Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

I know that the ILA doesn't sell to non-Jews - this is a policy of theirs, to keep the control and ownership in Jewish hands.

They will lease, but not sell - the Arabs who want use of the land may want to buy, so the question remains - do you condemn or condone this policy of not selling to non-Jews?

How is this different from a non-government agency saying that Arabs should not sell land in occupied East Jerusalem to non-Arabs? (The fact they consider this high treason is something I don't agree with - but I can't see a difference between Jews refusing to sell to non-Jews and Arabs refusing to sell to non-Arabs - if you condemn one, why not condemn the other??)

Cheers,
Shafique

Flying Dutchman wrote:

shafique wrote:I also note that you don't condemn the ILA policy of not selling land to non-Jews - this is their rules and they own so much of the land. They aren't the government and can't make laws - just like the people who made the fatwa you referred to aren't in government either.

What? ILA doesn't sell land to anybody, it leases out. And it leases to all Israeli citizens.

shafique wrote:Please clarify - do you support the policy of the ILA not to sell land to Arab Palestinians or Israelis? How is this different from Arab desires to not sell their land to non-Arabs to preserve the historical presence in East Jerusalem etc?

Again, ILA doesn't sell, it leases out and it also leases to Arabs...I think you have to do a bit more reading about the ILA.

Ok - fair challenge - I should do some more reading to confirm FD's contention that the ILA does not sell land to anyone.

Let's see.

How about:

ILA published tenders to sell land for 6,000 housing units, so far the number is actually 3,321. Moreover, an investigation by TheMarker found that out of the land for 3,321 housing units, 1,000 of the lots are considered unattractive by builders, for various reasons.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1133774.html

Did I mis-read, or did it say the ILA is 'selling land'??

Over to you FD. (If the ILA will sell land to Arabs - then I'll take it back, they aren't discriminating against Arabs. I can't be fairer than that.. Perhaps they are selling only leaseholds - the article wasn't clear. Perhaps Arabs are allowed to tender and win these contracts? Again the article did not address this - so I am interested in FD's responses on this.)

Cheers,
Shafique

And just to clarify - is anything not accurate in the wiki entry on the subject:

Israeli Law since 1960 has stipulated that land owned by the government or by the Jewish National Fund (also JNF or Keren Kayemet Le'Ysrael (KKL)), a private charitable organization working since before the establishment of Israel, could not be sold but only leased.[11] The JNF, which owns approximately 14% of Israeli land, has under its charter the purpose of purchasing land for the settlement of Jews, and has interpreted this to mean that JNF owned lands should not be leased, at least on a long-term basis, to non-Jews.[11]

This has led several commentators to ascribe parallels between the Palestinian laws and those governing property in Israel.


Writing in the New York Times, Anthony Lewis stated:

As a practical matter, land used by Israeli Jews for home or business or farm is hardly ever sold to Arabs. So the idea of Palestinians wanting to keep what land they have is not unusual.[16]

In the Washington Post, Barton Gellman asserted that:

[The Palestinian law] is not without parallels, penalty aside, in Israel. Keren Kayemet [the Jewish National Fund], a cooperative that owned most of the Jewish land in the [20th] century's first decades, "by its regulations could not sell land at all, and could not rent land except to Jews," according to historian [Anita] Shapira. As recently as January ... one of Israel's two state-appointed chief rabbis, Eliahu Bakshi-Doron, issued a ruling of religious law forbidding the sale or rental of any Jewish land to Arabs.[17]


The Israel Land Administration, which owns 93% of the land in Israel (including the land owned by the Jewish National Fund), refuses to lease land to non-Jewish foreign nationals, which includes Palestinian residents of Jerusalem who have identity cards but are not citizens of Israel. When ILA land is "bought" in Israel it is actually leased to the "owner" for a period of 49 years. According to Article 19 of the ILA lease, foreign nationals are excluded from leasing ILA land, and in practice foreigners may just show that they qualify as Jewish under the Law of Return. [18]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinia ... inian_laws

So, are Palestinian residents of occupied East Jerusalem allowed to lease land from the ILA or not? If not, how is this different from Palestinian's asking East Jerusalem Arabs to not sell their land to the ILA or other non-Arab organisations/individuals?

Cheers,
Shafique

ILA's core business is to lease (government) land. Every Israeli citizen can lease this land. Also land previously controlled by the JNF is leased to all citizens. When the ILA sells government land, it doesn't sell to individuals, but to developers. And again, the ILA is not allowed to distinguish between religion, ethnicity etc. Arabs living in Jerusalem who refuse Israeli citizenship, which is offered to them, cannot lease land from the ILA AFAIK. Foreigners (from Europe or the U.S. e.g.) including Arabs, are known to be able to lease land.

Gaza has shown that unilateral actions can be disastruous. Any withdrawal from Israel should be part of a peace agreement. Nothing will happen in the Westbank without Israels consent. If they are forced to pull out, I wouldn't be surprised if Israel unilaterally cuts the water and electricity supplies to a foreign enemy state.

I have to be honest - I did not know that ILA primarily leases land and only recently did it start selling off land. That is why I asked whether the quotes I pasted from Wiki (above) were accurate or not.

I understand that the discrimination on land allocation is not enshrined in law, but that the journalists qutoed say it takes place in practice - as quoted above.

Specifically, the quote says that in East Jerusalem it won't lease land to Arab Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem. Is this true, to your knowledge - and if it is true - isn't this discrimination against the non-Jewish residents of East Jerusalem?

Cheers,
Shafique

Arab residents of Jerusalem that are Israeli citizens can lease land anywhere in Israel, so also in Jerusalem. Arab residents in Jeruslam that donot have an Israeli passport, despite the fact this a offered to them (this apllies mainly to Arabs in East Jerusalem), cannot lease I believe. They are mainly Jordanian citizens. I am just guessing that because Israeli citizens cannot own/lease land in Jordan, Israel just reprocicates.

Ok - that makes sense, and therefore what the journalists say is probably accurate.

Those residents of East Jerusalem who choose not to take up citizenship of Israel (which is the occupying power under international law and certainly to the Arab residents there) are indeed not given access to use/lease the land under ILA control.

I guess we just have different views on whether this constitutes discrimination or blackmail.

But let me check - You would agree with international law that East Jerusalem is currently being occupying by Israel (and isn't part of Israel) wouldn't you? (UN resolution 478 is categoric - it appears to me)

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Those residents of East Jerusalem who choose not to take up citizenship of Israel (which is the occupying power under international law and certainly to the Arab residents there) are indeed not given access to use/lease the land under ILA control.

We have already established that Israels occupation is legal, because it is the result of self-defense against continued Arab agression.

shafique wrote:I guess we just have different views on whether this constitutes discrimination or blackmail.

It doesn't matter what Israel does, it is always wrong. When it offers citizenship it is wrong, when it doesn't its wrong. Another example why peace is so far, because of the continuous and unbalanced hatred.

Just checking, did you ever protest against Jordan stripping Palestinians from their citizenship, did you ever protest against Syria stripping 200.000 Kurds from their citizenship? Or is that something you want to keep quite?

shafique wrote:But let me check - You would agree with international law that East Jerusalem is currently being occupying by Israel (and isn't part of Israel) wouldn't you? (UN resolution 478 is categoric - it appears to me)

478 is non-binding, you keep coming up with non-binding (meaningless) rulings and resolutions.

But yes, Israel is a occupying power in east jerusalem and is justified to stay their until a peace agreement is reached under international law

A most fascinating reply.

Firstly, not everything Israel does is wrong. When it outlawed the use of torture - and forbade what was previously allowed to happen to prisoners, that was a good thing. Other good things Israel has done:
- pull out of Lebanon
- give back Sinai
- close the colonies in Gaza

Credit where it is due, condemnation where it is due.

As for condemning Arab countries - let me repeat - 'I will join you in condemning any injust action by Arab or any other state'. I'll even start a new thread on these issues if you wish - you can add the unjust acts you want me to condemn. I won't use Israel's unjust actions to justify the actions of Arab states. Is that fair?

Now, to the occupation.

So we all now agree that Israel is occupying East Jerusalem (your last paragraph above).

International law is pretty clear what is legal for an occupying power to do and what it isn't. Depriving the citizens of the occupied land their land rights is one thing that is clearly illegal - as is colonising the land.

Therefore let us look at what UN resolution 478 says on the issue of Israel's attempt to annex East Jerusalem:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 478 declared Israel's 1980 Jerusalem Law null and void and required that it be rescinded forthwith while affirming that it was a violation of international law. This resolution called upon member states to withdraw their diplomatic missions from the city. The law declared Jerusalem to be Israel's "eternal and indivisible" capital.

The vote on the resolution, which took place on August 20, 1980, was passed 14-0, with the United States abstaining.

'null and void' and 'affirming it was a violation of international law'.

Pretty clear to me. But hey, Israel disagrees - so perhaps the whole UN security council is wrong and they are right?


Cheers,
Shafique

Regarding resolution 478.

Point 5 says that nations must withdraw their embassies/diplomatic offices from Jersusalem - and as a result of this resolution they all did.

Most nations with embassies in Jerusalem relocated their embassies to Tel Aviv following the adoption of Resolution 478.

The full text of 478 is here (it's not long):
http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/dde5 ... enDocument

So, the world adopts resolution 478, but Israel refuses to accept what the resolution says.

Cheers,
Shafique

PA Workers' Union Official Bassam Zakarneh: Hamas Leaders Hid in Tunnels, Launched Rockets From Among Children and Elderly

Newsflash - Churchill 'hid' in an underground bunker when the Nazis were bombing London

Abbas doesn´t want to include Israeli Arabs into a future Palestine:

Abbas: Olmert offered PA land equaling 100% of West Bank

I refused to annex even one Israeli Arab citizen

All in line that both Hamas and Fatah donot want peace, but the destruction of Israel. Something that Fatah reiterated during their latest congress:

http://www.e-fateh.org/paper_full_3.aspx

Article (12) - total liberation of Palestine and the liquidation of the Zionist state economically and politically, militarily and culturally.

Article (13) - the establishment of independent democratic Palestinian state with full sovereignty over all Palestinian territories

No mention whatsoever of a two state solution.

A two state solution only seems to be a phase in the destruction of Israel:

1. two state
2. back to the 1948 partition plan
3. complete return of Pali refugees

So again, a peace agreement will only be possible when people realize Israel will not commit national suicide.

Thanks for sharing your beliefs with us FD. They make interesting reading. However, I can't fail to feel that you are trying to divert attention from the questions posed above about the UN resolution 478 and Israel's illegal activities in East Jerusalem.

I've actually provided you with direct quotes which contradict your assertions- the quotes say that Jewish Palestinians will be welcome citizens.

I also could not see anything in the Haaretz report which said Abbas does not want any Jews in Palestine. He merely confirmed that Olmert offered Israeli land in exchange for occupied-Palestinian land that contain Israeli colonies. It is a basis of negotiation - but the Palestinians should also be free to choose which parts of Palestine to allow Israel to annex.

The Arab Peace Plan is the solution - a two state solution, recognition of Israel, normal immigration/emigration, just solution to refugee issue.

I really don't understand why you want more rights for Jewish residents than non-Jewish residents - surely all who want to live in Palestine and Israel should have equal rights? If Israeli citizens (of whatever religion) want to live in a foreign land (England, USA, Palestine) surely they should be subject to the same immigration rules as any other foreign nationals? Same goes to Palestinians (of whatever religion).

I don't get your equation of immigration rules with anti-semitism or the destruction of Israel? Palestinians want Palestine to be sovereign - surely that includes the right to say that Israeli citizens have to meet immigration requirements and get the permission of the state to reside in Palestine?

The interview I quoted before explicitly says that Jewish Palestinians are most welcome in Palestine - can't be more explicit than that. I think you are confusing 'Israeli' (aka foreign national) with 'Jewish' (religious denomination).

I note that you didn't comment on UN resolution 478 - it clearly states that East Jerusalem is not part of Israel under international law and the discriminatory practices there (of denying East Jerusalem Arabs of land etc) are illegal.

Cheers,
Shafique

Olmert's map is interesting - and I couldn't see in the Haaretz stories on the subject where Abbas says what the Palestinian objections are.

The Pdf of the map is here.


http://www.haaretz.com/hasite/images/iht_daily/D171209/olmertmap.pdf

It seems like a positive step from Olmert to me - offering the Palestinians Israeli land in return for keeping some of the colonies on Palestinian land. The devil is in the detail, but it shows a willingness to negotiate. It is a shame that his successors don't want to continue with this line of reasoning.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote: However, I can't fail to feel that you are trying to divert attention from the questions posed above about the UN resolution 478 and Israel's illegal activities in East Jerusalem.

478 is non-binding. It is impossible to break non-binding rulings/resolutions.

shafique wrote:but the Palestinians should also be free to choose which parts of Palestine to allow Israel to annex.

And what do you consider Palestine?

shafique wrote:The Arab Peace Plan is the solution - a two state solution, recognition of Israel, normal immigration/emigration, just solution to refugee issue.

I agree, the Arab peace plan is a promising initiave, however too vague on a key issue, refugees. It needs negotiation. At the moment the PA refuses to negotiate

shafique wrote:I really don't understand why you want more rights for Jewish residents than non-Jewish residents

Where did you get that idea?

shafique wrote:I don't get your equation of immigration rules with anti-semitism or the destruction of Israel?

I really doubt you mean this. A full right of return for the Arabs mean the end of Israel.

shafique wrote:Olmert's map is interesting - and I couldn't see in the Haaretz stories on the subject where Abbas says what the Palestinian objections are.

The map is awfull. I quoted Abbas' objection in my previous post.

shafique wrote:offering the Palestinians Israeli land in return for keeping some of the colonies on Palestinian land.

This is indeed the way it will look like. Remember before 1967 Israel had armistice lines, no definite borders. The final borders need negotiation. Some land within the green line will be included in a future Pali state, some land conquered by Israel because of a defensive war against Arab agression will be included in Israel.

shafique wrote:It is a shame that his successors don't want to continue with this line of reasoning.

Where did you get this idea? Actually Lieberman wants the whole Arab traingle in the Galilee to be ruled by the PA.

shafique wrote:
So we all now agree that Israel is occupying East Jerusalem (your last paragraph above).

International law is pretty clear what is legal for an occupying power to do and what it isn't. Depriving the citizens of the occupied land their land rights is one thing that is clearly illegal - as is colonising the land.

Therefore let us look at what UN resolution 478 says on the issue of Israel's attempt to annex East Jerusalem:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 478 declared Israel's 1980 Jerusalem Law null and void and required that it be rescinded forthwith while affirming that it was a violation of international law. This resolution called upon member states to withdraw their diplomatic missions from the city. The law declared Jerusalem to be Israel's "eternal and indivisible" capital.

The vote on the resolution, which took place on August 20, 1980, was passed 14-0, with the United States abstaining.

'null and void' and 'affirming it was a violation of international law'.

Pretty clear to me.

Do you really disagree with resolution 478 that Israel is breaking international law in East Jerusalem?

(I know that it is not binding on the Security Council to act on this information - but that isn't what I was asking - I was pointing out that Israel is breaking the law)

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Do you really disagree with resolution 478 that Israel is breaking international law in East Jerusalem?

I do believe Israels annexation of East Jerusalem is unlawfull, just as Jordans occupation of the Westbank and East Jeruslam was unlawfull. Like I said, final borders need negotiation and not unilateral actions, like annexing, or unilateral declarations.

Do you agree that Jordans occupation of the Westbank was unlawfull?

Israels presence in East Jerusalem isn't unlawfull.

Flying Dutchman wrote:

shafique wrote:Do you really disagree with resolution 478 that Israel is breaking international law in East Jerusalem?

I do believe Israels annexation of East Jerusalem is unlawfull, just as Jordans occupation of the Westbank and East Jeruslam was unlawfull. Like I said, final borders need negotiation and not unilateral actions, like annexing, or unilateral declarations.

I agree that a negotiated peace is required - and this should include borders that both sides recognise.

I'm glad that we agree that the annexation of East Jerusalem by Israel is illegal - but I don't see why you are equating annexation with occupation?

The occupation may not be illegal - but international law stipulates what an occupying power may lawfully do. Annexation, as you seem to agree, is one of the illegal acts.

Was Jordan in breach of international law as Israel is? If they were, then yes - I would also condemn Jordan's illegal actions.

Resolution 478 clearly states that Israel's actions (in annexing occupied East Jerusalem) is illegal.

Therefore if non-Israeli residents of an illegally annexed territory are being discriminated against, this is a double in-justice. Or is my logic faulty here? (I know that the discrimination was brought up in the 'Apartheid' thread.. but I'll just bring it up here as it relates to East Jerusalem).

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:I agree that a negotiated peace is required - and this should include borders that both sides recognise.

Right, so we agree that unilateral actions or declarations regarding final borders are not helpfull.

shafique wrote:Was Jordan in breach of international law as Israel is? If they were, then yes - I would also condemn Jordan's illegal actions.

If Israels annexation of East Jerusalem is illegal, why would Jordan annexation of the Westbnak and East Jerusalem not be illegal? Please explain...

The Westbank and East Jerusalem are unqiue cases under international law afaik, as they never belonged to a souvereign country. Only since 1967 did Pali's claim the Westbank as part of Palestine. Peculiar, isn't it, when Jordan rules over the Westbank, the PLO explicitly excluded the Westbank as Palestinian. When Israel conquered it, all of a sudden it is Palestinian territory. Any explanation?

Flying Dutchman wrote:Right, so we agree that unilateral actions or declarations regarding final borders are not helpfull.

Yes - it is better to have two parties negotiate than one party to unilaterally declare that it wants recognition of something (in this case it was UN resolutions etc).

Flying Dutchman wrote:

shafique wrote:Was Jordan in breach of international law as Israel is? If they were, then yes - I would also condemn Jordan's illegal actions.

If Israels annexation of East Jerusalem is illegal, why would Jordan annexation of the Westbnak and East Jerusalem not be illegal? Please explain...

Jordan annexing any part of Palestine would be as illegal as Israel annexing East Jerusalem. As I said, criminal actions are criminal - regardless who carries them out.

So, just to be clear - Jordan annexing foreign territory is illegal. Israel annexing East Jerusalem is illegal (and UN resolution 478 clearly states this fact). (Annexation is different from an occupation - the former is illegal)

I can't see where International Law says that it can't apply in East Jerusalem - quite the opposite, the text of UN resolution 478 specfically states that International Law applies there and that Israel is in breach of this law.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Jordan annexing any part of Palestine would be as illegal as Israel annexing East Jerusalem.

What is Palestine? Why didn't the PLO claim the Westbank or even East Jerusalem before 1967? And why does Abbas not want to rule over Israeli Arabs?

Close to 80% of the Israeli Arabs prefer to live in Israel anyways, isn't that strange? Or maybe they prefer to live in a democratic country with equal rights instead of a dictorship based on the sharia? I guess they enjoy the health care system and education system.

I think Israels claim to the Westbank is historically as good as any compared to Palestinians and Jordan. Historically Jordan is Palestine. Only Israel has no intention to rule over millions of Arabs. Israel wants the PA to rule over them, but it has to be done with a peace agreement.

Ok, Jordan or Israel annexing land that isn't part of Jordan or Israel is illegal under international law.

Israel annexing East Jerusalem has specifically been ruled on by UN resolution 478 - that Israel is breaking international law by annexing land it captured by force.

Simple.

I don't understand why you wish to complicate matters - it really is that simple. Israel breaks the law by trying to aquire land for Israel. If any other country similarly breaks the law (Jordan or any other country) then it too would be carrying out a criminal act. I understand that Israel doesn't want to abide by the law and wants to keep the land it's occupying - but all criminals want to benefit from their crimes (why would they commit crimes if they did not benefit).

The point is not whether Israel benefits from its crimes, but whether they are crimes. Annexation is a crime and 478 says that Israel is guilty of this crime in respect of East Jerusalem.

A criminal saying that he doesn't recognise the law, doesn't change the law.

But also, let us be clear - this is not a unique situation - Turkey is occupying Northern Cyprus, and British troops have been stationed on the island for some decades now. Turkey hasn't annexed this part of Cyprus - if it did, it would be illegal.

When Indonesia annexed East Timor after invading - the UN ruled this illegal and called for withdrawal - resolution 384 to be precise.

So, one example of a Muslim nation occupying territory - but not annexing it, and one example of a Muslim nation annexing and being called to account.

I can't see any reason why Israel should be above the law. The excuses for keeping the land are well rehearsed, but don't change the fact that annexing/keeping the land is illegal.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:I don't understand why you wish to complicate matters - it really is that simple.{/quote]

I understand putting things in historical perspective might be uncomfortable.

shafique wrote:But also, let us be clear - this is not a unique situation - Turkey is occupying Northern Cyprus, and British troops have been stationed on the island for some decades now. Turkey hasn't annexed this part of Cyprus - if it did, it would be illegal.

Cyprus is an internationally recognized country. Jordanian rule over the Westbank has never been recognized, accept for the UK I believe. Comparing North Cyprus with the Westbank is ridiculous.

shafique wrote:I can't see any reason why Israel should be above the law.

Israel shouldn't be above the law. But it is very telling how you focus on Israel and donot mention Hezbollah and Hamas breaking international law. But hey, people shooting rockets from a kindergarden to another kindergarden are your heroic freedom fighers.

But hey, people shooting rockets from a kindergarden to another kindergarden are your heroic freedom fighers.

To find the answer yourself you should ponder as to what is driving them to shoot stones and rockets from kindergarten" but not through war planes..

But hey you can't...since in your book there is no "suffering palestinian" at all...

You should also ponder why against their stones and primitive rockets, israel displays state of terror by shelling and killing them with nuclear ammunition excuting mass murder insteead of using stones and like-rockets..

Berrin wrote:To find the answer yourself you should ponder as to what is driving them to shoot stones and rockets from kindergarten" but not through war planes.

According to the Hamas convenant it is because of the fulfilling of a profecy in a hadith that Jews must be killed. Gaza could be another Dubai (before the crisis), instead they choose war.

Berrin wrote:But hey you can't...since in your book there is no "suffering palestinian" at all...

Palestinians suffer in Gaza (under the rule of Hamas), they suffer in Lebanon. They prosper in the Westbank.

Berrin wrote:You should also ponder why against their stones and primitive rockets, israel displays state of terror by shelling and killing them with nuclear ammunition excuting mass murder insteead of using stones and like-rockets..

You should ponder as to why Palestinians under Israeli rule have a higher life expextancy and lowerInfant mortality rate than Jordan or Egypt...

because of the fulfilling of a profecy in a hadith that Jews must be killed.

It’s your and israelies delution that Jews must be killed, but you are right that if jews threatens the life of muslims they should fight back.Such a shame that the whole world stayed quiet so far being the partners of such atrocities. I guess the murderers are tought how to give their accounts in the next life to save them from the hell fire..

Palestinians suffer in Gaza (under the rule of Hamas), they suffer in Lebanon. They prosper in the Westbank.

What a bit of balls..t… I wonder how there would be a room for Hamas to be established, had the israelies and the west been just and fair towards them.. And yes you are right, the news we get from human rights assosiations, charity organasations and from UN resolutions are of the same opion of your doomed mind!…

You should ponder as to why Palestinians under Israeli rule have a higher life expextancy and lowerInfant mortality..

Yes you are right, they just give them enough life expactancy to be killed all at once under war plane bombings…and yes their missiles are set up on such accurate calibre that don’t go anywhere but find and hit the baby on the seaside, giving the infant very much life expectancy promised.…
You are just a nutter but nothing else…

It’s only the broken bell that gets jammed and rings the same nuisance tone time after time! What difference do you have?

What a pitty that you stand for the way of tyrants building their kingdom on the death and expense of innocent! And how awful that they do it all to witness their work of art for such a short lifespan, substituiting their kingdom here with the one in the hereafter…(well afterall that’s what would be expected from disbelieving zionists, isn’t it!)
Whereas plastenians claiming nothing more than what they were entitled to own before, while standing firm against the transgressors, probably winning their acceptance both here and in the hereafter.

Flying Dutchman wrote:Israel shouldn't be above the law. But it is very telling how you focus on Israel and donot mention Hezbollah and Hamas breaking international law. But hey, people shooting rockets from a kindergarden to another kindergarden are your heroic freedom fighers.

Nope, I'm happy to condemn terrorist actions taken by Hezbollah, Hamas, IDF etc - I even made the point that the rockets were actually counter productive.

However, that doesn't change the fact that Israel is breaking the law - and as you agree with me, Israel shouldn't indeed be above the law.

I'm happy for Hezbollah, Hamas etc to be held to the same laws and be tried/condemned for endagering/killing non-combatants, just as Israel also must be held to account for its transgressions. In that regard, I'm with Goldstone - that both sides should be investigated for war crimes.

As I said, I don't get the argument that Israel should be excused for its crimes because its opponents also commit crimes. For example, I don't agree with Hamas holding one Israeli soldier as hostage just because Israel holds thousands of Palestinians hostage (in 'administrative detention') - but that is because I am against hostage taking on principle.

So, now we agree that Israel should not be above the law - I guess we are close to recognising the fact that Israel is breaking international law by annexing East Jerusalem and imposing discriminatory rules on the non-Jewish inhabitants (particularly when it comes to land/housing)

Cheers,
Shafique

Berrin wrote: if jews threatens the life of muslims they should fight back.

I thought it is the Israeli-Arab conflict. Not the Jewish-Muslim conflict.

Berrin wrote:Yes you are right, they just give them enough life expactancy to be killed all at once under war plane bombings…

Oh, Israel let them live longer than neighboring countries, so they can kill them? Never heard that one before. You are a prime example of somebody who grew up in an environment of hate and envy and you just cannot cope with it. You are a very sick person.

Berrin wrote:Whereas plastenians claiming nothing more than what they were entitled to own before

What are Palestinians entitled to according to you?

shafique wrote:Nope, I'm happy to condemn terrorist actions taken by Hezbollah, Hamas, IDF etc - I even made the point that the rockets were actually counter productive.

So, don't single out Israel in this conflict. That's just plain hypocricy.

shafique wrote:For example, I don't agree with Hamas holding one Israeli soldier as hostage just because Israel holds thousands of Palestinians hostage (in 'administrative detention') - but that is because I am against hostage taking on principle.

Another example of Hamas breaking international law...one of many! Do you agree Hamas is breaking international law with the kidnapping of Shalit?

shafique wrote:So, now we agree that Israel should not be above the law - I guess we are close to recognising the fact that Israel is breaking international law by annexing East Jerusalem and imposing discriminatory rules on the non-Jewish inhabitants (particularly when it comes to land/housing)

Yes, Israel treats non-Israeli's different than Israeli's, nothing special about that.