The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Life in the terror zone > Comments

Life in the terror zone : Comments

By Danny Lamm, published 9/2/2007

How can Israel be expected to make peace with a people who are so divided and sustained by violence?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All
"...denying them the most basic of human rights as enshrined in the Geneva Convention"
I'm sorry doesn't the Geneva convention also state from Article 49 that "The occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies", which is occurring in the form of illegal settlements?.
There is much more depth and history to the conflict than the use of a few incidents as a means to describe whats really happening over there.
"Zionist colonisation must either stop of proceed regardless of the native population. Which means that it can proceed and develop only under the protection of a power that is independent of the native population behind an iron wall, which the native population cannot breach"
(Vladimir Jabotinsky, father of Zionist right)
No amount of rationalisation can refute that fact
"commendable policy of restraint" indeed...
Posted by peachy, Friday, 9 February 2007 10:27:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Geneva convetions are not the pertinent rules in this case. The pertinent ruling relating to the Israeli capture of territories in 1967 is the UN Security Council resolution 242. The most controversial clause in Resolution 242 is the call for the "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict." This is linked to the clause calling for "termination of all claims or states of belligerency" and the recognition that "every State in the area" has the "right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."

Under the resolution Israel is not required to withdraw before the Arabs terminate beligerency, nor does it specify how much territory Israel needs to give up.It did not say Israel must withdraw from "all the" territories occupied after the war. This was deliberate. The Soviets wanted the inclusion of those words holding that their exclusion meant "that part of these territories can remain in Israeli hands." The Arab states tried to include the word "all", but this was rejected. The British Ambassador who drafted the approved resolution, Lord Caradon, said after the vote: "It is only the resolution that will bind us, and we regard its wording as clear."

This interpretation was repeatedly declared to be the correct one by those involved in drafting the resolution. On October 29, 1969, for example, the British Foreign Secretary told the House of Commons the withdrawal noted in the resolution would not be from "all the territories." When asked to explain the British position later, Lord Caradon said: "It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial."

Israel has already withdrawn from the Sinai Peninsula nearly two decades ago and in 2005 she unilaterally withdrew from Gaza. By withdrawing from those territories, Israel fully adhered to and complied with the resolution. Therefore the occupation of the West bank is not illegal according to International Law.
Posted by ramir, Saturday, 10 February 2007 12:21:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peachy's comments that :- There is much more depth and history to the conflict than the use of a few incidents as a means to describe what's really happening over there is quite correct and the history of conflict associated with this region goes back to when the Persian Government was surreptitiously removed by all of the alleged allies who supported the creation of the new puppet government in the country now known as Iran. The West as we know it and other nations, who were involved with the Sykes-Picot Agreement and its substitutes, created these problems a long time ago and they now have to deal with the consequences. The new PERSIAN Embassy about to be established in Australia will also add to the international problems as the only direct living descendant of the Persian King Soltan Ahmad Shah Qajar has survived the attempts on his life in the Middle East and the many attempts to assassinate him in Australia and this has become a serious problem for our illustrious leader little Jonny. Don't bother attempting to get anything out of the media as they have been paid to suppress all knowledge and information on this particular subject for many years.
Posted by Young Dan, Saturday, 10 February 2007 1:19:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This site provides a very interesting perspective on the Israel vs Palestine conflict.1. www.ifamericaknew.org
Posted by Ho Hum, Saturday, 10 February 2007 9:24:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ramir

Firstly, your logical argument re the illegal possession of nuclear arms would backfire if the future state of Palestine didn’t ratify the Nuclear Non - Proliferation Treaty.

Secondly, Both Israel and Palestine were mandated by the UN in 1948. Of the land allocated to the Palestinians, Israel has occupied all of it, claimed and/or made attempts to claim all but 22% of that Palestinian allocation.

Thirdly you make no reference to the conditions under which Irsaeli Arabs citizen live and of course you’d shudder at the following words:

"I support compulsory transfer. I do not see in it anything immoral ... The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war."

No you wouldn’t ! But if the word Arab was replaced by Jew and the statement was made by an Arab you’d be up in arms and screeching bloody blue murder.

Fourthly, it is a bit rich for you to criticise Australia’s treatment of the Indigenous Australians, either historically or its current practises. At least we as a community have taken some steps to rectifying the wrongs. Many of us consider those steps far too small and insufficient. Our governments, State and Federal, are cognisant of the fact the greater Australian population would react unfavourably to any attempt to impose any sort of restriction on discrimination against our Indigenous peoples.

Now let’s compare that attitude with Israel’s current ongoing discriminatory treatment of it’s 120,000 indigenous Bedouin. (Try some % as a comparison. Australia’s Indigenous population is approx 400,000 and our population 20mill. Israel’s population is?) That treatment verge’s on outright ethnic cleansing and has many of the characteristics of the ancient pogroms of Eastern Europe.
Posted by keith, Saturday, 10 February 2007 1:39:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont

Prior to ’48 there were approximately 30,000acres used by the Bedouin? Today they exist on 600 acres. They earned their livelihood from grazing livestock.
Their traditional lands have been confiscated by the Israeli Government and allocated to Israel’s Jewish citizens (as opposed to other religious or ethnic groups) by the Israeli Land Authority.
Little or no compensation has been paid.

Of the120,000 Bedouin roughly 60,000 have been confined to townships, the remainder continue in their traditional accommodation, tents.
Those leading the traditional Bedouin lifestyle receive no Government funding whatsoever and their flock size, access to land and water severely restricted. Attacks by Government organisations on their flocks, homes and whole existence continue.
Those Bedouin who live in the townships are also discriminated against in many ways. Here are some statistics.
23% teaching staff in Bedouin schools ere unqualified (1998)
57% of Bedouin students dropped out of school before 12th grade (1997)
9.6% of Bedouin students passed their Bagrut school matriculation exams (1998)
Three out of ten Bedouin women receive no pre-natal care (1998)

Most of my info comes from the following website

http://www.jfjfp.org/factsheets/arabsinisrael.htm

What was that about a kettle and a pot…

And finally the Yanks to their great credit forced Israel to make peace and return all of Sinai to Egypt and that was only after the Egyptian Sadat had ‘whipped’ the Israeli war machine and then extended the hand of peace. That unilateral withdrawal from Gaza is a joke. It lasted but a few weeks with Israel invading and re-occupying several times since. You’ve simply provided another disgraceful example of Orwellian linguistics and the mudding effects of propaganda
Posted by keith, Saturday, 10 February 2007 1:39:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy