[wat0n]

Irrelevant, Pisa made the same argument like yours which quite evidently comes out of a handbook like in the call centres.

"Palestinians are increasing their world numbers so they cannot be ethnic-cleansed." This argument remains as ridiculous as it has been shown to you in the past.

Nice attempt of reductio ad absurdum, but no, not really. Firstly, because ethnic cleansing has to be systematic and has to affect the demographic composition of the zone at hand, secondly, because the Palestinians at hand aren't even vanished from Area C as they return to the spots and set up the tents again.

Problem is you have no argument except for stating this again and again, like a broken record. This is not even an argument though.

I simply like to highlight your intellectual dishonesty and encourage you to actually read the sources posted here, so you won't say stuff like:

like pretending that the petition was a "ruling nis absolute-effective immediately"

Even though it should be clear from reading paragraph 40 that the ruling is an order, in particular, an order for the state to reevaluate the Ka'adan family's request for a lease and grant it if no compelling reason that does not violate the prohibition of discrimination based on ethnorreligious origin, as stated in paragraph A, is found.

Kimmerling trashes the contradictory Benny Morris, who one day of the week explicitly says that Israel ethnic-cleansed the Muslims* and the other day of the week says that it is completely justified and that if he were in control he would do it again and that Israel should in fact do it again**.

To think you even praised Morris the last time we discussed this

Anyway, given Kimmerling's tendency to selectively quote from his sources, I will need the original transcript of the interview to have an opinion. That said, Morris is quite clear in his book that he doesn't think the Israelis fought with a preconceived plan to ethnically cleanse the Palestinian population even if there were indeed factions that wanted to do that as I showed some time ago.

As for misrepresenting things, you have yet to apologise for all these stuff, plus all the rest you have added in here, like pretending that the petition was a "ruling nis absolute-effective immediately", with a 7-year old delay and at the end of the day be explicit about it, what is it you want exactly? What would make you happy? To say that Israel is a normal EU-style country who respects the rights of all religions and peoples, where spitting is a form of love, where persecution exists because of over-representation? Where non-Jewish Israeli citizens cannot even rent some land? Where the UN is not allowed in the country? Where Christian patriarchs face persecution?

What exactly do you want and especially you who have the audacity to insult others when you have done all of the above and the below:

Sorry noemon, but the one who has spent quite a few posts insulting someone has been you. Showing you do read selectively is not a personal insult and as such I have no reason to apologize to you because I point this out, so don't expect me to.

Noeman, I wouldn't bother wasting time on waton, he is an apologist that will - even when proven wrong - defend his position until he's blue in the face. His deflection by way of bringing up other topics in this thread should be ignored because topics are meant to stay....on topic and deflections by zionists should be seen for what they are.

On the contrary, I have actually acknowledged when Israel acts wrongly (e.g. like in the case of settlement construction) and have condemned it for doing so.

You on the other hand have never condemned the wrongs committed by Palestinian armed groups against Israeli civilians, or at least the Jewish ones, and engage in all sorts of justifications for their attacks against civilians that you most certainly do not accept when the attacked ones are not Israeli Jews.

[noemon]

It's ok wat0n, I will follow skinster's advice and leave this be in peace and on topic but will not do so if and when it becomes on-topic again. If you want to know the answers to your recent statements you can PM me and it will be provided to you as well as anybody else.

I truly do wish you all the best.

[skinster]

Firstly, because ethnic cleansing has to be systematic and has to affect the demographic composition of the zone at hand

The UN defines ethnic cleansing as the planned deliberate removal from a specific territory, persons of a particular ethnic group, by force or intimidation, in order to render that area ethnically homogenous

There are currently 750,000 - 800,000 settlers who have been transferred to Palestinian territory known as the West Bank, who are Israeli or American/European/Russian/Middle-Eastern Jews. Jewish-only settlements continue to be built in the West Bank and more non-Palestinians are being placed on this Palestinian territory known as the West Bank. This violates International Law and all governments worldwide oppose this policy, because it's illegal according to the laws they subscribe to. How this amounts to ethnic cleansing is simple: the area where settlements are built and where settlers are placed were once populated by Palestinians and they were forced out. Denying this is denying reality, but you're good at that so let's see what you come up with.

Ethnic Cleansing of Palestinians, Or, Democratic Israel at Work
While we are still desperately concealing, denying and repressing our major ethnic cleansing of 1948 - over 600,000 refugees, some who fled for fear of the Israel Defense Forces and its predecessors, some who were expelled by force - it turns out that 1948 never ended, that its spirit is still with us.
http://www.haaretz.com/ethnic-cleansing ... k-1.361196

[wat0n]

The UN defines ethnic cleansing as the planned deliberate removal from a specific territory, persons of a particular ethnic group, by force or intimidation, in order to render that area ethnically homogenous

Correct, and to do that the very least you would expect is for the demographics to be significantly affected by the policy. You would also expect to see that Palestinians would not even be allowed to stay Area C but be permanently deported to areas A or B.

There are currently 750,000 - 800,000 settlers who have been transferred to Palestinian territory known as the West Bank, who are Israeli or American/European/Russian/Middle-Eastern Jews. Jewish-only settlements continue to be built in the West Bank and more non-Palestinians are being placed on this Palestinian territory known as the West Bank. This violates International Law and all governments worldwide oppose this policy, because it's illegal according to the laws they subscribe to. How this amounts to ethnic cleansing is simple: the area were settlements are built and were settlers are placed were once populated by Palestinians and they were forced out. Denying this is denying reality, but you're good at that so let's see what you come up with.

The areas where settlements are built were not necessarily inhabited by Palestinians, and in fact in many notable cases they were inhabited or owned by Jews. Indeed, the latter is why Gush Etzion was among the very first settlements Israel built.

The building of settlements is, of course, illegal but it's not ethnic cleansing in itself as it did not necessarily involve expelling Palestinians from their homes. It is however a form of colonization and is illegal even if no Palestinians are displaced by them.

@noemon: Sure, you are free to do so. I do think you could dead the complete judgment in the Katzir case (not only the measures to provide redress but the arguments) as it is actually a pretty good read.

[noemon]

However I need to point something I just noticed since it is an explicit request and implies that the source is dubious.

Anyway, given Kimmerling's tendency to selectively quote from his sources, I will need the original transcript of the interview to have an opinion. That said, Morris is quite clear in his book that he doesn't think the Israelis fought with a preconceived plan to ethnically cleanse the Palestinian population even if there were indeed factions that wanted to do that as I showed some time ago.

Here is the relevant parts of the Benny Morris's interview with Haaretz that you requested which proves that Kimmerling is not misquoting anybody, this is quite chilling stuff from the post-Zionist historian, but very explicit indeed.

http://www.haaretz.com/survival-of-the-fittest-1.61345

Historian Benny Morris, who opened the Pandora's box of Zionism, has found a new way to deal with the demons he unleashed. He justifies the expulsion of the Arabs in 1948, bemoans the fact that the job was left unfinished and doesn't rule out future population transfers. In an interview, Morris lays out his self-described 'politically incorrect' views.

-According to your findings, how many acts of Israeli massacre were perpetrated in 1948?

-"Twenty-four. In some cases four or five people were executed, in others the numbers were 70, 80, 100. There was also a great deal of arbitrary killing. Two old men are spotted walking in a field - they are shot. A woman is found in an abandoned village - she is shot. There are cases such as the village of Dawayima [in the Hebron region], in which a column entered the village with all guns blazing and killed anything that moved.

"The worst cases were Saliha (70-80 killed), Deir Yassin (100-110), Lod (250), Dawayima (hundreds) and perhaps Abu Shusha (70). There is no unequivocal proof of a large-scale massacre at Tantura, but war crimes were perpetrated there. At Jaffa there was a massacre about which nothing had been known until now. The same at Arab al Muwassi, in the north. About half of the acts of massacre were part of Operation Hiram [in the north, in October 1948]: at Safsaf, Saliha, Jish, Eilaboun, Arab al Muwasi, Deir al Asad, Majdal Krum, Sasa. In Operation Hiram there was a unusually high concentration of executions of people against a wall or next to a well in an orderly fashion.

That can't be chance. It's a pattern. Apparently, various officers who took part in the operation understood that the expulsion order they received permitted them to do these deeds in order to encourage the population to take to the roads. The fact is that no one was punished for these acts of murder. Ben-Gurion silenced the matter. He covered up for the officers who did the massacres."

-What you are telling me here, as though by the way, is that in Operation Hiram there was a comprehensive and explicit expulsion order. Is that right?

-"Yes. One of the revelations in the book is that on October 31, 1948, the commander of the Northern Front, Moshe Carmel, issued an order in writing to his units to expedite the removal of the Arab population. Carmel took this action immediately after a visit by Ben-Gurion to the Northern Command in Nazareth. There is no doubt in my mind that this order originated with Ben-Gurion. Just as the expulsion order for the city of Lod, which was signed by Yitzhak Rabin, was issued immediately after Ben-Gurion visited the headquarters of Operation Dani [July 1948]."

.

.

.

I don't hear you condemning him.

"Ben-Gurion was right. If he had not done what he did, a state would not have come into being. That has to be clear. It is impossible to evade it. Without the uprooting of the Palestinians, a Jewish state would not have arisen here."


.


.

.
So when the commanders of Operation Dani are standing there and observing the long and terrible column of the 50,000 people expelled from Lod walking eastward, you stand there with them? You justify them?

"I definitely understand them. I understand their motives. I don't think they felt any pangs of conscience, and in their place I wouldn't have felt pangs of conscience. Without that act, they would not have won the war and the state would not have come into being."

You do not condemn them morally?

"No."

They perpetrated ethnic cleansing.

"There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide - the annihilation of your people - I prefer ethnic cleansing."

And that was the situation in 1948?

"That was the situation. That is what Zionism faced. A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads. It was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our settlements were fired on."

The term `to cleanse' is terrible.

"I know it doesn't sound nice but that's the term they used at the time. I adopted it from all the 1948 documents in which I am immersed."

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that Ben-Gurion erred in expelling too few Arabs?

"If he was already engaged in expulsion, maybe he should have done a complete job. I know that this stuns the Arabs and the liberals and the politically correct types. But my feeling is that this place would be quieter and know less suffering if the matter had been resolved once and for all. If Ben-Gurion had carried out a large expulsion and cleansed the whole country - the whole Land of Israel, as far as the Jordan River. It may yet turn out that this was his fatal mistake. If he had carried out a full expulsion - rather than a partial one - he would have stabilized the State of Israel for generations."

I find it hard to believe what I am hearing.

"If the end of the story turns out to be a gloomy one for the Jews, it will be because Ben-Gurion did not complete the transfer in 1948. Because he left a large and volatile demographic reserve in the West Bank and Gaza and within Israel itself."

In his place, would you have expelled them all? All the Arabs in the country?

"But I am not a statesman. I do not put myself in his place. But as an historian, I assert that a mistake was made here. Yes. The non-completion of the transfer was a mistake."

And today? Do you advocate a transfer today?

"If you are asking me whether I support the transfer and expulsion of the Arabs from the West Bank, Gaza and perhaps even from Galilee and the Triangle, I say not at this moment. I am not willing to be a partner to that act. In the present circumstances it is neither moral nor realistic. The world would not allow it, the Arab world would not allow it, it would destroy the Jewish society from within. But I am ready to tell you that in other circumstances, apocalyptic ones, which are liable to be realized in five or ten years, I can see expulsions. If we find ourselves with atomic weapons around us, or if there is a general Arab attack on us and a situation of warfare on the front with Arabs in the rear shooting at convoys on their way to the front, acts of expulsion will be entirely reasonable. They may even be essential."

Including the expulsion of Israeli Arabs?

"The Israeli Arabs are a time bomb. Their slide into complete Palestinization has made them an emissary of the enemy that is among us. They are a potential fifth column. In both demographic and security terms they are liable to undermine the state. So that if Israel again finds itself in a situation of existential threat, as in 1948, it may be forced to act as it did then. If we are attacked by Egypt (after an Islamist revolution in Cairo) and by Syria, and chemical and biological missiles slam into our cities, and at the same time Israeli Palestinians attack us from behind, I can see an expulsion situation. It could happen. If the threat to Israel is existential, expulsion will be justified."

Sure, you are free to do so. I do think you could dead the complete judgment in the Katzir case (not only the measures to provide redress but the arguments) as it is actually a pretty good read.

I did read the entire transcript of the Katzir case, it is an interesting read, yes.

[Saeko]

The West Bank and Gaza were administered by Jordan and Egypt respectfully. Since Israel is not at war with either country nor with the Palestinian people, there is no justification for the occupation and blockade.

Neither Egypt nor Jordan control any part of the Palestinian territory at the present time, and indeed, for a long time after the end of the Arab-Israeli war. Whether or not Israel is at war with Egypt or Jordan is irrelevant when you consider the Palestinians an autonomous people.

Since Israel is not at war with either country nor with the Palestinian people, there is no justification for the occupation and blockade.

Oh really? I'm sure this will be wonderful news for the Palestinian people.

Your opinion does not concur with international law. That a country is "hostile" gives no right on another country to occupy it.

That's just crazy, and plain wrong. I suppose you also think that the allied powers had no right to occupy any part of Nazi Germany.

The duties of the occupying power are spelled out primarily in the 1907 Hague Regulations (arts 42-56) and the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV, art. 27-34 and 47-78), as well as in certain provisions of Additional Protocol I and customary international humanitarian law. The Israelis persistently violate these responsibilities, in particular and most egregiously:

So what? Even if we accept all these things as true, none or even all of them together, make Israel's occupation illegitimate.

Hamas and the Palestinian Authority are under blockade and occupation and not at war with Israel. The 1967 War lasted only six days.

Blockade, occupation, and the launching of rockets into another country's territory are all acts of war. Hence, Israel is at de facto war with the Palestinians. You seem to be the only person on Earth who for some reason believes that they aren't.

The UN, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, The Goldstone Report, Israeli human rights B'Tselem, the IDF have all concluded that the IDF used/uses Palestinians as human shields. I already posted on the Israeli court ruling against the IDF using Palestinians as human shields, something that still continues.; you can see in this soon-to-be-released film by Max Blumenthal and Dan Cohen, how Palestinians were used as human shields during the most recent massacre in Gaza, two years ago:
[youtube]5J8LYuf7x3A[/youtube]

Here you can watch testimony given on the use of human shields in Gaza by Israelis during Operation Ethnic Cleansing in 2014, by Ivan Karakashian from the human rights group, Defence for Children International.
[youtube]VFlR3A6ipz4[/youtube]


Pisa thinks he/she provided evidence of Palestinians using Palestinians as human shields, from the following sources:

1. MEMRI which is a biased source based in Washington and owned by an Israeli, that has been called out by journalists for being highly questionable as a source.
2. IDF, no comment.
3. CNN, no comment.
4. The Jerusalem Post, no comment.

The other sources he/she used are the neoconservative think-tank, The Gatestone Institute (lol) and some website called 'kickassfacts' (lol).

Pathetic and worthy of being called out.

I said that both sides have used human shields, skinster.

Israel should end its occupation and blockade of Gaza; rockets are a response to that terror. From your posts it appears you don't understand what Gaza is, it's one of the two regions of Palestinian territory that are controlled by Israel, except life in Gaza is much worse than life in the West Bank (where it is also awful for Palestinians) because in Gaza they are basically imprisoned and living in what amounts to a concentration camp. Israel is violating international law by imposing these conditions on Gaza (and the West Bank).

In what stars is that written? What makes you so sure that the occupation and blockade are not a response to the rockets?

On topic: it's unfortunate that Israel continues to occupy and kill Palestinian children in their beds but the defence of the IDF who dropped those bombs on the children by zionists on this board remains ever so cute. Yes, it's the children's fault or Hamas' fault but never the occupying army that is at fault. Only zionists believe this shit, thankfully.

When I first joined the forum, around that time I had an argumet with Sabbaticus where I argued that Israel's policies towards the Palestinians constitute ethnic cleansing. I am not defending Israel. I'm simply calling the people who bitch and moan about every dead Palestinian on their bullshit.

[skinster]

Correct, and to do that the very least you would expect is for the demographics to be significantly affected by the policy. You would also expect to see that Palestinians would not even be allowed to stay Area C but be permanently deported to areas A or B.

None of this stuff is related to the definition of ethnic cleansing that applies to what Israeli policy is towards Palestinians in their internationally-recognized territory in the West Bank.

Apologia for illegal settlements and settlers is interesting, even from you, considering everything that you have that's against you re: the settlements, including from the law and governments worldwide. Yes, in one sentence you pretend settlements are bad, but then go on to justify them in the next sentence. You should stick to that zionist-pretence thing where you condemn the settlements - as though they aren't supported by and imposed by the Israeli govt - and leave it at that.

I said that both sides have used human shields, skinster.

Yes you did, but you didn't provide any evidence for your claim which is zionist propaganda, in case you're unsure.

In what stars is that written? What makes you so sure that the occupation and blockade are not a response to the rockets?

Good god, I'm dealing with an utter amateur.

The occupation and blockade preceded the rockets. The rockets are a response to the occupation by a number of decades. Feel free to read the links I post before asking such stupid questions, specifically the one about how Hamas was spawned by Israel.

When I first joined the forum, around that time I had an argumet with Sabbaticus where I argued that Israel's policies towards the Palestinians constitute ethnic cleansing. I am not defending Israel. I'm simply calling the people who bitch and moan about every dead Palestinian on their bullshit.

ITT you are defending Israel and doing it terribly.

[wat0n]

None of this stuff is related to the definition of ethnic cleansing that applies to what Israeli policy is towards Palestinians in their internationally-recognized territory in the West Bank.

Of course it does, indeed, the most basic requirement that the undesired population of the affected area should decrease is not really being fulfilled if the said people return and rebuild again.

Apologia for illegal settlements and settlers is interesting, even from you, considering everything that you have that's against you re: the settlements, including from the law and governments worldwide. Yes, in one sentence you pretend settlements are bad, but then go on to justify them in the next sentence. You should stick to that zionist-pretence thing where you condemn the settlements - as though they aren't supported by and imposed by the Israeli govt - and leave it at that. )

Nonsense again, I am of course perfectly aware that they are supported by the Israeli government and indeed it is well known that they provide incentives for settlers to move there, under the terms of the Israeli government of course (as the Israeli government does demolish structures built by settlers that it did not authorize - which logically implies that the structures that aren't demolished are being allowed by it).

I also don't see anything wrong with providing context on why does the settler movement exist to begin with, being aware of the history and their justifications is a key step to stop it just like understanding the motivations of Palestinians who attack Israeli civilians is important to be able to find a way to stop them.

The first difference between us, however, is that I do not shy away from criticizing and, yes, condemning the Israeli-sponsored settlement project even though I understand the motivations of settlers (and that some of them hold valid grudges) whereas you cannot being yourself to condemn Palestinian attacks against civilians however legitimate their resentment against Israel is.

The second difference between us is that, while I condemn Palestinian attacks against Israeli civilians I can understand their reasons for doing so and that some of the reasons to resent and even fight Israel are perfectly valid while others are not, whereas you can't bring yourself to accept that some Israelis do hold valid grudges against Palestinians and that this may explain why they adopt a hard-line against them.

One can perfectly understand the motivations for some people to act violently, and even believe that they have validity, without ever agreeing with the actions themselves and even condemning them.

@noemon: Thank you for the Ha'aretz article. It turns out that Morris was referring to Operation Hiram in the interview rather than the overall actions by Israel during the war.

Operation Hiram did indeed feature several atrocities against Palestinians as stated in his book and the interview. Even in that case, however, it seems that the Israeli government did not enter the Operation with clear orders (only a broad goal of controlling the Galilee) and indeed field commanders acted quite differently from each other, with some allowing the Palestinians to stay, others emptying the villages, others emptying villages but allowing residents to return, others only kicking non-residents out, etc.

He also says that the massacres were likely the initiative of hard-line field commanders and that Ben Gurion covered these atrocities up, despite the attempts by elements within the Israeli leadership to investigate them - which is of course shameful but doesn't attest to a preconceived a plan to expel the Palestinian population there. It does show however that, unsurprisingly, the IDF is not a particularly moral army (though I also don't think it is a particularly immoral one either - they are about average, I think, and as I assume you know armies often commit atrocities in existential wars, which should of course be condemned and shamed anyway).

[Heinie]

Palestinian children are under threat because Hamas is acting irresponsibly

It was the Israelis who killed the children. Hamas have been keeping a ceasefire since the last massacre of Palestinians in the summer of 2014. Have the decency to lay the blame of the deaths at the bloody hands of the IDF where it lies.

[skinster]

Of course it does, indeed, the most basic requirement that the undesired population of the affected area should decrease is not really being fulfilled if the said people return and rebuild again.

There is nothing in the definition of ethnic-cleansing that states the population that is being cleansed must decline to make it be ethnic-cleansing. That's just your boring apologism.

I also don't see anything wrong with providing context on why does the settler movement exist to begin with, being aware of the history and their justifications is a key step to stop it...

You provided no context for why the settler movement exists (not that anything justifies why they're in the WB) and that has nothing to do with what I said anyway, which is that settlements and settlers in occupied-Palestinian territory known as West Bank, are illegal under international law and opposed by governments worldwide. If you're now doing that thing where you oppose settlers in one sentence and then apologize for them in the next post, well, keep going.

[Saeko]

Yes you did, but you didn't provide any evidence for your claim which is zionist propaganda, in case you're unsure.

Oh please skinster, all you have to do is fucking look.

http://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/press-rel ... ets-school

Edit:

From wiki:

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay accused Hamas militants of violating international humanitarian law by "locating rockets within schools and hospitals, or even launching these rockets from densely populated areas."[63] The European Union condemned Hamas, and in particular condemned "calls on the civilian population of Gaza to provide themselves as human shields."[64][65] France24 confirmed the use of urban warfare, filming a rocket launch pad which was placed in a civilian area next to a hotel where international journalists were staying.[66] Peter Stefanovic of Australia’s Channel Nine News tweeted that rockets had been fired "over our hotel from a site about two hundred metres away. So a missile launch site is basically next door.” Janis Mackey Frayer of Canada's CTV reported seeing a Hamas gunman dressed in a woman's headscarf with a "tip of a gun poked out from under cloak.” Harry Fear reporting for Russia Today tweeted that rockets were fired from near his hotel.[67] His tweet was later deleted, and he was expelled from Gaza. Several journalists who alleged Hamas use of human shields and rocket locations close to civilian infrastructure reported being threatened by Hamas. [68]

In a September 2014 interview, a Hamas official acknowledged to Associated Press that the group fired at Israel from civilian areas.[69] He ascribed the practice to "mistakes", but said the group had little option due to the crowded landscape of the Strip, with its dearth of open zones. He denied accusations that rockets were launched from "from schools or hospitals when in fact they were fired 200 or 300 meters (yards) away".[69] In an 2014 interview, a Hamas political leader Khaled Meshaal said to a CNN interviewer that the group did not use its people as human shields.

In interviews with Gazan refugees, reporters for The Independent and The Guardian concluded it was a "myth" that Hamas forced civilians to stay in areas under attack against their will; many refugees told them they refused to heed the IDF's warnings because even areas Israel had declared safe for refugees had been shelled by its forces.[70][71] The BBC Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen also said he "saw no evidence of Hamas using Palestinians as human shields".[72] An Amnesty International document (dated July 25, 2014) asserts that they do "not have evidence at this point that Palestinian civilians have been intentionally used by Hamas or Palestinian armed groups during the current hostilities to “shield” specific locations or military personnel or equipment from Israeli attacks."[73] Amnesty International's assessment was that international humanitarian law was clear in that "even if officials or fighters from Hamas or Palestinian armed groups associated with other factions did in fact direct civilians to remain in a specific location in order to shield military objectives from attacks, all of Israel’s obligations to protect these civilians would still apply."[73] The human rights group, however, still found that Palestinian factions, as in previous conflicts, launched attacks from civilian areas.[73]

Hamas Arabic-speaking spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri called up Gaza civilians on Hamas’s Al-Aqsa TV July 8, 2014 to stay put in areas under fire by Israel,[74][75] prompting accusations from Israel and others — the European Union, for example[64][65] — that Hamas was calling on people to volunteer as "in effect human shields".[76] For Amnesty International, however, Hamas' call may have been "motivated by a desire to avoid further panic" among civilians, considering both the lack of shelters in Gaza and the fact that some civilians who heeded the IDF's warnings had been casualties of Israeli attacks.[77] According to Sami Abu Zuhri, Hamas is using human shields and rejoices in the effectiveness of the tactic, believing it as a necessary and valid means of resistance.[78]

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay accused Hamas militants of violating international humanitarian law by "locating rockets within schools and hospitals, or even launching these rockets from densely populated areas."[63] The US Deputy National Security Adviser and the European Union condemned Hamas for using human shields.[64][65] Several news outlets reported on rockets being placed near their hotels, including France24, Australia’s Channel Nine, and Russia Today.[79][80][81] Several journalists who alleged Hamas use of human shields and rocket locations close to civilian infrastructure reported being threatened by Hamas,[82][83] including Janis Mackey Frayer of Canada's CTV, who reported seeing a Hamas gunman dressed in a woman's headscarf with a "tip of a gun poked out from under cloak.” [84] [85] [86]

Good god, I'm dealing with an utter amateur.

The occupation and blockade preceded the rockets. The rockets are a response to the occupation by a number of decades. Feel free to read the links I post before asking such stupid questions, specifically the one about how Hamas was spawned by Israel.

Did the occupation and blockade also precede the war, or are rockets the only means by which war can be waged?

ITT you are defending Israel and doing it terribly.

If pointing out that the world is not as black and white as both rightist and leftist propaganda would have you believe is defending Israel, then I guess I am defending Israel.

[wat0n]

There is nothing in the definition of ethnic-cleansing that states the population that is being cleansed must decline to make it be ethnic-cleansing. That's just your boring apologism.

How can the territory be made ethnically homogeneous without significantly decreasing the numbers of the undesired ethnic groups (aka the people who are being ethnically cleansed)?

You provided no context for why the settler movement exists (not that anything justifies why they're in the WB) and that has nothing to do with what I said anyway, which is that settlements and settlers in occupied-Palestinian territory known as West Bank, are illegal under international law and opposed by governments worldwide.

I think I did point out one of the reasons of why they are there, but I will do that again: Jews did own land in East Jerusalem and parts of the West Bank (in the Gush Etzion area and also in Hebron, mainly), lands they lost access to as a result of intercommunal violence and the 1948 war. And indeed, the very first settlements were built by people who, shortly after the Six Day War, claimed they were simply returning to their land.

If you're now doing that thing where you oppose settlers in one sentence and then apologize for them in the next post, well, keep going.

Saying that is like saying you apologize for Palestinian attacks against Israeli civilians by pointing out how miserable their lives are because of the Israeli policies. With the difference that, interestingly, I have never seen you opposing or criticizing them, I wonder why?

[Pisa]

The UN, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, The Goldstone Report, Israeli human rights B'Tselem, the IDF have all concluded that the IDF used/uses Palestinians as human shields, something that still continues.; you can see in this soon-to-be-released film by Max Blumenthal and Dan Cohen, how Palestinians were used as human shields during the most recent massacre in Gaza, two years ago:

Err...

Are we talking about the "let's put Iran in charge of women's rights" UN? The "dances with terrorists" Amnesty International? The "yay, we have as senior military analyst Marc-SS-is-cool-Garlasco" HRW, the HRW that has been criticized for anti-Israel bias by one of its own founders, the HRW funded by Saudi Arabia's sheikhs?

B'Tselem...so, you haven't heard yet...

Goldstone later admitted that the report was seriously flawed:

The allegations of intentionality by Israel were based on the deaths of and injuries to civilians in situations where our fact-finding mission had no evidence on which to draw any other reasonable conclusion. While the investigations published by the Israeli military and recognized in the U.N. committee’s report have established the validity of some incidents that we investigated in cases involving individual soldiers, they also indicate that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy.

I don't deny that even far left NGOs like B'Tselem and Adalah have their place and play their part in keeping the democracy going (ironically, since the far left is virulently anti-democratic), but uncritically gulping down their every word just because their declared goal happen to coincide with yours...well, it's like bringing snakes into your house because you have a mouse problem. Their way just leads to other problems.

The only way forward is an uninterrupted compromise between right and left, between extant and desirable. The organizations you support live in the land of "my way or no way". Not a place I'd choose for my children.

I could post a documentary about the traumatic experiences of Sderot children who grew up under constant rocket fire from Gaza, but I doubt you care about the children of Sderot. Neither do Max Blumenthal or Ivan Karakashian, so sorry, but I don't trust them, and I don't trust their sources. Arab sources lie, a lot, about Israel and jews. Like the newest egyptian scoop about the niqab being "a jewish tradition" and as such un-islamic.

To be continued...

[redcarpet]

The report wasn't really flawed, he just said that because of personal attacks and so on. His 'backtrack' wasn't really a backtrack and his second report didn't say anything new. And after denouncing the UN report, Israel immediately proceeded to implement it. Same with the AI & HRW reports.

First Israeli governments denounce the reports, then once media attention dies they proceed to implement and cooperate.

[Pisa]

The report wasn't really flawed, he just said that because of personal attacks and so on. His 'backtrack' wasn't really a backtrack and his second report didn't say anything new. And after denouncing the UN report, Israel immediately proceeded to implement it. Same with the AI & HRW reports.

First Israeli governments denounce the reports, then once media attention dies they proceed to implement and cooperate.

We know a lot more today about what happened in the Gaza war of 2008-09 than we did when I chaired the fact-finding mission appointed by the U.N. Human Rights Council that produced what has come to be known as the Goldstone Report. If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document.

Of course our governments take criticism seriously, even if the source of this criticism is highly unreliable. You can't expect a country like Israel, under permanent attack, to survive on wishful thinking. If only a tiny fragment of that criticism is justified, our own existence and our democracy might be at risk.

[redcarpet]

Netanyahu definitely exists on wishful thinking, with his sycophantic loyalists echoing him and providing the echo chamber of which he just hears/reads what he agrees with. He's just been exposed for secret negotiations with the PA behind the back of the security cabinet.

Do you pay attention to domestic Israeli politics at all?

[Pisa]

Pisa thinks he/she provided evidence of Palestinians using Palestinians as human shields, from the following sources:

1. MEMRI which is a biased source based in Washington and owned by an Israeli, that has been called out by journalists for being highly questionable as a source.
2. IDF, no comment.
3. CNN, no comment.
4. The Jerusalem Post, no comment.

No, Pisa doesn't think she has provided any evidence. Pisa thinks other people, including Hamas, have provided plenty and then some evidence of palestinian terrorist organizations using their own people as human shields. You're welcome to prove those sources wrong, if you can. So far, you're not doing a good job.

1. The Guardian article explicitly tells us that MEMRI can't be trusted because there are some israelis involved. Not the kind of argument that would convince an israeli, but keep trying.

2. I trust IDF, don't care if you don't. You forget that our army is basically our families - sons, daughters, husbands, fathers. Nothing can be hidden from the public eye, not for long anyway, since most of the public eye is or was at some point involved with the IDF itself.

3. Valid point about CNN, I don't like them either, but I wouldn't go so far as to dismiss offhand everything they publish.

4. While some analyses and conclusions of JPost articles are open to debate, they usually get facts right. I don't expect to find lies and deceptions in JPost articles, as I expect to find in Haaretz articles. Nevertheless, I always double and triple-check facts, just to be sure.

Truth doesn't bend to our desires, Skinster. If you wish to find it, you'll have to admitt that even WND might get things right sometimes, as I'll have to admit that even Adalah might get things right sometimes. Tough, I know.

Netanyahu definitely exists on wishful thinking, with his sycophantic loyalists echoing him and providing the echo chamber of which he just hears/reads what he agrees with. He's just been exposed for secret negotiations with the PA behind the back of the security cabinet.

Do you pay attention to domestic Israeli politics at all?

Netanyahu should have stepped down, his time has passed. I don't hate him, I think he's very intelligent, his greatest flaw being his fondness for power.

Do you have a source for the secret negotiations?

I live the domestic israeli politics. I don't pay attention to every detail though.

[redcarpet]

http://www.jewishpress.com/news/netanyahu-coalition-in-turmoil-over-secret-negotiations-with-pa/2016/03/14/

Netanyahu Coalition in Turmoil over Secret Negotiations with PA

Seniors politicians on the right have been furious Monday following revelations in Ha’aretz that Israel has been conducting secret negotiations with the PA to return security control of Judea and Samaria Arab cities to the Arabs and pull the IDF out of Areas A and B. Absorption Minister Ze’ev Elkin, (Likud) who is a member of the security cabinet, said that the negotiations had been conducted illegally, behind the backs of the cabinet. Elkin demanded that Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon (Likud) “stop any progress in that dangerous direction.”

A source in HaBeit HaYehudi told The Jewish Press that the party’s two members of the security cabinet will also resist the move, which appears to have been conducted secretly by the triumvirate of Netanyahu, Ya’alon and Chief of Staff Gadi Eizenkot. The same source suggested that of the three choices to lead the IDF Eizenkot was the weakest, and was picked by Ya’alon for his obedience.

According to Ha’aretz, Israel and the PA have been conducting secret negotiations over the past month over the gradual return to the PA of security control in Area A, with a complete pullout of the IDF. According to the source speaking to The Jewish Press, Israel conditions these grand concessions on retaining the right to send IDF forces across the border in case of a “ticking bomb.” So far the PA has not accepted this condition, because it contradicts its entire claim to sovereignty.

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.708946

'Netanyahu: Palestinians Rejected Israel's Secret Offer'

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did not update the security cabinet on secret negotiations to restore Palestinian Authority control over West Bank cities because the Palestinians rejected the offer. Thus Immigration Absorption Minister Zeev Elkin told Army Radio on Tuesday morning.

Elkin said Netanyahu offered this clarification when he demanded the prime minister explain the Haaretz report exposing the secret contacts between Israel and the Palestinians.

"We did not receive a report on the contacts in the [diplomatic-security] cabinet and that is improper," Elkin said in an interview with Army Radio.

"The prime minister told me the cabinet was not updated because the move did not come to fruition due to a Palestinian rejection of the offer. As usual, the Palestinians never miss out on an opportunity to miss out on an opportunity," said Elkin.

[skinster]

Oh please skinster, all you have to do is fucking look.

http://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/press-rel ... ets-school

If you read your link you would see that the report stated 1) rockets were in a vacant school and 2) it was further noted that those weren't in fact rockets. Human shields in a place where there are no humans. Interesting.

I'm not reading anything from wikipedia given zionist-editing on there. Try harder to find something where actual humans were used as human shields.

Did the occupation and blockade also precede the war, or are rockets the only means by which war can be waged?

Which war? There is no war. Israel is blockading and occupying the Gaza strip and has been since Gaza was turned into a massive refugee camp - which it still is - for all the Palestinians that were cleansed out of other parts of Palestine (in the 40s/50s) to make way for the state of Israel. Do you know anything about this issue or are you just aligning with the fascistic state because you're a fascist and think it's the correct thing to do? What's your purpose here, you're upset about things being one-sided to....the side you don't appear to be on?

If pointing out that the world is not as black and white as both rightist and leftist propaganda would have you believe is defending Israel, then I guess I am defending Israel.

When you parrot zionist propaganda, yes, you are defending zionism, even if you're clueless to what you're doing. And I agree, things are never black and white and the concept of objectivity is bullshit that I don't subscribe to anyway, especially regarding Israel-Palestine, where there is a clear power imbalance of an ethnosupremacist settler-colonial state militarily occupying and imprisoning the natives.

How can the territory be made ethnically homogeneous without significantly decreasing the numbers of the undesired ethnic groups (aka the people who are being ethnically cleansed)?

Your opinion on what amounts to ethnic cleansing is nice but doesn't align with the definition of ethnic cleansing, which is what is taking place in the occupied West Bank by Israeli policy via settlements and settlers done illegally according to laws and governments worldwide. When you euphemistically "transfer" populations, that's ethnic cleansing, despite your attempts to argue (badly) otherwise.

I'm not wasting time responding to anything you post that's source-less / your opinion, considering I don't trust zionist-apologists.


Pisa - well, redcarpet has pretty much summed up your Goldstone article which is the only worthy source you shared. Otherwise, considering you don't trust human rights organizations, the UN etc.:

Israeli high court bans military use of Palestinians as human shields

According to (Israeli) defense officials, the Israel Defense Forces made use of the ‘human shield’ procedure on 1,200 occasions over the last five years

Individual Palestinians also testified to IDF abuses such as looting, beatings, vandalism of property and the use of the local population as human shields. But by far the strongest reverbration in Israel was that created by the Israeli organization “Breaking the Silence”, which collected testimony from 26 unnamed IDF soldiers. All of the soldiers had been involved in Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip, and testified to instances where Gazans were used as human shields, incendiary phosphorous shells were fired over civilian population areas, and other examples of excessive firepower that caused unnecessary fatalities and destruction of property.
https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09TE ... #efmAn8Axu

When Israeli courts and IDF soldiers are talking about the IDF using Palestinians as human shields, it's probably a good idea by that point to shut up and listen to them, especially considering they're on your side ideologically. Arguing against this is just making you look ridiculous at this stage, but if you want to keep going, I've got more to share too.

[wat0n]

Your opinion on what amounts to ethnic cleansing is nice but doesn't align with the definition of ethnic cleansing, which is what is taking place in the occupied West Bank by Israeli policy via settlements and settlers done illegally according to laws and governments worldwide. When you euphemistically "transfer" populations, that's ethnic cleansing, despite your attempts to argue (badly) otherwise.

Way of not addressing what I said. I didn't even use the word transfer there.

I'm not wasting time responding to anything you post that's source-less / your opinion, considering I don't trust zionist-apologists.

I don't find it surprising you do not want to debate, you have no real justification for the double-standard.