StarGateWars Forums

1. Is very vague, you may have to consider the possibility of setting up a new Palestinian region and redrawing a few borders.

2. Your "trade" so far involves cherry picking what comes in and out of gaza, and the west bank. Denying things like building supplies, machinery and "luxury" foods. So your going to actually make a concerned effort here to let the Palestinians actually engage in trade and not the "trade" where you deny such basic amenities.

3. I would have liked to hear that would be actually willing to share control of such basic necessities of life. Not just that your going to think of alternatives.

4. Blockades not= peace, Terrorism NOT = peace. Work together on this or it'll just degredate one more time.


Do ever believe you will be able to trust the Palestinian people hitch?

This isn't all on israel though Palestine will have to stop trying to import weapons. Take steps to punish terrorist, and actually be willing to work with you aswell on issues like water and food.

Thriller wrote:1. Is very vague, you may have to consider the possibility of setting up a new Palestinian region and redrawing a few borders.

2. Your "trade" so far involves cherry picking what comes in and out of gaza, and the west bank. Denying things like building supplies, machinery and "luxury" foods. So your going to actually make a concerned effort here to let the Palestinians actually engage in trade and not the "trade" where you deny such basic amenities.

3. I would have liked to hear that would be actually willing to share control of such basic necessities of life. Not just that your going to think of alternatives.

4. Blockades not= peace, Terrorism NOT = peace. Work together on this or it'll just degredate one more time.


Do ever believe you will be able to trust the Palestinian people hitch?

This isn't all on israel though Palestine will have to stop trying to import weapons. Take steps to punish terrorist, and actually be willing to work with you aswell on issues like water and food.

1) do you want to me to draw you an entire regional map? i can't.
no one can at this moment.

2) that's ignorance and pre-reasoning speaking

3) the so called "seas canal" (mediteranean to the dead se) is a project in advanced phases of design. as i said, it is a project in which Jordan, Israel and the palestinian auothority are equel partners. desalination of sea water is an operational technology, and just a month ago a facility which will produce 10% of Israel's water consumption was set up.

4) did i say peace? peace is a rare commodity. i'll take non violence at this point. given academic, political and commercial relationships, peace should develop (given both parties desire it).

i'll be honest, i'm getting the impression youre trying to bicker here. no, things won't be all perfect immmeadietly. anyone thinking otherwise is either naive or dishonest. but in the long run, that's the one shot we have at coexisting here.

and yes, i believe i could trust the palestinian people. heck, i trust most of them right now. just not the Hamas leadership.

Hitch WTH, there is not middle ground with you, basically all you wrote is that you want to maintain the status quo while accepting palestines right to exist.

You also go off on tagents that do not follow the issues im adressing. I can't follow your reasoning.

I going to re read this entire thread again and make a point form adrss of the issues on both sides.

Thriller wrote:Hitch WTH, there is not middle ground with you, basically all you wrote is that you want to maintain the status quo while accepting palestines right to exist.
Huh?
a) no middle ground would be transfer all Palestinians to Egypt/Jordan, and annex the territories.
b) is a sovereign Palestinian state status quo? is non-violence status quo?

You also go off on tagents that do not follow the issues im adressing. I can't follow your reasoning.

care to expand?
or, why won't you take the lead again. what are your thoughts on those matters?

Okay so upon revisions, i understand why were not getting anywhere anymore.

Hitch beleives that everything the israelis have done is justifiable and they don't have to make any concessions. He has diverted onto tagents and scrutiniced every action of palestine but not once admitted any wrong doing on part of his nation. Just ligitimized it.

He beleives acheiving non violence is entirely up to the palestinians in this conflict. He doesn't understand that a mutual trust is going to have to be struck that they BOTH will have to follow. That both will have to give and take in ares of difference.

He refuses to admit things like Israel embargo, control of water supply, expansion of borders and establishment of isreali settlements goes beyond justifiable in many instances.

If hitch is not willing to admit any wrong doing or outline any concessions of his nations part. Then this discussion is not going to advance.

oops double post

Thriller wrote:Okay so upon revisions, i understand why were not getting anywhere anymore.

Hitch beleives that everything the israelis have done is justifiable and they don't have to make any concessions. He has diverted onto tagents and scrutiniced every action of palestine but not once admitted any wrong doing on part of his nation. Just ligitimized it.

He beleives acheiving non violence is entirely up to the palestinians in this conflict. He doesn't understand that a mutual trust is going to have to be struck that they BOTH will have to follow. That both will have to give and take in ares of difference.

He refuses to admit things like Israel embargo, control of water supply, expansion of borders and establishment of isreali settlements goes beyond justifiable in many instances.

If hitch is not willing to admit any wrong doing or outline any concessions of his nations part. Then this discussion is not going to advance.

take the lead, honey.
what concessions, for example?

1) The removal or transfer of many jewish settelments in the west bank and gaza
2) mutal control of the aquafers for essential things like drinking water and agriculture
3) Allowing palestine to import things like construction materials, agricultural supplies, "luxury" foods, and most medical equipment.
4) Withdrawal of most of Israeli forces from palestinian borders
5) Allowing the establishment of more buisness ventures (israeli or foreign) in palestine
6) Mutual cooperation in the establishment of security force that will stop illegal weapons smuggling and distrupt terrorist activities.

I know your just going to deny all of this or deflect on some tangent so i don't know why i bother.

Thriller wrote:1) The removal or transfer of many jewish settelments in the west bank and gaza
2) mutal control of the aquafers for essential things like drinking water and agriculture
3) Allowing palestine to import many things like costruction materials, agricultural supplies, "luxury" foods, and most medical equipment.
4) Withdrawal of most of Israeli forces from palestinian borders
5) Allowing the establishment of more buisness ventures (israeli or foreign) in palestine
6) Mutual cooperation in the establishment of security force that will stop illegal weapons smuggling and distrupt terrorist activities.

I know your just going to deny all of this or deflect on some tangent so i don't know why i bother.

to be honest, each and every time, it seems more and more to me that you are both misinformed, and fail to understand the geo-political reality in this region (and, allowing for your post, KMA, this seems to go for you to).
more than that, just as we seemed to make progress, and discuss what form a feasable solution to this conflict might take, you divert back to (crudely hidden) accusations.
i will answer your points, and whatever later clarification you might require, but unless you are willing to admit that perhaps, just perhaps, some of the ideas you came with to this discussion did not exactly match either existing reality or practicality, i don't see a point in continued bickery.

1) as you should know, in 2005 Israel withdrew all civilian settlments and military forces from Gaza, and a large part of the Shomeron. later transfers are subsequent to negotiations (and, did you know? Israel has offered in the past over 95% of the west bank to then Fatah leader, Yasser Arrafat. he declined)

2) i'll be honest and say, i'm not familiar with the aqua-geologic reality in those areas. i do know, as i have said twice, that there is a project, shared by Jordan, Israel and he Palestinian authority, to relieve the water shortage in the area. i would also say (also, for the third time) that Israel is developing (and indeed, has already build one) desalination facilities, to produce fresh water from sea water.

3) are we talking current day, or a day when a sovereign Palestinian nation is up and running?
currently, there are no restrictions what so ever on import to the west bank.
Gaza is under a blockade, for as long as it's government (currently, Hamas) continues to endorse terrorism. lifting this blockade while terrorist attacks are preformed daily would be nothing short of supporting terrorism. and then, you can expect a world wide wave of terrorist attacks.
when a sovereign Palestinian state will be up and running, if it will be non violent, Israel will see no need to restrict it's import. if it will continue hostilities, Israel will see that as an act of war, and, as is customary in wartime, will blockade it. pure and simple.

4) from what Palestinian borders? the IDF will continue to protect Israel from its side of the fence, as it currently does. the IDF will be deployed in Israel's borders with Lebanon, with Syria, with Jordan, with Egypt, and yes, with the Palestinian state. the IDF will NOT be deployed on borders between the Palestinian states and other states.

5) again, are we talking present tense, or future planned?
assuming a none hostile Palestinian state, Israel will have no demands as to restricting neither the commercial nor industrial sector of the Palestinian state. again, acts of war might result in a blockade, as costumary in wartime.

6) this is actually already happening in the west bank, and has been for years. as Hamas (which governs Gaza) refuses to recognise Israel as a legitimate state and government (not to mention, smuggles weapons and preforms terrorist activities), it doesn't happen in Gaza.

@Hitchkok:

you condemn the use of human shields by Hamas, but say nothing when Israel does the same?!



[spoiler]Investigators reporting to the United Nations Human Rights Council Monday enumerated a number of human rights violations committed by Israel during its Gaza incursion, including the specific targeting of occupied civilian homes and the use of children as human shields. As Reuters reports:

The accusations came in reports to the U.N. Human Rights Council which also called for an urgent end to Israeli restrictions on humanitarian supplies to Gaza and a full international investigation into the conflict.


"Civilian targets, particularly homes and their occupants, appear to have taken the brunt of the attacks, but schools and medical facilities have also been hit," said one report by Radhika Coomaraswamy, the U.N. Secretary-General's Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict.

Coomaraswamy also revealed details of one incident in particular wherein Israeli Defense Forces used an 11 year-old Palestinian boy as a human shield. According to the AP:

The Israeli Defence force ordered the boy to walk in front of soldiers being fired on in the Gaza neighborhood of Tel al-Hawa and enter buildings before them, said the UN Secretary-General's envoy for protecting children in armed conflict.


The boy also was told to open the bags of Palestinians -- presumably to protect the soldiers from possible explosives -- before being released at the entrance to a hospital, Radhika Coomaraswamy said.

She said the Jan. 15 incident, after Israeli tanks had rolled into the neighbourhood and during "intense operations," was a violation of Israeli and international law.


Because Mr Falk was unable to enter the Palestinian territories, his latest report focuses on the legality of Israel's January operation in Gaza in general, rather than on specific cases or claims that disproportionate force was used.


Mr Falk said that in order to determine if the war was legal, it was necessary to assess whether Israeli forces could differentiate between civilian and military targets in Gaza.

"If it is not possible to do so, then launching the attacks is inherently unlawful, and would seem to constitute a war crime of the greatest magnitude under international law," Mr Falk's report says[/spoiler].




Israeli violations of human rights and international law

Israeli violations of human rights & international humanitarian law in the Occupied Territories
JEFF HALPER
Presentation, 20 June 2002

Hearing on "EU-Israel Bilateral Relations in the Framework of International and European Law" at the European Parliament:



[spoiler]I would like to begin my presentation by talking about "sides." There is a perception -- indeed, an expectation -- that Israelis and Palestinians will be on separate, conflicting and irreconcilable "sides" of what is called the "Israeli-Palestinian Conflict." There is a committee of the European Parliament that liasons with the Palestinian "side," and another that liasons with the Israeli "side." I would like to declare at the outset that I do not locate myself on either of those "sides." For me, as an Israeli Jew, "sides" mean something different altogether. I am on the "side" of Israelis and Palestinians who seek a just peace that addresses Palestinian rights of self-determination as well as Israeli concerns of security and regional integration. I am on the "side" that stands for equality, human rights, democracy, peaceful co-existence and regional economic development. To be sure, there is another "side," those Israelis and Palestinians that advocate exclusivity, conflict, a win-lose mentality and continued injustice and suffering. That is the way the "sides" divide, not Palestinian-Israeli.

In terms of resolving the conflict, there is yet another meaning to "sides" -- that of two equal parties coming together to resolve their grievances and perceived causes of injustice. Here some kind of symmetry is supposed, of two parties that consider each other legitimate parties to negotiations -- "sides." It took the Palestinians until 1988 to formally recognize the fact, if not the full legitimacy, of the Israeli "side," which they did in their declaration of independence in Algiers. They did so again in the Oslo Declaration of Principles of 1993, where by recognizing Israel as within the 1967 borders, the PLO conceded not only the 56% of the land partitioned to the Jewish state by the UN in 1947, but also the additional 22% conquered from the prospective Palestinian state -- 78% altogether. In return, Israel did not recognize the right of self-determination of the Palestinian people. In the Oslo Accords it agreed only to negotiate "final status issues" with the PLO, without committing itself to any particular outcome, including the establishment in the end of a viable, sovereign Palestinian state.

Understanding this is crucial for comprehending Israel's unilateral "giving" certain concessions to Palestinians, presenting its positions in a "take-it-or-leave-it" manner, or declaring the results of certain rounds of negotiations as "null and void." It explains why Israel continues to reinforce an occupation whose every element, including the systematic demolition of 9000 Palestinian homes since 1967, violates international humanitarian law, and particularly the Fourth Geneva Convention. It explains the absolute impunity by which Israel invades Palestinian cities, imposes a permanent closure that impoverishes millions of people or imprisons an entire people behind barbed wire, checkpoints and walls "so high that even the birds cannot fly over them," in the words of a prominent Israeli military historian. For neither Israel nor its pre-state Yishuv nor the Zionist movement as a whole has ever recognized the Palestinians as a distinct people with national or even individual rights and holding legitimate claims to the country. Israeli Jews view Palestinians as merely "Arabs," an undifferentiated part of an Arab mass that might just as well live in one of the "other" 22 Arab countries as in "ours." From the point of view of legitimacy there is only one "side" in the view of Israeli Jews, themselves as the only nation in the country, exclusive holders of exclusive claims to it (a right that extends to all Jews whether or not they live in Israel or have citizenship there). This exclusive right extends to the entire country, including the Occupied Territories. There is no other "side," only a mass of intractable "Arabs" with which we must deal in one way or another. This is the source of Israeli human rights violations in both the Occupied Territories and within Israel itself. This is the source of the impunity. There is no symmetry, no "two sides."

The issue of symmetry -- or a fundamental lack of symmetry -- must also be recognized at the outset. There are no two "sides" from the point of view of power, of the ability to resolve the conflict equitably -- and even of responsibility. We often speak of "two sides," each of which must "stop the violence' or which is "equally guilty" of perpetuating the conflict. But this ignores the fundamental imbalance of the situation. One "side," Israel, is an internationally recognized state with one of the most powerful military forces in the world (including 200-300 nuclear warheads, making it the world's fifth largest nuclear nation) and an economy more than 20 times larger than that of the Palestinians. And it is the occupier. The other "side" is a fragmented, stateless, impoverished, vulnerable and traumatized people (70% of which are refugees or displaced persons) possessing no sovereignty and only a lightly armed militia. And it is occupied -- or exiled. The Palestinians, moreover, are in a situation of resisting colonization -- a right recognized in international law -- which differentiates their use of "violence"-as-resistance to Israel's "violence"-as-repression, the latter a violation of the right of self-determination. While Palestinians must also be held accountable for their actions, including the use of terrorism, their situation is qualitatively different from that of the Israelis whose use of state terror and systematic violations of human rights (in making its occupation permanent) involve a much greater degree of choice.

From here I would like to make one other fundamental point: the Israeli Occupation is not simply a reaction to terrorism or a means of self-defense, but is an expression of a pro-active policy of de facto annexation that began immediately after the 1967 war. It is a goal in and of itself, which has generated over the years a high degree of suffering, violence and human rights violations. Israel tries to deflect attention from this fact by presenting its military actions and policies of repression as mere reactions to "Palestinian violence and intransigence." In this way it has made the Occupation disappear from the discourse. This presentation rests on the fundamental proposition that the Occupation is an outcome of conscious Israeli policy of controlling the entire "Land of Israel" from the Jordan to the Mediterranean. Nothing illustrates this better than the construction of more than 200 Israeli settlements -- 44 in the year and a half of Sharon's premiership alone. It is the Occupation and its role in preventing the Palestinians from realizing their right of self-determination that is the source of the conflict, not Palestinian resistance.

What flows from all of this is an Israeli attitude of impunity towards Palestinian human rights and a disregard - even a rejection - of international humanitarian law as applying to either Palestinians or to the situation of occupation. Virtually all of Israel's occupation of Palestinian lands violates human rights conventions - and especially the Fourth Geneva Convention that forbids an occupying power from making its presence a permanent one.

Thus:

-- Article 3 prohibits "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment," a routine element of Palestinian life under Israel's occupation.
-- Article 32 forbids assassinations, and any brutalization of the civilian population, including their treatment at checkpoints and in "security searches."
-- Article 33 prohibiting pillage would obtain to Israel's extensive use of West Bank and Gazan water resources, especially as they are denied the local population. It also prohibits the use of collective punishment, as represented by the imposition of closure, curfew, house demolitions and many other routine actions of the Occupation Authorities.
-- Article 39 stipulates: "Protected persons [residents of occupied lands] who, as a result of the war, have lost their gainful employment, shall be granted the opportunity to find paid employment." It thereby prohibits the imposition a permanent "closure" on the Occupied Territories, such as Israel has done since 1993.
-- Article 49 forbids deportations and any "forcible transfers," which would include such common practices as revoking Jerusalem IDs or banning Palestinians from returning from work, study or travel abroad. It also stipulates that "The Occupying Power shall not…transfer parts of its own civilian population into territories it occupies" - a clear ban on settlements.
-- Article 53 reads: "Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons…is prohibited." Under this provision the practice of demolishing Palestinian houses is banned, but so is the wholesale destruction of the Palestinian infrastructure (including its civil society institutions and records in Ramallah) destroyed in the reoccupation of March-April 2002..
-- Article 64 forbids changes in the local legal system that, among other things, alienate the local population from its land and property, as Israel has done through massive land expropriations.
-- Article 146 holds accountable individuals who have committed "grave breaches" of the Convention.
According to Article 147, this includes many acts routinely practiced under the Occupation, such as willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury, unlawful deportation, taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property. Israeli courts have thus far failed to charge or prosecute Israeli officials, military personnel or police who have committed such acts.
-- The PLO also bears a measure of responsibility for the violations of its own people's rights under the Fourth Geneva Convention. According to Article 8, the PLO had no right in the Oslo Agreements to abrogate their rights and suspend the applicability of the Convention, since "Protected persons may in no circumstances renounce in part or in entirety the rights secured to them by the present Convention." Had international humanitarian law been the basis of the Oslo peace process rather than power-negotiations, the Occupation would have ended and the conditions for a just peace would have been established, since virtually every element of Israel's occupation violates a provision of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

And this is perhaps the most important point. The International humanitarian law provides a map for the equitable resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian "conflict." By guaranteeing the collective rights of both peoples to self-determination and prohibiting occupation and the perpetuation of refugee status, it leaves only the details of an agreement to be worked out by negotiations. Boundaries, the just resolution of the refugee issue based on the Right of Return and individual choice and the other "final status issues" can be resolved only if they are addressed in the context of human rights and international humanitarian law -- and not as mere by-products of power. Nothing is being asked of Israel that is not asked of any other country -- accountability under covenants of human rights formulated and adopted by the international community, which Israel pledged to respect as a condition for its creation by the UN and upon which Israel itself has signed.

As it is, Israel refuses to abide by international law and treats both the Palestinians under its control and the international community attempting to intervene with absolute impunity. The refusal of the international community to intervene makes it complicit in the violations of human rights and war crimes that Israel is committing in the Occupied Territories. The European Union and this very Parliament has emerged in our time as a hopeful sign of a new age of lowered boundaries and great economic integration for the benefit of all its member nations. International humanitarian law has also emerged since World War II as a hopeful sign of a world based on justice and equality rather than power and dominance. If the new political and economic form that is it the EU is not founded firmly on the new notion of universal rights and justice, then it will remain an interesting but finally localized experiment in technical cooperation among states, with no implications for a truly better world. The Occupation poses a bold challenge to the international community, whether to its elected representatives as in this chamber or to the civil society as represented by the NGOs and faith-based organizations testifying before you today. In an era of global transparency, of mass media, instantaneous news coverage and the internet, can a new Berlin Wall be built that locks millions of Palestinians behind massive fortifications, Israel's $100 million "security fence?" Decades after the end of colonialism and a decade after the end of South African apartheid, will the international community actually sit passively by while a new apartheid regime arises before our very eyes? And in a world in which the ideal of human rights has gained wide acceptance, could an entire people be imprisoned in dozens of tiny, impoverished islands, denied its fundamental right of self-determination? Until we all act according to the ideals and rules we ourselves have created, the answer will remain blowing in the wind.[/spoiler]




Indifference to Gaza's children

Children of war
GIDEON LEVY
Ha'aretz, 2 September 2007

[spoiler]Again children. Five children killed in Gaza in eight days. The public indifference to their killing - the last three, for example, were accorded only a short item on the margins of page 11 in Yedioth Ahronoth, a sickening matter in itself - cannot blur the fact that the IDF is waging a war against children. A year ago, a fifth of those killed in the "Summer Rain" operation in Gaza were children; during the past two weeks, they comprised a quarter of the 21 killed. If, heaven forbid, children are hurt in Sderot, we will have to remember this before we begin raising hell.

The IDF explains that the Palestinians make a practice of sending children to collect the Qassam launchers. However, in this case, the children killed were not collecting launchers. The first two were killed while collecting carob fruit and the next three - according to the IDF's own investigation - were playing tag. But even if we accept the IDF's claim that there is a general trend of sending children to collect launchers (which has not been proven), that should have brought about an immediate halt to firing at launcher collectors.

But the IDF does not care whether its victims are liable to be children. The fact is that it shoots at figures it considers suspicious, with full knowledge - according to its own contention - that they are liable to be children. Therefore, an IDF that fires at launcher collectors is an army that kills children, without any intention of preventing this. This then is not a series of unfortunate mistakes, as it is being portrayed, but rather reflects the army's contempt for the lives of Palestinian children and its terrifying indifference to their fate.

A society that holds ethical considerations in high regard would at least ask itself: Is it permissible to shoot at anyone who is approaching the launchers, even if we know that some of these people may be small children, lacking in judgment, and thus not punishable? Or are we lifting all restraints on our war operations? Even if we accept the IDF's claims that its sophisticated vision devices do not enable them to distinguish between a 10-year-old boy and an adult, the IDF cannot evade its responsibility for this criminal action. Even if we assumed a completely distorted assumption that anyone who goes near the launchers is subject to death, the fact that children are involved should have changed the rules. Add to this the fact that the firing at launcher collectors has halted the Qassams, or even reduce their number, and you arrive at another chilling conclusion: The IDF shoots at children to wreak vengeance and punish.

No child in Sderot is more secure as a result of this killing. On the contrary.

Anyone who takes an honest look at the progression of events during the past two months will discover that the Qassams have a context: They are almost always fired after an IDF assassination operation, and there have been many of these. The question of who started it is not a childish question in this context. The IDF has returned to liquidations, and in a big way. And in their wake there has been an increase in Qassam firings.

That is the truth, and they are hiding it from us. When Gabi Ashkenazi and Ehud Barak assumed their positions, the reins were loosened. If Barak were a representative of the political right, perhaps a public outcry would have already been sounded against the IDF's wild actions in Gaza. But everything is permitted to Barak, and even the fact that the victims are children does not matter - not to him and not to the Israeli public.

Yes, the children of Gaza gather around the Qassams. It is practically the only diversion they have in their lives. It is their amusement park. Those who arrogantly preach to their parents "to watch over them" have never visited Beit Hanoun. There is nothing there, except for the filthy alleys and meager homes. Even if it is true that those launching the Qassams are taking advantage of these miserable children (which has yet to be proven), this should not shape our moral portrait. Yes, it is permissible to exercise restraint and caution. Yes, it is not always necessary to respond, especially when the response ends up killing children.

The way to stop the firing of Qassams is not through indiscriminate killing. Every launcher can be replaced. The start of the school year bodes ill, for us and for them. Anyone who truly seeks to stop the firing of Qassams should reach a cease-fire agreement with the current government in Gaza. That is the only way and it is possible. The liquidations, the shelling and the killing of children will work in exactly the opposite direction of what is intended. In the meantime, look what is happening to us and to our army[/spoiler]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOGG_osOoVg

Dr. House wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOGG_osOoVg

rofl.. I still think it's pretty brilliant. A little non-PC, but who gives a **Filtered**. *grin*

It gives an interesting perspective..


Text.
[spoiler]There comes a time
When we need to make a show
For the world, the Web and CNN
There's no people dying,
so the best that we can do
Is create the greatest bluff of all

We must go on pretending day by day
That in Gaza, there's crisis, hunger and plague
Coz the billion bucks in aid won't buy their basic needs
Like some cheese and missiles for the kids

We'll make the world
Abandon reason
We'll make them all believe that the Hamas
Is Momma Theresa
We are peaceful travelers
With guns and our own knives
The truth will never find its way to your TV

Ooooh, we'll stab them at heart
They are soldiers, no one cares
We are small, and we took some pictures with doves
As Allah showed us, for facts there's no demand
So we will always gain the upper hand

We'll make the world
Abandon reason
We'll make them all believe that the Hamas
Is Momma Theresa
We are peaceful travelers
we're waving our own knives
The truth will never find its way to your TV

If Islam and terror brighten up your mood
But you worry that it may not look so good
Well well well well don't you realize
You just gotta call yourself
An activist for peace and human aid

We'll make the world
Abandon reason
We'll make them all believe that the Hamas
Is Momma Theresa
We are peaceful travelers
We're waving our own knives
The truth will never find its way to your TV

We con the world
We con the people
We'll make them all believe the IDF is Jack the Ripper
We are peaceful travelers
We're waving our own knives
The truth will never find its way to your TV
We con the world (Bruce: we con the world...)
We con the people (Bruce: we con the people...)
We'll make them all believe the IDF is Jack the Ripper
We are peaceful travelers
We're waving our own knives
The truth will never find its way to your TV
The truth will never find its way to your TV[/spoiler]

This issue could be used to further devide the two parties or make an attempt to reconcialiate. Looks like it's the former.

Did you guys know that everytime an israeli/palestinian child dies and angel gets its wings...