Not one solitary thing you have posted shows that Mohammad al Durrah was not killed and until he is shown to be alive something the Israelis could do in a matter of days if it were true, your answers will be completely disregarded.

A great example of the feeble excuses fed to you by your controllers, is shown in your answer regarding the number of shots fired vs the number of holes found in the wall, no one implied that every shot was directed deliberately at the boy and his father. The statement was that he was killed in the crossfire (most probably deliberately, in view of the past record of IDF "accidental deaths"). It only takes one shot to do this. The very fact that there were bullet holes in the wall where they were sheltering is a credible indicator that someone was shooting at them at some stage.

No one has the "right" to enter a foreign country illegally. The European Jews were not refugees as they were quite safe where they were, so they were illegal immigrants, Freedom of movement only applies to persons doing so legally or as legitimate refugees, the Jews were not as they had no visas nor other paperwork. Don't believe me,... try just arriving in a foreign country without the correct paperwork, you will be returned to your point of origin within 24 hours.

Again you merely resort (unsuccessfully) to smoke and mirrors as you have with every other answer, all of which have been previously answered (several times).

 

[VDKMS]

Which part of that is from the book and which part is from you? Second, please tell me where you got the 260 Israeli citizens number. 5th of April, 1956 Israel kills 58 civilians. On 3rd of November, the UN reports 275 civilians killed by IDF.

In 1955 alone 260 Israeli citizens were killed by Fedayeen raids (page 43)and Egypt, which got a significant amount of new Il-28 bpmbers and MiG 15 fighters started to intrude into Israeli air space.(page 43) (sentence shortened by me, the rest was about other plane types, replacements) At that time, the IAF planes were inferior to the new Egyption ones. Israel would be helpless against a new Arab attack so they took the opportunity to fight along the British and French which guaranteed Israel's safety.(my words, but the book goes into detail on what planes and how many - The IDF/AF was not well equipped for an offensive operation. page 43.) The French gave Israel air protection. (my words). The book says: The problem was solved by the French offer of fighter cover and a squadron of Noratlas transports for the duration (page 44)
Pressure to stop the fighting was more related to the French and British than the Israelis. (it was a joint French-British operation, Israel only played a minor role in it allthough they captured a lot of Egyptian material and were responsible for the failure of the ultimatum as planned by the French and British) Israel was satisfied with the destruction of the Egyptian air force by the British and French.(Egypt lost 260 aircraft on the ground) The British got a 500 million$ US loan (my words - the book says : A run on the Sterling resulted in the need for a loan from the International Monetary Fund, in effect dominated by the US intrests. The Americans agreed to support a loan of $500 million against a ceasefire.page 54) and the Soviet leader Nicolai Bulganin had threatened to destroy London and Paris with nuclear missiles. (Air Wars and Aircraft page 54) (I left out : On the 5th November)​

So, Egyptians did stuff on their territory disliking the UN forces. Yitzhak Rabin, the Israeli army chief of staff said "I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it." General Mattityahu Peled, a member of Israel's general staff, said "the thesis according to which the danger of genocide weighed on us in June 1967, and that Israel struggled for its physical existence is only a bluff born and developed after the war." The UN forces were stationed along the border between Egypt and Israel following the 1956 war. Israel refused the stationing of UN troops on its soil, while Egypt accepted them. Egyptians had the right to withdraw them at any point. Speaking of the belli of sorts, if you're going to put law as your tool here then, accept the fact that also according to the UN law, all territories seized after the 1967 war are occupied territories making Israel an aggressor.

casus belli is not a law but a Latin expression meaning the justification for acts of war.
About the occupied territories, it is more complex than that:

Article 43 of The Hague Regulations and Peace Operations

“The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.”

1 There was no legitimate power in the West Bank nor in Gaza in 1967. Jordan’s attempt to annex the West Bank in 1950 had only been recognized by Great Britain and Pakistan and this position remained unchanged until its loss to Israel in 1967. Jordan may have been an occupying power. It certainly was not a legitimate power.

2 The West Bank was not a “country” or recognized as part of a country in 1967. Its legal status then was—and still is—part of the 6% of land contained in the Mandate for Palestine still remaining unallocated pursuant to the provisions of the Mandate and the UN Charter.

3 Article 43 does not mention—nor can it be reasonably interpreted as including—any obligation to “re-establish and maintain civil life for the benefit of the occupied population”

You have [...] up there, I would like to humbly ask what they stand for...second thing, there were 2 targets, cool, 1 was in 18 December 1969? As in 5 months before what we were talking about, I don't see where they are related. Third thing, let's say we'll agree on the military targets behind civilians thing, your source claims in many cases. Since we're speaking of 1 case which is the 8th of April incident, do you have valid proof that the school was somehow hiding a military base?

the [...] was in the link of Wikipedia. The book is where Wikipedia got it from. So I don't know what sentences or pages were left out.
From 7 januari to 13 april 1970 Israel flew 3.300 sorties dropping 8.000 lbs of ordanance on Egypt. Do you think that if Israel deliberately target civilians and schools they fly 3.299 "fake" missions to get one out? This was clearly a mistake.

Honestly, how many buffers does Israel need? They had the entire Sinai as a buffer zone yet, they care so much about the half of the canal? The 100 meters? That gives a lot of security right there. And I have never denied the settlements being dismantled, I was basically basing an argument as they intended to stay in the Sinai. What made them leave it, I wonder?

Israel left because security was guaranteed in the peace treaty. And up until recently it worked. Did Israel attacked Egypt since the peace treaty? No! Only recently there were a few retaliatory strikes against jihadists because they take advantage of the situation where the military is more occupied with restoring law and order in Egypt. What would you do if your country is being attacked relentlessly from its founding up until today? Both by regular armies and Jihadists. When a country says it is going to wipe you of the map. With a government that has in its covenant not only the destruction of Israel but also the killing of the Jews. An international community and media that cries foul when Israel makes a mistake but is silent when a Jihadist blows himsel up in a restaurant full of innocent civilians. May I remind you that suicide missions are very carefully planned? That a female(!) Palestinian terrorist smiled upon hearing that she caused death of 8 children.
yes, Israel needs safety buffers.

Yeah yeah, I know the story. Israel claims alot so, I stopped really caring about the claims. But the commission ruled in Egypt's favor, not just because they love Egypt, right?

Israel accepted the commission's verdict didn't they? Israel claims are mostly well-founded. What have the Islamic Arabs achieved by attacking the Jews for almost 100 years? They didn't stop an Israeli state, they refused their part of the partition plan, their economy, education and technology is behind that of Israel and now they are fighting each other in an Arab Spring or civil war. The difference is that Israel solves its problems and the Arab states blames it problems on someone else, starting with Israel and the US. Iran even blamed bad weather on the West!

Fcuk the Israel, you and your people have blood of Palastines on your hands.

If the Palestinians wouldn't have attacked Israel and the Jews there wouldn't be any blood.

 

[VDKMS]

I cant work out whether you are an idiot or a pathological liar. Not one solitary thing you have posted shows that Mohammad al Durrah was not killed and until he is shown to be alive something the Israelis could do in a matter of days if it were true, your answers will be completely disregarded.

You're just talking nonsens. Every one knows that a dead person cannot lift its arms and look at the camera.

Israel cannot show that in a matter of days because it has no jurisdiction in Gaza, and you know that and Hamas knows that.

A great example of the feeble excuses fed to you by your controllers, is shown in your answer regarding the number of shots fired vs the number of holes found in the wall, no one implied that every shot was directed deliberately at the boy and his father. The statement was that he was killed in the crossfire (most probably deliberately, in view of the past record of IDF "accidental deaths"). It only takes one shot to do this. The very fact that there were bullet holes in the wall where they were sheltering is a credible indicator that someone was shooting at them at some stage.

There were no shots fired deliberately at the boy and his father because it was faked. It was not the only scene that was faked. If you get shot you bleed. No blood is to be seen.

No one has the "right" to enter a foreign country illegally. The European Jews were not refugees as they were quite safe where they were, so they were illegal immigrants, Freedom of movement only applies to persons doing so legally or as legitimate refugees, the Jews were not as they had no visas nor other paperwork. Don't believe me,... try just arriving in a foreign country without the correct paperwork, you will be returned to your point of origin within 24 hours.

I don't believe you. Ask the hikers who strayed into Iran, they were put in jail. The European Union is full of people who illegally entered. Once they are on European ground they cannot be forced to go back without investigating that they can stay. That investigation can take months. In Belgium they were even staying in hotels because there were not enough places for illegal immigrants.

From the latter half of the 19th century and early 20th century some 25.000 jews immigrated into the Ottoman empire, together with ....over 1 million muslims who came from the Balkans and Russia. That is exclusive the muslims who came from Arab countries.

The palestine mandate gave the Jews a homeland. Other mandates gave the Arabs lebanon, Syria , Iraq and later Trans-Jordan. The Palestine Mandate gave politcal rights only to the Jews. Then came the partition plan accepted by the Jews and refused by the Arabs. The partition plan (a recommendation) died but the mandate survived (article 80 of the UN charter and ICJ advisory opinion). Since the mandate survived the West Bank and Gaza belongs to the Jews.

Again you merely resort (unsuccessfully) to smoke and mirrors as you have with every other answer, all of which have been previously answered (several times).

It is time for you to distinguish facts from smoke and mirrors.

en zet die ploat af!

 

[senojekips]

You're just talking nonsens. Every one knows that a dead person cannot lift its arms and look at the camera.

"You're just talking nonsens." (sic.)...... and everyone knows that you've already been told several times, that there was NEVER any claim that he was dead at that time.

(1). Israel is still unable to produce Mohammad al Durrah.
(2). Israel never took up the offer of his father to have the body exhumed and independently forensically tested, because they KNEW he was killed by their troops.

The palestine mandate gave the Jews a homeland.

Already shown to be false many times, Palestine was SUGGESTED as the site for a Jewish homeland as were Canada, Kenya and even Tasmania. This suggestion was never ratified as it contravened the obligation of the league of Nations to oversee the administration of the land in the interests of it's people until they could take over.

You are as usual just making up your story as you go along.

Bye, bye idiot.

 

[ScarabVenom]

In 1955 alone 260 Israeli citizens were killed by Fedayeen raids (page 43)
​

Got proof that those Fedayeens were Egyptians? Yeah, maybe they were in Gaza, but they're still Palestinians.

and Egypt, which got a significant amount of new Il-28 bpmbers and MiG 15 fighters started to intrude into Israeli air space.(page 43)

​

Well, we intruded their airspace, big crime. They steal our Sinai; self-defense.

At that time, the IAF planes were inferior to the new Egyption ones. Israel would be helpless against a new Arab attack so they took the opportunity to fight along the British and French which guaranteed Israel's safety.(my words, but the book goes into detail on what planes and how many - The IDF/AF was not well equipped for an offensive operation)

The IAF wasn't equipped for an offensive, sure, but I assume they were equipped for defense right? So supposedly, they could defend themselves when they're attacked.

The French gave Israel air protection.The book says: The problem was solved by the French offer of fighter cover and a squadron of Noratlas transports for the duration
Pressure to stop the fighting was more related to the French and British than the Israelis. (it was a joint French-British operation, Israel only played a minor role in it allthough

I agree with that, but still, even a minor role, they were a part of it. I can't care less about who did the damage. Whoever was a part of it, is to be blamed.

they captured a lot of Egyptian material and were responsible for the failure of the ultimatum as planned by the French and British) Israel was satisfied with the destruction of the Egyptian air force by the British and French.(Egypt lost 260 aircraft on the ground) The British got a 500 million$ US loan (my words - the book says : A run on the Sterling resulted in the need for a loan from the International Monetary Fund, in effect dominated by the US intrests. The Americans agreed to support a loan of $500 million against a ceasefire.page 54) and the Soviet leader Nicolai Bulganin had threatened to destroy London and Paris with nuclear missiles. (Air Wars and Aircraft page 54) (I left out : On the 5th November)

Yeah, sure, the political situation was favorable to Egypt because Egypt wasn't the aggressor at the end.
​

casus belli is not a law but a Latin expression meaning the justification for acts of war.
About the occupied territories, it is more complex than that:

Article 43 of The Hague Regulations and Peace Operations

“The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.”

1 There was no legitimate power in the West Bank nor in Gaza in 1967. Jordan’s attempt to annex the West Bank in 1950 had only been recognized by Great Britain and Pakistan and this position remained unchanged until its loss to Israel in 1967. Jordan may have been an occupying power. It certainly was not a legitimate power.

2 The West Bank was not a “country” or recognized as part of a country in 1967. Its legal status then was—and still is—part of the 6% of land contained in the Mandate for Palestine still remaining unallocated pursuant to the provisions of the Mandate and the UN Charter.

3 Article 43 does not mention—nor can it be reasonably interpreted as including—any obligation to “re-establish and maintain civil life for the benefit of the occupied population”

You got some interesting stuff up there but, that's for Palestine which is not really my area so, you got the other members to discuss this with. I was talking about the Sinai who had a legitimate power over it and recognized as part of a country. So your arguments are invalid for the Sinai.

the [...] was in the link of Wikipedia. The book is where Wikipedia got it from. So I don't know what sentences or pages were left out.

Copying from Wikipedia now? Since Wikipedia tends to be biased towards Israel now, I'm more curious about the [...] and your source isn't complete so, it can't be accepted.

From 7 januari to 13 april 1970 Israel flew 3.300 sorties dropping 8.000 lbs of ordanance on Egypt. Do you think that if Israel deliberately target civilians and schools they fly 3.299 "fake" missions to get one out? This was clearly a mistake.

We have talked about this before and I do know that they claim it being a mistake. What you said before was basically the school hiding a military target behind it and that wasn't the case so, now you're on track claiming that it's a mistake. I will tell you this regarding that, mistakes can be understandable but doesn't have to be acceptable. Israel is still responsible and whatever intelligence provided them with this false information is also held accountable. Was any of those responsible taken to justice?

Israel left because security was guaranteed in the peace treaty. And up until recently it worked. Did Israel attack Egypt since the peace treaty?

Not because they were defeated in the war before then, huh? Did Israel kill Egyptians on Egyptian territory after the peace treaty? Yes,
Since I had this character limit coming up, I can't copy what I said in the other thread and excuse me for cutting from your quotes.

http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/egypts-situation-israel-present-past-t98321.html

What would you do if your country is being attacked relentlessly from its founding up until today?

If statements usually aren't a part of reality so, that doesn't apply here. But, if my country occupies other nation's territories and claim to have an invincible army then gets attacked constantly, I'd blame my government.

Both by regular armies and Jihadists. When a country says it is going to wipe you of the map. With a government that has in its covenant not only the destruction of Israel but also the killing of the Jews.

I don't recall any wars Egypt started to kill all Jews neither the annihilation of Israel. Maybe the 1948 war, but that's a whole different story and the reasons why Egypt attacked them were discussed with you before.

An international community and media that cries foul when Israel makes a mistake but is silent when a Jihadist blows himsel up in a restaurant full of innocent civilians.

I thought it's the other way around? I thought anybody who opposes Israel is an anti-semitic while anybody who opposes jihadists is a patriot.

May I remind you that suicide missions are very carefully planned? That a female(!) Palestinian terrorist smiled upon hearing that she caused death of 8 children.

Well, sorry to hear that and I don't like anyone who enjoys the death of others regarding who the "others" are. Yet, you're sympathizing using Palestinian actions which is not our topic of discussion, I'd be more interested when you say that to the other members who are more into the Palestine/Israel topic.

yes, Israel needs safety buffers.

So although they had the entire Sinai as a "buffer" half of the Suez canal which is only a 100 meters is that important?? If Egypt bordered an Ocean and they wanted half of that as a buffer zone I would be more understanding. Israel just made an attempt to have a hold of the Suez canal, accept it or not. Nazi Germany wanted the Suez canal, that's why they attacked Egypt on 1943 but they were pushed away; Battle of El-Alamein. The British kept the Suez canal even after the declaration of the republic and when we took our canal back, they waged war against us. Same for Israel, the canal is important and they wanted whatever they thought they could have from it.

Israel accepted the commission's verdict didn't they? Israel claims are mostly well-founded. What have the Islamic Arabs achieved by attacking the Jews for almost 100 years?

Ask the Arabs but, knowing how Israel works, I might have a hint.

They didn't stop an Israeli state, they refused their part of the partition plan, their economy, education and technology is behind that of Israel and now they are fighting each other in an Arab Spring or civil war.

That goes more to who owns the land historically which isn't our topic. Second thing, the Arab Spring is their business not Israel's. The masses are trying to free themselves from dictatorship and picking their leaders, shouldn't be Israel's problem.

The difference is that Israel solves its problems and the Arab states blames it problems on someone else, starting with Israel and the US. Iran even blamed bad weather on the West!

I'd like to see how Israel solves their political problem and the settlements. Also how they will get the world and the UN to not recognize them as an occupational force. Yet, Israel doesn't also come up and keep saying "Oh, we need buffer zones because all our problems come from the Arabs?" "We built a second Berlin wall so we can keep the Palestinian terrorists away" When Israel says that it just gets ignored by you, eh?

If the Palestinians wouldn't have attacked Israel and the Jews there wouldn't be any blood.

Could be, or maybe if the Jews didn't come from Europe to what was the British Mandate of Palestine there wouldn't be any blood either? Not our topic again, but, I'll say something, I read somewhere that Muslims and Jews lived peacefully during the mandate and they used to babysit each others and stuff like that.

 

[udaka]

What is wrong with people who support the Israeli here?

Jews went to the land of others race and found their countries, built a cowhouse fenced the Palestinians , are not Palestinians innocent?

 

[VDKMS]

"You're just talking nonsens." (sic.)...... and everyone knows that you've already been told several times, that there was NEVER any claim that he was dead at that time.

NEVER ?

From your beloved The Guardian:

Moments later, Mohammed is dead and his father severely wounded

Or what about this (from The Independent) : "...Abu Rahma, the freelance cameraman who shot the scene, of lying when he told an investigation a month after the incident that, “I can confirm that the child was intentionally and in cold blood shot dead and his father injured by the Israeli army.” ..."

Look very good at the picture. The father is severely wounded yet no bulletholes nor any blood is to be seen. It is FAKE

They said the child died of a abdominal wound. (the boy's abdominal organs had been expelled and were lying outside his body) Do you know what seppuku is? The kaishaku (decapitation)is performed to relieve the samurai from his suffering. Most of the time the kaishaku was performed immediately after or sometimes before the samurai plunges his sword into his abdomen. This was done because the pain of a abdominal wound is unbearable. Yet the child lies there as if nothing happend. No blood. No screaming. No spasmodic movements because of the pain. It is FAKE

(1). Israel is still unable to produce Mohammad al Durrah.

He propably married in 2007. Why don't they come forward with that person so they show that Israel is wrong?

(2). Israel never took up the offer of his father to have the body exhumed and independently forensically tested, because they KNEW he was killed by their troops.

How naive can you be? Hamas will never allow Israeli investigators to dig up the body and Jamal al-Durrah knows it.
BTW why don't the Palestinians do it?

Already shown to be false many times, Palestine was SUGGESTED as the site for a Jewish homeland as were Canada, Kenya and even Tasmania. This suggestion was never ratified as it contravened the obligation of the league of Nations to oversee the administration of the land in the interests of it's people until they could take over.

How stupid can you be?

The Palestine Mandate

"...the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty..."​

declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917

"...the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people..."​

You are as usual just making up your story as you go along.

“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.”
― Abraham Lincoln

Bye, bye idiot.

CU

PS: new facts comming up soon! Get your sedatives ready.

 

[senojekips]

---snip--
CU

PS: new facts comming up soon! Get your sedatives ready.

What,... you mean that the Israeli 432nd. Hasbara Corps are still busy fabricating "evidence" in this long settled case?

The facts as they stand, are known. So unless the Israelis have found and can produce Mohammad al Durrah nothing will change, and even IF he was produced, it will not change a thing. The Israelis are still a murderous occupying force who like to create terror among those who resist, by their persistent over reaction and deliberate murder of non Jews. (e.g. Rachel Corrie)... I guess you are also going to tell us that there's new evidence she's alive and well also, living incognito on the French Riviera?

You realise that this new "evidence" will need to be corroborated by credible non pro Zionazi sources if it is to be believed.

To be absolutely honest, with your past record, I wouldn't believe you if you told me the Pope was a Catholic.