Israel / Gaza Thread

[kylebisme]

The reason I don't support Israel getting out of the West Bank is completely tactical. I think it will deteriorate in the same way Gaza did, and soon enough more Palestinians will be armed with rockets.

I quoted those words from a previous thread, but many people share the same opposition to withdrawing Israeli settlers from the West Bank. Gaza most certainly deteriorated into shear chaos upon Israel's withdrawal, with and Hamas eventually consolidating power, and more rockets being fired into Israel than ever. I could never want to see anything of that sort happen in the West Bank, for the sake of everyone in the region. However, to understand the chaos ensuing in Gaza, I urge everyone to consider what has been happening in the West Bank since long before the withdrawal from Gaza. To illustrate that context, I'll defer to quoting an article from 2005, published shortly before the start of Israel's withdrawal from Gaza:

...

So, if it is probable that Sharon will implement the disengagement, why not support him?

Because I think about the day after.

I have no illusions about Sharon?s intentions as far as the West Bank is concerned. He plans to annex 58% of it and leave the Palestinians in isolated enclaves, cut off from each other by settlements and military installations. At most, in order to satisfy Bush?s demand for ?contiguity?, the enclaves will be connected by bridges and tunnels.

Apart from his son Omri, Advocate Dov Weissglas is the person closest to him. When this man declared that after the disengagement, Sharon would put the peace process ?in formaldehyde?, he was ? exceptionally ? telling the truth.

Supporting Sharon at this time means supporting this plan, too.

But that concerns the future. At present, what counts is the disengagement operation. Why not support Sharon now, and start the fight for the future the day after?

Because this is not at all a matter of the future! While this is being written, Sharon continues building the Separation Wall, which has annexed 7% of the West Bank so far. He is filling the area between the Wall and the Green Line with new settlements. Last week, it was announced that he is going to build 3500 housing units in Ma?aleh Adumim. This is the most dangerous settlement in the West Bank, which it effectively cuts into two.

The enlargement of the settlements and the outposts is racing ahead even now all over the West Bank.

...

http://zope.gush-shalom.org/ho...nels/avnery/1112091472

That ongoing colonization of the West Bank continues to divide the Palestinian people, undermining any chance of Palestine ever existing as a sovereign nation. Furthermore, while Israel withdrew the settlers from Gaza, they withdrew their troops along side, with no attempt at coordinating with Palestinian security officials. Doing so left a vacuum of power in Gaza which was destined to descend into chaos. From there, the Israel military has been focused on keeping settlers all across the West Bank safe from any Palestine retaliation, while Gaza is the only place Israel has allowed anyone the freedom of movement to fire rockets from.

To end this conflict, Israel must withdraw their settlers from the West Bank, to within Israel's internationally recognized borders. This does not mean Israel should unilaterally withdraw their troops along side those settlers, as doing would only lead to the same vacuum of power in as was left in Gaza, and the West Bank would likewise decent into chaos. However, if the troops stayed to keep order as the reality of the settler withdrawal set in, those troops could then slowly withdraw towards the boarder over the course of years, as tensions continue to calm. Of course the boarder itself would have to be turned into a no-mans land for many years with a strong defense to control it. However, given about 70 years of that process, the people on both sides who grew up learning to hate the other side will mostly have all died from old age, and at some point after that Israel could exist at peace with the region.

Also, Israeli troops could likely be supplemented by international peacekeeping forces. While I'd need some training to be fit for service, I'd be happy to enlist for such worthy cause as ending this decades old conflict. Perhaps there are even enough solders already trained and wiling to start today, if only we would think to ask them.

 

[SamurAchzar]

1. The article predates the disengagement. No one from the (radical) left (to which Gush Shalom belongs) ever predicted such an outcome. If anything, people in Gaza should been all happy while the ones West Bank demanded a disengagement of their own. Quite the opposite happened.

2. Some members of the left feel guilt about the outcome of the disengagement, therefore the recent military campaign enjoyed support across the board, other than the most radical of lefts. Not one of them expected to be rewarded for their good intents with 3000 rockets a year, and complete terror in a third of the country or so.

3. Blaming Israel for Hamas taking power is like blaming it for withdrawing from Lebanon, leaving the place to Hizbolla. Hamas is better organized, better equipped, better funded and enjoys better grassroots support in the public compared to the Palestinian Authority. Part of the reason the disengagement took place from the beginning is that the PA became irrelevant since the demise of Arafat.

4. The Palestinians are being raised up with anti-Israel propaganda that borders on the anti-semite (and I don't often use this term). In conjunction with the trend of Islamization, if anything, I expect the young generation to be more hateful towards Israel.

5. When Israel left Gaza, Hamas presented it as their victory. Trouble is, they sincerely believe it is. And in some way, they are right. Additional retreats will be perceived as yet another victory, which then leads to radicalization and more violence.

6. Peacekeeping forces are completely irrelevant when both sides are heavily armed. See what happens in Lebanon - the peacekeepers just keep low profile, if not cooperate with Hizbolla by turning a blind eye. Who in his right mind would mess with a ruthless terrorist organization? The only thing to really keep peace is more Marines than UN, but then, who in his right mind would send his people to such a mission?

7. Lets see Lebanon as a case study. Gaza is becoming even worse. At least in Lebanon, there is some opposition to Hizbolla, In Gaza, their force is unrivaled. No one would dare to speak against Hamas. Why would Israel want another entity of this kind near its borders?

As someone said, in the first Intifiada they fought Israel with rocks and tires. Then came Oslo process, and then came the 2nd Intifada. Then they fought Israel with guns and bombs. Then came the disengagement, and soon, In the 3rd Intfiada they will fight Israel with rockets.

 

[smack Down]

3. Blaming Israel for Hamas taking power is like blaming it for withdrawing from Lebanon, leaving the place to Hizbolla. Hamas is better organized, better equipped, better funded and enjoys better grassroots support in the public compared to the Palestinian Authority. Part of the reason the disengagement took place from the beginning is that the PA became irrelevant since the demise of Arafat.

Yes, Israel is to blame for both Hizbolla and Hama, it has been shown thought history that when you invade a country and remove the government and retreat then shit will hit the fan. Of course the PA became irrelevant Israel was literately driving tanks through it. Israel will continue getting all the blame for the shit happening there until it fixes the mess it made.

4. The Palestinians are being raised up with anti-Israel propaganda that borders on the anti-semite (and I don't often use this term). In conjunction with the trend of Islamization, if anything, I expect the young generation to be more hateful towards Israel.

Really they hate Israel, does that comes as a surprise to you? and do you really think it is because of "propaganda"?

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
The article predates the disengagement.

Yes, and that is exactly the context I presented it in. Again, that colonization of the West Bank the article refers to undermines any chance of Palestine ever existing as a sovereign nation, and hence any chance that the Gaza disengagement would bring peace.

 

[Lemon law]

As the Annapolis peace conference produced nothing, any hope of a Palestinian State is dead for awhile.

What we have is Israel punishing Gaza and Hamas for their hostility, while giving the West Bank and Fatah nothing for being good. Just the same ye ole Israeli run around because Israel wants everything and will cede nothing while occupying more disputed land. In short, Israel is not a real partner for peace and never has been.

And just like Israeli occupation of Lebanon, Israel gave nothing to Lebanon and Hezbollah was created as a result. And eventually Israel was forced to withdraw. Not enough man power and too niggardly a contribution to occupy Lebanon, not enough man power to invade. And because of Israeli ill will and its unwillingness to deal fairly, it means Israel will be forever surrounded by hostile neighbors while being too small to have any buffer zone.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: smack Down

3. Blaming Israel for Hamas taking power is like blaming it for withdrawing from Lebanon, leaving the place to Hizbolla. Hamas is better organized, better equipped, better funded and enjoys better grassroots support in the public compared to the Palestinian Authority. Part of the reason the disengagement took place from the beginning is that the PA became irrelevant since the demise of Arafat.

Yes, Israel is to blame for both Hizbolla and Hama, it has been shown thought history that when you invade a country and remove the government and retreat then shit will hit the fan. Of course the PA became irrelevant Israel was literately driving tanks through it. Israel will continue getting all the blame for the shit happening there until it fixes the mess it made.

4. The Palestinians are being raised up with anti-Israel propaganda that borders on the anti-semite (and I don't often use this term). In conjunction with the trend of Islamization, if anything, I expect the young generation to be more hateful towards Israel.

Really they hate Israel, does that comes as a surprise to you? and do you really think it is because of "propaganda"?

Thats what I like about you Smack Down -- your always Smaking yourself Down!!

 

[SamurAchzar]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
As the Annapolis peace conference produced nothing, any hope of a Palestinian State is dead for awhile.

What we have is Israel punishing Gaza and Hamas for their hostility, while giving the West Bank and Fatah nothing for being good. Just the same ye ole Israeli run around because Israel wants everything and will cede nothing while occupying more disputed land. In short, Israel is not a real partner for peace and never has been.

Being good? They are just not Hamas, that's it. In terms of suicide bombers, they are far worst, just being held back by the wall. Israel went in there some time ago and did cleansing.

Unfortunately Palestinians don't see the reality like you do. What you think is a concession out of moral reasoning or just plain good will, they interpret as defeat. You need to listen to the same old Eastern rhetoric.

And just like Israeli occupation of Lebanon, Israel gave nothing to Lebanon and Hezbollah was created as a result. And eventually Israel was forced to withdraw. Not enough man power and too niggardly a contribution to occupy Lebanon, not enough man power to invade.

I take it you're suggesting Israel wanted to conquer Lebanon as well? Funny, I was always under the impression the idea was to create a buffer zone after hostile actions from Lebanon.

And because of Israeli ill will and its unwillingness to deal fairly, it means Israel will be forever surrounded by hostile neighbors while being too small to have any buffer zone.

Reality proves you wrong, as secular Arabs have gotten used to the existence of Israel. Radical Muslims don't like it one bit, but then again, they don't like USA either. Jordan, Egypt, Gulf countries, Morocco, have all been in good formal or informal relations with Israel. Hizbullah, Hamas and Iran call for its destruction, but you won't hear it from country leaders. Egypt nearly sided with Israel in the last conflict, imagine that.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
I take it you're suggesting Israel wanted to conquer Lebanon as well?

He is saying Israel held Southern Lebanon for two decades, under which occupation Hezbollah formed and eventually dove them out. What are you confused about here?

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
Reality proves you wrong, as secular Arabs have gotten used to the existence of Israel.

No Arab has gotten used to Israel's ongoing colonization of the West Bank. Surely you are not attempting to argue otherwise?

 

[SamurAchzar]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
I take it you're suggesting Israel wanted to conquer Lebanon as well?

He is saying Israel held Southern Lebanon for two decades, under which occupation Hezbollah formed and eventually dove them out. What are you confused about here?

So Hizbullah was formed as a direct result of Israel's occupation? Lets assume it did. Why is it still intact, then? There are no more territorial disputes in this area (other than Shaba Farms, but that's negligible and under resolution anyway). History didn't start with Israel conquering south of Lebanon. Like Lemon Law said, Israel simply doesn't have enough buffer zones, and in case a country needs a buffer zone to protect itself from another country, it better erect that buffer zone on the territory of the attacking country. Much more just.

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
Reality proves you wrong, as secular Arabs have gotten used to the existence of Israel.

No Arab has gotten used to Israel's ongoing colonization of the West Bank. Surely you are not attempting to argue otherwise?

Where did I say anything about the West Bank in that quote? You pay too much attention to one issue. The grudges of the Arab world against Israel are quite long and don't amount to the West Bank. In fact, I can't see the West Bank even in the top 5 of the list. It might seem harsh, but Arabs don't give a damn, in general, about the Palestinians.
The first thing Egypt did in the recent conflict was to reinforce its police around the border in Gaza, fearing they will breach the walls into Sinayi. They don't want even one Palestinian in their land. It's like Russia attacking Germany, and Switzerland putting machine guns on the border.

And yet, Arabs learned to live with Israel, for the most part. Arabs leaders are much more concerned about Hamas, AQ and the Muslim Brotherhood than they are concerned about Israel.

And if the West Bank should go back to someone, mind you, it's Jordan. It was conquered from them, after all.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
So Hizbullah was formed as a direct result of Israel's occupation? Lets assume it did. Why is it still intact, then?

Sheba, Golan, Gaza, and the West Bank, along with the people Israel still holds without trial. Hezbollah formed in response to Israel's occupation of Southern Lebanaon in 1982, but after fighting for 18 years to win back that land, they are in this for the long haul.

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
History didn't start with Israel conquering south of Lebanon. Like Lemon Law said, Israel simply doesn't have enough buffer zones, and in case a country needs a buffer zone to protect itself from another country, it better erect that buffer zone on the territory of the attacking country. Much more just

I've never disputed the need for buffer zones, my contention is with Israelis ongoing colonization of the West Bank.

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
Where did I say anything about the West Bank in that quote? You pay too much attention to one issue. The grudges of the Arab world against Israel are quite long and don't amount to the West Bank.

The problem is that you aren't paying any attention to the Israel's ongoing colonization of the West Bank. The Arabs can't even start holding a grudge, let alone get used to Israel, not until Israel stops colonizing Palestinian land.

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
In fact, I can't see the West Bank even in the top 5 of the list. It might seem harsh, but Arabs don't give a damn, in general, about the Palestinians.

Rater, they learned a number of over the decades that Israel can crush them all, whenever it wants to.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
So Hizbullah was formed as a direct result of Israel's occupation? Lets assume it did. Why is it still intact, then?

Sheba, Golan, Gaza, and the West Bank, along with the people Israel still holds without trial. Hezbollah formed in response to Israel's occupation of Southern Lebanaon in 1982, but after fighting for 18 years to win back that land, they are in this for the long haul.

If I understand you, Hezbollah - Shia Muslims funded, armed and trained by Iran - are fighting for:

* Getting back the Golan, which conquered from Syria (in accordance with the international law, btw);

* Getting back Gaza strip, which Israel conquered from Egypt (again, international law and all that). and Egypt never asked for it back;

* Getting back West Bank, which Israel (rightfully, of course) conquered from Jordan - which the latter never asked back

I'm happy the Hezbollah took upon itself the task of correcting the wrongdoings of the Israel towards the Arab world. I just hope next time Israel carpet-bombs them they won't cry foul like the last time.

 

[kylebisme]

Colonization isn't legal under international law, which is why Israel has such a long list of U.N. resolutions against them, many stating as much.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: smack Down

3. Blaming Israel for Hamas taking power is like blaming it for withdrawing from Lebanon, leaving the place to Hizbolla. Hamas is better organized, better equipped, better funded and enjoys better grassroots support in the public compared to the Palestinian Authority. Part of the reason the disengagement took place from the beginning is that the PA became irrelevant since the demise of Arafat.

Yes, Israel is to blame for both Hizbolla and Hama, it has been shown thought history that when you invade a country and remove the government and retreat then shit will hit the fan. Of course the PA became irrelevant Israel was literately driving tanks through it. Israel will continue getting all the blame for the shit happening there until it fixes the mess it made.

4. The Palestinians are being raised up with anti-Israel propaganda that borders on the anti-semite (and I don't often use this term). In conjunction with the trend of Islamization, if anything, I expect the young generation to be more hateful towards Israel.

Really they hate Israel, does that comes as a surprise to you? and do you really think it is because of "propaganda"?

What country did Israel invade? They were the ones invaded.
There was no Pal government; the Arab countries agreed to look after the Pals until it was felt the Pals were ready for self governance.

The Pals were hung out to dry after '73 when the Arab world realized that they were unable to destroy Israel. And the Pals that had resettled in the Arab world became restless, they were looking for the streets of mana that the Arabs had been promissing for 25+ years. so the Pals had no place to go, they were kicked out of the Arabs countries for being trouble makers.

The Arab countries made the mess in the beginning and you expect Israel to clean up AGAIN. Why should Israel go it alone?

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
What country did Israel invade? They were the ones invaded.

To start with, Israelis invaded and depopulated Arab localities on the Palestinian side of the U.N. partition plan, in the months prior to declaring statehood.

Are you attempting to deny this?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
What country did Israel invade? They were the ones invaded.

To start with, Israelis invaded and depopulated Arab localities on the Palestinian side of the U.N. partition plan, in the months prior to declaring statehood.

Are you attempting to deny this?

I am not going to deny this.

I am going to lay it out in context where is has less significance

There were four sides entering the end of the British Mandate
1) The Brits - siding with the Arabs when possible -they did not want the Jews around which is why they asked the UN to interceded.
2) The Jews - wanting the land to be free of Arabs that they were leery of - War was brewing and they did not want sympathizers at their back.
3) The Arabs - they wanted the locals out of the area to ensure that they could sweep through with no problems. The locals were promised the right of return by the Arabs who were supposed to supervise them
4) The Pals - again realizing the trouble was brewing, they knew that they had to take sides. With the Jews pushing and the Arabs pulling, leaving was the best option.

The odds were already stacked against the Jews at that point.

Come separation time, the Arabs attacked and drove the Jews well back into the edges of Israel before Israel could recover.

And did the Arabs then allow the Palestinians to go back or even govern the territory that the Arabs conquered. Their homes were under Arab control for the most part plus they had land assigned to the Israelis from the Partition. Here is where your 400K people could come back into play. What happened? - the land was there and under control by a friendly overseer.


And then the Arabs tried three more times, each time ceding more territory of Palestine and/or their own territory to Israel in return for a ceasefire. The territory was taken by Israel to act as a buffer zone to prevent the Arabs from getting to Israel.

Golan is a buffer.
The Christians in southern Lebanon acted as a buffer.
The Sinai acted as a buffer.

But Israel let the Arabs that remained in Israel and the Ceded/Conquered territories to remain.

Then comes the infadas (sp)and Israel needs a larger buffer. Such starts the settlements on the West Bank and Gaza.

Israel feels the need buffers to protect itself from attacks from the Arabs.

There seems to be a pattern here.
Arabs/Pals poke Israel, Israel retaliates and the Arabs/Pals cry foul and ask the world for condemnation while conveniently ignoring the stick poking.
And because Israel tells the UN to stuff it, the Arabs/Pals try to get a bigger response. The Pals can not be condemned because they do not have a country. The Arabs can state that the stick poking is the Pals doing. When enough machismo is built up, the same thing happens again and again.

Once the Pal leadership starts caring about the people, then a chance for peace will exist. Israel can withdraw from the West Bank as long as they do not feel threatened. It is the Pals and hostile Arab counties that are doing the threatening.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
What country did Israel invade? They were the ones invaded.

To start with, Israelis invaded and depopulated Arab localities on the Palestinian side of the U.N. partition plan, in the months prior to declaring statehood.

Are you attempting to deny this?

The Jews - wanting the land to be free of Arabs that they were leery of - War was brewing and they did not want sympathizers at their back.

Is this an attempt to excuse the Jewish militias which depopulated and sometimes outright destroyed Arab towns and villages across both sides of the U.N. partition plan, displacing over 400,000 Arab civilians?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
What country did Israel invade? They were the ones invaded.

To start with, Israelis invaded and depopulated Arab localities on the Palestinian side of the U.N. partition plan, in the months prior to declaring statehood.

Are you attempting to deny this?

The Jews - wanting the land to be free of Arabs that they were leery of - War was brewing and they did not want sympathizers at their back.

Is this an attempt to excuse the Jewish militias which depopulated and sometimes outright destroyed Arab towns and villages across both sides of the U.N. partition plan, displacing over 400,000 Arab civilians?

No excuses, just stating the facts. the Jews knew that there woiuld be trouble from many of those areas, that is why they were targetted.

Also I was indicating that thererwere many forces in play and the Arabs/Pals had mulitple chances to restore to the 400K what was abandoned/taken.

They got greedy and wanted everything - they ended up with almost nothing.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
No excuses, just stating the facts.

You've been rather loose with the facts, which why I got the impression you are trying to excuse the ethnic cleansing of Arab localities prior to the Arab nations attacking Israel. However, as it seems you are simply missinformed, I'll list some obvious points that color your argument bellow:

1) The claim Arabs nations asked Palestinians to leave in preparation of attack is completely unsubstantiated.

2) The Arabs have never drove the Jews into the edges of Israel.

3) those 400K people who were displaced before the Arab nations attacked all wound up under Israeli control, and by the time the war ended the number Arab civilians displaced by Israel had doubled, and Israel was never a friendly overseer of their lands.

4) Many of those displaced did wind up living in Gaza and the West Bank, as do their descendents today.

5) Moving civilians into buffer zones undermines their purpose, at which point they become zones of colonization.

6) The colonization of the West Bank started directly following the Six-day War, while the First Intifada started two decades later.

I hope you might check your sources to determine how you arrived at such misunderstandings, as they flagrantly color your perspective of this conflict.

Beyond that, do you have any defense for Israel contending to colonize the West Bank today?

 

[RichardE]

Text

On Monday, Dr. Ashour was not the only official in charge. Armed Hamas militants in civilian clothes roamed the halls. Asked their function, they said it was to provide security. But there was internal bloodletting under way.

In the fourth-floor orthopedic section, a woman in her late 20s asked a militant to let her see Saleh Hajoj, her 32-year-old husband. She was turned away and left the hospital. Fifteen minutes later, Mr. Hajoj was carried out by young men pretending to transfer him to another ward. As he lay on the stretcher, he was shot in the left side of the head.

Mr. Hajoj, like five others killed at the hospital this way in 24 hours, was accused of collaboration with Israel. He had been in the central prison awaiting trial by Hamas judges; when Israel destroyed the prison on Sunday he and the others were transferred to the hospital. But their trials were short-circuited.

A crowd at the hospital showed no mercy after the shooting, which was widely observed. A man in his 30s mocked a woman expressing horror at the scene.

"This horrified you?" he shouted. "A collaborator that caused the death of many innocent and resistance fighters?"

What happened to the peace loving flower carrying Palestinian people who would never really ever want violence? These people are nothing more than animals, at least Israel along with most other countries (The US included (Putting insurgents and army in the same hospital trying to save the life of both) ) treat the enemy with more respect than these people treat a supposed traitor.

Where is the outrage here? I could just imagine the 30 threads we would fine if Israel started doing summary public executions by dragging Palestinians out of there bed to shoot them in the streets like dogs.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: RichardE
Text

On Monday, Dr. Ashour was not the only official in charge. Armed Hamas militants in civilian clothes roamed the halls. Asked their function, they said it was to provide security. But there was internal bloodletting under way.

In the fourth-floor orthopedic section, a woman in her late 20s asked a militant to let her see Saleh Hajoj, her 32-year-old husband. She was turned away and left the hospital. Fifteen minutes later, Mr. Hajoj was carried out by young men pretending to transfer him to another ward. As he lay on the stretcher, he was shot in the left side of the head.

Mr. Hajoj, like five others killed at the hospital this way in 24 hours, was accused of collaboration with Israel. He had been in the central prison awaiting trial by Hamas judges; when Israel destroyed the prison on Sunday he and the others were transferred to the hospital. But their trials were short-circuited.

A crowd at the hospital showed no mercy after the shooting, which was widely observed. A man in his 30s mocked a woman expressing horror at the scene.

"This horrified you?" he shouted. "A collaborator that caused the death of many innocent and resistance fighters?"

What happened to the peace loving flower carrying Palestinian people who would never really ever want violence? These people are nothing more than animals, at least Israel along with most other countries (The US included (Putting insurgents and army in the same hospital trying to save the life of both) ) treat the enemy with more respect than these people treat a supposed traitor.

Where is the outrage here? I could just imagine the 30 threads we would fine if Israel started doing summary public executions by dragging Palestinians out of there bed to shoot them in the streets like dogs.

I am going to go ahead and say that this is bullsheit until i get any kind of evidence.

Not that i don't think Hamas wouldn't do it, hell i've seen much worse than that from people like that but this story is just a bit to neat to be true.

 

[jpeyton]

The US also has the death penalty for treason.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: RichardE
if Israel started doing summary public executions by dragging Palestinians out of there bed to shoot them in the streets like dogs.

you know what the final solution is.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
The US also has the death penalty for treason.

...which is a constitutionally defined crime for which the accused are afforded due process. The death penalty, despite all its faults here in the US...cannot be compared to what this story claims. This was a murder by an armed goon squad, if true.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: jpeyton
The US also has the death penalty for treason.

...which is a constitutionally defined crime for which the accused are afforded due process. The death penalty, despite all its faults here in the US...cannot be compared to what this story claims. This was a murder by an armed goon squad, if true.

You're talking to jpeyton, if i am shot dead tomorrow, he'll celebrate a winning cause.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
The US also has the death penalty for treason.

The last American executed for "Treason" was in 1859 -- John Brown -- and that was actually done by the Commonwealth of Virginia, not the Federal Government. The last executions for the related crime of espionage were Julius and Ethel Rosenberg in 1953. That's a grand total of three treason-related executions in the last 150 years. I'd love to see your reaction to the U.S. summarily executing five unarmed civilians, some wounded, without trial, in the 21st century... that would be a hoot!

That said, the OP needs more reliable sources before I'll buy into it.