Someone acting in selfdefense normally don´t kill civilians outside of their own territory, it also shows that Israel doesn´t care any more about killing than the Palestinians.
This has to be the most ignorant statement I have ever heard in regards to this situation. Suicide bombing, armed gunman attacking children's birthday parties, blatant attacks against civilians
or other forms of terrorism is not a normal act that you can defend yourself against.
Let's see what some of the US leaders have to say about this situation;
Donald H. Rumsfeld - I think that any time people are doing suicide bombings and blowing up your people at bus stops and in restaurants, you certainly cannot sit there and tolerate that.
Colin L. Powell - I think when you are attacked by a terrorist and you know who the terrorist is, and you can fingerprint back to the cause of the terror, you should respond.
Condoleezza Rice - The violence against innocent civilians is really senseless and it just shouldn't continue and were working every day with the parties to try and lower the level of violence.
Dick Cheney - If you've got an organization that has plotted or is plotting some kind of suicide bomber attack, for example, and they have hard evidence of who it is and where they're located, I think there's some justification in their trying to protect themselves by preempting.
If you knew that someone was going to make an attempt at your families lives, you are telling me that you would do nothing.
>"Can you link some specifics in this case, so I know what your argument is here"<
It´s IRRELEVANT that Israel is stealing the best parts of the Palestinian lands?
Now you are getting stupid in the extreme.
I was asking for a clear argument in relation to the half-assed comments you had previously blurted out.
1 - I asked for linkage, I received a totally pointless, asinine comment. Your originality is inspiring.
2 - You appear to state that Israel should only take land that has no meaning to the Palestinians. Again I will ask for linkage to backup your original claim that Israel is still annexing Palestinian lands, (recently) rather than just bulldozing houses.
No but they seem to be the only side that you have listened to
How trite, by employing your logic then, I would guess that you are listening only to the Palestine side. Make a list of the attacks against civilians
by those in Palestine and Israel. I can guarantee that the list is much longer in the Palestine section. I have already stated (numerous times) that Israel is not the only guilty party in this matter, but if you continue to push your Palestinian apologetics I will respond in like mind for the Israeli side.
You don´t get the point, every time they DO TRY to make things more peacful there is always some hotheaded Israeli soldier, fanatic Palestinian, fanatic Israeli "settler"(occupant), or in some cases PURE accidents that makes something explode or a few shots fired
How often does Israel bulldoze Palestinian homes, "pre-emptive assassinate", kill civilians or some other atrocity without provocation? Not very often, it has happened, yes, but it is in the minority of Israeli actions. How often do the Palestinians (fanatics if you will) like the PLO, HAMAS, PFLP or any of the other known terrorist factions within the Arab community, commit atrocious actions? The Palestinians are even repulsive enough to train their children to kill Jews.
So to answer you question, I do get the point, it's just a shame that you're blinded by your own ignorance, and as a result, you yourself fail to get the point.
and since Sharon took over, any such happening instantly makes the Israeli army go back to "shoot anyone on sight",
Can you link an official statement from Israel or even a Humanitarian website that declares that Israel has a shoot on sight policy against Arabs? I am unaware of such a policy.
Meanwhile, the Israelis complain about how the Palestinians should restrain their fanatics, then go about attacking the little in way of police forces that the Palestinians does have. That is utterly stupid. You don´t demand someone to sit up straight just after you killed them.
What purpose do these police stations actually serve? It is fairly common place for the Palestinians to release terrorists
shortly after they have been arrested. In light of these practices, along with the fact that the police have done nothing against the known terrorist factions, one would wonder about the usage of these places themselves.
The Israelis in the current government don´t want any negotiations at all; heard the recent proposal of building wall around all the palestinian areas? Yea that sure sounds like someone wanting to talk peace....
If the Israeli government didn't want peace, I would suspect that there would be very few Palestinians around to complain. Israel would have eliminated the threat a long time ago. Instead they restrain themselves from the barbaric acts of aggression that the Palestinians have resorted to. From day one it has been the same thing, "we don't want you here".
Most of what was stated in media about that was not true, ask one of the Palestinians what they WERE offered, the answer wont be what the news said they were offered
Huh??, You honestly think that the average Palestinian knows what they were offered, I doubt it. Judging by what you say, I have my doubts about what you know about the peace plan.
Here are a couple of quotes:
The results of the Camp David summit posed a serious problem for Yasser Arafat. Barak's conditional acceptance of the Clinton proposals juxtaposed against Arafat's total rejection of the American plan created a strong impression in the international community that the Palestinians were responsible for the failure of Camp David. As a result, as Arafat, after Camp David, sought international support for a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state, he discovered that major powers in the international system, including France, were not prepared to assure him that they would recognize a unilaterally declared Palestinian state. Realizing the need to reverse international sympathy away from Israel, back to the Palestinians, the Palestinian Authority began preparing for a renewal of violence against Israel, which would put supposedly unarmed civilians against armed Israeli soldiers - like the Intifada of 1987.
Neither Israel nor the Palestinians fully accepted the Clinton Plan; indeed, the Palestinian position was closer to outright rejection.
Despite the unprecedented concessions offered by Prime Minister Ehud Barak regarding Jerusalem, especially in comparison with every preceding Israeli prime minister since 1967, the PLO did not offer any corresponding readiness to compromise on territorial matters. Generally, Yasser Arafat insisted on receiving 100 percent of the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip.
Also, even if it had been 100% true, Israel would still have kept most of the arable lands INSIDE the palestinian areas due to their "settlers".
What you don´t understand here is that those 5% represents that 70 or so % arable land; that is what is a BIG thing, the Israelis want to keep the small pieces of good land while giving the Palestinians the parts less useful.
VERY FAIR, isn´t it?
*sigh* Again, because you like to randomly pull facts out of your ass, please give some linkage to back your claim(s) up.
As I SAID!!!!!!, I wasn´t talking about land taken in the wars!!!!! READ THE DAMN LINES YOUR REPLYING TO.
Israel has not made it a habit to annex land whenever it feels like it. (please include links if you are asserting otherwise
) Israel is now larger than resolution 181 called for, why? Israel is now larger than they were in 67, why?
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jaraxle on 2002-03-17 19:42 ]</font>