Why Does Israel Target Civilian Water Infrastructure?

[ThomasT]

The remainder of 3b4 authorises expulsion from and destruction of the village if there is resistance from it.

It also authorises, for a separate category of villages which are "population centers which are difficult to control continuously", expulsion from and destruction of the village even without resistance.

Thanks for the links. The above seems to reinforce the view that the Zionists were invaders engaging in a sort of ethnic cleansing and, indirectly, that the Arab forces were dispatched to protect and defend the indigenous people against what was authorized in Plan Dalet.

 

[tiny-tim]

Thanks for the links. The above seems to reinforce the view that the Zionists were invaders engaging in a sort of ethnic cleansing and, indirectly, that the Arab forces were dispatched to protect and defend the indigenous people against what was authorized in Plan Dalet.

"Invaders"? They were allocated land by the United Nations General Assembly in 1947/8, and it was the neighbouring Arab countries who broke the United Nations charter by invading.

I think you need to read the links first.

You'll find that from the 1920s to 1948 there had been widespread murder of Jews, in the hope of driving them out, the Jews had retaliated, and by 1948 had formed a regular army (the Haganah) and adopted a defensive strategy designed to allow Arabs to remain (as indeed a huge number did).

As wikipedia points out: according to most historians, Plan Dalet was "primarily defensive in nature" … see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Dalet

 

[ThomasT]

"Invaders"? They were allocated land by the United Nations General Assembly in 1947/8, and it was the neighbouring Arab countries who broke the United Nations charter by invading.

I'm not interested in 'legality' per se (eg., eminent domain is often abused in this country), but, rather, to form an opinion (based on learning the truth as best I can) of whether or not the establishment of the state of Israel in Palestine was morally justifiable, and whether or not the expulsion of indigenous people was an integral part of the Zionist agenda.

I think you need to read the links first.

Yes, thanks again, I'm in the process.

You'll find that from the 1920s to 1948 there had been widespread murder of Jews, in the hope of driving them out, the Jews had retaliated, and by 1948 had formed a regular army (the Haganah) and adopted a defensive strategy designed to allow Arabs to remain (as indeed a huge number did).

There's been a lot of killing by both sides. It's the context that matters, and I aim to find the truth of that.

As wikipedia points out: according to most historians, Plan Dalet was "primarily defensive in nature" … see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Dalet

The parts you quoted and paraphrased (having to do with takeover and destruction of villages and population centers) seemed pretty aggressive to me. The thing is, if the Zionists had no moral right to that land, or those villages or homes, then they would be 'defending' something which they had, to put it bluntly, stolen. And, if that was the case, then any subsequent atrocities by either side are attributable to that primary cause.

But, as I've said, I don't know enough yet to have an opinion about the truth of the matter.

I have a question. I remember watching an interview (on PBS I think, but I wasn't able to find it on their website, so maybe not) with a woman doctor (I don't remember her name), a child in the late 1940's living in Palestine with her family during the formation of Israel and the Palestinian exodus. She wrote a book about it and I can't remember the title. Do you (or anyone else) know what I'm referring to?

 

[mheslep]

I wouldn't put Fisk in the same category as Pappé, who is criticized along with other so-called 'New Historians' as anti-Zionist.

See also - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Historians

It is important when reading any historical book to know the perspectives and prejudices/biases of the author. While Fisk's book, The Great War for Civilisation, is dense, it does apparently contain factual errors as highlighted in Efraim Karsh's criticism of the book in the article http://www.aijac.org.au/review/2006/31-3/biblio31-3.htm .



Another criticism of Fisk's book - http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/19/books/review/19bron.html

One should also be familiar with Fisk and Karsh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Fisk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efraim_Karsh

It would be worthwhile to also read Karsh's Islamic Imperialism: A History (Yale University Press, 2006) and Empires of the Sand: The Struggle for Mastery in the Middle East, 1789-1922 (Harvard University Press, 1999; with *Inari Karsh).

...

Thanks for scholarly references here, nice post.

 

[mheslep]

Before throwing around terms like indigenous here, it would help to have some idea of the actual demographics of Palestine in the British and Ottoman periods. Keep in mind that, most likely, in 1945 Palestine already contained roughly 600k Jews and more than one million Moslems, Jews having immigrated since ~1880, but in significant numbers under the British mandate. The Arab population also grew significantly during the British period. The city of Jerusalem (not the district) actually had a Jewish majority for some time prior to WWII.
Source:
http://www.mideastweb.org/palpop.htm

 

[kyleb]

They were allocated land by the United Nations General Assembly in 1947/8...

This seems like an inconsistency with your previous arguments. Is it that you do believe UN General Assembly resolutions confer rights for Jews, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=293065&page=7"?

Regardless, while the partition plan did allocate land to establish Israel, it didn't allocate any right drive anyone out of their homes, let alone the hundreds of thousands of people who were driven out if not killed in the months prior to the Arab nations attacking, and calling that ethnic cleansing defensive does nothing to change what it is. Furthermore, militant Zionists committed their own share of murders in the decades before, one notable example being the 1924 murder of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Isra%C3%ABl_de_Haan" , and how they went on to become Likud, the party of Israel's incoming Prime Minster. So, arguably they have the whole Middle East under their gun now, though obviously just Palestine under direct control.

Before throwing around terms like indigenous here...

If you want to dispute the use of the term, you are going to have to look at demographics prior to 1945, count Christian Arabs too, and look at the immigration compared to natural growth, and land ownership statistics as well. Scans of a compilation of British Mandate period records can be found http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Books/Story831.html" , and if you care to look though that, along with the rest of history, you'll find the term indigenous fits Palestinians like a glove.

The city of Jerusalem (not the district) actually had a Jewish majority for some time prior to WWII.

Back then the city of Jerusalem had far smaller boundaries, which Israel has expanded greatly over the decades to what would have shifted that statistic in favor of Arabs at the time. On that note, one should consider the fact that http://domino.un.org/maps/m0094.jpg" .

 

[turbo]

If you want to dispute the use of the term, you are going to have to look at demographics prior to 1945, count Christian Arabs too, and look at the immigration compared to natural growth, and land ownership statistics as well.

It is worth noting that George Mitchell, Obama's ME envoy is of mixed heritage - Irish and Lebanese. There is a vibrant community of Lebanese Christians in central Maine, and they hold positions of prominence in commerce, law, local governance, etc. Mitchell is well-regarded for his efforts in negotiating the Northern Ireland truce, but I fear that dealing with Israel will be an impossible task because their government is so fractious and they have a long history of moving the goalposts.

If Israel truly wants peace, they should offer to withdraw from the West Bank and give up enough territory (even a narrow corridor) to allow for a contiguous Palestine (Gaza and West Bank). Such a proposal would pull the teeth of Palestinian militants and put them out of power. I see little prospect for this, because there is a very vocal faction in Israel that demands that Israel control Jerusalem. Livni has stated publicly that Israeli settlers are the major obstacle to peace with the Palestinians, but that is of little real value. She is Likud with lipstick.

 

[tiny-tim]

Jewish majority in Jerusalem

The city of Jerusalem (not the district) actually had a Jewish majority for some time prior to WWII.
Source:
http://www.mideastweb.org/palpop.htm

You mean WWI … that reference actually says "about 1896"

There's also an 1853 book by Cesar Famin "L'Histoire de la rivalite et du protectorat des Eglises chretiennes en Orient" (Paris: Firmin Didot freres), which puts the majority back to at least 1853 …

from the title, the author is primarily interested in Christianity (des Eglises chretienne) in the middle east, so there is no reason to believe he would have inflated the Jewish figure …

this extract from Famin is from a blog … http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2006/03/jewish-majority-in-jerusalem-in-1853.html … presumably a biased blogger, but it does seem to be an exact quotation from page 49 of the book (the book isn't on books.google.com) …

"The sedentary population of Jerusalem is about 15,500 souls:"
"La population sedentaire de Jerusalem est d'environ 15,500 ames:"
Jews . . . 8,000 . . . Juifs
Muslims . .4,000 . . . Musulmans
Christians 3,490 . . . Chretiens
- - - - - - -------
. . . . . . . 15,490

There is confirmation of this (though not the exact figures) on http://books.google.com/books?id=95...s++jerusalem+-famine&client=safari#PPA362,M1" by Julius Carlebach (1977) which although not quoting from p.49, does quote these two extracts from pp.50&51 of Famin's book:

The Moslems who constitute approximately a quarter of the inhabitants of Jerusalem …

… the Jews in themselves constitute over half the population of the holy city.

The same blogger in http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/09/jerusalem-population-in-19th-century.html" also quotes the figures from two books by French and Arab authors giving Jewish majorities in 1872 and 1874 (and a French book based on the Prussian consul's figures on 1858 showing a Jewish minority)

Of course, there has been a joint Christian-Jewish majority in the city of Jerusalem since well before 1800 (sorry, I have no link for this ).

 

[kyleb]

Yet the Christian community wanted not part an Jewish state, nor did the Jewish community of the time. And again, what was called Jerusalem back then is only a small portion of what is called Jerusalem today, and the latter long had an Arab majority.

And yeah, Turbo, Mitchell is a promising appointment, but a few men can only do so much with a huge lobby against them, and what looks to be Likud running Israel soon isn't going to make that any easier. The settlers are really minor obstacle compared to the powermongers running the show, most of the settlers are only there for the economic incentives and tax breaks those powermongers give them.

 

[math_04]

Well, Israel has a right to defend itself as any country would but I just feel they made a strategic blunder. By bombing large areas of the Gaza Strip, they did kill a few Hamas members but lots of civilians were also caught up unfortunately. This represented a victory for Hamas and probably boosted other Islamist terrorist groups in the Middle East.

As I watched all the children crying and the women mourning, I knew this war and events leading up to it will breed a whole new generation of angered youths. I watched a documentary called 'Inside Hamas' and it showed how Hamas was an ineffective government that later on, did not enjoy the support of many of Gaza's residents. The PLO itself is inherently corrupt and also does not enjoy much support. The problem with Palestine is there is not effective AND peaceful government, both current parties are either terrorists or corrupt.

I think Israel will need to make a brave decision and stop the blockade of Gaza, let the trucks through and tell Hamas that we are ready to make the next step, now you must do the same. It is a hard choice but for the sake of security, bombing is not going to help. Of course, if Hamas is unwilling to do it, then Israel needs to occupy Gaza again. At least then, the Arab nations and the rest of the world will see how difficult and futile it is to make peace with a group bent on destroying a country.

There is nothing wrong with Israel, but this time, it made the wrong choice. Tzipi Livni and Ehud Barak may have done it to win the elections but it really backfired.

 

[kyleb]

I take it you didn't read the thread, but rather just dropped into talk over us, eh Math?

 

[mheslep]

...If you want to dispute the use of the term, you are going to have to look at demographics prior to 1945, count Christian Arabs too, and look at the immigration compared to natural growth, and land ownership statistics as well. Scans of a compilation of British Mandate period can records can be found http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Books/Story831.html" , and if you care to look though that, along with the rest of history, you'll find the term indigenous fits Palestinians like a glove...

Agreed it fits the Palestinians there before WWII and displaced by the war, and it also fits many of the Jews there before WWII. Indigenous-to-Palestine does not accurately describe all of the ~10m ethnic Palestinians now living throughout the world.

 

[kyleb]

It fits Palestinians as a population, dating back long before WWII, while same cannot be said for the Jewish population of the region, which was built though colonization, as largely recorded in the British Mandate period records I linked above. What drives you to distort that history and argue equivocation here?

 

[Evo]

It fits Palestinians as a population, dating back long before WWII, while same cannot be said for the Jewish population of the region, which was built though colonization, as largely recorded in the British Mandate period records I linked above. What drives you to distort that history and argue equivocation here?

Maybe I have misunderstood what you meant. Are you denying occupation of these lands by Jews for thousands of years? Here is a timeline just dating from the Ottoman period.

http://www.jcrc.org/downloads/israel/jcrc_israel-timeline_5.pdf

 

[kyleb]

I am referring to the fact that the vast majority of the Arabs we call Palestinians today are descendants of those who occupied the region for thousands of years, along side the few Jews you refer to, while the vast majority of ancestors of the Jews we call Israelis today lived elsewhere over the last few thousand years. Again, the bulk of that colonization prior to Israel's declaration of statehood can be seen in the British Mandate period records I linked above. Notably, see Table 3 here:

http://www.palestineremembered.com/Articles/A-Survey-of-Palestine/Story6583.html

 

[Evo]

I agree that a large portion of the Jews that inhabit Israel were born in other parts of the world. I'm also not in agreement with the decision to hand them a country, at the same time I have to admit that it's true that they were there originally, but they were conquered and driven out. Would that scenario mean that the US should give back the country to the American Indians because they were here first?

 

[mheslep]

It fits Palestinians as a population, dating back long before WWII, while same cannot be said for the Jewish population of the region, which was built though colonization, as largely recorded in the British Mandate period records I linked above. What drives you to distort that history and argue equivocation here?

Everybody 'colonizes' (to settle, to inhabit) initially Kyleb, and as far as I tell the evidence shows that Jewish settlers did little displacement of Palestinians before WWII. I did not say that the time-lines or the numbers of Arab and Jewish settlers are identical. I simply assert the visible, again, that many thousands of Jews after being born there or living most of their lives there prior to 1945, some of them going back many generations, are indigenous to Palestine.

The discussion changes once we consider the millions of Palestinians living today, as many of them have never set foot in Palestine. They lay claim to Palestine as descendants, and once you do that nearly all Jews, everywhere, are descendant from 70 AD Judea.

 

[kyleb]

I agree that a large portion of the Jews that inhabit Israel were born in other parts of the world.

That isn't what I suggested. Rather, the vast majority of the Jews that inhabit Israel are solely descended from people who lived elsewhere for a couple thousand years.

I'm also not in agreement with the decision to hand them a country, at the same time I have to admit that it's true that they were there originally, but they were conquered and driven out. Would that scenario mean that the US should give back the country to the American Indians because they were here first?

It means we need to address reality as it exist now, including Israel refusal to give Palestinians civil rights in defense of it's ethnic-nationalist nature. Hence, we must convince Israel to respect Palestine's right to exist as a sovereign nation in what little of their homeland Palestinians still hold legal right to, and arrange compensation for the refugees Israel has displaced. That is the two-state solution Israel has been allowed to disregard over decades of US backing.

Everybody 'colonizes' (to settle, to inhabit) initially Kyleb, and as far as I tell the evidence shows that Jewish settlers did little displacement of Palestinians before WWII. I did not say that the time-lines or the numbers of Arab and Jewish settlers are identical.

You are obfuscating the difference between a small amount of Arab immigration coming to live along with the existing population, and a mass Jewish colonialist movement which ethnically cleansed the region of much of that indigenous population shortly after WWII.

I simply assert the visible, again, that many thousands of Jews after being born there or living most of their lives there prior to 1945, some of them going back many generations, are indigenous to Palestine.

And again, the Jews few that were there generations ago had no interest overcoming the many Arabs who lived along side them to ethnic-nationalist state, it was the colonists who came from Europe to do that.

The discussion changes once we consider the millions of Palestinians living today, as many of them have never set foot in Palestine. They lay claim to Palestine as descendants,...

Rather the few millions who are considered Palestinians today but have never set foot in Palestine are refuges of the ethnic cleansing discussed above, as they have been since their birth in refugee camps near their families homelands in what is now Israel. However, such facts are a stark change in the discussion which was about indigenous populations which militant Zionists drove out in 1948.

...and once you do that nearly all Jews, everywhere, are descendant from 70 AD Judea.

Many for sure, but Jews had spread far from the region in the centuries before. Furthermore, some Palestinians are bound to be descendants of Jews of that time and others as well, along with those of the many other Semitic people of the region.

 

[drizzle]

...Of course, there has been a joint Christian-Jewish majority in the city of Jerusalem since well before 1800 (sorry, I have no link for this ).

You and other members keep saying that Jews live in Palestine ages ago, but what I’ve known and most of you know that Jews live in every country by diverse percentages that shouldn’t be a reason to OCCUPY Palestine, as for the religious back ground that they the Jews should live there and their father Jacob (Israel) was born there (correct me if I’m wrong in this)…if anyone reads carefully they’ll eventually know the holy land is prohibited for the Jews (as a punishment from God Allah) after they refuses to enter the holy land and fight alongside prophet Moses (peace be upon him) against the Canaanites who were there saying:

"Go, you and your Lord and fight, indeed here [sitting] we are [waiting]." (Quran 5:24)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_view_of_Moses#The_Holy_Land_.5BJerusalem.5D"

According to the Quran, Moses encourages the Israelites to enter Canaan, but they are unwilling to fight the Canaanites, fearing certain defeat. Moses responds by pleading to Allah that he and his brother Aaron be separated from the rebellious Israelites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses#Judaism"

I’m pretty sure there also are other than Qur’an like Torah that do discuss this, an interview in Fox news with a religious jew man who said that jew people have no right establish Israel in the name of Judaism, here’s the link;


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeaZuj7ruwM"


this reminds me the historical meeting between two leaders general de Gaulle and king Faisal of Saudi that was held in Paris 1967 where the general changes his opinion in giving arms to Israel, I only have an Arabic Biography book (author Aldwaleby) as a reference but I’m sure you guys can find one, maybe you can humanino:shy:.

i wouldn't say I'm so much cheering them on as believing they should have their place. all i see from the muslims is that they want the jews dead, so it's very difficult for me to sympathize with them. the jews are occupying a small speck of land that is their traditional homeland, while their muslim brothers occupy the vast majority of land in the region. i don't see what's unfair about it, and i see the muslims as a thousand times more aggressive. but i wasn't raised with jews, so maybe you've developed some negative feelings towards them that I'm not privy to.

just to make things right, the Muslims do not hate Jews as a belief, it just what they see from those who live in Israel (that is 100% Jew state)whom killing their Muslim brothers and sisters and the fact that Muslims will exterminate the Jews only who live in the holy land and agreed to the occupation of that land. but along the history you can see that the Muslim world do accept Jews to live among them following God’s orders;

The Quran calls them "People of the Book", i.e., those who received Divine scriptures before Muhammad (P). Muslims are told to treat them with respect and justice and do not fight with them unless they initiate hostilities or ridicule their faith. The Muslims ultimate hope is that they all will join them in worshipping one God and submit to His will. "Say (O Muhammad): O people of the Book (Jews and Christians) come to an agreement between us and you, that we shall worship none but Allah, and that we shall take no partners with Him, and none of us shall take others for Lords beside Allah. And if they turn away, then say: Bear witness that we are those who have surrendered (unto Him)." (Quran 3:64)

http://www.hammoude.com/Faq25.html"

PEACE

 

[Werg22]

You and other members keep saying that Jews live in Palestine ages ago, but what I’ve known and most of you know that Jews live in every country by diverse percentages that shouldn’t be a reason to OCCUPY Palestine, as for the religious back ground that they the Jews should live there and their father Jacob (Israel) was born there (correct me if I’m wrong in this)…if anyone reads carefully they’ll eventually know the holy land is prohibited for the Jews (as a punishment from God Allah) after they refuses to enter the holy land and fight alongside prophet Moses (peace be upon him) against the Canaanites who were there saying:

Please do not use arguments resting on religious beliefs. Read the guidelines.

 

[drizzle]

Please do not use arguments resting on religious beliefs. Read the guidelines.

look at other related threads you’ll find the same even tiny-tim do so
maybe I should post it in the right of return thread but it all show the same talk.

 

[kyleb]

I am not sure what posts you are referring to, but there is a difference between discussing theological perspectives making a religious argument. The former is allowed on this forum but the latter is not. Regardless, what you are quoting from Quran is taken way out of context, as it refers to an event preceding the establishment of the Kingdom of Israel, as detailed in the Book of Numbers. What the Rabbi in the interview you linked is referring to is detailed latter throughout Tanakh, and also vaguely eluded to in Quran 17:104. Put simply, both scriptures are historically understood to suggest that the the Kingdom of Israel will be reestablished in fulfillment of prophesy, but though the will of God rather than by that of people imposing their own as the State of Israel is now.

 

[Proton Soup]

Put simply, both scriptures are historically understood to suggest that the the Kingdom of Israel will be reestablished in fulfillment of prophesy, but though the will of God rather than by that of people imposing their own as the State of Israel is now.

now that is a religious argument

 

[kyleb]

Also note that Israel isn't 100% Jewish, but rather has 20% minority of Arabs who weren't displaced by Israel, with the majority of them being Muslim. Most of that Israeli-Arabs protests against Israel's ongoing colonization of Palestinian territory and all the violence of the occupation that comes with it, as do many Israeli-Jews, but unfortunately not nearly enough to stop it.

 

[tiny-tim]

"exterminate …"

look at other related threads you’ll find the same even tiny-tim do so

Where? It is very wrong to accuse people without giving a reference

I certainly have not used religious arguments (though I have replied when others have misquoted the Torah or Koran).

just to make things right … the fact that Muslims will exterminate the Jews only who live in the holy land and agreed to the occupation of that land …

you think that will make things right?

or you think Muslims think that will make things right?

PEACE

exterminate first, then peace?

 

[Vanadium 50]

exterminate first, then peace?

"If you want peace, work for genocide".

 

[mheslep]

"If you want peace, work for genocide".

Idi Amin Dada?

 

[drizzle]

Where? It is very wrong to accuse people without giving a reference

I certainly have not used religious arguments (though I have replied when others have misquoted the Torah or Koran).

which make this true that you use religious books to prove your point, you and others. look in the right of return thread.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=285958&page=6"

besides these are not religious discussions, I’m not saying do God exist? these are facts have happened and documented by these books, you and I know that and probably others, as for the other quote I didn’t polish the Muslims off, their Quran demand them not to kill Jews or others because of their religion as you'll see in the last ref of this post.

Also note that Israel isn't 100% Jewish, but rather has 20% minority of Arabs who weren't displaced by Israel, with the majority of them being Muslim. Most of that Israeli-Arabs protests against Israel's ongoing colonization of Palestinian territory and all the violence of the occupation that comes with it, as do many Israeli-Jews, but unfortunately not nearly enough to stop it.

who serves in the army? and who of the civilians you mentioned are allowed to carry arms? There was a documentary titled (Occupation 101) posted earlier in another thread I think it was in the “who won israel vs gaza ??” thread;

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=285444&page=3"

it shows this clearly.

you think that will make things right?... exterminate first, then peace?

what Israel is doing since then and right now is the same thing that makes you get annoyed that much, and you (not in person but who ever supports Israel’s policy) are not suppose to see people get angry of what is going on there (or maybe you don't care ), targeting schools .. oh yah they ((Israel)) report there were rockets fired from there 2 years ago!? oh or maybe that’s why they shoot almost everywhere in Gaza, cause there were places fighters have gone by through the last several years!
that sounds like: you know that you can make excuses to yourself if you are aiming for something and you have the upper hand, off course you wouldn’t have to give any if you are doing right things and wouldn’t harm anyone!.

and by the way, if that happen (war by right) Islam (in general) forbidden Muslims to kill old people, women, children and cut trees! Only who fights, I’ll link this, it has several references of what I’ve said from Quran and prophet’s words (peace be upon him).

http://ph.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080104155333AAYQifQ"



off course you know that many Jews around the world don't agree of such a state there (Israel)

 

[drizzle]

"If you want peace, work for genocide".

isn't that what Israel doing?

 

[nottheone]

If it wasn't for Hamas there would be a Palestinian state now, all the territory that Israel took in the war would be returned, there would be peace and Israel would be loved by all the Arabs. This is definitely all Hamas's fault. And if you believe any of that I have the deed to a very large island just south of Ct for sale, and I am not giving it back to the people I took it from.

Israel will only allow peace if it's forcibly dragged, kicking and screaming, to the table. Get used to it, they will never willingly allow a Palestinian state on their own. As we did to native americans, they sent the Palestinians to a small piece of stinking desert and it is a lot easier to justify that then to justify a State of Palestinian Stinking Desert.

It will only happen one of two ways. Either we get a president with balls enough to sever relations with them if they don't do it (unlikely since presidents, balls and brains don't go together) or the European union embargo's them. The latter might happen eventually since Israel is superceded by only US in creating hatred.

We should force them to do it. Israel is a valuable ally and it's in our best interest for them to straighten out and fly right. Their conflict with the Arabs does not help us at all.

 

[turbo]

Recently, we have heard from Sec of State Clinton that $900 M will be produced from the US to fund the rebuilding of Gaza. I would like to propose that this year's aid payment from the US to Israel be reduced by that same $900 M, since they are the ones who destroyed wells, pumping stations, waste treatment plants, schools, and hospitals that now must be rebuilt. I would place at least 50% of any other scheduled US-to-Israel aid on hold until Israel's government agrees to a 2-state solution resulting in a contiguous Palestine. It is high time that the US taxpayer stop paying for this madness. We have been financing the oppression of the Palestinians for decades with no peace in sight. Enough.

 

[Art]

Recently, we have heard from Sec of State Clinton that $900 M will be produced from the US to fund the rebuilding of Gaza. I would like to propose that this year's aid payment from the US to Israel be reduced by that same $900 M, since they are the ones who destroyed wells, pumping stations, waste treatment plants, schools, and hospitals that now must be rebuilt. I would place at least 50% of any other scheduled US-to-Israel aid on hold until Israel's government agrees to a 2-state solution resulting in a contiguous Palestine. It is high time that the US taxpayer stop paying for this madness. We have been financing the oppression of the Palestinians for decades with no peace in sight. Enough.

I'd go a lot further. Under international law the occupying force is responsible for feeding, clothing and housing civilians under it's control. As the occupying force Israel should be made to pay for all the reconstruction and food aid supplied to Palestinians. This would serve two purposes. First the cost of it would greatly increase Israel's enthusiasm to end it's occupation and secondly they would think twice about launching massive air, land and sea attacks if they had to carry the cost of putting everything back together again. If Israel refuses to live up to it's legal obligations then the UN should immediately implement a war crimes tribunal.

It is tragic that European and US taxpayers in providing humanitarian relief to Palestinians, by paying the costs of Israel's occupation for them, have in effect subsidised Israel for the past 40 years thus allowing them to evade any permanent solution for Palestinians.

Not only does Israel not offer any thanks to us taxpayers for carrying their burden they destroy the infrastructure we paid for and put every obstacle possible in the way of UN relief efforts.

 

[Proton Soup]

blah, these people simply a way for egypt, syria, et al. to fight a proxy war against israel because they are too cowardly to confront them head-on.

as for trying to extort israel into rebuilding gaza, i doubt that is going to happen. and i do wonder what we would lose in the process. probably a lot valuable middle-east intelligence that we rely on the israelis for.

 

[nottheone]

blah, these people simply a way for egypt, syria, et al. to fight a proxy war against israel because they are too cowardly to confront them head-on.

as for trying to extort israel into rebuilding gaza, i doubt that is going to happen. and i do wonder what we would lose in the process. probably a lot valuable middle-east intelligence that we rely on the israelis for.

It isn't cowardly to avoid fighting automatic weapons with muskets. And their intel gathering doesn't stop at our borders.

 

[Proton Soup]

egypt doesn't need muskets, they have tanks.